Tuesday, November 27, 2012

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."


Ras Al Ghul said...

Absolutely correct.

The old works a lot better than the new, for children, for stabiliuty, for a thriving civilization.

The Stranger said...

In some ways, an actual bisection might be kinder.

Anonymous said...

'...seems like Rob has once again taken a break and gone fishing.'

Don't give up hope. Another Manosphere pioneer has returned after a long hiatus:


Anonymous said...

Getting the State out of marriage altogether would solve most of these problems. The rest would be solved by eliminating all welfare to single mothers, except widows. And finally, ending the Abortion Racket.

After those three things, we'd see in a hurry just how willing women were to slut around with thugs and just how little they 'need a man'. LOL

Feminism can only succeed with the machinery of government force and mass media propaganda at its disposal.

Anonymous said...

I don't remember who said it around the manosphere, but a wise commenter pointed out that mens rights is the other half of the dialectic, the antithesis to feminism (the thesis). The synthesis of feminism and mens rights will be somewhere in the middle (as a synthesis always is) and whatever the synthesis is it will require more government.
The Hegelian dialect is a tool of control. Create one side, create an opposing side then have the synthesis be somewhere in the middle and always requiring more gov.
This is why I don't trust MRAs. If theMRM were not deliberately started (just as feminism was started) then the MRM has long ago been taken over by wolves in sheep clothings who propose more gov as the solution.

BB said...

Yeah, not only get out the government of the business of sugar daddy, but also bring back the shaming of single mothers. A society without shame is shameless (duh!) and dysfunctional by definition.

bptp new project in gurgaon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SarahsDaughter said...

Great Post!

Thank you for the link, Keoni! I appreciate that.

When I get the opportunity to do some blog maintenance, I'll be linking The Hawaiian Libertarian. RLB told me he's read your blog for a long time.

Sheldon Cooper said...

I really don't know about this, giving custody to the husband in divorce cases by default, to me, it doesn't seem much better than the current system of giving the child to the wife by default. To me, it seems seems like going from one awful extreme to another.

Just one blogger's opinion.....

dannyfrom504 said...


i'm NEVER having kids. and marriage...sorry, but no. but still, i DO love and adore women. but this system could potentially destroy me.

sorry, but i worked too hard to get where i am now.

Unknown said...

This is very true, the article I mean. However, it is imperative that people realize the 3-way with the state is nothing to shine on. Cohabitation is just the same thing without paying lip service to God. The Devil in the State will still get its share out of you either way.

We must push like the founding fathers did to severely curtail the state's incessant desire to control every aspect of our lives. Through the women, Family Law is the unconsitituional method that has been the portal to most of our woes. All the most draconian laws have been paved through this gateway to hell.

TDOM said...

"Fighting for 50/50 custody default is NOT a desirable result to fight for."

Shared parenting is the means to an end, not an end in itslef. One of the most commonly cited reseaons for why women file for more than 2/3 of all divorces is because they know they will get custody of the children. Take that guarantee away and you take away the biggest incentive women have for filing for divorce. Shared parenting ends automatic custody to women and it ends child support.

There will never be a return to marriage 1.0, but divorce 2.0 will bring about marriage 3.0 and should restore a fair amount of sanity to familial relationships.