[Simeon_Strangelight]

Blogger Uncabob mentioned the Dailymail article on his blog:
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-...women.html

The article is so utterly amazing that I will post it in full here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...LLOYD.html

My comments are in brackets and I am highlighting the most juicy morsels. I am frankly a bit surprised that they publish it that openly. 3600 comments so far and many men agree with it in full.

Quote:

A controversial new book argues that the triumph of feminism has meant men are now second-class citizens. (And yet they are still making fun of MRAs as if they are some crazy cooks.)

According to the Office for National Statistics, marriage in Britain is at its lowest level since 1895.

George Clooney, Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne may have all taken the plunge recently — but they are a diminishing band of brothers, for the number of men marrying in the West has plunged in recent decades.

The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery.

According to the Office for National Statistics, marriage in Britain is at its lowest level since 1895. In 2011, there were just 286,634 ceremonies — a 41 per cent free fall from 1972, when 480,285 couples tied the knot.

For an army of women, Mr Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him. And the reason? When it comes to marriage, men are on strike. (That is only partly true. Most women in the West could easily marry, if they absolutely wanted to while being in the prime and being slim. The reason why they won't manage now is because they start looking for Beta Bucks too late and the economy is going nowhere, so there are less providers available.)

Why? Because the rewards are far less than they used to be, while the cost and dangers it presents are far greater.

‘Ultimately, men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,’ says Dr Helen Smith, author of Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream.

‘They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.

‘Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.’

When British businessman Alan Miller married his first wife, Melissa, in 2003, he thought it was for ever. She immediately decided to give up work, including her £85,000 salary, to become what is known as a ‘Harvey Nichols wife’ — spending her time shopping and lunching.

When they separated just two years and nine months later, he was forced to pay her a £5million divorce settlement, which included his £2.3million home in Chelsea and a £2.7million lump sum — despite the fact they did not have children. That’s £5,000 a day of marriage. Ker-ching!

Or take former Arsenal footballer Ray Parlour. When he wed girlfriend Karen in 1998, it all started out rosy. But by the time the relationship fell apart in 2004, the former optician’s nurse didn’t just get two mortgage-free houses, £38,500 in annual support for their three children and a £250,000 tax-free lump sum...

Oh no. She also got personal maintenance of £406,500 a year from her ex’s future earnings. This, she said, was because she had ‘encouraged’ him to be a good midfielder.


(That pro footballer struck Gold with this one - £406.500 per year for that frumpy broad - he could have parties like Dan Bilzerian with Dubai-girls all year for that kind of money.)

This is precisely why the WAG culture rages through our country like an aggressive disease. Girls of 16 aspire to be glamorous girlfriends because it’s an easy life — not because they love the game or even the men playing it.

Young women who wear so much make-up they have to tip their heads back to get their eyes open are encouraged to hunt in packs until they snag a rich footballer.

Why? Because it beats getting up at 7am, doing the daily commute and actually thinking about something other than themselves.

And then, when the marriage is over, it’s time for the wife to make what Mayfair-based divorce lawyer Camilla Baldwin calls ‘some real money — more than the average person ever dreams of’. Especially as some judges, particularly those in London, are renowned for favouring the wife in the division of assets. (Some judges? It's almost all of them!)

So, what’s a man to do? ‘If he’s determined to get married, then he must get a pre-nuptial agreement,’ says Baldwin. ‘Otherwise steer clear altogether. (Good luck with a pre-nup - if you are worth billions maybe with world-class lawyers and connections.)

‘Be in a relationship, even live together. But don’t get married. Especially if you have any prospect of making money.’



American social commentator Suzanne Venker agrees. The problem with divorce settlements, she says, is women want to have their cake and eat it.

‘We messed with the old marriage structure and now it’s broken,’ she says. ‘Back in the old days, stay-at-home mothers got a financial reward because child-rearing doesn’t pay cash.

‘Now we want total independence from men, but if we divorce — even without having children — we expect to get alimony for ever. We can’t have it both ways.’ (Women are like children and they always want it all.)

Along with the prospect of endless domestic criticism, this is why men are saying ‘I don’t’ rather than ‘I do’. Men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. (I love that phrase.)



‘Many women have been raised to think of men as the enemy,’ says Venker. ‘It’s precisely this dynamic — women good, men bad — that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.

‘After decades of browbeating, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s their fault. The rise of women has not threatened men. It has just irritated them.’ (Exactly - we are not threatened, we are not hateful, we are not even angry after the initial Red Pill awakening, we are just pissed off and refuse to live in your frame. We are at best irritated.)

But by far the most negative aspect of marriage is the likelihood of being edited out of your children’s lives — if it all goes pear-shaped — by a state that has relegated the role of father to its lowest point ever. (As Dalrock has pointed out in recent articles - fatherless homes are even more common than shown in the statistics as almost all governments count any man who is shacking up with the mother as a "father": https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/04/29...nt-matter/ & https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/05/06...r-fathers/)

Former Arsenal footballer Ray Parlour's ex-wife Karen got two mortgage-free houses, £38,500 in annual support for their three children, a £250,000 tax-free lump sum and personal maintenance of £406,500 a year from her ex’s future earnings when they split.

It wasn’t always this way. In the 1800s, men typically got custody of the children in the event of a split — not as a result of privilege, but because they were solely financially responsible for them.

They got the children, but they also got the bill. Benefits Britain didn’t exist, encouraging single mums to go it alone.

Now, 200 years on, women get the children, but men still get the bill. Sometimes, men even pay for children who aren’t theirs.

The Child Support Agency has 500 cases of paternity fraud a year, where a mother names a man as the biological father of her child, even when she has a good idea he isn’t. And that’s just the cases we know about. According to a YouGov study, 1.2 million men doubt they are the fathers of their partners’ children. (Cuckold nation! Don't teach women to stop whoring around - teach men to learn to love it!)



The recent case of Steven Carter, from Devon, is not unusual. The CSA deducted £50,000 from his bank account between 2007 and 2014, even though a DNA test later proved the child in question wasn’t his.

They acknowledged this, but the Department of Work and Pensions still will not refund him because the ‘child’ is now 22, thus an adult, and so the case is officially closed.

Then there’s Mark Webb, who raised his ‘daughter’ for 17 years, only to discover she was not biologically related to him. When he sued his former wife for compensation, county and appeal court judges denied his damages claim, brushing it off as ‘a man’s obligation’. To this day, no British woman has been convicted of paternity fraud.

This set-up is no accident, though. Since Harriet Harman and her pals entered politics, the laws that govern family life have been re-jigged to put women on top and men on the back foot.

They decided that families aren’t society’s natural, balanced building block, but a cunning plot to oppress mothers while placing men in undeserving positions of power (when many men were breaking their backs in jobs they hated to keep everything ticking over). (Male privilege recognized.)

To avenge this, they squeezed men from the home and hit them where it hurts: the heart.

Don’t believe me? The Children Act of 1989 specifically declares: ‘The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.’ (Heh - and here I repeat that family has been the enemy of the plutocracy for decades. They even put it down on paper as a rule.)

A year later, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research called The Family Way saw Harman declare: ‘It cannot be assumed men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion.’

Even now, the Children and Families Act of 2014 doesn’t mention the word ‘father’ once. Not once.

Sir Bob Geldof was one of the first high-profile men to challenge the legislation after losing access to his daughters Peaches, Pixie and Fifi when Paula Yates left him in 1995.

‘It was beyond expensive,’ he told me. ‘I had to borrow money and was close to losing it all. In the end, my circumstances changed, but it could have been very different.

‘Men still spend thousands getting court orders that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The whole system is disgusting.

‘I remember a court clerk telling me: “Whatever you do, don’t say you love your children. Family courts consider men who articulate this as extreme.” It was madness.’ (Loving your children is "creepy". You might be a pedophile. What is wrong with you? Just pay the bills and fuck off!)

According to the Office for National Statistics, one in three youngsters have no access to their fathers, which equates to four million children in the UK.

But there is a ray of hope, says Dr Craig Pickering, from the charity Families Need Fathers. ‘The Children and Families Act says, for the first time in English law, that both parents should be involved in a child’s life after divorce,’ he says.

‘The trouble is that its effectiveness depends on what the judges make of it. It wouldn’t be the first time that they came up with their own bizarre interpretation of something straightforward.’

Pickering says sanctions should be imposed on mothers who fail to co-operate, such as passports and driving licences being confiscated.

‘The Government consulted on this, but stopped mid-way through,’ he says. ‘We don’t know why.’ (I have a good idea why. Family must go. As predicted in 1984 and Brave New World - the people are easier to control when each individual fights for himself. The men have no families to fight for and the women are more docile anyway while depending completely on the government. No reform will get anywhere.)

I put this to Edward Timpson, Minister for Children and Families. Eventually, I was told by the Ministry of Justice: ‘The consultation concluded we should not introduce further punitive enforcement elements. There are already punishments available.’

Hmm. Perhaps someone needs to tell them they don’t work.

Considering that the annual cost of family breakdown is reportedly £44billion — that’s more than the defence budget — you’d think curing fatherlessness would be a priority for a country haemorrhaging money. But it isn’t.

