I have admired your work for years. I do not wish to take issue with anything you've written. That's why I failed to write a critique on your latest book. But everything depends on something else. The post-modern mindset, whatever in hell that is, goes back well over 100 years! Men are already on strike against bichy women, by staying home and/or living lives without long term committment to anything. With every human institution now thoroughly corrupt, who's to blame them. They need to speak and act out in undeniable ways! Already, mobs have taken to the streets throughout the world against the politics of beastly bad rulership!
But to fix the branches you've got to examine the roots! This is a holy war! With the first dime given and accepted from Government to Citizens and groups of citizens, profit and non. It met with the concurrence of bad, mostly European ideologies. Malthus and Marx mainly, products of Enlightenment humanism and scientism, all a result of bad theology and bad philosophy.
Government became god. Already man became his own god as the Enlightenment "measure of all things. " Each man, person, thing, non-binary or whatever, however two year oldish, realizes he/she/it needs help. Divinizing Gov't as god is the answer. You feed a dog, you pet a dog and it will worship you! You win elections by promising Ice cream. Once piglets taste the sow's largesse there's no turning back! Only the utter collapse of society under the chaos of " all against all" made scramble for what's left of other peoples' money..
Those that survive will be in small enclaves mostly out of sight, mostly in small villages and on farms. Like the collapse of Rome, too few in numbers-- politically---Christian Culture survived the so-called Dark Ages of a few hundred years began in monasteries wherein the monks fed the poor and aided travellers and the sick. Out of the Crusades came the invention of the hostel--later hotels, and hospitals. Monks taught land development, draining swamps and clearing rocks from field, creating modern farming, smelting of metals, inventions of the first labor saving devices. On and on through 1,000 years of Christendom they built the foundation for Western Civilization.
Closest to it today are a few surving monasteries not yet ravaged by poisonous Church rulership or society. And both Amish and Old-order Mennonites are thriving but already targeted by the Beast. They make great neighbors, BTW. Out of these seeds will grow another Christendom.
Or, our Lord is coming back the day after tommorow! Who knows? Not any of us!
In the meantime, we cannot get any real reform politically, like making men rightful owners of their families, wives and children, as liong as women have the 'right' to vote. No civilized society has ever awarded such EVER until, as far as I know, near the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century.
Men can join with Christian or Faithful Jewish assemblies and perhaps find faithful women ready to commit, supported by faithful families and community. No guarantees but pretty good results so far. Young people who've yet to vote must refuse to pay the debts their elders have foisted on them. Justice requires that! If that means living in the woods by barter with neighbors, so be it.
I would likewise refuse the draft except to protect our own soil and commerce. Join with locals to expell bad rulership and elect the good. Pass laws nullifying bad laws local and from above, and refuse to cooperate---mostly passively-- bad rules and their enforcement. Nullification works when more than one political entity agree. These futures will have to learn law and medicine and survival skills politically and culturally. Man is made for God. Without Him he will fall for anything! Prayer, study and action, wise action, will be required like never before.
Now, back to action. Got to clear some brush from my property!
God love you and all the men in the Men's Movement.
Looking back over the history of suffragettes and women's 'liberation,' arguably at least a century of commentary, argument and complaint was required before the necessary public focus began to shift in their favor.
Men face the same battle, but with the advantage that information velocity is much higher now, more can be done in far less time, but only if a sufficient number of voices are raised.
Men need to speak up, clearly and lucidly. Tell their stories. Spread a consistent message, repeat it and amplify it a thousand times, everywhere and in every arena. Encourage others to do the same. If the vibe becomes strong enough, people with larger audiences and greater reach will pick up on it.
There are many ways to spread the marriage strike meme. Teach women to warn their sons of the likelihood of a disastrous relationship and the attendant consequences, for example. Some will push back angrily, but that's an opportunity to inform as an act of kindness, rather than engage in a pointless attack.
I am also certain many women are wondering about the futility of their lives in the corporate or government cubicle. They're not reaching the C-suite any more than most men are. It's easy to ridicule the carousel-riding future wine-box cat ladies, but is there a way to turn them into allies?
Repost: Notwithstanding whatever evidence exists that children raised by fathers fare better, would you condone a mother custody pre-nuptial contract? If yes, then, why is the argument for father custody, and not simply for sole custody by the innocent parent, a/k/a fault divorce?
Good question (the second one, because pre-nuptual contracts are not enforceable involving custody). This is the heart of the matter. In practice, that is essentially the same thing as what I am advocating. Strong evidence suggests that mothers are the moving party in close to 100% of cases where children are involved. (Incidentally, Mark, my evidence for that comes from the undeservedly neglected book by our mutual friend, the late Robert Seidenberg.) If it is a rebuttable presumption of father custody, it could be the same. Father custody highlights the unique importance of fatherhood and serves to rally fathers to action, but I am sure that the way you phrase it would become the fall-back position and more likely to be implemented. I do not condone excluding a mother from her children in the small number of cases where the father really has abandoned her.
This may sound "pie-in-the-sky", but hear me out on this. The simplest, biggest and quickest solution is to get a gathering of men and their supporters (including women such as mothers, sisters, aunts, and even RESPONSIBLE women) to find legislators to propose and push laws for FATHER'S CUSTODY in divorce matters.
Issues raised in such laws should be if the mother cannot afford to raise the child(ren) and needs the father(s) child support or spousal support (dowry) to do it, then the mother cannot have the children. Marriage will need to be defined as a "business" contract where one side can lose everything if they violate any term or terms of the contract. Marriage licenses should also be eliminated because they are outdated, prehistoric anomalies. Marriage Licenses first came into being in 1921, right after WWI and the Spanish Flu pandemic, when everybody was exhausted and nobody was watching the government. Marriage licenses, liquor licenses, drivers' licenses, and other licenses came into effect about the same time (right after the Income Tax Amendment [16th Amendment]). At around the same time, State police were created in each state under the guise of traffic control and "license" control.
Marriage licenses were originally created to stop miscegenation (interracial marriages). This was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Then Marriage licenses were used as an excuse to stop diseased adults from marrying and transferring diseases to offspring. Also, another farage, since medical technology has outpaced such thinking. Then Marriage Licenses were used to prevent underage marriages or marriages between mentally or physically disabled. This is now controlled by parents and the legal industry. The only reason for a Marriage License is for the State to make money and used it as the contract to destroy families with at the time of a divorce. Marriage licenses were a fast-track to divorce. Before Marriage licenses, a couple married before God in a Church or Synagogue, with witnesses signing the witness book. That was it. No license was necessary until around 1921, when government figured out a way to license marriages (which is unconstitutional, since licensing a RIGHT is to destroy that RIGHT).
