Child Support: A Tax to Encourage Single Motherhood

by W.F. Price on November 26, 2012

It will probably be a difficult process, but eventually conservatives and those who want to restore marriage are going to have to come to terms with the fact that one of their favorite causes – forcing fathers to pay child support no matter what the circumstances – is directly responsible for the rise in single motherhood. I’m not sure whether we can say for sure that it is responsible for the decline of marriage, because that seems to be happening in Asian countries where child support is neither routine nor enforced, but it is an enormous factor in rising illegitimacy.

Combined with welfare and no-fault divorce, automatic child support has given millions of women all the justification they need to take the plunge and become single mothers. Since the 1960s, it has risen in both relative and absolute terms, coming to replace welfare for lower-income mothers in many instances and serving as an alimony enhancement for the middle and upper classes.

And make no mistake: child support is a tax. When the government forces you to pay no matter what the circumstances, and penalizes you for not doing so, what else could it be? Although some may argue that because the money is not directly provided to the state it is not a tax, the logic behind child support gives the lie to this particular argument. It is used to prevent mothers from going on the dole, and it is also used to reimburse the state for expenditures on mothers and their illegitimate children, therefore child support is directly tied to state expenses.

In short, child support is a tax designed to incentivize single motherhood, and it has done a fine job of it. Without government-enforced payments to mothers (well over 90% of all child support goes to mothers), illegitimacy would be a fraction of what it is today. Women frequently justify child support as something a man should pay merely for not “keeping it in his pants” (this despite the fact that many men who pay child support actually married the women who receive the payment, and were left for no fault of their own), but why is it that while a man must pay for failing to keep his pants on, a woman gets paid for the same? Surely there can be no moral lesson in such a setup, as one party is rewarded while another is punished for the same act. It is akin to letting one keep the spoils while jailing another for robbing a bank.

However, it is going to take a profound change in attitude before people begin to see it for what it is. Fortunately, there are signs that this change is occurring. While traditional Western norms see females as blameless angels, tradition is rapidly disappearing before our eyes, and it is likely that a far different attitude will emerge in the near future.

In the meanwhile, we’ll have to go against the prevailing sense of right and wrong and advocate for the abolition of involuntary child support. If a man’s children are removed from him, or he never had a chance to act as a father, he should not under any circumstances be forced to pay for children that are wholly owned possessions of some woman who has no obligations to him. If the law says that a man has no rights to his children and no authority over them, then he should have no responsibility for them, either. A woman who chooses to be a single mother should be single in every sense of the word. She cannot call herself a “single mother” when she is receiving involuntary payments from some man, but rather the “missus” to a man under peonage. There is nothing single about a woman who is still being paid by a man.

If a man voluntarily leaves his wife and children it is another, touchier matter, as he has broken his promises, but even here we should tread very carefully in getting the state involved, because as we have seen one thing leads to another. It may be immoral for a man to do this, but it is far rarer than for a woman to seize her husband’s children and run to another man, which is equally immoral yet goes unpunished (it is rewarded, actually) today. Additionally, a woman in such a situation may deserve sympathy, and find it easier to marry than the typical single mother. The few men who do abandon their families, therefore, probably do not justify legislation that can be applied to all manner of dissolutions.

For many readers here, these are not particularly radical ideas, but we should keep in mind that for most Americans child support is taken for granted as a “good thing.” Even men rarely question it until they find themselves victims, so arguing for its abolition may come off as quite radical. However, as you can see, it’s pretty easy to make solid arguments against it, because given the results, the practice cannot be justified. I’d advise focusing on those results, and asking supporters whether state-enforced child support is really worth the illegitimacy, the delinquent, fatherless youths and broken families. Point out that despite years of enforcement, fathers are less a part of their children’s lives than ever, and tax expenditures on mothers as high as ever on a per child basis.

It’s time to ask politicians why they are promoting illegitimacy, adultery and broken families. How does that benefit their constituents?

{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }

gunner451 November 26, 2012 at 11:27

When no fault divorce became the law of the land in most states child support was fairly minimal and there were no standards. Women/feminists quickly realized that without the large alimony payments that the old system provided there would be a serious gap in the amount of wealth that could be extracted from the ex-husband. At the federal level there were a whole series of laws implemented starting around the mid-1970′s that gradually tightened the noose for child support (can’t discharge in bankruptcy, making it easier for the government to seize money for CS arrears, easier to set CS payments without a full court hearing, etc.). The Family Support Act of 1988 was the capstone in that it mandated that the states adopt a formula for CS payments each individual state adopted one of three different formulas but essentially they all are geared towards a percentage of the combined income of the parents rather than the cost to raise a child. Since men are usual make more than women and women usually get the kids this provides a good tax free (to the woman) income stream and is a much heavier burden on the man as he gets the tax liability plus cannot use the kids as a deduction on his taxes plus he is now in the higher tax brackets because he no longer can claim head of house hold or married filing joint.

So even though he may have say 25% of his gross income taken out for CS for his two kids he is paying effectively 35-40% or more of his take home pay. If they could change the laws so that the tax liability fell in the recipient that alone would be of tremendous help for a lot of men and could be the difference between living in an apartment versus in mom’s basement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Norm November 26, 2012 at 11:32

Hope you all in the USSA had a happy Thanksgiving given the circumstances. When I look back and see the state of marriages from my peers, I am glad I am single and never got married.
BTW – Click on Dalrock under the contributor blogroll and check out the photo for his latest post. Very funny and a perfect pic. I won’t ruin the moment for you by giving any hints.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keoni Galt November 26, 2012 at 11:33

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 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Opus November 26, 2012 at 11:39

Yhis is obviously the missing chapter from Malthus’ Essay on The Principle of Population.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Joe Zamboni November 26, 2012 at 12:15

Good article Price! You make many important and logical points. But before any such an equitable and logical approach to child support is adopted, we must eradicate the widespread and old-fashioned notion that women deserve special protection just because they were the ones who carried the baby for nine months, and are the ones to nurse little ones. In many people’s eyes, this makes them the natural parent if there is to be only one parent. The early connection to the mother makes it at first glance seem logical that the mother must be supported and protected by the father, and that this is “in the best interests of the child.”

