“She deserved more!”


——————————————————————————–
04 August 2006

I overheard a couple of thirtysomething women at work today talking about the massive divorce settlment in the news yesterday. Naturally they were in favour of it. I didn’t hear much of the conversation, just something along the lines of:

“…she bloody well deserved half of the fortune! If anything she got less than she was entitled to.”

“That’s right. Because she married him, it meant he was free to work.”

“It’s a disgrace. I can’t believe she only got about a third. Half is what she deserved. That would be equality.”

Naturally I didn’t even bother butting in. These women, like most, clearly have no grasp of justice or logic. They simply think that a woman somehow contributes to a man’s fortune just by being married to him and sharing his wealth.

The arguments in favour of big divorce settlements generally claim that wives somehow help a man earn more, that they “free” him to work more.

This, of course, has been scientifically proven to be bollocks.

Quite simply, if this was true, the fact that the marriage rate has plummeted and it’s’ predicted that a third of women aged under 30 will never ever marry, we should have women rejoicing that they will never marry and horrified at the idea of some clingy man proposing marriage to her, whilst we’d have men moaning about not being able to find a woman willing to commit. Obviously we don’t have this. We have women moaning constantly about not being able to find a man willing to get married, about boyfriends who refuse to propose even after going out with them for years. Likewise, women claim they deserve a fortune for “sacrificing” their careers, when clearly they, in fact, primarily want to marry so they can give up their jobs. Young women tend to be enthusiastic about work, but not for long; I’ve honestly never met more than a small handful of women who have been in the workforce for more than five-years who actually like it and would refuse the chance to give it all up and be supported by a husband. Just about every woman who has been in the workforce more than five-years is either apathetic about their work or, more often, utterly loathes working and bitches and moans constantly about how much they hate their jobs and how they wish a nice “rich man” could let them give it up.

Quite simply, single men are happy and free and only an ever dwindling number love the idea of being married, whilst single women – certainly those over the age of 28 – complain that men aren’t willing to commit, that their boyfriends are so annoying because they haven’t proposed yet, and how much they despise their jobs.

This doesn’t quite back up the theory that marriage is so fantastically wonderful for men and a burden for women. People – both men and women – make decisions that are beneficial to them; the fact that men retreat from marriage whilst women are so enthusiastic about it makes it obvious who it is really benefiting.

In the divorce case, it is more accurate to say that Mr Charman worked so that his wife could be free to stay at home, not vice versa.

But then, there’s no logic involved in these settlements and things like Child Support. Quite simply, if it benefits women, then it will be done.

Stay single.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:13 PM
——————————————————————————–

At 7:08 PM, NYMOM said…

Stay single…

Fine.

But then don’t complain when women have children and create families w/o you…and try to make up all these statistical lies about how indepensable you all are to children.

I think everyone is getting a little tired of that old chestnut.

——————————————————————————–

At 9:33 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

You obviously didn’t pay attention in sex education. Men are needed to have children.

And don’t say women can go to the sperm banks, they’re drying up too.

And what statistical lies are you on about? It’s well proven, by both statistics and common sense, that children raised without fathers have a greater chance of becoming criminals, sluts, druggies and single mothers themselves. I even heard a woman who described herself as a feminist admit, off-hand, that she wanted to move out of her area because “the place is filling up with single mums and their horrible children.”

Single mothers are ruining society. Fortunately they’ll die out when the Welfare Kitty, Sperm Banks and pool of Gullible Men all run dry, then women will have no option but to start being nice and loyal in order to have kids, and us men will be back in charge again. Like we should be.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:32 PM, Davout said…

For the umpteenth time, women cannot do jack shit without men, let alone ‘create babies’.

Grow up Nymom. Oh wait, it’s too late for that.

——————————————————————————–

At 1:49 AM, Anonymous said…

Well said Duncan! 😀

Errr nymom, a single mother and her bastard is not a family.