Also, in all domestic violence laws, include the provision that anyone making a false allegation of domestic violence, specifically in a divorce-related action, shall be jailed 3-5 years, pay a $25,000 fine, and lose custody of the children. As a father's rights and divorce reform actIvist and advocate, I proposed this piece of legislation in NJ, got it inserted into a Senate bill (S-183), but the feminists held a late-night hearing in the state house before the lower house and got it removed without any notice to us by the Legislative offices.
We need to be relentless on these types of legislation. Why you say???? Even if the legislation doesn't get through state legislatures at first, the conversation will be engaged at this point. Fathers and mens rights groups will get the public attention that marriage is a "fool's errand" unless and until we get massive publicity, which is easier to do now with social media and the internet than when I was an activist in the 1990s. And, then it has to be pushed relentlessly time and time again until everyone wakes up to the problem!!!!!!!
Mr. Eden, I did not know civil marriage was a modern invention. Never thought about it except stories of civil marriages, mostly in the movies. Unthinkable to serious Christians. What about Jefferson's "Wall of Separation?" since marriage is the God thing? The civil aspect has to do with property and laws of succession. And why should pastors be licensed by the state? Why should civil secular government license anyone to do anything? All of this means we "Don't own anything, and are Not Happy!" License means privilege and privilege means 'private law.' I sat get gov't out altogether except for curbing the bad guys foreign and domestic. Make marriage a church thing and a strong Christian community will keep passions in check when we all care about our neighbors in Christ!
Good history lesson Bruce. Thanks. But as you say, marriage is God's business. Don't rely on the State for justice by making it the 3rd party to your marriage, which any contract would do. Plus, as I explained above, any sole custody contract is unlawful, so unenforceable in any "real" court.
Sole custody should ONLY be awarded where the one parent has been deemed "unfit" by strict scrutiny standards (almost beyond reasonable doubt standard or clear & convincing evidence, and not the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, or "he said, she said" in civil litigation). "Unfitness" can only be determined if there is provable child abuse or neglect--period!!!! Not, the usual B.S. of domestic violence or some other gaslighting or projection by one parent (most often the mother) to obtain custody through unfair and unconstitutional litigation tactics.
As for the current systemic problem of "awarding" sole or primary custody (in so-called "joint" custody cases) to one parent over the other, the New Jersey Supreme Court has said it best: "Sole custody tends to isolate a child from the non-custodial parent." Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 486 (1981).
Mr Baskerville, how do you propose “Father Custody” when marriage and it’s almost guaranteed divorce will put you in front of a judge who will continue to ignore any prenup or previous agreements with the parties?
In other words, if you get married, and your turn comes up for divorce, you will have to go in front of a judge, no matter what. And that judge will make sure that the man is screwed in every way possible. For a man to say I won’t marry you unless you agree to father custody After our divorce will mean nothing in ‘mother‘s court.’
Turns out women lie, so even if they do agree in the beginning it’ll all change once they decide they can do better. Usually about a year or two after they have their first kid.
You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism of how this would be put into place therefore I maintain that MGTOW is still the better option. Don’t intermingle with women at all….
Sorry, I was not clear. You are right that a promise is not enforceable. In my scenario, men generally would not marry (and now are not marrying) until father custody is the law of the land, and reliably enforced, for all.
You suggest that the BLATANTLY corrupt court will just roll over on that? And loose the billions they steal every year? That’s a big ask and not very likely.
All women and most men will not agree. Yes that’s right; even the men won’t do shit (as you have rightly pointed out) to stop this insanity. That’s why we are in this mess to begin with.
Men would rather complain and turn back to their porn, video games and alcohol. How would you convince the criminals in black robes to stop their crimes and actually make it “a law” that fathers get custody? They will never agree. They don’t have to…
I agree. Even the Apostle Paul said it's better not to be married, if you can handle it, and said you should not even look at a woman. But in a way, I see MGTOW as a cop out. God made men and women in His image. Avoiding marriage is helping Satan's and globalists' agenda to depopulate the planet.
MGTOW ok. Who am I do disagree with Apostle Paul? Sole custody, mother or father, not ok in my view, and not enforceable due to reasons I stated in my original comment above. Intact families, that have not been raped by a judge, share custody equally according to the well-established constitutional right to be a parent = lawful respect for God's institution of marriage. Crooked judges are the problem. We need cameras in courtrooms to expose, thereby prevent their criminal unequal custody orders, bringing courts out of the dark ages in secret hearings.
Right, I'm one of those men. That's the de facto system due to crooked judges. In real de jure courts, with honest judges who followed the law, sole custody orders against fit parents would not happen.
"Proverbs 21:9 (and Proverbs 25:24). ESV (English Standard Version of Bible)-- It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. NIV (New International Version)-- Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. NASB (New American Standard Bible)-- It is better to live on a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
And, lastly, Proverbs 25:24 Amplified Bible (AMP)-- It is better to live in a corner of the housetop [on the flat roof, exposed to the weather] Than in a house shared with a quarrelsome (contentious) woman. [Prov 21:9].
This is traditionally attributed to King Solomon.
Solomon's advice about marriage, wives, and women is complicated. Even with his wisdom, Solomon turned away from God's intended plan for one man to marry one woman. First Kings 11 indicates Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Yet he learned no earthly pleasure could replace honor for God. In Ecclesiastes 1:2, Solomon proclaims "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." Many of the proverbs contained in this book, therefore, can be seen as life lessons Solomon (Proverbs 25:1) learned "the hard way."
While the imagery here is of an unpleasant wife, the concept applies to either spouse. A married couple could live in a spacious house, but if one gives the other no peace, they have only a house but not a home. This verse is identical to Proverbs 21:9 and similar to Proverbs 21:19. Personal peace with little material wealth is better that no peace with plenty of luxury.
When God created Eve to be Adam's wife, He said she would be "a helper fit for him" (Genesis 2:18). Marriage unites two human beings to be partners. Peter counsels wives to "let [their] adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit" (1 Peter 3:4). He tells husbands to "live with your wives in an understanding way" and reminds them that their wives are "heirs with you of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). These principles apply equally to both spouses. Godly peace-keeping requires both partners to apply love, rather than verbal abuse.
A foolish son is the ruin of his father, And the contentions of a wife are a continual dripping. Proverbs 19:13
A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike; Proverbs 27:15
Rather than a State-imposed mother or father sole custody, better is submission of both man and wife to God's prescription: the husband as spiritual leader. That comes from both studying the Bible and following Jesus, who will fill them with the Holy Spirit, giving them the peace to respect each other. Both are equal in God's sight. They simply have different roles.
Ephesians Ch. 5:17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is....20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Women are only the image of your goddess, not my God.
My deity is a holy patriarchy. A Father turning over all power to His Son. United by their masculine Spirit, who, Himself, impregnated Mary.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Ambrosiaster wrote: Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.
