Cutting the Baby in Half

"50-50 custody by default should be the norm."

The preceding quote was made by a commenter in response to Bill Price's article at The Spearhead yesterday, in which Price made the point that the current child support system is essentially a tax to encourage single mother hood.

Price is 100% correct! The State actively promotes single mother hood as the justification to grow the vast leviathan of bureaucratic Government to achieve the total enslavement of the citizenry. That IS the primary purpose for creating the system as it currently operates.

To paraphrase my comment in response to Bill's article:

Never forget about Part D, Title IV of the Social Security Act. The Federal Government gives matching funds for every dollar collected in the name of child support, to fund the scope and size of Bureaucratic machine. In other words, it’s official Federal Government policy to pay each State for breaking up families and collecting support obligations from Fathers. The more child support the State collects from Dad’s, the more funding they get from the Federal Government. There is a vast entity in the State Government Bureaucracy for which they are incentivized to collect as much child support as they can. The Federal Government uses our tax revenues to literally pay for the destruction of our families.

It's been four years since Stephen Baskerville wrote the column, How to Turn a Free People Into Slaves, but it's even more pertinent and relevant to heed his warning today:

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good. While feminists push divorce-on-demand as a “civil liberty,” in practice divorce has become our society’s most authoritarian institution.

Fighting for 50/50 custody default is NOT a desirable result to fight for. If this is what a Men's Rights Movement decides to fight for, good luck with that gentlemen. You are merely fighting for the right to dictate the terms of your enslavement.

What does a 50/50 default custody truly represent? A three way parenting model. The Ex-Husband, the Ex-Wife and THE STATE being the final arbiter and decision maker in child raising decisions.

In other words, we'll call it 50/50 default custody, but what it will be in practice is 25/25/50 custody. 25% for Mom, 25% for Dad, and 50% THE STATE.

As Baskerville pointed out:

Using instruments of public criminal justice to punish private hurts turns the family into government-occupied territory. The children experience family life not as a place of love, cooperation, compromise, trust, and forgiveness. Instead they receive a firsthand lesson in tyranny. Empowered by the state and functioning essentially as a government official, the custodial parent can issue orders to the non-custodial parent, undermine his authority with the children, dictate the terms of his access to them, talk to and about him contemptuously and condescendingly in the presence of the children as if he were himself a naughty child – all with the backing of state officials.

Eventually the children understand that the force keeping away one of their parents is the police, who are the guarantors of the custodial parent’s supremacy. Thus the message the children receive about both the family and the state is that they are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies and even family members for personal grievances. If a loved one disagrees with us or hurts our feelings or is simply no longer desired, there is no need for forgiveness because a telephone call will have him removed, and the police will make sure he stays away. And if the police can be used to arrest Dad because he does something Mom doesn’t like, what will they do to me if I do something Mom doesn’t like?

This is the real purpose of the Divorce Court industry. Not to arbitrate fairness or equality when a marriage goes bad, but to advance the cause of authoritarian tyranny by the State into the most private sphere of We the Sheeple's lives.

To quote a true MAndrosphere pioneer, Rob Fedders (seems like Rob has once again taken a break and gone fishing,):

“Free men” don’t beg for a piece of the pie from “the master.”
Free men bake their own damn pies, and tell everyone else to “fuck off!”
If you think the government will solve your problems with shared parenting, you are begging for your piece."

This is why I believe there really is no "Men's Rights Movement." The minute we embrace an agreed upon leader and an agreed upon platform for political action, the movement will be co-opted, subverted and re-directed (just like the so-called Tea Party and Occupy movements) towards more empowerment of the State in ALL of our lives, men and women alike.

To quote Fedders again:

Look, this isn’t a fight between men and women so much as it is a fight against our freedom.
Women are simply the best way to start the machine to self-destruct.

We're well on our way to the self-destruction of the machine...the machine of a free people in a free society. It's long gone.

You want it back? There really is only one way to get back - default Father Custody for children born in wedlock:

The whole “point” of marriage used to be father-custody. Back before the days of romance, when marriage used to be an economic contract, marriage & wedlock birth was all about putting children into the possession of men. In the rare event of a divorce, the custody of the child was automatically given to the husband. If the child was young, the mother would sometimes care for it until around 6 or 7 years old, and then would be forced to turn over the child to the father for education and proper discipline.

The whole concept of wedlock birth is to create legitimate, father-custody children. When an “oops-pregnancy” would occur, the first question out of the woman’s mouth would be “will you give the child your name?” As in, will you make this child legitimate, and show it by giving him your name – and not a hyphenated pseudo name either!

Women don’t actually “need” marriage to have children. They can get boffed by any number of men through a variety of seductive techniques, of which I think we are all aware of. Men however, did “need” marriage to have children, and thus, children born within wedlock are to belong to the man, while children born out of wedlock are to belong to the woman.

That is the only political goal Men's Rights Activist should be working for...the reinstatement of marriage 1.0.


To those who've never heard of it, Dr. Amneus wrote a book about the topic. You can download it free as a .pdf file here: The Case for Father Custody.


Children born in Wedlock = HIS, along with all the responsibilities and costs of raising them.
Children born out of Wedlock = HERS, along with all the responsibilities and costs of raising them.

Anything other than that is just fighting for the right to have THE STATE rule that the baby should just be cut in half, and both the man and woman forced to pay for that "service."