——————————————————————————–

At 8:22 AM, nevo said…

What judges fail to see is that a woman in a whealty marriage do not do anything in the home. I witnessed myself that invariably all wealthy familys have maids, nannys, chauffeurs, gardeners and assorted servants (like butlers or squires). So their claim of being housewifes or housekeepers or housebound slaves do not stand up to scrutiny.
In fact the housewife runs the house like her own fiefdom. That is when she is capable to do just that.
The whole thing is just laughable. I have a neighbour which she’s totally incapable of carrying out any tasks. And yet she drives a four wheel drive car, wears expensive clothes and behaves like she was an aristocrat. All that paid for by her husband.
No doubt that sometime in the future there will be a divorce, when she feels it is safe to rid herself of the husband.
Nymom is right Stay single, get a flashy car, and a thick wallet and enjoy yourself.
You’ll eventually find out is cheaper that way.

NEVO

——————————————————————————–

At 10:28 AM, Steve said…

Men should relegate women in the modern era to live-apart fuck and relationship buddies, nannies etc but NEVER under the same ROOF.

This simple lifestyle change between men and women removes the outdated leech wife from having any say in his fortune when the inevitable pro-female divorce process comes around.

Having a “wife” is so 20th century.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:05 PM, HAWKEYE said…

check this out ,it is fair dinkum(the truth)
the chineses symbol for trouble is (two woman under one roof)
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

——————————————————————————–

At 2:57 AM, Anonymous said…

1) Single mothers are a drain on the rest of society via welfare or messed up child support payment schemes.

2) Single mother’s kids statistically grow up to be more likely involved in crime.

3) Typically, single mothers are single because they can’t get along with men, or are irresponsible sluts. Okay, SURE there are “exceptions to the rule” … but it *IS* the rule, typically.

4) The icing on the cake is that single mothers encourage other women to become single mothers and adopt the same immoral outlook as they have.

I mean NyMom, are you seriously saying that a child in an actual FAMILY is not any better off than with a single mother? Unless you can deny this statement you are contributing to a social ill.

Ever considered you might just be in deep denial of your own shortcomings…

——————————————————————————–

At 2:09 PM, NYMOM said…

Many statistics have come out that show that single mothers making over $50,000 raise children just fine…the single mothers you keep pointing to are all lower-class welfare recipients.

You’ll have to remember if you keep feeding that line to society men will continue being on the hook for women and any children they bear.

Freeing women to have families (if they are responsible and wish to do so) will ultimately free MEN from the burden many of you appear to want to shed.

So think about that angle of it…

——————————————————————————–

At 3:56 PM, Anonymous said…

…then women will have no option but to start being nice and loyal in order to have kids, and us men will be back in charge again. Like we should be.

Duncan,

The rule of quadruple damages applies. Right now the clock (since the approximate start of feminism) is running at 40 years X 4 = 160 years. They’re not going to get off that easy, let bygones be bygones and all the crap.

——————————————————————————–

At 4:02 PM, Anonymous said…

Stay single…

Fine.

But then don’t complain when women have children and create families w/o you…and try to make up all these statistical lies about how indepensable you all are to children.

I think everyone is getting a little tired of that old chestnut.

Dingbat,

Have you ever been to a ghetto and seen the wonderful job SINGLE mothers do with their children???

Even kids from middle and upper-middle class one parent families, (i.e., without the father present) tend to turn out extremely fucked up.

You are in DEEP, DEEP denial. Pretty much like every woman. You probably indulge in retail therapy (“If I just shop enough I’ll feel better. Everything will be better”).

A practical definition of a nightmare. Having stupid people in charge. And women are VERY stupid.

——————————————————————————–

At 3:41 AM, NYMOM said…

“…160 years…”

Well western civilization will be pretty much gone by then if you expect to continue this nonsense for 160 years…

——————————————————————————–

At 3:44 AM, NYMOM said…

“Even kids from middle and upper-middle one-parent families (i.e., without the father around) tend to turn out pretty fucked up.”

That’s not really true, at least not in the US.

That’s what you would LIKE to believe however…but it’s not the case.