Adam was made in the image of God. In the image of God, He made "him".(a masculine singular pronoun in Hebrew)
The "image of God" is the only purported categorical basis for sexual equality. And unfortunately, you've been taught that unscriptural and blasphemous God-emasculating lie, that women are a likeness of your apparently hermaphrodite deity. Nowhere does the Bible say that women are the image of the Father or His Son, or the Spirit, Himself. God created two sexes and yet always identifies Himself as only male, to indicate something about Himself to us through that binary contrast.
I'll go one step further, and say that the 19th Amendment must be repealed.
Female voting ushered in the matriarchy of the welfare state, which is often sufficient to support single mothers (whether with government programs, or government jobs, or DEI/affirmative action/preferential admissions to college and hiring) even without a man's economic support.
Patriarchy depends on men maintaining economic power. This is the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
With the feminists openly gloating that they are now more educated than men, and outearning them, many question why they should marry a man of lower status.
This erodes male leadership within the family, where his natural desire for authority and respect is now seen as outdated and regressive, and also in society at large, where Big Mother knows best, and masculinity is toxic.
Removing women from the levers of power will reinforce male control of civilization, which, as Dr Amneus correctly notes, is a male invention.
This will allow meaningful reform of the
gynocratic bureaucracy, and disabuse girls of the notion that they can do anything a boy can do, equally well or better. (Imagine if someone were to make that statement, with the genders reversed!)
Women who wish to live independently will still be free to do so, but they'll have to do it on their own two feet, rather than supported and subsidized by preferential treatment designed to ensure they are equally or preferentially represented at the top echelons of society, but not in the blue-collar drudgery that actually maintains it.
There will be no hard-working tradesmen brought before female family court judges (perhaps unmarried and/or childless) in black robes, enclothed in the all-consuming power of the State.
There will be no female votes to buy, for career prosecutors/politicians like Josh Hawley, nor any prospect of elected office for mediocrities like Hillary and Kamala.
In this socioeconomic milieu, the vast majority of women will naturally gravitate towards marriage to responsible men, rather than PhDs in olfactory ethics.
You may well be right about all this, but how do we avoid just making wishlists and actually enact something? My argument is that the men's Marriage Strike provides the leverage and will win good women to our side. Just a thought.
A good woman loves her children. More than anything. The push for mother custody (tender years doctrine) started in 19th Century Britain, long before female suffrage.
If good women cannot be convinced to trust their men's political leadership and judgment, they will never be convinced to part with their children.
Any change in the laws will be either temporary, to be flipped back in 4 years or so, or will be riddled with so many exceptions and loopholes as to be useless.
This has to do with the politics/culture dyad that you have intelligently discussed on X. While I know you lean towards the political side of the equation, others point out the importance of culture.
I fear that they may have a point. Without cultural backing, political change can be temporary and ephemeral.
The unity of politics and culture comes at the point of Government. Who controls the legal monopoly on the use of force, in society?
When a female judge orders a man out of his home, who enforces that order? Females?
When those who fail to make their child-support payments are 'Taken into Custody', who arrests them? Females?
If men cannot even wield patriarchal power in public society, they will never be masters in their own homes, which are traditionally a woman's domain [in a healthy relationship].
I think we have about as much chance of enacting one as enacting the other. The most women will ever agree to is joint custody, which in practice is mother custody. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my guess.
But one is a policy issue, not publicly visible. The other is a cultural issue, with supreme public visibility. It makes blindingly clear exactly what we demand, and why.
How do you enforce a contract that violates an element of a legal contract?
"Legality: The contract must comply with applicable laws and not involve illegal actions or products. If the agreement violates local laws, it is not valid, even if the parties were unaware of the illegality."
Applicable laws are:
1) The well-established fundamental right to be a parent.
3) Amendment 13, Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
4) Amendment 8: prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
I've explained the causes of unequal custody: unconstitutional federal and state statutes, crooked judges and secret courts, and the lawful solutions on my website. http://exiledparents.org/
Another problem with father custody is you'd be asking the State to be the third party to your marriage. Marriage is God's institution and the State has no business dealing with it. Don't get a marriage license that makes the State party to your God-given RIGHT, turning your union into a privilege. Don't make the state the 3rd party to your marriage - stay independent with a common law marriage. Find a pastor who does not require you to get a marriage license, like Chuck Baldwin at Liberty Fellowship.
Marriage is God's business, not the State's. If you want it to work, get right with God and find a partner who shares your same faith in God. Don't be unequally yoked. Godlessness is the main reason marriages fail. The "god" of this world runs our court system. Jesus warned about taking your conflicts to a secular judge. Make your marriage a 3-party contract with the one who established the institution - Jesus Christ - in the Garden, who said, "be in the world but not of the world." That is, don't expect the secular injustice courts to enforce your unenforceable contract.
Mark, I think there is a contradiction inherent in your argument. You want to eliminate the role of the state, even to the point of refusing to make the marriage an enforceable legal contract. Yet your solution would require the state to intervene into the private life of a legally innocent parent and control and regulate his relationship with his own children. A legally unimpeachable citizen, sitting in his own home minding his own business, faithful to his marital vows, could be summoned to court (contrary to Common Law principles) and told that he must surrender his children 50% of the time and lose 50% of the decision-making to a spouse who has broken the marital agreement, reneged on her (or his) vows, and deserted the home -- In other words, a spouse who is NOT legally umimpeachable. The state would tell the legally innocent parent when he could see his children, where he must be in order to see them, and would retain ultimate control over the children in case of disagreement between the parents. Any custody decision -- including 50/50 shared custody -- inevitably involves the state in enforcement. You cannot eliminate the state entirely, and your solution would retain state power in innocent people's private lives, in other words, what we have now. Minimizing the state role and upholding justice requires that an innocent parent is left competely alone to raise the children where and how he sees fit, without ANY state interference, and that a spouse who wishes to leave the marriage without recognized legal grounds leaves ALONE, without the children -- either 100% of the time or 50% of the time. And by the way, the Bible is very clear that the civil authorities must uphold "justice" against injustice, not "wash their hands" of wrongdoing, look the other way, and say it is none of my business.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts, which are always valuable.
What exists now - unequal custody orders against fit parents, is what drives the divorce industry. It's similar to our so-called health care system that is actually a disease maintenance system. Doctors prescribe medicines that only treat symptoms, and the side effects of the drugs further damage the patient's health. If they cured what caused the disease, they'd lose business.
But it's worse with family courts. From the outset, they deliberately deliver injustice. In desperation to restore custody rights, parents will spend every dollar on attorneys and psychologists. It's a giant extortion racket enriching the so-called professionals of the divorce industry.
Again, the problem is crooked attorneys and judges collude to perpetuate lucrative litigation. There's no financial incentive for attorneys to cure the disease by seeking enforcement of equal custody.
If the solutions I advocate are implemented, parents will see there's no hope of obtaining sole or majority control over their children, thus they will tend to keep the family together, and I believe the divorce rate will substantially decrease.