Instead, everyone is petrified of inadvertently apportioning blame to single mothers, even though it’s not about them. Only recently, in a bid to woo the female vote, David Cameron said deadbeat dads ‘should be looked at like drink drivers’, yet said nothing about the mothers who deliberately steer them off the road.

Here we had the head of the Government telling men to raise children properly, yet offering a law that actively keeps children and fathers apart as the solution. So much for family values.

Meanwhile, single-parent organisations such as Gingerbread — supported by children’s author J. K. Rowling of all people — casually dismiss studies that suggest a lack of male role models at home increases the likelihood of crime and mental illness.(Indeed - all women need to do is write a billion dollar bestseller and all is set for their family.)

This is despite a study conducted by Oxford University, which followed 20,000 children from 1958 and found those with a father were far less likely to break the law or suffer from psychological issues. Young boys with involved fathers also performed better at school.

Dr Paul Ramchandani, of Imperial College London, conducted a study that found ‘disengaged and remote father-child interactions as early as the third month of life’ often lead to behaviour problems in children when they are older.

The logic is simple — not having a father leaves a hole in the soul.

A void that young people frequently fill with drugs, alcohol or intimacy. This might not sit well in the feminist family framework, but sometimes the truth hurts.

In 2012, the substance misuse charity Addaction published a report that proved father deficit to be real, causing anger, self-loathing, addiction and identity issues.

It saw young men compensate with a ‘counterfeit masculinity’ of strength, anger and violence, often combined with sexual prowess.
Meanwhile, young women ‘act out a skewed version of femininity that prioritises the use of sex and relationships with men above all else’. (Girls become sluts, deranged feminists and SJWs, while the boys become effeminate White Knights or go Dark Triad - take your pick.)

Cruelly, this creates the cycle all over again, with teenagers jumping into bed with each other without a thought for the consequences.

The Trust for the Study of Adolescence recently proved scores of teenage girls in Britain are deliberately becoming young mothers as a career move because, with the state and the father contributing, it offers more guaranteed security than a job.


(Career talk 2015:
"Mary Sue, you are 15 now, what do you want to become when you are big?
"I want to become pregnant!"
"Actually I am already off my pill and trying to get knocked up by that hot guy who sells weed in our neighborhood. That's a stable career choice and beats working as a cashier in the supermarket." )

(Career Teen pregnancy Barbie.)

Even 13-year-old girls admitted this, which might explain why Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, at an annual government cost of nearly £63million.

Perhaps the law-makers need to think about radical action to break the cycle. Maybe men could be allowed to have a financial abortion from a child to which they didn’t pre-consent.

In a specified time — say, legal abortion guidelines — men could be allowed to formally relinquish all monetary obligations, rights and responsibilities if duped into fatherhood. The woman still wants to proceed? Fine, that’s her choice. But not on his salary.

Controversial? Yes. But overnight we would see fewer acts of conception by deception. And that can only be a good thing — for men and for society.

While there are many positive comments on our side - many women just don't get how severe the situation is and they prefer to use good old AlphaFuxBetaBucks scripts as before:

Quote:

My boyfriend wants me to move in with him. I have kindly but firmly declined, to the dismay of basically every woman I know. "Why not? Are you planning on breaking up with him? What's the difference? Don't you want to save rent costs?" The men are much more understanding, and even inform me (in front of him) to stick with my position. The problem is that so many women are willing to accept less than what they should have in life. They will do what he wants in bed, clean his laundry and kitchen, cook all his food, and in general be his mum all the time. As the article says, why should he marry the woman with all of the legal risks? I have told my boyfriend that when we are married, we will live together. Not before. This isn't a negotiation, just a personal boundary that I think is a good idea. As my dad used to say, "Why buy a loaf of bread when you can get all the slices for free anyways?"

2000+ upvotes

So women don't give a shit while reading articles like that. It's always about them.

Nothing will change. Despite being a good sign that such articles appear in the mainstream you will note that only MRAs are getting mentioned there. Why? Because the family being gone is what they want and MRAs and MGTOWs avoiding marriage and then bitching about those crappy women won't change anything.

Neomasculinity however - as promoted by the likes of Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi or Roosh - that part of the 'sphere is not welcome. Those men could actually create nuclear families even if they avoid marriage to have more hand in the relationship. Those men could forge a strong masculine brotherhood or even reignite their own families, because they have the tools to pick the right woman and to have her living happily in his frame.

Articles like that are good and bad at the same time, because they are Red Pill but offer no real hope. At least more men will be warned of marriage - that's better than nothing.