I could write a book in reply to your post.  You wouldn't want to read it, but I could write it.

- I agree that the roles of husband and father are held in low esteem in contemporary American society.  I don't think the situation is as bad as you do, but it's bad.  Has been bad.   Soon - the sooner the better, actually - you and fifty million or so men like you need to decide whether you want to seriously seek redress for your legitimate grievances, or whether you'd rather just continue seeking the emotional satisfaction of indiscriminately fulminating about women on the internet.  

I say this because there are millions upon millions of women in America whose happiness is linked to the emotional and financial well-being their fathers and brothers, their husbands an sons.  Lucky for  you too, because like women needed help from men of good conscience to address our grievances, you need our help with yours.  You can't do it without us, not any more, you waited too long.   While there are probably a few saints around who don't mind being kicked in the teeth by the people they're trying to help, most do.  It's pretty much up to y'all; do what you think best.

- Because he wanted to be a husband and father and didn't give a shit how society viewed those roles.  Because he was like, you know, a man?

So in a country where 43% of children grow up without a father present, how do they learn this?

Alimony is usually for a finite period, not an indefinite, lifetime payout, at least from what I have come to understand. That would indicate to me, at least, that there is some other reason for why divorced women are less likely to want to marry again.

I'm going to assume this directed at me.  How does who learn what?

For starters, many of the fathers of those 43% aren't there even when they have the opportunity. I have heard countless tales of fathers that don't even bother to pick the kids up for their weekends or weeks. Those fathers need to demonstrate the value of the man of the house while they're in the house. Beyond that, as Jane mentioned, you are going to have to start appealing to women to help you. Only with the cooperation of women will you be able to effect changes in the family court or academia. Only with women's support will you be able to change the perception that men are superfluous.

You will not engender that support with snide remarks, or catchy gotchas, or lashing out. As Zhukov said, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and right now men need to be working furiously to gain the support of women, not browbeating and alienating us. At least, assuming they actually want anything to change and aren't just wanting to sit at a computer bitching to their buddies in a relative echo chamber.

I don't want my ass kissed.  I'd be thrilled if they'd just stop saying retarded shit like the government subsidizes women who decide to stay single.  I've been single most of my life and the government didn't subsidize me with a damn thing.  I subsidized it.

Exactly.

Fuck that. Game theory bitches. I'm getting mines. The genders are adversaries and I'm aiming to win. I've read Sun Tsu, the Hagakure, CoCo Chanel's autobiography,  How to Win Friends and Influence People, the Prince and Making Faces. No man stands a chance. Muahhahhahhha!

I don't know about single women, but the subsidies are absolutely available as a safety net for single mothers.  Not stating that as any kind of argument, just pointing out a fact.

You need to mention you've read every article in Cosmo for five years running. It establishes dominance.

To be fair though, those subsidies and programs are available for single Fathers as well. WIC for example is just the name of a program - it is not exclusive to women with children. At my last company I worked with a Dad who lost his wife to Pancreatic cancer. She was survived by him and their three-year-old twin daughters - one of whom is special needs with severe developmental disabilities. Myself and others helped as much as we could financially, and we continue to help with childcare, errands, and projects around the house. Ultimately, the amount of debt he accrued while fighting her illness was ... shocking

He made far too much money initially for most of the programs and subsidies, outside of fuel assistance for home heating oil. Eventually he was forced to jettison his career for the sake of the kids. He ended up losing the house, but was placed in a section 8 apartment until he could get back on his feet. Having to buy groceries with an EBT card was pretty rough on his pride and dignity, but his kids had to eat.

Unlike so many others (women and men) he used the programs he qualified for as a safety net ... rather than a hammock.

Of course they are, but that isn't what he said.  He said the government subsidizes women who decide not to marry and especially if they are mothers.  IOW, it subsidizes all single women, mothers more so.  Not true.  

this is a gun board.  I am sure the 10 women on here are going to perpetuate a sea change.

how does one go about "furiously" to gain the support of women to deliberately undermine their own equities for "the good of the nation?"

Anytime a republican (cause sure as shit democrats aren't going to do a fucking thing about it) the entire media complex and good women everywhere scream patriarchy and then lecture on how men don't get a say in anything to do with women and children, because WIC and reasons.

her body, her choice, his paycheck.

remember dan quayle?

I am sure gender studies/womens studies programs will get right on that.

As a guardsman, trust me, you don't get full timers to think part timers are doing anything.

so, yet again, its still the men's fault for not doing anything to change women's minds.

anecdote is not data.  you are describing, literally, the 1%

yes, any single parent can qualify.  and if those safety programs were limited to widows and widowers, this wouldn't be an issue.

but when a woman chooses to put herself in that situation, and still gets all those wonderful things you listed, that is entirely a different problem set.

You're doomed.

Me personally?

I'm fine.

The nation?

bill Clinton and barrack Obama both grew up without their fathers.

Totally OT- LOVE the new profile pic Naamah.


If you even live in a state that has alimony and if you even get awarded it. Doesn't mean you'll get it, otherwise child support would always be paid, just b/c it was ordered to be paid, does not mean that it will be. And yes, alimony is for a set time period, from what I understand. I didn't want it. Now, my mom will never remarry (she's a fucking widow, no big deal) b/c she WANTS to collect my dad's SS and crap when she is of age. She NEVER wants to work again and she's well on her way to having that lifestyle. Lazy bitch.

And yes, if my current spouse died or we divorced, I am fucking done with marriage.

You as in, y'all men folk and anyone who can see beyond immediate personal gain.

Me, I live in the now of female thought. Raping male personal bank accounts and state coffers and spending it all on Starbucks and Magic Mike XXL tickets. Life is good. Pass the Nutella.

that is the perfect gif for you in GD.

LOL...This thread has legs.  

so if they are available to any single parent, they are not just for women. They do not just subsidize single motherhood, but rather single parenthood. So implying that they are strictly available to subsidize single women and not single men is disingenuous at best. Furthermore, while they are awarded primarily to women (who tend to be primary custodial parents), that does not mean they are utilized solely by those they are awarded to. There are plenty of men living in Section 8 housing, swiping their EBT cards, and dropping the kids off at subsidized day care.

One has only to watch "The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" to see how it has become an intergenerational legacy of learning to game the system. That's not just women, that's FSA life. And it would probably get fixed real fast if those benes were only available to widows and widowers., with orphanages for the kids whose parents couldn't afford to keep them.

I can absolutely agree that the state is subsidizing single people, the majority of whom are women, making poor decisions. I disagree with the assertion that the state subsidizes the choices of single women who are not mothers to remain single, or that all single mothers are FSA leeches. The state simply subsidizes people that chose to have children they could not afford, usually out of wedlock. And behaviors that are rewarded are often repeated.

I agree in bold.

I will also state however that in the vast majority of cases where men are a single parent that, too, was the choice of the mother.

10 women alone won't enact a change, no. But 10 women that go out into the world and have these same discussions with women they know may produce more converts, who will then have conversations with women they know. You eat an elephant the same way you eat a 6 oz filet. One bite at a time.

And you convince women by actually having reasonable conversations with us. Of course, this is predicated on the fact that you are able to interact with women in such a way that we will listen to your well-reasoned thoughts on the subject matter, and that you can keep yourself from sounding like a "MATRIARCHY" screaming loon. That is no more appealing to women than the "PATRIARCHY" screaming moonbat is to men.

And yes, liberals are very adept at shouting down dissenting opinions. That's how they roll. You can either figure out a way to work around that, or you can throw your hands in the air and give up. What does a good general do when confronted with a successful enemy strategy? Does he find a way to work around it, keep sending men into the meat grinder, or throw his hands in the air and give up?

And it isn't the men's fault for doing nothing to convince us. It's just a piss poor strategy to snarl and growl and snap at the people whose help you need. A metaphor, if you will. Say you go down to an animal shelter. You've been thinking about getting a dog, and decide to see what's available. (This would be a woman that perhaps had a conversation with a female friend about the shit deal men are getting in the family courts.) At the shelter, you encounter a dog that is snarling, growling, and snapping at anyone that wanders by. You aren't really concerned with why the dog is acting the way it is. You don't know its history, or anything about it. All you see is the nasty disposition. Would you take that dog home? Would that dog inspire you to even want a dog anymore, or would it convince you that it was a dumb idea to begin with? Now imagine that the dog is friendly and enthusiastic to spend time with you. You would likely be much more convinced to adopt that dog, and perhaps encourage others to do the same.

If you want people to adopt a cause that is near and dear to you, that you feel is important, a decent strategy might start off with not doing your level best to drive them away.

The destruction of the family is arguably one of the most important issues to address, as it directly drives the size and power of the federal government.
take that statement independently.

What other issues are more important?

As for me, white men don't get to have this conversation.

Purely anecdotal, but most of the single dads I know (and there are several) wanted kids with the woman. They were either married at the time or had been in a relationship with the mama for a while. So the decision to have the kids was a mutual one. Then later on, The relationship went south and dad ended up with the kids. Now if you mean choice of the mother in surrendering her parental rights, then yes, I agree. But if it's just that the women were deciding to have the kids without the full support and cooperation of the fathers, then no.

And in at least one case, the mother lobbied hard for full custody and was denied because she's a nutcase. Another one is fighting for equal custody, but can barely take care of herself (not monetarily, she just has zero concept of what needs done on a daily basis because someone's always taken care of those little details like cooking and grocery shopping and doctor's appointments and such).

Don't look, but you're having this conversation right now!

anonymously on a gun board.

quite the bold stand for freedom, eh?

Still debating which avatar I prefer.

Except we're not anonymous. We've met in person.

Where better to secure allies for your cause than among the women on ARFCOM, all of whom are here because they either deliberately seek out the company of men or, at least, share common interests.  I realize the numbers are small, but no single drop of rain causes the flood, nor does a single shovel of dirt build the dam to hold it back.

Your characteristic contemptuous dismissal of us notwithstanding, there are probably hundreds of women here.  You may not see them, but they see you.  They read your splenetic, disjointed ravings like those above, and some, I am confident, join me in wondering, "Is this guy actively trying to recruit new members for NOW?"  Because, I gotta tell you, Sylvan, you, and guys like you, are Terry O'Neil's wet dream.  And I don't mean because she secretly lusts for butthurt white men.

I know that.  And it was a pleasure.  But,  as mentioned to Zhukov, debates like this rarely, if ever, sway the participants.  Its the passive observers who are captured.

And incidentally, we tend to agree on the larger issues. The devil's always in the details, though, isn't it?

I have noticed both.

If it's any consolation after reading this thread, my wife and I got into an argument the mirrored this discussion last night.





 

oops.

Have you apologized yet?

people can do as much drugs, drinking and fucking they want, and as irresponsibly as they want IF they have enough personal pride to not seek assistance from the government

the real problem here, with everything (lol) really, is the death of self-reliance as a virtue

people should be fucking ashamed to take handouts from the government but instead they are proud

the only thing that can be done is legislatively.  stop rewarding behavior we wish to discourage.  In the absence of subsidies, people will stop doing stupid stuff.  but with the full knowledge that the democratic party exists to maximize the number of people dependent upon government.  that is their center of gravity.

so you need republicans who are willing to endure the endless shrieking insults of the harpies.

While we're wishing for shit we're not going to get, can I have a monkey?

The solution is to attempt to limit the size of the pie to be fought over, and have the Democratic Party's constituent elements fight Thunderdome style over it.

works for me

This last year there was a bill strengthening laws against rape that sailed through the Utah legislature.  That, in and of itself, isn't a problem.  The issue is that one of the legislators noticed potential unintended consequences with how the bill was written.  He dared to mention that the way the bill was written, a husband who initiated sexual contact with a sleeping wife would be in violation of the law.  

Say some man named John wakes up with a raging erection.  Not wanting to let a good erection go to waste, he starts getting frisky with his wife, Jane, while she's still asleep.  Since Jane hadn't filled out and signed consent forms in triplicate (Yes, I'm exaggerating about the consent forms) giving John express permission in advance to touch her that specific evening, John would technically be a rapist according to this new law and the legislator thought it important to point this out.

The legislator was figuratively crucified in the media for daring to question the wisdom of the bill or its technicalities.  You better believe that he was made to toe the line post haste.  This is just one example of why it is so difficult to correct bad policies.  The moment anyone tries to address the problems, the "war on women" accusation or something similar gets made and the person raising questions gets silenced.

Now every once in a great while the outcry of victimized men is loud enough, and gets enough national attention, that a bit of progress is made.  That happened here in Utah because so many women were coming to Utah to give birth and immediately put the child up for adoption without any legal consideration for the rights of the biological fathers.  Pretty rare for that kind of momentum to build against a state policy, though.

that's Utah.

bunch of Mormon Taliban running around putting women in burkas minivans and suburbans

Nailed it.

But to be fair, you have to have custody to benefit from these subsidies.  When divorce courts award custody automatically to the woman, how much money will a man get?  The divorce court are horribly biased against men, and the "fairness" of these benefits being available to single fathers is silly.  The primary way a man gets sole custody is when his wife dies of pancreatic cancer.  

A man would have to earn $70,000 per year to get the equivalent benefits a single mother with 2 children gets from the government.  Those lips may look flabby, but they use them as a sole means of support.

I'd buy a ticket to watch.

That's exactly the same policy the DoD has concerning sexual assault.  Furthermore, a woman who has any amount of alcohol can no longer consent to sex, so if your wife has a glass of wine and you bone her, you are a rapist.  Any time you mention this idiocy of that, they shout you down and tell you to "stop blaming the victim".

If anyone thinks any of this is gonna change then you are fucking deluded. PlaneJane herself has  stated not to expect any help from women because it was  a man's problem, since we are supposedly the ones in charge. I think I stopped giving a fuck after that.

The only thing that is gonna fix this is a reset, the failure of America. Make the leaches fight each other for what's left. When we regroup we maybe we can fix this but the erosion of federalism and entitlement culture has guaranteed that this won't change with the government we  now have.

I'm not inclined to join NOW, but with each whiny, bitching post on GD, each post blaming women for everything, my sympathy meter goes down a notch. The hysteria, the continual blaming, the painting of women as whores, no interests, lazy, and so forth.

We ARF women have reminded you guys for ages now that anyone can come across these forums, can read these threads. Who knows how many women have lurked here, maybe not even joined the forums, but have been shocked by the crap they read here. They hightail it out of here, shaking their heads and any interest they may have in the subjects and causes discussed here is completely dead. Hey, these guys wish we women never got the vote! They think we're all selfish, unstable gold-diggers! Oh yeah, what a great group of guys!

Then you guys turn around and blame women for not being more sympathetic of your concerns. While making yourselves look as unsympathetic as possible.

Oops.

Not all men are the same.