——————————————————————————–

At 8:39 PM, Anonymous said…

“…160 years…”

Well western civilization will be pretty much gone by then if you expect to continue this nonsense for 160 years…

The 160 years figure is 4 times the number of years feminism has been around. The longer feminism remains then the longer the payback will take (multiplication).

Since the Patriarchy CREATED civilization your statement makes no sense. But since the Patriarchy is at least half gone now then yes, at the current rate of decay, Western civilization as we know it will be gone in a century.

——————————————————————————–

At 8:46 PM, Anonymous said…

“Even kids from middle and upper-middle one-parent families (i.e., without the father around) tend to turn out pretty fucked up.”

That’s not really true, at least not in the US.

That’s what you would LIKE to believe however…but it’s not the case.

I guess you’ve never been to a local public school (aka prison/brothel). Yes, children are SO much better off today than in the 1950s. Shootings, drugs, girls dress like sluts, etc…

Parents are pulling their kids out of public schools and homeschooling them for no good reason huh?

——————————————————————————–

At 6:36 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…

It’s been a few years since I last debated on any forum. The regressive state of discussion was partly to account for my departure. I can’t say I appreciate the vulgarity I’ve seen on Eternal Bachelor either, however it’s a little cleaner than other places I’ve visited. Perhaps I’ll talk to you fellows about that at another time. At any rate, I’ll get to the subject at hand. NYmom, I encourage you to read my entire post.

NYmom, what statistical claims do you find untrue? Do you honestly believe that statistics suggested by Duncan and others were completely fabricated and have no basis in reality? Remember, we are dealing with “what is,” not pipe dreams of how half-families “could be” if unrealistic conditions were met. With that in mind, would you please provide some objective sources that back your statistical claims? I will do the same.

It’s illogical to imply we’re jealous of single mother families that we deem broken. If such families were desirable, wouldn’t we be inclined to join them? Wouldn’t it be more plausible to conclude that Eternal Bachelors are rather complaining about the negative ramifications that these single mother “families” force upon society? Let’s honestly approach the discussion and strive to accurately reflect the views of even those we detest.

NYmum, whether you think Duncan and his friends have cooties or not, they are factually correct. I will reiterate and expound on some of what has been said. You’ll find ((facts)) along with some commentary and footnotes below.

Let’s start with CRIME.

(1) ((According to The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council reports that “the relationship between crime and one-parent families” is “so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.”))

Happy financially independent single mothers with perfectly healthy children do not warrant complaint but findings such as above does. Also note the source of these findings.

Let’s move on to PHYSICAL HEALTH AND MENTAL-WELL BEING.

(2) ((Two leading scholars on the impact of family configuration upon child health find that single mothers report poorer overall physical health for their children than do mothers in intact marriages, regardless of racial or ethnic status.))

That doesn’t surprise me.

(3) ((The National Center for Health Statistics found that children living with their biological parents received professional help for behavior and psychological problems at half the rate of children not living with both biological parents.))

That’s interesting. Did you know that behavior and psychological problems may lead to criminal behavior? Is that stretching it too far, NYmom? And all that professional help might get a tad expensive eh? What they needed from the get-go was a decent manly father to instill discipline and other vital qualities not naturally prevalent in mothers. The phrase “single mother family” is oxymoronic.

(4) ((Other studies show the general health problems of children from broken homes is increased by 20 to 30 percent, even when adjusting for demographic variables.))

Please keep reading Nymom. After all, these facts are predominately for you, your single mother sisters and those who would be swayed to become SMs by your influence.

(5) ((Dr. Judith Wallerstein, a leading authority on the long-term effects of divorce on children, found that serious emotional and relational problems follow children of divorce throughout adolescence into adulthood. In fact, in some important measures, the negative affects of parental divorce grow worse as the child enters adulthood.))

(6) ((Dr. Nicholas Zill, writing in the Journal of Family Psychology, agrees, finding that children of divorce showed “high levels of emotional distress, or problem behavior, [and were more likely] to have received psychological help.”))

I don’t have time to comment on everything so let’s proceed to PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE.

(7) ((The journal Pediatrics reported in 2002 that, “Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents. Risk of maltreatment death was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents.”))

(8) ((Research published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect found that a girl is seven times more likely to be molested by a stepfather than a biological father. The study goes on to report that when biological fathers did molest their young daughters, a mother was not residing in the home who could protect the child. What is more, the nature of sexual abuse by stepfathers was more severe than by biological fathers.))

Apparently many single mothers are poor judges of character, to say the least. . . I’d like to know where the “mothers” were residing while their charming and trustworthy pedophile lovers were severely molesting their daughters. Single mothers, as the old saying goes “If it’s too good to be true it probably is.” The saying becomes more applicable with each kid you pop out. Keep that in mind for the sake of the innocent ones – who can’t protect themselves from the irresponsible choices you make!

Onward to PREMARITAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDBEARING.

(9) ((A major study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family found that boys and girls who lived with both biological parents had the lowest risk of becoming sexually active. Teens living with only one biological parent, including those in step families, were particularly at risk for becoming sexually active at younger ages.))

(10) ((Sara McLanahan found that white and black girls growing up in single-parent homes are 111 percent more likely to bear children as teenagers, 164 percent more likely to have a child out of marriage, and – if they do marry – their marriages are 92 percent more likely to dissolve compared to their counterparts with married parents.))

In other words, the children of SMs are much more likely to get divorced, which will indisputably hinder their children, thereby continuing the cycle of arrogant feminist SM diva idiocy. I don’t see these girls making 50 grand a year before their children turn 18.

Even if they did make 50g a year, based on SM poverty statistics, the natural downward spiral of poverty would ensue for future generations. Elevating SMs beyond their natural capacity to prosper will not rectify the problem but make it worse. What goes up must come crashing down! We have already seen the outcome of SMFs when left to their own decline. Adding money is not going to solve a problem of this magnitude. How much energy do you need to keep this single mother machine running? How will investing in this SM machine benefit society at large? Think this through logically please. I must move on.

(11) ((The liberal Center for Law and Social Policy, a child advocacy organization, recently reported “Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents…”))

(12) ((Child Trends also reports “An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents…”))

There are many other negative aspects of single motherhood that I haven’t even mentioned. I have given only a mere dozen sources but could go on for hours providing dozens more. Evidence that children are more likely to thrive under traditional family units is overwhelming.

The significant thing to remember from CLASP.org is the fact that “most researchers now agree that children do best when raised by their two married biological parts.”

It’s an equally significant fact that zounds of impartial researchers can be found supporting that notion. Researchers range from conservative to liberal yet come to the same conclusions. Thus, there is an overwhelming convergence of evidence from independent sources of inquiry arriving at the same conclusions. Do you not understand the implications of such a scientific statement?

Can you provide even one source from a conservative researcher who supports your outlandish claims, NYmom? I can find plenty of liberal sources that concur with my claims. One who objectively looks at the evidence finds a consensus by researchers that indicates single mother families are not only broken but needlessly contribute a great deal of ills to society.

Perhaps now you can relate to the perspective of media pundits who discourage women from becoming single mothers.

Sincerely,

John

___________________________
(1) Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, “Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s,” whitepaper from the Progressive Policy Institute (September 27, 1990), pp. 14-15.

(2) Ronald J. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, “Single Motherhood and Children’s Health,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52.

(3) Deborah A. Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-being: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 573-584.

(4) L. Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992.

(5) Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men and Woman a Decade After Divorce, (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1990); Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000), p. xxvii-xxix.

(6) Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long-Term Effects of Parental

(7) Michael Stiffman, et al., “Household Composition and Risk of Fatal Child Maltreatment,” Pediatrics, 109 (2002), 615-621.

(8) Michael Gordon, “The Family Environment of Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Natal and Stepfather Abuse,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 13 (1985): 121-130.

(9) Dawn Upchurch, et al., “Neighborhood and Family Contexts of Adolescent Sexual Activity,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 (1999): 920-930.

(10) Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31.

(11) Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1.

(12) Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1.

——————————————————————————–

At 6:39 AM, Misogynic_Gent said…

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: