A couple of interesting letters in the London Times today on the continuing trend towards making fatherhood an unpalatable option. Nicola Hodson on the topic of gold-digging spouses says "It’s time the courts stopped using the virtue of the achievers in life to pay for people who would prefer to prosper from the success of others". That'd be nice.
John Campion offers that "the matrilineal society that [the sexual separatism of radical feminism] inevitably create[s] is developing rapidly in front of our eyes, and its cruel destructive effects on individuals and society at large are everywhere to be seen." Hmmm. Could the feminist cure for "the patriarchy" be as bad as the disease? He goes on: "The legal recognition of contracts with regard to money and property has inevitably to come, followed, I hope, by contracts with regard to the care of children." Pretty soon, we'll have to take out a contract just to have a conversation with a person of the opposite sex.
And Adrian Perry quotes P. G. Wodehouse: “judges display that reckless generosity which is only to be found in men who are giving away someone else’s cash”
Across the pond, The Boston Globe makes us wonder if relationships are to go the way of the dodo with a long-winded article whose content can be summed up in the line: "everyone wants to know what will happen if the tyranny of coupledom finally tumbles".
The "tyranny of coupledom"? Wow. It's worth noting that the article is almost entirely about women choosing to be alone. But then, why shouldn't they when singleness is no longer any obstruction to motherhood and whichever fool supplies the sperm can be forced to finance their choices.
One truly wonders where this is going. I envisage an increasingly barren society disappearing into oblivion as women with no reason to commit whine about all the useless men with every reason not to. Another consequence is surely the social proscription of sex (impoverished father to estranged son son on the occasion of his 18th birthday after their first reunion in 16 years: "don't do it my boy, it's just not worth it, look what happened to me"). Hey, just a minute, wasn't that one of the things "the patriarchy" was supposed to be responsible for?
To finish up, let's go back the Britain where the BBC tells us that a bunch of 16-year-olds think that the elderly are appallingly badly treated. "More than half of all the respondents believed that there was a great deal of neglect and mistreatment of the elderly in Britain - a percentage that rose to 60% among females." They might well be right, and isn't it nice that the girls are more readily concerned than the boys, but who on earth thinks that a bunch of teenagers really know what goes on in old people's homes? I can only hope that "aged 16" is a misprint or else the ridiculous opinion poll has become the measure for action amongst the limeys.
Tags: Fathers Rights, Divorce, Singles, Gold-diggers
Monday, June 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(155)
-
▼
June
(19)
- Privacy or Justice? A small victory for sense.
- Tong and Mack
- Are we not men?
- Feminism is not a conspiracy, or how to avoid beco...
- Court bias against mothers...?
- Why Dads Matter.
- Go on, belt him one, he deserves it.
- Father's day news items
- The big piece of chicken
- Live longer, do more housework!
- Legal crimes, invisible victims
- The Best Interests of the Child - Part 2
- Toward a philosphy of child custody
- Fathers? What fathers?
- The tyranny of coupledom.
- The Best Interests of the Child - Part 1
- Ironwoman
- OK, you open the door for me then.
- Men's studies or feminism-for-men?
-
▼
June
(19)
RSS
3 comments:
There is an important consequence of the large number of divorces that affect wealthy and successful men who get bled dry by their ex-wives. The result is that successful men (i.e. men with jobs or businesses) are now turning their backs en masse to marriage and having children. These are the very men who are most likely to be good fathers and who actually contribute something to society and have good values. These are the very men who are penalised by the courts and are as a consequence reluctant to marry.
On the other hand, criminals, the permanently unemployed (bone idle) and single-mothers are breeding like rabbits because of the incentives presented by the extra welfare payments. These two factors mean that more children are now born into the worst family and social environments and less children are being born into good homes that have a working father as a role model.
Feminised politicians think that throwing money at single-mothers and the permanently jobless will help but in fact this just makes the listless lifestyle more appealing and more likely to result in more children being born to incompetent parents. Meanwhile, successful men live their lives as bachelors or as divorcees who never see their kids due to the spitefulness of the Family Courts system. I'm UK based but I suspect that this is repeated throughout the feminised, western world.
We are fast heading towards social meltdown. Family life as we knew it in the past has all but disappeared and has been replaced by large numbers of chaotic single-mother households or households where the children's parents never work and rely on welfare.
Feminism is the root cause of these problems and the restoration of the traditional family is essential. While ever the courts reward female divorcees so handsomely, family life will continue to whither and die.
Hi Cap'n,
I can see what you're getting at, and have often felt that way myself, but I don't think it's anything particularly new, at least insofar as the apparent inverse relationship between wealth and reproductiveness. There is good reason for this, and I take my argument from various sources in evolutionary psychology: if you don't have much, more kids implies a greater income for the family through sheer numbers. If, on the other hand, you have plenty you can buy whatever labor you need and you're better off investing more in your offspring to improve their quality and abilty to compete with their peers. The mechanics of wealth distribution will always be there, the question is how should any given individual approach the possibility of bettering their lot? If it is through not getting married and not having children, then that is what will happen, the population will drop, the human animal will get scared and things will change.
The trouble with "the traditional family" is that it depends on your, er, tradition. It means different things to different people. One should not ban divorce any more than one should ban abortion, the problem comes, as you point out, when it becomes more profitable to divorce than stay married. Like rampant abortion, rampant divorce has significant, deleterous, long-term knock on effects.
Post a Comment