Of course some selfish parents will leave the family, but they will not be able to gain more than 50% custody if they do, once courts enforce the right to parent. Of course it's unfair for the innocent parent when that happens, but is it fair for a child they produced to be totally divorced from the guilty parent? I don't think so.
Yet that is what any pre-nuptial "contract" for sole custody going to the innocent parent, whether mother or father, would do. I believe any such contract lacks not just the element of legality (denying the right to be a parent, equal protection of the law, violates the 8th Amendment regarding cruel and unusual punishment, and the 13th Amendment prohibition of slavery) but would also be unconscionable.
A marriage may fail, but family is forever. I speak from experience as an exiled parent whose been completely cut off from my kids: zero contact due to parental alienation with them and their children, who've never been allowed to meet their grandfather.
"Of course some selfish parents will leave the family, but they will not be able to gain more than 50% custody if they do, once courts enforce the right to parent. Of course it's unfair for the innocent parent when that happens, but is it fair for a child they produced to be totally divorced from the guilty parent? I don't think so."
I suppose some minimal provision could be made for the guilty parent, but it would require specific guidelines and would have to be known in advance, so people knew before entering marriage.
It seems you want to be certain the guilty parent gets punished by losing custody. But if my solutions happened, the INCENTIVES to leave the marriage would disappear, ie., the prospect, for mothers (who instigate the vast majority of divorces) of being able to exploit the anti-father courts and gain custody. Problem solved. This is why I fail to see the point of advocating father custody rather than simply fixing the courts.
My solutions, if implemented, would prevent state intervention. They would end federal funding and all federal interference in family matters per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Repealing federal legislation in family, matters and all state legislation falsely granting judges discretion to deny custody to fit parents, live streaming all court proceedings, and trial by jury in criminal court in all cases questioning custody rights, eg., child, abuse, neglect, or abandonment, would disincentivize
parents from seeking control of children. Judges could no longer deny custody rights to fit parents in secret hearings. They would be held accountable with light in the courtroom when on camera.
1) Repeal federal legislation such as CAPTA, ASFA, VAWA, the Bradley Amendment and Title IV-D & E of the Social Security Act and any other acts that promote family destruction,
2) Enforce the FUNDAMENTAL, GOD-GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHT TO PARENT of fit parents, unless they agree otherwise: no parent deemed unfit except upon conviction before a jury of peers, no more unequal custody orders by a single judge,
3) Trial by jury in all cases that involve the Fundamental, Constitutional right to be a parent with standard of proof as beyond a reasonable doubt because denial of parenthood is no less serious than incarceration,
4) State-of-the-art live video streaming and electronic recording of all court proceedings: Cameras and voice-to-text software to automate transcripts in all courtrooms and allow parties to use their own electronic recording equipment in court as check on court recordings. There are cases where records have been altered. See Deconstructing America
5) End the diversion of legal proceedings into witch hunts using court ordered psychological "evaluations" of fit parents. Psychology is not a science and psycholgists are a part of the divorce industry. Search "Psychiatry Exposed". Unless a parent is charged and convicted of a crime in criminal court, equal custody ALREADY EXISTS for separating parents, just as in intact families, and must be enforced unless parents otherwise agree to unequal custody, but the default is always equal custody for fit, willing parents.
What do you do when the pushback is fierce? I had a huge backlash on Twitter about my most recent post, to the point where I just shut Twitter off, it was getting really annoying.
While I myself am not given to asking for, or contemplating, half-measures, politicians are. If you tell them that what they're allowing is pure evil, their first question will be if we can be offered some 50/50 compromise with that existing evil. Politicians lack principles, and as such, they like to offer compromises.
We are unlikely to "win" automatic paternal custody with our current battalion of cuckservatives. Their Christian religion has been corrupted to where they religiously believe in losing. Their religion is full of absolute stupidity: "resist not evil", "judge not", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "turn the other cheek", "looking at a woman is adultery", and Etc. You cannot win a culture war with folks so religiously dedicated to their own defeat. Nor will God Himself side with folks who have added to His words, and twisted His hyperbole, into a plan for tolerating all lawlessness contrary to God's Noahic laws, commanded for all people.
Furthermore, they always start off, with losing, by reciting that women are the image and likeness of their divinity and are thus cosmologically equal to men. Who then cannot rule over women except unduly as one who is forcing their equal into a subservient role. My point being they start off religiously believing in the (unbiblical) complete cosmological equality of the sexes, if they don't actually view women as somehow being a bit kinder and better suited to indulging the foolishness of children. So, it is unlikely that they will want, or agree to, anything more than guaranteed joint custody.
How might a currently more achievable (guaranteed joint custody) compromise work out for us? Would it be a beneficial step in the right direction?
Seventy-one years old and twice-divorced (and one of the very few men who came out financially intact), I have gone through literally - literally as in literally, not literally as in figuratively - hundreds of the usual YouTube videos about divorce. I have learned tremendously; "Red-pilled" doesn't even touch my new sensibility.
Taken individually, many of these videos seem like whining, but the tenor is beginning to change: Step up; do what men do - solve problems. In that spirit, I found your original article right on point. Now I am looking for ways to get involved to bring about much-needed change. The great thing, though, is that it is not a zero-sum game. Men are miserable, but so are women. Let's fix it - for us all - and especially for our children.
The first procedure is to catalog your assets and liabilities. Men's biggest liability IMHO is their constant need for sex - far and away above that of women. That feminine advantage has been traditionally unassailable, but not now. I would urge you to investigate the "Passport Bros" movement; men who would never consider a Western woman (I would be one) are flooding Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Eastern Europe. One particularly interesting short video is an American woman at the Bangkok airport, marveling at the numbers of American men and Thai women boarding aircraft for the West.
We can do this. Let's work together.
****************************
(BTW, as a confirmed English Nazi, punishment consists of "just deserts" not "desserts," as in "what you deserve.") All best to you. Jim
Jim, thanks for the insight. Without a change of laws, however, the passport-bro movement is a bandaid or a de-tour at best because if you fast-forward the tape a few years, that American man would be in the same hole, the Thai woman notwithstanding.
Dear Dr. Baskerville.
I have admired your work for years. I do not wish to take issue with anything you've written. That's why I failed to write a critique on your latest book. But everything depends on something else. The post-modern mindset, whatever in hell that is, goes back well over 100 years! Men are already on strike against bichy women, by staying home and/or living lives without long term committment to anything. With every human institution now thoroughly corrupt, who's to blame them. They need to speak and act out in undeniable ways! Already, mobs have taken to the streets throughout the world against the politics of beastly bad rulership!
But to fix the branches you've got to examine the roots! This is a holy war! With the first dime given and accepted from Government to Citizens and groups of citizens, profit and non. It met with the concurrence of bad, mostly European ideologies. Malthus and Marx mainly, products of Enlightenment humanism and scientism, all a result of bad theology and bad philosophy.
Government became god. Already man became his own god as the Enlightenment "measure of all things. " Each man, person, thing, non-binary or whatever, however two year oldish, realizes he/she/it needs help. Divinizing Gov't as god is the answer. You feed a dog, you pet a dog and it will worship you! You win elections by promising Ice cream. Once piglets taste the sow's largesse there's no turning back! Only the utter collapse of society under the chaos of " all against all" made scramble for what's left of other peoples' money..
Those that survive will be in small enclaves mostly out of sight, mostly in small villages and on farms. Like the collapse of Rome, too few in numbers-- politically---Christian Culture survived the so-called Dark Ages of a few hundred years began in monasteries wherein the monks fed the poor and aided travellers and the sick. Out of the Crusades came the invention of the hostel--later hotels, and hospitals. Monks taught land development, draining swamps and clearing rocks from field, creating modern farming, smelting of metals, inventions of the first labor saving devices. On and on through 1,000 years of Christendom they built the foundation for Western Civilization.
Closest to it today are a few surving monasteries not yet ravaged by poisonous Church rulership or society. And both Amish and Old-order Mennonites are thriving but already targeted by the Beast. They make great neighbors, BTW. Out of these seeds will grow another Christendom.
Or, our Lord is coming back the day after tommorow! Who knows? Not any of us!
In the meantime, we cannot get any real reform politically, like making men rightful owners of their families, wives and children, as liong as women have the 'right' to vote. No civilized society has ever awarded such EVER until, as far as I know, near the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century.
Men can join with Christian or Faithful Jewish assemblies and perhaps find faithful women ready to commit, supported by faithful families and community. No guarantees but pretty good results so far. Young people who've yet to vote must refuse to pay the debts their elders have foisted on them. Justice requires that! If that means living in the woods by barter with neighbors, so be it.
I would likewise refuse the draft except to protect our own soil and commerce. Join with locals to expell bad rulership and elect the good. Pass laws nullifying bad laws local and from above, and refuse to cooperate---mostly passively-- bad rules and their enforcement. Nullification works when more than one political entity agree. These futures will have to learn law and medicine and survival skills politically and culturally. Man is made for God. Without Him he will fall for anything! Prayer, study and action, wise action, will be required like never before.
Now, back to action. Got to clear some brush from my property!
God love you and all the men in the Men's Movement.
Mike Smith
Occupied Virginia
Looking back over the history of suffragettes and women's 'liberation,' arguably at least a century of commentary, argument and complaint was required before the necessary public focus began to shift in their favor.
Men face the same battle, but with the advantage that information velocity is much higher now, more can be done in far less time, but only if a sufficient number of voices are raised.
Men need to speak up, clearly and lucidly. Tell their stories. Spread a consistent message, repeat it and amplify it a thousand times, everywhere and in every arena. Encourage others to do the same. If the vibe becomes strong enough, people with larger audiences and greater reach will pick up on it.
There are many ways to spread the marriage strike meme. Teach women to warn their sons of the likelihood of a disastrous relationship and the attendant consequences, for example. Some will push back angrily, but that's an opportunity to inform as an act of kindness, rather than engage in a pointless attack.
I am also certain many women are wondering about the futility of their lives in the corporate or government cubicle. They're not reaching the C-suite any more than most men are. It's easy to ridicule the carousel-riding future wine-box cat ladies, but is there a way to turn them into allies?
Repost: Notwithstanding whatever evidence exists that children raised by fathers fare better, would you condone a mother custody pre-nuptial contract? If yes, then, why is the argument for father custody, and not simply for sole custody by the innocent parent, a/k/a fault divorce?
Good question (the second one, because pre-nuptual contracts are not enforceable involving custody). This is the heart of the matter. In practice, that is essentially the same thing as what I am advocating. Strong evidence suggests that mothers are the moving party in close to 100% of cases where children are involved. (Incidentally, Mark, my evidence for that comes from the undeservedly neglected book by our mutual friend, the late Robert Seidenberg.) If it is a rebuttable presumption of father custody, it could be the same. Father custody highlights the unique importance of fatherhood and serves to rally fathers to action, but I am sure that the way you phrase it would become the fall-back position and more likely to be implemented. I do not condone excluding a mother from her children in the small number of cases where the father really has abandoned her.
This may sound "pie-in-the-sky", but hear me out on this. The simplest, biggest and quickest solution is to get a gathering of men and their supporters (including women such as mothers, sisters, aunts, and even RESPONSIBLE women) to find legislators to propose and push laws for FATHER'S CUSTODY in divorce matters.
Issues raised in such laws should be if the mother cannot afford to raise the child(ren) and needs the father(s) child support or spousal support (dowry) to do it, then the mother cannot have the children. Marriage will need to be defined as a "business" contract where one side can lose everything if they violate any term or terms of the contract. Marriage licenses should also be eliminated because they are outdated, prehistoric anomalies. Marriage Licenses first came into being in 1921, right after WWI and the Spanish Flu pandemic, when everybody was exhausted and nobody was watching the government. Marriage licenses, liquor licenses, drivers' licenses, and other licenses came into effect about the same time (right after the Income Tax Amendment [16th Amendment]). At around the same time, State police were created in each state under the guise of traffic control and "license" control.
Marriage licenses were originally created to stop miscegenation (interracial marriages). This was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Then Marriage licenses were used as an excuse to stop diseased adults from marrying and transferring diseases to offspring. Also, another farage, since medical technology has outpaced such thinking. Then Marriage Licenses were used to prevent underage marriages or marriages between mentally or physically disabled. This is now controlled by parents and the legal industry. The only reason for a Marriage License is for the State to make money and used it as the contract to destroy families with at the time of a divorce. Marriage licenses were a fast-track to divorce. Before Marriage licenses, a couple married before God in a Church or Synagogue, with witnesses signing the witness book. That was it. No license was necessary until around 1921, when government figured out a way to license marriages (which is unconstitutional, since licensing a RIGHT is to destroy that RIGHT).
Also, in all domestic violence laws, include the provision that anyone making a false allegation of domestic violence, specifically in a divorce-related action, shall be jailed 3-5 years, pay a $25,000 fine, and lose custody of the children. As a father's rights and divorce reform actIvist and advocate, I proposed this piece of legislation in NJ, got it inserted into a Senate bill (S-183), but the feminists held a late-night hearing in the state house before the lower house and got it removed without any notice to us by the Legislative offices.
We need to be relentless on these types of legislation. Why you say???? Even if the legislation doesn't get through state legislatures at first, the conversation will be engaged at this point. Fathers and mens rights groups will get the public attention that marriage is a "fool's errand" unless and until we get massive publicity, which is easier to do now with social media and the internet than when I was an activist in the 1990s. And, then it has to be pushed relentlessly time and time again until everyone wakes up to the problem!!!!!!!