Of course feminists don’t dare challenge this old-fashioned notion because that would challenge the near-monopoly that women have on child support. So even though they often yell and scream about “equal rights” and “equal protection,” they don’t dare talk about child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer November 26, 2012 at 12:18

Off-topic but :

Is there a war on men?

Fox News contributor Suzanne Venker tells men to blame feminism for their downfall

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/what_this_guy_needs_to_succeed_less_competition/singleton/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
a_peraspera November 26, 2012 at 12:20

I agree with most of this, but the MRM has a long, hard road ahead before it has much influence in society.

We need to do what feminists and liberals do: work incrementally. For example, look at how feminists changed the definitions of rape – it took decades. First they started talking about outlawing this new thing called “date rape,” and all the politicians scratched their heads and said OK sounds fair. Then it was marital rape, gray rape, visual rape, sex-while-intoxicated-rape, and now we have regretted-it-later-rape.

But feminists didn’t try to get all this passed in the 60′s. They just kept slowly turning the ratchet every year, getting a small law passed and then building on that.

Having said this, my suggestion is that we approach child support in an incremental way. The first goal should be to lobby for making CS a tax-deductible expense. That’s it.

That way we can frame it as men looking for some relief from an oppressive government. We will still have to PAY the support, but since we are stepping up to the plate and doing our jobs, the government doesn’t have to support the kids. Therefore we should get some relief. Bonus: our enemies can’t argue that we are taking food from the mouths of children or stealing money from “hardworking single moms” (LOL). The only one losing money is the government, and not really even that much. The government either prints all the money it needs to, or borrows it from China, or buys its own bonds (YES, I know it’s not that simple but putting it at a level liberal women can understand). The government doesn’t even pass a budget anymore, or pretend to abide by one.

Then if our law gets passed, there is a precedent and the American people are primed to change CS again – maybe in a couple of years.

If we try to get the whole apple at once, it will be rejected. If we get one small bite then come back for another bite in a year or two, it will start to add up. It took 50 years for men to get in this hole – it will take 50 years to dig back out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
a_peraspera November 26, 2012 at 12:27

Just to add on what I said, have you ever noticed how one femblog will start talking about some horseshit concept (i.e. waiting for the woman to say “no” isn’t good enough anymore, now men are supposed to make sure there is “enthusiastic consent” before trying to have sex with her), and then within a week they are all hammering the same point.

We should do the same thing. Can you imagine if every man on the internet and television started talking about making CS tax-deductible? All in the same week, and didn’t stop until Congress passed a law making it so?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cultural_Expat November 26, 2012 at 12:29

As one of these state slaves I think “child support” needs to be re-defined. In my state I can find pages and pages of statutes instructing the court what can be used for “child support,” (everything) and how to account for child support from business owners imputation-really inflated guesses. However, “child support” is given to the mother with no stipulation that she spend it on the child. I guess it is alimony and that is what it should be called at a minimum. From the macro point, this article is correct, subsidize this behaviour and more of it will be produced-get rid of mommy support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rus November 26, 2012 at 12:44

Stuff is being regurgitated a lot. The ills of modern society can be boiled down to one word: Equality.

The problem with equality is that it works. It makes men weak and fearful, and makes women think and act like men, both of which are unattractive to the other sex. What we need to do to restore society is to abolish democracy and the welfare state. Anything less will lead to the implosion of modern western society. We are still only in the beginning stages, and it will become far worse if nothing is done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd November 26, 2012 at 12:45

“Why is it that while a man must pay for failing to keep his pants on, a woman gets paid for the same?” ie failing to keep her pants on …

Brilliant …

Child support IS alimony, always has been, changed to ensure men get shamed into coughing up their earned pay …

Calling Alimony child support, is basically a shaming tactic …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 November 26, 2012 at 12:47

>>I agree with most of this, but the MRM has a long, hard road ahead before it has much influence in society.

Yes, many think that. But, if you look at the marriage rates, dropping almost in free fall, that is a big influence on society. The marriage industry; the baby care industry; the divorce lawyers industry; the child support industry itself.

So much a big influence that there is an open attack on MRA’s, even by other men. Look at the usual men’s blogs, full of insults directed at worthless, scummy old MRA’s. How obedient those who attack the MRM are..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 November 26, 2012 at 12:51

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/26/what_this_guy_needs_to_succeed_less_competition/singleton/

Sorry, Elmer. That article was not written by Venker. I am not sure what it is. I think it’s a sarcastic article written by a man, probably a white knight, portraying men as lazy bums who don’t want to compete with the hard working dearies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster November 26, 2012 at 13:03

As long as the female has a monopoly on reproduction of the species, there will be no changes to the status quo.

Start with: If a woman becomes pregnant and decides to bring the fetus to term, she must get consent from the sperm donor…with an agreement that he will be financially responsible. If she should choose to keep the fetus thriving in her womb until birth, but the sperm donor does not consent to fatherly responsibility, he does not have to pay a nickel in CS. This gives both parties in the act culpability in the reproduction decision – – as opposed to leaving the male out entirely.

You can’t expect the male to be involved in forcing her to allow the child to live, because of the “my body/my choice” narrative. It would be patriarchal oppression to make a woman gestate a child if she doesn’t want to sacrifice her womb, time or be burdened with a baby. But allowing the male to consent to fatherhood, by law, is a start.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster November 26, 2012 at 13:15

Marines open up infantry training to women.
Get two volunteers out of 80 eligible, both fail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry/

The fact that the Pentagon thought this was a good idea to begin with is how powerful feminism is in the military.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mark November 26, 2012 at 13:24

The Salon screed is a feminized male in sarcasm mode, which only proves that Venker’s piece on the Fox News site touched a nerve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 26, 2012 at 13:31

Only upon complete breakdown of hetero- male /female relations, and the years and years of societal chaos that will fallow from children being raised in the matriarchy, will the hetero-male ; hetero-father again be a protected citizen.
In the Gender, gender-raunch dominated North-Eastern states, if a man is being intercepted by law enforcement for whatever reason, if he says “Im gay” to the officers, the response from the officers will change their approach dramatically because they know gays are “protected”. Gays have legions of lawyers waiting for their opportunity to protect their own, at the slightest bit of provocation.
I would feel safe and protected from reckless and abusive law enforcement practices if hetero-males had legions of lawyers just waiting for law enforcement to abuse their powers.
Hetero-men and hetero fathers will eventually get the same “protection” gays currently get from their legions of the gay legal community, but they will only get “protected” again, when hetero-relations completely breakdown.
Maybe hetero-marriage was a protected institution for thousands of years for a very practical reason.
As perversions to American law enforcement continue to make hetero-relations a legal liability for the men involved, we will see only sociopaths and stoopid males will dare risking dating women.
Then upon complete breakdown, maybe we can then feel “safe” to get a small army of lawyers that will protect the hetero-male when he say “Im hetero”, from a perverse law enforcement system that wants his head as a statistic they can trade the feds for more “pork Bloating.”
Maybe hetero-marriage was a protected institution for thousands of years for a very practical reason.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo November 26, 2012 at 13:34

Another great idea is linking the states metaphorical crack addiction to not just child support but also prison costs, welfare costs, and the administrative costs for family courts and their “professionals.”

I use these when talking to the uninitiated; and get blank stairs. I also use the comparison between them, and the other portions of the Social Securtity acts; and how these divisions compete against eachother. Or how in the future it will guarnatee their parents will live with them. This gets alot of the elderly off their “traditional high horse” and drops them right into the ire of their high blood pressure.

Nothing gets the message to people then when you demonstrate it to them on a “personal level.” Oh you can rely on the “kindness of strangers” if you wish?

Hows that working out for ya? For all of us?

Yeah, it doesn’t; time to stop playing nice and start playing dirty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 26, 2012 at 13:39

Keyster, Its disgusting that American soldiers risk their lives overseas to protect their nation, only to have the generals and other military bureaucrats enable girls in the military cry “Rape” for such trivial reasons as they were late for drill duty.
Gender-raunch have “Inflamed” their way to Empowerment in the US military, by the routine persecutions of innocent males, and the perverted statistics these persecutions “manufacture”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 26, 2012 at 13:39

It seems to be in society’s interest that single mom’ should have some kind of government support to improve the significantly worse outcomes for children of single moms. But every tax funded government program that redistributes wealth in order to eliminate any stigma or difficulty single moms face has been shown to do a great job mostly of creating more single mom misery. Today, in terms of the number of children who turn into gainfully employed, happy and well adjusted adults, the net harm to children from the greater number of single mother families those programs create, likely outweighs the net benefit to children as a result of the financial aid given to single mothers.

Aside from incentivizing sociologically and economically destabilizing behavior, there’s also the impact of paying the cost for those programs. Liberals say “if you’re helping even one single-mother family then it doesn’t matter what it costs”. However that dollar to the single-mother is a dollar cut from emergency response services, public education, or some other expenditure with a positive net sociological and economic impact on the same children. Totaled over an entire nation those dollars become billions contributing to single-mother destabilization, the same billions that must be cut from programs with a net social benefit. What initially seems to be kindness in unquestioningly supporting single mothers ends up not only doing worse harm but shifting the negative outcomes onto innocent children.

Unfortunately I’m convinced this isn’t an argument that a feminist could ever understand. She would hear “reduce aid to single mothers”? … and her brain would find it impossible to take in any further information. That’s what make’s feminists so EVIL in their ignorance. I’d be fine if they wanted to discuss the issue because they thought we have the facts wrong. But they don’t care about the facts. They don’t care what happens to anyone else, they don’t care about getting to the truth, and they don’t care whether the system comes crashing down because it was based on unsupportable lies. They only care about team woman getting as much as it can get RIGHT NOW. Feminism is EVIL right down to the biblical root of the word. Rather than seeking equality for women to earn their own rewards, Feminism COVETS what men only accomplished only by their own pain and sacrifice. And with Feminists BEARING FALSE WITNESS against men by hiding (or at best willfully ignoring) the truth in order to steals men’s hard earned labor, Feminism is a form of THEFT,

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
American November 26, 2012 at 13:48

Darlock, thank you sir for youre graph, as over the years that graph will be the cornerstone of many discussions. I wish i could pay an academic to continue graphing out what modern gender-feminist quack-ademia will not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno November 26, 2012 at 13:53

- Men should have the right to legally “abort” their child, and cut off all responsibility, just like women have that right.
(actually women have the right to really abort a child, that is: to murder it, but we shouldn’t go that far)

- Men should have the right to put their child up for adoption, and cut off all responsibility, just like women have that right.

- No child support should ever be paid: the cost of raising the child should be paid by the person who is raising it.

Equal rights now !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 26, 2012 at 13:58

keyster

As long as the female has a monopoly on reproduction of the species, there will be no changes to the status quo.

I don’t know whether it was because the economic collapse from the fall of the Soviet Union made women especially suspicious and resentful of feminism’s lies, but in any case Russia HATES feminism. In Russia you have anti-feminist articles written by men appearing in mass media publications with major circulation. This would NEVER happen ANYWHERE in the west.

Works like The Misandry Bubble assume the general philosophy of taxing ever more to fund feminism and other agendas that make economies ever more dysfunctional will lead to widespread collapse across the west as well, at which point many speculate these misandric child support policies will reverse themselves. Unfortunately a global financial collapse like that predicted by The Misandry Bubble might be so devastating that society’s other problems would pale in comparison.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
bruno November 26, 2012 at 14:12

And in the mean time, given all the discrimination and oppression we men have to suffer, the only way to have control over your reproduction, is to:
- freeze in some sperm, just in case you should want to have children at later age,
- then have a vasectomy as early as possible.

By the way: have children only at a very late age has many advantages for a man.
And for the child too: the best for a child is: a young mother, and an old father. The older the father, in general, the better father he will be, with much more life experience and wisdom.

Women wait with having children as long as possible: until the moment of “it’s now or never”.
For a woman, this moment of “now or never” comes at 35.
For a man, this moment comes at 65.

But in many ways, this old age is for a man not the moment of “now or never”, but it is the perfect moment: the more later, the better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt November 26, 2012 at 14:21

1.
But why is there no mention at all of the financial costs, of the implicitly huge State borrowings and the huge national indebtedness incurred to pay for the elaborate child support beauraucracies: … vis a vis financial costs of the superstructures built up to manage and to administer the destruction of hitherto intact families, and to collect support arrearages, that in no measurable way benefits children but nonetheless is collected in childrens name ?

2.
Why is there no mention of the growing negative feedback loops and the burdensome millstones of degrading moral character, degrading social cohesion, degrading social aspiration and degrading cultural values accruing to those societies falsely pursuing meaningless child support regimes ? These other ballooning costs, invisible on GDP ballance sheets, speak to other consequences, moral and material, of such child support regimes impugning the entire social model itself ?

3.
Are we not witnessing increasing, new social costs of more bastardised and fatherless children running amok, soon to represent such burdens to State and to society, with consequences even limitless borrowing wont ever cure ? This speaks to the hollowing out, the gutting and the cannibalization of a hitherto great society and great nation into a vast, vast ponzi scheme … because such a regime must increasingly impose child support arrearages to cope with the family destructive measures it nessesarily imposes to justify itself and offset its previous debt and borrowings ?

Its been said many times before, but its worth repeating for those men whom have ears … Do not participate, go your own way because it’s an elaborate Ponzi-Scheme that yeilds you as a man nothing but grief !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
archmage_lo November 26, 2012 at 14:24

It seems to me that child support is serving a very important purpose in our country. A purpose similar to the government’s illegal open borders policy with Mexico.

We have a very serious population/demographics issue in European society. We are at/below replacement levels. We need to begin breeding. As bad as child support is, it may very well be better than the alternative that we are looking at right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH November 26, 2012 at 14:34

It will probably be a difficult process, but eventually conservatives and those who want to restore marriage are going to have to come to terms with the fact

Never happening.

The *highest* priority of any SoCon is ‘chivalry’ (or more accurately, pedestalizing and whiteknighting). Bar none.

Every other value they claim to have, ranging from low taxes to personal responsibility, gets tossed aside with great speed, when the prospect of groveling to a woman presents itself.

Bob Bennett is the norm. And lest you think that older conservatives are the only ones, Rod Dreher is a very committed young mangina who most Republicans think favorably of.

Sadly, SoCons are a leftist group than happens to reside within the GOP, merely because a thin veneer of religious morality masks their leftism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
TFH November 26, 2012 at 14:41

keyster,

As long as the female has a monopoly on reproduction of the species, there will be no changes to the status quo.

Oh, it is bigger than that. Male expendability has always been the norm in human society, for the simple reason that a lot of men dying does not reduce the number of babies that can be born. In the old days, this expendability led to battlefield deaths. Nowadays, it merely has transferred to misandric wealth-transfer laws.

BUT, and I cannot mention this enough :

A few men like Toban Morrison have hired surrogates and become single fathers :

http://photogallery.thestar.com/1038282

Sure, very few men should consider this. BUT at least men should know about the option being possible.

The big impact is not for just 100 men doing this, but rather the other millions of men at least knowing that the option exists, and ceasing to treat women like reproduction means a man’s lifetime output is locked onto a woman.

The MRM has to do more to at least expose this information to men. Very few will hire surrogates, but all should at least be aware of the option.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
GS Jockey November 26, 2012 at 14:48

@ Uncle Elmer, “War on Men.”

UE, you missed the actual article, which was quite good and offered as its central theme the most important principle I ever learned from you: “A man wants a wife, not a competitor!” I thought you might have written it yourself, but then I realized there was no leering involved and so it couldn’t be you. ;-) Here’s the actual article:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

The link you cited in your post is unfortunately a Feminist hack job attempting to shout down the Truth by ridiculing the original article. The takeaway from all this is that an MSM outlet actually published an article IN FAVOR of men’s issues, and takes women to task. And the article was written by a woman, to boot. Is the tide starting to shift?

Cheers,

GS Jockey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lysander Spooner November 26, 2012 at 14:52

Single mothers who initiate divorce, play the whole child support, alimony, assets lotto and sole custody sham should be ostracized, be they ex-wife, sister, friend, mother, cousin, aunt, niece, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dalrock November 26, 2012 at 14:56

Outstanding post Mr. Price. You have gotten to the heart of the matter, and you make it look effortless.

One small quibble:

(well over 90% of all child support goes to mothers)

would be more accurately stated without the word “well”, at least based on my own crunching of the numbers. When I reviewed the data from the Census I found that just over 90% of child support dollars flow from fathers to mothers. Either way, the point remains that child support is overwhelmingly used by mothers to finance taking the father’s children away.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
will November 26, 2012 at 15:30

@a_peraspera

Trouble is men aren’t herd creatures. Unlike women who acts as a collective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter November 26, 2012 at 16:42

It is my personal opinion that child $upport is at best institutionalized extortion and at worst indentured servitude. It is a practice that needs to be abolished.

