On Rob’s Excellent Comment at In Mala Fide Regarding No Fault Divorce

Rob, proprietor of the excellent blog No Ma’am made an excellent point at In Mala Fide that we unfairly pin the death of the Family on the institution of no-fault divorce when it was in fact the change in custody laws from automatic paternal custody to automatic MATERNAL custody that swung the pendulum in favor of rampant divorce.  Nothing will keep a woman in a marriage like the fear of losing her children:


(The scene I wanted is split RIGHT in half between these two chunks, of course!)

Problem is the Feminists seem to always be one step ahead.  What attended automatic maternal custody?  The cultural inculcation of FEAR OF MEN.  How can we ever return to paternal custody as long as the cultural belief that men are ALL  abusive Sex Offenders persists? 

We were watching episodes of the original Hulk TV series the other day and my Husband was struck with the observation that the wandering David Banner is welcomed into 100 homes and entrusted with 100 kids throughout the series with NO EVIDENCE that men were to be automatically distrusted in the presence of children.  Look at all of the other shows like it, Knight Rider, the A Team–in all of these shows the most common motif is males as PROTECTORS of strange children, not their chief threat. 

I am not a conspiracy theorist–so I can’t say this was done deliberately, but that the vile memes of Feminism have accreted upon each other like the layers of a pearl as the horrible consequences of putting their philosophy into action unfolded.  First came the sexual liberation, then the spectacle of millions of women inviting BAD strange men into their homes without regard to their background or quality and THEN came the abuse and molestations followed not by the demonization of EVIL men or the women who pulled them into their homes but the demonization of ALL men.  This of course, like all feminist action, did nothing but hurt GOOD men and increase their removal from the purview of women and their children.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to On Rob’s Excellent Comment at In Mala Fide Regarding No Fault Divorce

  1. Justin says:

    This is a subject about which I have thought in some depth. There is really a very simple and innocuous way to accomplish this, without specifically turning it into a war between the sexes.

    All that needs to be done is to make “financial ability to support the child” part of custody considerations. It actually makes perfect sense and is gender neutral on its face. If you don’t have the financial ability to support the child, you shouldn’t be getting custody. It would eliminate a huge number of divorces that are done with cash-out motivations.

    Of course, the assumption of shared custody would also go a long way as well, and would probably be easier to get passed.

    The idea of assumed paternal custody is a great idea, but it is so pie-in-the-sky in our current cultural environment, I wouldn’t even waste breath on it.

    First, assumed shared custody; second, means testing for custody; third, elimination of all involuntary support payments…. THEN we can begin striking at the heart of the beast.

    • Janus says:

      I like the idea that whoever files for no-fault divorce automatically cedes primary custody to the other parent. If you want to divorce and keep the kids, then you need to prove fault. There would need to be a simultaneous reform of DV laws, however, since women would now have an incentive to file even more false claims.

  2. Justin says:

    Do you remember all those movies in the 70’s about abusive men? I was young then, but I still remember lots of Hollywood movies in the 70’s graphically showing women getting beaten bloody by their husbands/boyfriends/random strangers.

    THAT is how you change laws.

    Until we control some sort of cultural expression, with the ability to churn out TV shows and movies constantly highlighting female evil, this is really a lost cause.

    Everyone naturally votes to support laws based on what they “know” because it’s what they’ve “seen” so often. Leaving custody in the hands of men makes absolutely no sense in that cultural climate.

  3. maurice says:

    I always really liked Bill Bixby in that show. He’s a trustworthy guy.

    Not sure the Islamic Republic is the best example to cite here. (“You don’t like me! you REALLY, REALLY don’t like me!”)

    But the point is an awesome one. Best piece on the evil of the divorce industry is Devlin’s- absolutely shocking that due process and many other Constitutional protections are simply dispensed with – it’s all around us, every day, and yet noone notices

    • Doug1 says:

      Maurice–

      Best piece on the evil of the divorce industry is Devlin’s- absolutely shocking that due process and many other Constitutional protections are simply dispensed with – it’s all around us, every day, and yet noone notices

      That’s because you have to go to certain corners of the internet to find out about it. The mainstream media just won’t deal with the subject at all. Except rarely in local papers treating a story is a bizarre exception.

  4. dana says:

    LOL@ “you don’t like me”

    but seriously

    it was the BEST example–the key to that whole story was that she would have been free to go home at ANY time had she simply left her daighter in her husbands custody–she risked life and limb not to. this is stunning evidence of how custody going to women immediately eased the path to divorce.

  5. maurice says:

    Right- agreed on the basic principle- but the legal system that mandated that particular paternal custody (Sharia from the 7th century) is not, to put it mildly, remotely applicable to our framework of Constitution and laws. It’s impossible to see how the genie could ever get put back in the bottle, or even how the bottle gets put together from shards of glass. Easy to destroy institutions, laws and assumptions built up over centuries: then what? Maybe that’s why the manosphere is so long on anger, whining, complaining, etc. and short on solutions: intuitively everyone knows it’s not really possible to change, short of a Collapse of Rome/Barbarian Conquest scenario.

  6. dana says:

    maurice–i agree you likely wont be able to turn back to that for a while, thats why i suggested custody to the financially more able spouse in my post on covenant marriage–did you read that?

  7. maurice says:

    I did, and I agree, for whatever that’s worth. But how, PRACTICALLY and REALISTICALLY, would you get there from here? Devlin’s piece suggested that the judges and other court officials who have to enforce these crap laws are often disgusted, and try to exercise common sense, but are browbeaten and bullied into compliance by the (tiny minority of) feminist legal activists who are, apparently, very well funded and organized. The phrase “best interest of the child” has taken on a sinister and Orwellian meaning in that context. I guess lobbying State legislatures for a change in the laws? How would you sell that given the total brainwashing of the culture on this subject? Challenging the due process violations Consitutionally? Who would do this? As has been pointed out repeatedly in the androsphere, men don’t really behave or think like that.

  8. Janus says:

    Dana,

    I’m not sure about your proposal that the higher earning parent get automatic custody. It would encourage women to be even more careerist than they now are. Women who might otherwise choose to stay at home with the children would be incentivized to try to go out and outearn their husbands.

    • dana says:

      justin

      why would a woman like you describe enter into a “covenant marriage” as i outlined in the first place? a woman entering marriage with an eye on the exit would more likely opt for “plain” marriage in the first place and would be more circumspect about her breeding habits with the knowledge that a child would cause an automatic covenant marriage by operation of law. also a man encountering a women of this character would be more likely to opt for pure cohabitation and wrap it up so as to AVOID children and the specter of forced covenant marriage to her.

      the point of this exercise is to bring back the only true regulatory force in human behavior–consequences

  9. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Still Playing Catch-Up Edition (NSFW)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s