Mr. Eden, I did not know civil marriage was a modern invention. Never thought about it except stories of civil marriages, mostly in the movies. Unthinkable to serious Christians. What about Jefferson's "Wall of Separation?" since marriage is the God thing? The civil aspect has to do with property and laws of succession. And why should pastors be licensed by the state? Why should civil secular government license anyone to do anything? All of this means we "Don't own anything, and are Not Happy!" License means privilege and privilege means 'private law.' I sat get gov't out altogether except for curbing the bad guys foreign and domestic. Make marriage a church thing and a strong Christian community will keep passions in check when we all care about our neighbors in Christ!
Good history lesson Bruce. Thanks. But as you say, marriage is God's business. Don't rely on the State for justice by making it the 3rd party to your marriage, which any contract would do. Plus, as I explained above, any sole custody contract is unlawful, so unenforceable in any "real" court.
Sole custody should ONLY be awarded where the one parent has been deemed "unfit" by strict scrutiny standards (almost beyond reasonable doubt standard or clear & convincing evidence, and not the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, or "he said, she said" in civil litigation). "Unfitness" can only be determined if there is provable child abuse or neglect--period!!!! Not, the usual B.S. of domestic violence or some other gaslighting or projection by one parent (most often the mother) to obtain custody through unfair and unconstitutional litigation tactics.
As for the current systemic problem of "awarding" sole or primary custody (in so-called "joint" custody cases) to one parent over the other, the New Jersey Supreme Court has said it best: "Sole custody tends to isolate a child from the non-custodial parent." Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 486 (1981).
Bruce, see my reply to Mark Young's comment.
Mr Baskerville, how do you propose “Father Custody” when marriage and it’s almost guaranteed divorce will put you in front of a judge who will continue to ignore any prenup or previous agreements with the parties?
In other words, if you get married, and your turn comes up for divorce, you will have to go in front of a judge, no matter what. And that judge will make sure that the man is screwed in every way possible. For a man to say I won’t marry you unless you agree to father custody After our divorce will mean nothing in ‘mother‘s court.’
Turns out women lie, so even if they do agree in the beginning it’ll all change once they decide they can do better. Usually about a year or two after they have their first kid.
You have failed to demonstrate the mechanism of how this would be put into place therefore I maintain that MGTOW is still the better option. Don’t intermingle with women at all….
Sorry, I was not clear. You are right that a promise is not enforceable. In my scenario, men generally would not marry (and now are not marrying) until father custody is the law of the land, and reliably enforced, for all.
You suggest that the BLATANTLY corrupt court will just roll over on that? And loose the billions they steal every year? That’s a big ask and not very likely.
All women and most men will not agree. Yes that’s right; even the men won’t do shit (as you have rightly pointed out) to stop this insanity. That’s why we are in this mess to begin with.
Men would rather complain and turn back to their porn, video games and alcohol. How would you convince the criminals in black robes to stop their crimes and actually make it “a law” that fathers get custody? They will never agree. They don’t have to…
I agree. Even the Apostle Paul said it's better not to be married, if you can handle it, and said you should not even look at a woman. But in a way, I see MGTOW as a cop out. God made men and women in His image. Avoiding marriage is helping Satan's and globalists' agenda to depopulate the planet.
Perhaps, but my version of MGTOW would only last until women get their head out of their ass!
It may take a few generations but in my opinion, it’s worth it.
When they agree to stop their war on men we can sit down and negotiate a BETTER DEAL for men going forward.
Your thoughts?
MGTOW ok. Who am I do disagree with Apostle Paul? Sole custody, mother or father, not ok in my view, and not enforceable due to reasons I stated in my original comment above. Intact families, that have not been raped by a judge, share custody equally according to the well-established constitutional right to be a parent = lawful respect for God's institution of marriage. Crooked judges are the problem. We need cameras in courtrooms to expose, thereby prevent their criminal unequal custody orders, bringing courts out of the dark ages in secret hearings.
Well, sole custody going to mothers is the current norm.
Not enforceable you say?
Tell that to MILLIONS of men who lost contact with their kids…
Right, I'm one of those men. That's the de facto system due to crooked judges. In real de jure courts, with honest judges who followed the law, sole custody orders against fit parents would not happen.
Judges get away with their crimes because they set up a system where nobody is able to stop them.
Literally.
Coupled with no women wants it changed and most men don’t either. In that case, whats to be done?
Answer: MGTOW
"Proverbs 21:9 (and Proverbs 25:24). ESV (English Standard Version of Bible)-- It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. NIV (New International Version)-- Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. NASB (New American Standard Bible)-- It is better to live on a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
And, lastly, Proverbs 25:24 Amplified Bible (AMP)-- It is better to live in a corner of the housetop [on the flat roof, exposed to the weather] Than in a house shared with a quarrelsome (contentious) woman. [Prov 21:9].
This is traditionally attributed to King Solomon.
Solomon's advice about marriage, wives, and women is complicated. Even with his wisdom, Solomon turned away from God's intended plan for one man to marry one woman. First Kings 11 indicates Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Yet he learned no earthly pleasure could replace honor for God. In Ecclesiastes 1:2, Solomon proclaims "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." Many of the proverbs contained in this book, therefore, can be seen as life lessons Solomon (Proverbs 25:1) learned "the hard way."
While the imagery here is of an unpleasant wife, the concept applies to either spouse. A married couple could live in a spacious house, but if one gives the other no peace, they have only a house but not a home. This verse is identical to Proverbs 21:9 and similar to Proverbs 21:19. Personal peace with little material wealth is better that no peace with plenty of luxury.
When God created Eve to be Adam's wife, He said she would be "a helper fit for him" (Genesis 2:18). Marriage unites two human beings to be partners. Peter counsels wives to "let [their] adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit" (1 Peter 3:4). He tells husbands to "live with your wives in an understanding way" and reminds them that their wives are "heirs with you of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). These principles apply equally to both spouses. Godly peace-keeping requires both partners to apply love, rather than verbal abuse.
A foolish son is the ruin of his father, And the contentions of a wife are a continual dripping. Proverbs 19:13
A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike; Proverbs 27:15
Rather than a State-imposed mother or father sole custody, better is submission of both man and wife to God's prescription: the husband as spiritual leader. That comes from both studying the Bible and following Jesus, who will fill them with the Holy Spirit, giving them the peace to respect each other. Both are equal in God's sight. They simply have different roles.
Ephesians Ch. 5:17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is....20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Women are only the image of your goddess, not my God.
My deity is a holy patriarchy. A Father turning over all power to His Son. United by their masculine Spirit, who, Himself, impregnated Mary.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Ambrosiaster wrote: Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.
Adam was made in the image of God. In the image of God, He made "him".(a masculine singular pronoun in Hebrew)
The "image of God" is the only purported categorical basis for sexual equality. And unfortunately, you've been taught that unscriptural and blasphemous God-emasculating lie, that women are a likeness of your apparently hermaphrodite deity. Nowhere does the Bible say that women are the image of the Father or His Son, or the Spirit, Himself. God created two sexes and yet always identifies Himself as only male, to indicate something about Himself to us through that binary contrast.
I'll go one step further, and say that the 19th Amendment must be repealed.
Female voting ushered in the matriarchy of the welfare state, which is often sufficient to support single mothers (whether with government programs, or government jobs, or DEI/affirmative action/preferential admissions to college and hiring) even without a man's economic support.
Patriarchy depends on men maintaining economic power. This is the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
With the feminists openly gloating that they are now more educated than men, and outearning them, many question why they should marry a man of lower status.
This erodes male leadership within the family, where his natural desire for authority and respect is now seen as outdated and regressive, and also in society at large, where Big Mother knows best, and masculinity is toxic.
Removing women from the levers of power will reinforce male control of civilization, which, as Dr Amneus correctly notes, is a male invention.
This will allow meaningful reform of the
gynocratic bureaucracy, and disabuse girls of the notion that they can do anything a boy can do, equally well or better. (Imagine if someone were to make that statement, with the genders reversed!)
Women who wish to live independently will still be free to do so, but they'll have to do it on their own two feet, rather than supported and subsidized by preferential treatment designed to ensure they are equally or preferentially represented at the top echelons of society, but not in the blue-collar drudgery that actually maintains it.
There will be no hard-working tradesmen brought before female family court judges (perhaps unmarried and/or childless) in black robes, enclothed in the all-consuming power of the State.
There will be no female votes to buy, for career prosecutors/politicians like Josh Hawley, nor any prospect of elected office for mediocrities like Hillary and Kamala.
In this socioeconomic milieu, the vast majority of women will naturally gravitate towards marriage to responsible men, rather than PhDs in olfactory ethics.
You may well be right about all this, but how do we avoid just making wishlists and actually enact something? My argument is that the men's Marriage Strike provides the leverage and will win good women to our side. Just a thought.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and leap.
A good woman loves her children. More than anything. The push for mother custody (tender years doctrine) started in 19th Century Britain, long before female suffrage.
If good women cannot be convinced to trust their men's political leadership and judgment, they will never be convinced to part with their children.
Any change in the laws will be either temporary, to be flipped back in 4 years or so, or will be riddled with so many exceptions and loopholes as to be useless.
This has to do with the politics/culture dyad that you have intelligently discussed on X. While I know you lean towards the political side of the equation, others point out the importance of culture.
I fear that they may have a point. Without cultural backing, political change can be temporary and ephemeral.
The unity of politics and culture comes at the point of Government. Who controls the legal monopoly on the use of force, in society?
When a female judge orders a man out of his home, who enforces that order? Females?
When those who fail to make their child-support payments are 'Taken into Custody', who arrests them? Females?
If men cannot even wield patriarchal power in public society, they will never be masters in their own homes, which are traditionally a woman's domain [in a healthy relationship].
I think we have about as much chance of enacting one as enacting the other. The most women will ever agree to is joint custody, which in practice is mother custody. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my guess.
But one is a policy issue, not publicly visible. The other is a cultural issue, with supreme public visibility. It makes blindingly clear exactly what we demand, and why.
How do you enforce a contract that violates an element of a legal contract?
"Legality: The contract must comply with applicable laws and not involve illegal actions or products. If the agreement violates local laws, it is not valid, even if the parties were unaware of the illegality."
Applicable laws are:
1) The well-established fundamental right to be a parent.
http://exiledparents.org/constitutional_right_to_be_a_parent.htm
2) The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Amendment 14, Section 1: No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
3) Amendment 13, Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
4) Amendment 8: prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
I've explained the causes of unequal custody: unconstitutional federal and state statutes, crooked judges and secret courts, and the lawful solutions on my website. http://exiledparents.org/
Another problem with father custody is you'd be asking the State to be the third party to your marriage. Marriage is God's institution and the State has no business dealing with it. Don't get a marriage license that makes the State party to your God-given RIGHT, turning your union into a privilege. Don't make the state the 3rd party to your marriage - stay independent with a common law marriage. Find a pastor who does not require you to get a marriage license, like Chuck Baldwin at Liberty Fellowship.
http://originalintent.org/edu/marriage.php
http://exiledparents.org/to_save_the_family.htm
https://libertyfellowshipmt.com/
Marriage is God's business, not the State's. If you want it to work, get right with God and find a partner who shares your same faith in God. Don't be unequally yoked. Godlessness is the main reason marriages fail. The "god" of this world runs our court system. Jesus warned about taking your conflicts to a secular judge. Make your marriage a 3-party contract with the one who established the institution - Jesus Christ - in the Garden, who said, "be in the world but not of the world." That is, don't expect the secular injustice courts to enforce your unenforceable contract.
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/study-guide/e/4982/t/keys-for-a-happy-marriage.
Mark, I think there is a contradiction inherent in your argument. You want to eliminate the role of the state, even to the point of refusing to make the marriage an enforceable legal contract. Yet your solution would require the state to intervene into the private life of a legally innocent parent and control and regulate his relationship with his own children. A legally unimpeachable citizen, sitting in his own home minding his own business, faithful to his marital vows, could be summoned to court (contrary to Common Law principles) and told that he must surrender his children 50% of the time and lose 50% of the decision-making to a spouse who has broken the marital agreement, reneged on her (or his) vows, and deserted the home -- In other words, a spouse who is NOT legally umimpeachable. The state would tell the legally innocent parent when he could see his children, where he must be in order to see them, and would retain ultimate control over the children in case of disagreement between the parents. Any custody decision -- including 50/50 shared custody -- inevitably involves the state in enforcement. You cannot eliminate the state entirely, and your solution would retain state power in innocent people's private lives, in other words, what we have now. Minimizing the state role and upholding justice requires that an innocent parent is left competely alone to raise the children where and how he sees fit, without ANY state interference, and that a spouse who wishes to leave the marriage without recognized legal grounds leaves ALONE, without the children -- either 100% of the time or 50% of the time. And by the way, the Bible is very clear that the civil authorities must uphold "justice" against injustice, not "wash their hands" of wrongdoing, look the other way, and say it is none of my business.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts, which are always valuable.
What exists now - unequal custody orders against fit parents, is what drives the divorce industry. It's similar to our so-called health care system that is actually a disease maintenance system. Doctors prescribe medicines that only treat symptoms, and the side effects of the drugs further damage the patient's health. If they cured what caused the disease, they'd lose business.
But it's worse with family courts. From the outset, they deliberately deliver injustice. In desperation to restore custody rights, parents will spend every dollar on attorneys and psychologists. It's a giant extortion racket enriching the so-called professionals of the divorce industry.
Again, the problem is crooked attorneys and judges collude to perpetuate lucrative litigation. There's no financial incentive for attorneys to cure the disease by seeking enforcement of equal custody.
If the solutions I advocate are implemented, parents will see there's no hope of obtaining sole or majority control over their children, thus they will tend to keep the family together, and I believe the divorce rate will substantially decrease.
Of course some selfish parents will leave the family, but they will not be able to gain more than 50% custody if they do, once courts enforce the right to parent. Of course it's unfair for the innocent parent when that happens, but is it fair for a child they produced to be totally divorced from the guilty parent? I don't think so.
Yet that is what any pre-nuptial "contract" for sole custody going to the innocent parent, whether mother or father, would do. I believe any such contract lacks not just the element of legality (denying the right to be a parent, equal protection of the law, violates the 8th Amendment regarding cruel and unusual punishment, and the 13th Amendment prohibition of slavery) but would also be unconscionable.
A marriage may fail, but family is forever. I speak from experience as an exiled parent whose been completely cut off from my kids: zero contact due to parental alienation with them and their children, who've never been allowed to meet their grandfather.
This is the only point I disagree with here:
"Of course some selfish parents will leave the family, but they will not be able to gain more than 50% custody if they do, once courts enforce the right to parent. Of course it's unfair for the innocent parent when that happens, but is it fair for a child they produced to be totally divorced from the guilty parent? I don't think so."
I suppose some minimal provision could be made for the guilty parent, but it would require specific guidelines and would have to be known in advance, so people knew before entering marriage.
It seems you want to be certain the guilty parent gets punished by losing custody. But if my solutions happened, the INCENTIVES to leave the marriage would disappear, ie., the prospect, for mothers (who instigate the vast majority of divorces) of being able to exploit the anti-father courts and gain custody. Problem solved. This is why I fail to see the point of advocating father custody rather than simply fixing the courts.
My solutions, if implemented, would prevent state intervention. They would end federal funding and all federal interference in family matters per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights. Repealing federal legislation in family, matters and all state legislation falsely granting judges discretion to deny custody to fit parents, live streaming all court proceedings, and trial by jury in criminal court in all cases questioning custody rights, eg., child, abuse, neglect, or abandonment, would disincentivize
parents from seeking control of children. Judges could no longer deny custody rights to fit parents in secret hearings. They would be held accountable with light in the courtroom when on camera.
See http://exiledparents.org/
1) Repeal federal legislation such as CAPTA, ASFA, VAWA, the Bradley Amendment and Title IV-D & E of the Social Security Act and any other acts that promote family destruction,
2) Enforce the FUNDAMENTAL, GOD-GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHT TO PARENT of fit parents, unless they agree otherwise: no parent deemed unfit except upon conviction before a jury of peers, no more unequal custody orders by a single judge,
3) Trial by jury in all cases that involve the Fundamental, Constitutional right to be a parent with standard of proof as beyond a reasonable doubt because denial of parenthood is no less serious than incarceration,
4) State-of-the-art live video streaming and electronic recording of all court proceedings: Cameras and voice-to-text software to automate transcripts in all courtrooms and allow parties to use their own electronic recording equipment in court as check on court recordings. There are cases where records have been altered. See Deconstructing America
5) End the diversion of legal proceedings into witch hunts using court ordered psychological "evaluations" of fit parents. Psychology is not a science and psycholgists are a part of the divorce industry. Search "Psychiatry Exposed". Unless a parent is charged and convicted of a crime in criminal court, equal custody ALREADY EXISTS for separating parents, just as in intact families, and must be enforced unless parents otherwise agree to unequal custody, but the default is always equal custody for fit, willing parents.
No one cares about men and boys. It's pointless to air our grievances.
A friend sent this to me, I'll read it later.
What do you do when the pushback is fierce? I had a huge backlash on Twitter about my most recent post, to the point where I just shut Twitter off, it was getting really annoying.
Ever hear of Separation of Church and State? Do I hear Separation of Marriage and State?
“A daughter is a daughter for life, and a son is a son until he takes a wife”
Dr. Baskerville,
While I myself am not given to asking for, or contemplating, half-measures, politicians are. If you tell them that what they're allowing is pure evil, their first question will be if we can be offered some 50/50 compromise with that existing evil. Politicians lack principles, and as such, they like to offer compromises.
We are unlikely to "win" automatic paternal custody with our current battalion of cuckservatives. Their Christian religion has been corrupted to where they religiously believe in losing. Their religion is full of absolute stupidity: "resist not evil", "judge not", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "turn the other cheek", "looking at a woman is adultery", and Etc. You cannot win a culture war with folks so religiously dedicated to their own defeat. Nor will God Himself side with folks who have added to His words, and twisted His hyperbole, into a plan for tolerating all lawlessness contrary to God's Noahic laws, commanded for all people.
Furthermore, they always start off, with losing, by reciting that women are the image and likeness of their divinity and are thus cosmologically equal to men. Who then cannot rule over women except unduly as one who is forcing their equal into a subservient role. My point being they start off religiously believing in the (unbiblical) complete cosmological equality of the sexes, if they don't actually view women as somehow being a bit kinder and better suited to indulging the foolishness of children. So, it is unlikely that they will want, or agree to, anything more than guaranteed joint custody.
How might a currently more achievable (guaranteed joint custody) compromise work out for us? Would it be a beneficial step in the right direction?
Seventy-one years old and twice-divorced (and one of the very few men who came out financially intact), I have gone through literally - literally as in literally, not literally as in figuratively - hundreds of the usual YouTube videos about divorce. I have learned tremendously; "Red-pilled" doesn't even touch my new sensibility.
Taken individually, many of these videos seem like whining, but the tenor is beginning to change: Step up; do what men do - solve problems. In that spirit, I found your original article right on point. Now I am looking for ways to get involved to bring about much-needed change. The great thing, though, is that it is not a zero-sum game. Men are miserable, but so are women. Let's fix it - for us all - and especially for our children.
The first procedure is to catalog your assets and liabilities. Men's biggest liability IMHO is their constant need for sex - far and away above that of women. That feminine advantage has been traditionally unassailable, but not now. I would urge you to investigate the "Passport Bros" movement; men who would never consider a Western woman (I would be one) are flooding Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Eastern Europe. One particularly interesting short video is an American woman at the Bangkok airport, marveling at the numbers of American men and Thai women boarding aircraft for the West.
We can do this. Let's work together.
****************************
(BTW, as a confirmed English Nazi, punishment consists of "just deserts" not "desserts," as in "what you deserve.") All best to you. Jim
Jim, thanks for the insight. Without a change of laws, however, the passport-bro movement is a bandaid or a de-tour at best because if you fast-forward the tape a few years, that American man would be in the same hole, the Thai woman notwithstanding.
I'm married to an Asian, we live in Asia, and there is no chance I'll bring her back to the West.