However, I have toyed with the idea of what it would take to make those who support the practice turn against it. If, even in intact families, child $upport was forced upon all families as if they were in fact not intact – the outrage that would follow would be it’s death. If upon the birth of a child, in an intact family, a child support determination were made and enforced via child $upport enforcement and funds funneled through the state coffers, just as they are after dissolution of a marriage, people would be outraged at the government intrusion. It would be an interesting experiment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo November 26, 2012 at 16:55

@ UE & GSJockey

My response to Alexandrei Petri on the Washington Post:

“Ahhhhh, this article is music to my ears.

As one of those terrible “yetis” of the imagnary manosphere allow me to give you my imgainary opinion!

We don’t want you back on the pedestal!
We don’t care if you think we are jerks!
We generally don’t hate women! Just radical feminists, who “lurk in the dark corners” of the internet talking about genocide; or how a man with the rare audacity to divorce his crazy wife should have his genitals mutilated because “that will show him!”
We don’t want you to sleep with us, so no fear umkay cupcake?

Your articles retort is very common of what we see; and your immediate respinse is what we expect. We know that as more and more people become aware of us; you’re true nature comes out.

People will see at the end of this financial fiasco whether the country recovers or not; just what feminists really are.

It is great to see that women are waking up too. Yet for a lot fo men, who of coursse are “jerks that don’t exist outside of anonymous internet corners” it is too little too late. A marriage strike is alive and well; so is the fact that women have bought what you have claimed and are now in their forties wishing they had kids.

I guess Nature or God knew better. I don’t care if you listen”

Their site does not let you type the full 3000 word capable response easily, but I think it works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keoni Galt November 26, 2012 at 17:02

When I reviewed the data from the Census I found that just over 90% of child support dollars flow from fathers to mothers. Either way, the point remains that child support is overwhelmingly used by mothers to finance taking the father’s children away.

One small quibble, D. Take note of my post above…

90% of child support dollars flow from fathers to THE STATE, who then receives matching funds from the Federal Government to administer the system (some of which is CS payouts to single mothers), and use the rest to perpetually expand it’s operations.

The more CS they collect, the more Federal Funds they receive. The more funds, the more CS support “services” they can fund – more social workers, office buildings, IT infrastructure, enforcement officers, etc.

This is also why the system doesn’t give a shit how that money gets spent, and why they don’t even try to monitor what the CS receiving mother does with it. It doesn’t matter.

The only thing that matters to the CS system is the bottom line – the amount collected that gets reported to the Feds so they can receive their matching funds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mickey T November 26, 2012 at 17:11

“why is it a that while man must pay for failing to keep his pants on, a women gets paid for doing the same……”

Because it was decided a long time ago, that women should be rewarded for having pleasure. It creeps into every aspect of human life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon November 26, 2012 at 17:14

Thank you, it’s nice to see a manosphere article actually on MY side for once.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Norm November 26, 2012 at 17:19

bruno November 26, 2012 at 14:12
And in the mean time, given all the discrimination and oppression we men have to suffer, the only way to have control over your reproduction, is to:
- freeze in some sperm, just in case you should want to have children at later age,
- then have a vasectomy as early as possible.

Do you really own your own sperm? A number of years ago a married couple got divorced and the husband wanted to have the sperm destroyed and the women did not want that as she wanted to be inseminated with her ex-husband’s sperm sometime in the future. Obviously she wanted child support from him even after the divorce should she get impregnated by frozen sperm. I do not know how this ended, but hopefully it ended in the man’s favour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sunshinemary November 26, 2012 at 18:01

we’ll have to go against the prevailing sense of right and wrong and advocate for the abolition of involuntary child support.

And unfortunately the problem is at present almost insurmountable because this is one area where feminists, traditionalists, atheists, Christians, liberals, and conservatives all agree. It is just assumed that women are the better parent and that men should pay them to raise the children after a divorce. I can’t think of another issue on which all those groups agree other than child support and shaming “dead-beat” dads.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 26, 2012 at 18:10

Rather than try to convince women of some kind of good or any other such nonsense of assuming women give a damn about anything other than themselves we should steer that selfishness. The baseline should be women have children for the social, financial and legal benefit. Women are benefactors of wealth transfers but there is a qualifier for it. They at least need to be an ex wife or a mother. Right now there is a some what of a marriage strike that up until recently I was more inclined to think it was female choice. The next thing is motherhood and that works wether married or not.
A male birth control pill will kill that real quick. That is where a quiet actvism should be focused on rather than enlightening women. From there men need as TFH take advantage of surrogacy.
The trick is to end the cash cow not by convincing women to not take the money nor even to change the attitude government and women have towards fathers but just not letting the little slut qualify in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH November 26, 2012 at 18:16

That is where a quiet actvism should be focused on rather than enlightening women.

Of course…. enlightening women is the last thing anyone should do, including red-pill women (all six of them).

We should be enlightening MEN, because only 20% of men need to be fully enlightened to force the snake to eat its own tail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
piercedhead November 26, 2012 at 18:18

Do you really own your own sperm?

It really comes down to whether you have yet elected a female owner or not (ie got married, or been decreed by the state to be married de facto).

Until then, you actually have a legal right to own property in your own name, to own your own future, to spend your money on yourself, to have sex – or not have sex -, and to dream about having family and the continuation of your line.

Once you marry, or are decreed married de facto, all of this is gone. You are owned, lock stock and barrel, by some female who no longer pretends to be anything other than your owner. She owns your body, your labour, your property and your future. Obviously she also owns your sperm.

The strangest thing about men, is that in spite of all this being writ large in law, they still continue to marry, be judged married, and boast about their ‘success’ with women. They created these laws, enforce them, and attempt to shame you for not falling victim to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TFH November 26, 2012 at 18:20

WFPrice,

It may be immoral for a man to do this, but it is far rarer than for a woman to seize her husband’s children and run to another man, which is equally immoral yet goes unpunished (it is rewarded, actually) today.

I cannot state enough that in the countries where a man can toss out his wife without cost, and keep the children himself, still have low divorce rates. Yep. Even if a middle aged man can toss out is same-age wife without cost, that does not happen in countries where men have this power.

Men tend to be responsible adults that way. I consistently see that the father is usually the only parent who puts the children first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer November 26, 2012 at 18:20

@ Uncle Elmer, “War on Men.”

UE, you missed the actual article,….

——————

I saw the original essay, my post was not clear. Salon’s Aaron Traister, brother of noted feminist Rebecca Traister, was attempting to lampoon it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH November 26, 2012 at 18:33

The various lampooning of that Fox News article are so incredibly weak, that it is stunning.

Hell, if any of us wanted to play Devil’s advocate, we could do a much more cogent job of making the case that ‘Feminism is Noble’ than those idiots could.

That shaming language is all they have shows how effective shaming has historically been. Hence, no innovation beyond that was needed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Skeptic November 26, 2012 at 19:06

I posted the link to this article over at MENZ (Masculine Experience New Zealand – a website I visit frequently – http://menz.org.nz/2012/jobs-for-the-girls/#comment-742734) which might be an interesting website for Americans as it offers another perspective on how feminism is being analysed and dealt with.

I got a really interesting response with much food for thought about how child ‘support’ debt is being used as a government income there to leverage further loans made by government. I wonder if the same applies in the USA.
Here’s the response I got –

hornet says:
Tue 27th November 2012 at 1:03 pm

Skeptic, along the lines of what I have been saying – except this is a PARENT concern – there are mothers as well as fathers being raped of their income – and what was not explained in this article – is the LEVERAGE system – using INCREASING Child SUPPORT DEBT to LEVERAGE BORROWIONG – huge money – to pay off more debt.

Thats the kicker here – and we are seeing it first hand in NZ – why else would REVIEW people be allowed to make determinations – IN EXCESS of a parents INCOME -with SEVERE penalties if you DONT COMPLY – which many can not pay or wont pay because its wrong – and so they rightly refute it – because its NOT BASED ON INCOME – which then INCREASES the PENALTY industry and the alleged Child Support DEBT – so the bigger this DEBT , the more leverage in BORROWING.

Make the system impossible to challenge, impossible to hold to account -and you have the perfect Modern day Extortion racket leveraging kids for debt.

What a SICK system. Using Kids – Kids have ALWAYS been exploited throughout HISTORY – modern society just seems to have found a more discreet way of fking with them and persecuting parents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn November 26, 2012 at 19:17

50-50 custody by default should be the norm, making it difficult on either parent to get more or less(obviously with plenty of reasonable exceptions.) That way child support could be abolished, as well as the scam known as “stay-at-home mom.”

Women don’t pull their weights outside of the house. What you have is women getting more than half of what men slave for, and then men shacking up with women who own what they stole from their ex-husbands, effectively transferring the power to the women. You now live in the woman’s house, which is paid by her ex, who is now living in another woman’s house.

The little work that is child-rearing and housework can be laughably mastered by men, who are used to killing themselves outside the house.

Men should not be imprisoned by their wives. They should be allowed to divorce whenever they want, without the traditionalist/religious/conservative hostility, blaming the men for being cowards. That, is what life used to be like(and still is, in many parts of the world.) A woman living in a fault-divorce environment(ie in a country that’s been impoverished for a long time,) knows she has her man by the balls. She can make his life a living hell while he has to abide by the man-up code. While he’s out slaving, she works at building a support net with her girlfriends and a consensus against any man can be built rapidly, with the men being turned against any man marked by their wives. Women have have developed far greater verbal dexterity throughout the ages. They now use twice as many words per day than men. Society hence promotes their values more. One thing women valued in a pre-industrialized economy world was not working the back-breaking jobs men did. They valued the minority of men being in charge, so that the majority of men(slaves) won’t rebel. They valued not going hunting. They most especially valued men bearing the violent punishment of societal conflict.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Warlock November 26, 2012 at 23:04

When my first wife divorce me (her idea), she wanted 50% of my salary as child support because her friends were getting it. I told her if she got any child support, that I would leave the country and start my life over. She never asked for a dime of court ordered child support. Not only that, but when I did give her a check to help out with the kids, she always spent the night with me in gratitude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kuis November 27, 2012 at 03:35

it’s impossible to argue about reproductive rights with feminists. I saw a debate about this online earlier today, and here are the conclusions and ‘shaming tactics’ used once the debate got out of hand:

1)Men who go on about women’s ‘freedom’ to terminate are trying to deny women’s right to ‘bodily autonomy’

2)MRA’s want to be able to walk away from the responsibility of raising children, thus they are immoral/monsters

3)MRA’s are shallow and selfish because they value money above the well being of children

4)Men don’t have deserve equal rights in these situations because they don’t share the ‘burden’ of labor.

and on and on it went. Many of them claimed that MRA’s are ‘jokes’.

What was interesting was how mad some of them got when the whole ‘men should keep their cocks in their pants’ argument was turned on them and applied to women. Did they buy it? No, they denied, and talked about how the responsibilities women have are different.

It’s absolutely pathetic, but this is what we are up against.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ode November 27, 2012 at 04:53

Marines open up infantry training to women.
Get two volunteers out of 80 eligible, both fail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry/

Infantry is hard work. Walking around all day long with a 50 pound backpack And not being able to urinate for up to 8 hours is no fun.

When feminists asked for “equality” what they were talking about we’re jobs with prestige like college professor or jet fighter pilot which have their own special perks. No woman has ever complained about the lack of equality because there is a shortage of women dying in coal mining accidents or working as garbage collectors.

Here’s a job working for Academi, formerly known as Blackwater
As an armed security guard in Afghanistan.
Yes females can apply too, it even says so on the bottom of the page.
job posting

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jimbo November 27, 2012 at 06:16

@JFinn

“The little work that is child-rearing and housework can be laughably mastered by men, who are used to killing themselves outside the house” and “Men should not be imprisoned by their wives. ”

As a single father of two sons since they were infants, I can testify from experience that you are absolutely right about that. Cooking for three, washing dishes, doing laundry and vacuuming and generally keeping the house clean and orderly are lightweight chores and that is all they are. Incredibly, many women can no longer even do those things properly, one reason for so much childhood obesity. Regarding child rearing? My experience has been that it isn’t rocket science. From the earliest age, the boys were taught that no means no and when asked to do something, that means to do something. Put the clothes in the washer or whatever. The result is that my sons have very much enjoyed their childhoods and friends, family, teachers etc. enjoy their company. The experience (15 years) has definitely been the best of my life. How does the job I’ve done compare to that of most single mothers? I don’t think a comparison can hardly be made. It would be like comparing an NFL team to a freshman high school team. Many friends have said I’m lucky I didn’t have daughters. I’ve always thought that the same rules applied would have provided the same dividends. As with the boys, they would not be taught or encouraged to believe the sexes are equal, but that they are different. It’s weird, and I know I probably just sound like a proud father, but I would say that the boys are a lot wiser than a great many adults in this society. When they see two women in a boxing match for example, they might jokingly say “dad, why are they doing that?”

You’re also right to use the “imprisoned” analogy because that is exactly what it is like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon November 27, 2012 at 07:06

Apparently, Warlock, either your standards are really low or your ex wife is not the cuttlefish that most women turn into the moment a ring is around their finger.

I thought that I had ED, my sex life was crap for years (pretty embarrassing for a military guy that keeps his shit squared away). Then, after my wife kicked me to the curb I picked up an attractive, in shape girl on the rebound (Only woman I have ever met that was not an overgrown child. we still keep in touch) and fucked her 6 times in one night. Not a hint of droopy dick.

ED is one of the biggest scams in history. You might be in denial, but your dick knows the woman you are planning on putting it in is a cow. Viagra should be proudly claiming that it helps men keep sloppy hogs satisfied since 1992.

Frankly, if you need Viagra to keep it up, the woman you are with is a fucking sow. Don’t touch her. Porn is better, cleaner, and the women seem to be enjoying themselves and are well-appreciated. Or you can concentrate on game or use prostitutes (I use a combo of gaming and porn, Las Vegas hookers are too darned expensive, especially since there are so many young, hot waitresses that give it away for free if you are clean, healthy, and a vicious smartass.) Take care of your shit, and concentrate on what really matters, working long hours doing what you love.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer November 27, 2012 at 07:17

About that Salon essay, and women’s gossip rags generally. I confess I have wasted a lot of time with that and need to stop trolling them. In the future my contributions to the manosphere should be of practical use. Whenever I post an acrid comment on a ladie’s essay I am merely “reacting” to their insipid pronouncements rather than creating something of originality. And reading some of the commentary on popular rag essays see that many people are getting the message and spewing torrents of rage at feminist and leftist nonsense.

Jack Donovan spells it out and maybe it should be reproduced at the Spearhead :

I’m Sorry, I Just Don’t Keep Up With The Ladies’ Gossip Magazines.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/im-sorry-i-just-dont-keep-up-with-the-ladies-gossip-magazines

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DW3 November 27, 2012 at 09:07

This is one of the finest essays I’ve ever read, period. I do not often comment here, or anywhere else, but feel obliged to mention how profound an effort you have made here.

I will share this far and wide, and I know that your analysis is irrefutable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Sciencedada November 27, 2012 at 15:19

One thing that should be addressed here is that there are a small minority of real women who do not accept child support and do raise the child(ren) themselves. I find such a woman to be a true gem.

I am one to give credit where credit is due.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Sciencedada November 27, 2012 at 15:25

@jimbo: Daughters are easier, as they thrive on praise. If they know that you will reward good behavior and you are consistent, they are more productive than the boys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Mickey T November 27, 2012 at 16:15

The enormous political power of feminists today is a driving force which has basically made a man’s sperm become the property of government (women) the moment it leaves his body And if enough men don’t organize and make some meaningful political changes pretty soon, the parts of a man which manufactures sperm, along with everything else inside and outside his body, will become the property of government (women).

BTW- It seems pundits agree that Susan Rice, in spite of her blatant deception in the Benghazi matter, will be appointed Sec’y of State when Hillary Clinton steps down very shortly.
I have no prejudice against any groups or classes of people, but I have to realistic about Obama’s pay back time. So, let’s see: a) she’s a women to satisfy the feminists b) she’s black to satisfy himself and his black supporters, and, although I have no indications, she might be a lesbian to satisfy that crowd. Does it matter if she is qualified for the job? Not to the “government”. Maybe we’ll see another Benghazi on a greater scale.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jimbo November 27, 2012 at 17:08

@sciencedada

I don’t think what you stated is very accurate. I’ve go a boat load of cousins. Some of the girls were easy on their parents and some of the boys were easy on their parents. And, some of each were royal pains in the asses for my aunts and uncles. I will say that almost all of my female cousins have at least four year degrees and a lot of them have six year degrees as is the case with the “girls” in my immediate family. This cannot be said of my male cousins, nor of my immediate family. But, when it comes to work output? The men work harder, longer hours, and more steadily almost across the board. On other difference is that almost all of my female cousins think they no it all and they can’t even try to hide it. This feeling just is not prevalent in my male cousins. As far as girls being more productive than boys… not in the business I’m in, nor in the region I’m in. Perhaps they generally might be in the big city where a lot of the work is done sitting in a chair.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 27, 2012 at 19:42

Glad to see the return of The King MRA Blogger after a much deserved Thanksgiving rest with his children. Blogging day in and day out on so many varied topics is an iron man triathlon only for those of INDOMITABLE WILL. Respect is due. Money might be due too. I just looked up the price of The-Spearhead.com domain as being between 58 and 74K because of the heavy traffic the site gets. I hope Mr. Price never decides to cash in. And I hope every commenter takes the time to consider how much they enjoy The Spearhead and donates what they can to keep the great content flowing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Nemo November 27, 2012 at 20:39

@ MickeyT

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 1990 was a woman. She failed to make it clear that the U.S. would go to war if Kuwait was invaded. It’s not implausible to blame her incompetence for the two Gulf Wars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 28, 2012 at 06:06

Accepting child support for the support of the child is one thing, accepting child support for yourself and you’re new boyfriend is another.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doc November 28, 2012 at 07:23

There comes a time when you just have to acknowledge the battle has been lost and move on. Rather than trying to restore marriage I think it would be better to simply acknowledge that “marriage” as it has been, is finished and move on. That would be a better strategy and teach men how to protect themselves and their assets, and sponsor legislation to protect them – like there being no time limit on protesting that you are the father and a DNA test being incontrovertible proof, and having rights in the say of a child. Right now, each man is left hanging…

Of course telling men how to protect themselves and their assets will get the liberals up in arms, but they will be against you anyway, so you might as well do something meaningful rather than trying to turn back the clock which is a waste of time and effort.

This is why rather than trying to change how the US has gone, tell Americans how to renounce their citizenship and which countries provide a better alternative for citizenship. THAT would get the liberals screaming since each person leaving removes revenues since it will be the “makers” who are leaving. The key should be to provide a USEFUL service which subverts the dominant paradigm. That way you do not have to change something set in stone – rather do an end-run around it…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Mickey T November 28, 2012 at 09:13

Women having babies for money has been a common practice for more years that I can remember because it’s accepted.

I’ll tell you a little story I heard a while back of a girl who wouldn’t take no for an answer:
Seems she was dating a wealthy man and had her eye on his wallet from the beginning of the relationship. He, in the meantime, deposited his sperm for a later time etc. He broke up with her and she was understandably distraught. She knew about the sperm deposit, so she somehow conned her way into the facility and absconded with her ex boyfriend’s sperm. She then and impregnated herself with his sperm and had a child. Last I heard she was living happily ever after.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
CubeZero November 28, 2012 at 17:07

A new male contraceptive is being developed.
It’s called RISUG = “Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance”
- Non-hormonal – does not affect testosterone, libido etc.
- reversible at any given time (vasectomy is practically permanent – RISUG is not)
- takes 15 minutes to apply at your local doctor
- takes 15 minutes to reverse
- holds for 10+ years
- cheap – the doctors time costs more than the RISUG itself
- vasectomy blocks the tube – RISUG does not
- no auto-immune reactions possible
- and several other advantages
- some men in India carry it for 20 years+ without neither problems nor pregnancy
Sources:
http://www.newmalecontraception.org/new-methods-3/risugvasalgel/
http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/Parsemus/New_male_contraceptives.html

If a woman is taking the pill, she gains full veto rights of childbirth.
A man does not have a veto right.
Neither is there any way in which he can exert this veto right like women can.
A condom and rubber does not prevent pregnancy with 100%.

With RISUG any man can have a veto against childbirth.
It’s the pill for the man :)
I consider this equality: both woman and men have a veto right against childbirth.
Women will hate it. Men will love it :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
coptic777 November 29, 2012 at 10:44

I would google “NEEM & BIRTH CONTROL” male birth control has been here for thousands of years naturally w/ no side effects. Spread the word gentlemen…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
coptic777 November 29, 2012 at 10:46

Check this out fellas no need to get cut.
http://www.neemfoundation.org/neem-articles/neem-in-health/neem-cures/birth-control.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 2, 2012 at 08:20

I was against child support before I ever found the MRM. I just thought about the issue and realized that is nothing more than legalized theft. I think it is unfair to say that child support is a favorite program for conservatives. Conservatives generally don’t think about it and don’t realize that it is just a more direct form of welfare. If we want it abolished, we need to show them that child support recipients are really just the same old welfare queens that want “free” stuff that somebody else has to pay for. If a conservative is intellectually consistent and thinks about this issue, he will invariably be on our side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
bruno December 3, 2012 at 05:27

In the current state of the Western world, vasectomy is a Gift From the Gods for men.

It is the only way you can get back control over your own reproduction.
The irreversibility has also a good side: it gives peace of mind.
I know, it’s even worse than going to the dentist, but it’s a small procedure, and it gives a lifetime or security and protection.

Even if the vasectomy prevents just one single woman of getting pregnant from you, against your will, then having that vasectomy was certainly, by far, the best decision and best investment you did in your life.

Just like the gays have celebrities coming out of the closet, giving publicity and promoting gayness, and breaking the taboo, so should also male celebrities come out and promote vasectomy.

Vasectomy is the last wall we have standing to protect ourselves against complete feminist enslavement.

It’s sad that we have to do this, but we have to take action on an individual level, because reversing the ever advancing female privileges is practically impossible, and we will not see it in our lifetime.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno December 3, 2012 at 05:38

Even if you have to pay a few hundred euro’s or dollars for the procedure, the cost of paying 20 years of child support, depending on your wealth, can go up to an enormous amount of money.
Not to mention the mental torture of being ripped off for 20 years.

Forget about investing in the stock market, there is no investment in the world that can give you the return of investing in a vasectomy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
May Peterson April 20, 2013 at 03:21

I’m no man, but I agree with several men here who say that vasectomy is good.
Take the case of my husband and I. Yes, my hubby had the big V, and it wasn’t only him who felt the convenience but also me. Talk about several years of having a great time together without having to worry about me getting pregnant. That is something that you cannot just buy from the counter. Gents would have to agree with me on this.
But since we were just postponing a pregnancy for a long time and didn’t entirely erase the idea of having children, we finally had it reversed. And we got a good doctor to do it because it was a success. For those wondering who he was to ensure that you would also have a good reversal later on if you opt to, he’s Dr. Wilson (Ok), charged us $1700 http://www.microvasreversal.com You’ll have to thank me for having provided his info here.
Anyway, vasectomy is probably the safest form of contraception. I mean, we lasted for several years without using any other form of contraceptive, right? So, for men, go for the big V. Women would love it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: