Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
secondclasscitizen.org
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2013-07-29 02:21
MANN received a note from the owner of http://www.secondclasscitizen.org/ letting us know it existed. It addresses divorce and custody issues for fathers. In addition, the site operator hosts another site (http://www.redonkulas.com/) taking on various matters using humorous videos-- humor that nonetheless gets the point across. Consider it NSFW, however, and as the site says, prepare to be offended. Speaking of which, one is hosted here on YouTube doing a matter-of-fact cost analysis of hiring the services of an "escort" weekly vs. the costs associated with being married, then divorced after 7 years and having had two kids.
Ruthlessly analytical and practical. But in today's "modern world", the typical man can't afford to be sentimental when this kind of money's at risk.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Good approach to see the big picture
Although his web site provides a lot of stuff that's not related to the men's movement, the Youtube provides a good overall approach for thinking about the financial implications of a H.O.E. vs. an ex-wife. Readers may also be interested in a similar calculation found at
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/07/18/hello-young-men-a-vasectomy-is-one-thousand-times-less-expensive-than-children/
Yes
Good essay just tellin' like it is. These days I always tell any guy who I may discuss this topic with: If you are going to get married, do not marry a woman who wants kids and only one who's shown she doesn't by not having any. This depends though on her having gone a long enough time into adulthood such that her chances of getting preggers are pretty slim. In other words, no weddings before she's 40. Second, never marry a woman who doesn't work. She has to clearly like working and wants to keep doing it. If she pulls the old switcheroo on you in either of these areas, divorce her post-haste. Extenuating circumstances are of course debilitating illness/injury that makes it impossible for her to work. And if she gets pregnant yet after 40? It's possible but unlikely w/out medical intervention, at least not most times. Make sure you're de daddy ASAP after the birth, esp. if you and she haven't been getting on well recently.
Oh yeah, and if she has any semblance of entitlement/shows signs of not wanting to pay her share of expenses and commitments, no deal. Really, marriage these days should be the exception in the typical man's life, not the rule. And only if you're VERY sure and VERY confident in who you're marrying. Still, things can go wrong anyway.
Almost every guy I knew in college who got married and had kids before 30 especially got divorced and was totally shafted by The System. But it can happen at any time in a married man's life. It happens to 20-somethings, 30-somethings, 40-somethings, etc. All you need to do is a) be married and b) have kids and she can divorce you and take you to the cleaners anytime.
I'm all for figuring out what
I'm all for figuring out what you want out of life and getting it for the cheapest cost. But here are a few things I think are missing from the discussion.
The scenario is comparing the cost of being married for 7 years then divorced w/ 2 kids vs. paying a prostitute for those 7 years and avoiding the whole marriage and children. The marriage did provide the man with 2 kids which you wouldn't get or want with a prostitute. I assume if a man plans on using prostitutes regularly for that many years, he would have a vasectomy and therefore no offspring. Sex once a week from an escort for one year is (52 weeks x $125 = $6500 per year, for 7 years it would be $45,500). I assume she either comes to the house or there are hotel expenses on top of that.
If a man is going to have a vasectomy and no offspring, I dont know why he would consider marriage. He could probably have sex within a relationship and likely even be more fulfilled if he values the companionship of females. If he remains unmarried and child free he can walk away from the relationship any time he wants (as he gets older he can keep his females partners young). If a couple lives together and had no kids they would probably have sex more than once a week (and different types of sex, and probably condom free) and the female partner would likely pay part of living expenses - just throwing that out there.
The value of goods and services is determined by the natural law of supply and demand. Generally the population of sexually active adults is a 50/50 ratio of men/women. Generally speaking men are demanding sex and women are supplying it. Just because a man uses a prostitute instead of a girlfriend or wife does not change the average value of sex. If more men begin to use prostitutes and the number of prostitutes stays the same, prostitutes will increase their rates because their demand has gone up. If the price of prostitution gets too high, men might find it cheaper to have a girlfriend or wife. So as long as men and women are using each other for sex, the average cost doesn't change because the overall supply and demand doesn't change.
I've said many times that the basic relationships between men and women are really just a trade of females providing sex and offspring in exchange the males provisions, hopefully parents are capable and compatible to provide a good home and enjoy each others companionship. Prostitution just takes out the offspring and companionship parts so it is unhealthy for building a strong society, but trading sex is the basis of all male/female relationships.
The bottom line is I don't think using prostitutes changes much as far as the cost of sex. If men are going to take that route, a vasectomy is their responsibility. FOR ANY sexual active man who doesn't want kids or future kids, there is no question that it is his responsibility to have a vasectomy if he is having sex with a woman under the age of 50.
That's one of the main problems...
... I think MRAs have identified:
"I've said many times that the basic relationships between men and women are really just a trade of females providing sex and offspring in exchange the males provisions, ..."
Exactly. And that needs to end if true equality will arrive in any form soon. After all, given the danger it places men in and all the cost associated w/ it, and the fact that there's little payoff for doing it (ie, having kids), why exactly would a lot of men consciously want to? Increasingly, many realize it's a bad idea and so, don't. Even if there's a payoff for it though, is it really worth the risk? Remember, we're not nomadic or agrarian peoples eeking out a living anymore; kids used to be a good idea if for no other reason than there was no 'social security' and you were better off procreating your own farm workforce than hiring it. Nowadays, esp. for "First World" people, the perceived need is gone.
But even if you still, as a man, have an emotional impulse to procreate, again, the risk is too great for many, as is the expense.
But in any case, the social model you espouse: man works (to "provide for" a woman/children and in essence to buy sex), while the woman stays at home, and as things are now, can take off with the kids and stick him with bill (and selling sex to her husband)-- well, that's not gonna fly. It's a model that is woefully lopsided and is continuing to lead people (ie, men) to make the kind of choices that ensure the repro rate continues to decline. But I do wonder this, too: based on your characterization of relations betw. the sexes, aside from the ppl being married and having kid(s) and perhaps enjoying each other's company, what really distinguishes it from a whore/john relationship? Not much, IMO. There may be love, genuine feelings of all kinds, etc. but for many men, after they lose their jobs and can't get new ones any time soon, they find out fast enough really just what they meant, fundamentally, to their "loving wives": a paycheck.
"I've said many times
"I've said many times that the basic relationships between men and women are really just a trade of females providing sex and offspring in exchange [for] the males provisions, ..." -Kris
"Exactly. And that needs to end if true equality will arrive in any form soon..." -Matt
It wont ever end Matt. Its based on biological needs and biological differences. Men and women are not equal. Feminist make the mistake of demanding "equality" when it cannot exist. Some MRAs make the same mistake. If we ever find a way to allow men to get pregnant accidentally during sex and limit men's procreation age to around 35, it may shift equality some, but we all know that will never happen. You also have men's stronger bodies and higher sex drives to contend with.
As long as men can provide more, they are always going to be willing to pay women for sex (not just in prostitution, but in romantic relationships as well). This trading for sex is not as one sided as you make it seem. Many men actively participate in this and like this system. Many men also want children. If men are going to want/expect women to accommodate their higher sex drive and want/expect their wives to sacrifice their bodies during their prime career stage to create and give birth to children, I don't think its unreasonable for women to get something in return. Biological difference are supposed to be reciprocal and complimentary between males and females.
It's not a matter of men providing for women in exchange for sex and children, it's a matter of HOW MUCH provisions men should exchange for sex and children.
How much? Hmmm...
Biological differences are not at the root of the "traditional arrangement" that effectively turns men into trussed-up johns and women into softened-up prostitutes; culture and society is. Appeals to things being "natural" in this way are as incorrect as appeals to the "natural state" arguments of not-long-ago that said that because women were "obviously" incapable of reasonable or logical thought, they could not with rare exception be able to meet the demands of science, law, or politics. It was also the same argument that said black people were "obviously" not capable of civilized behavior and so "naturally" were to be made subject to whites as slaves. But you know, the ludicrousness of these beliefs was not long ago finally accepted.
Our society is arranged to cast men into this chest-armored, white horse-riding john and women as princess dress-gowned, bejeweled prostitute/baby-machine. In so doing, it degrades everyone and stuffs them into boxes. However in the current situation, the horse-riding john is liable to lose his horse, armor, and castle should he run off with the princess to the local marriage drive-through in Reno. That is because the society in which they live cast him in this role and allow the princess to take him to the cleaners at will.
As a few counter-examples to this supposedly biologically-based arrangement between the sexes, consider these folks who've been living a different way for a reeeaaallly long time (though modernity is moving in hard):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen#Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbuti_people#Labor
Especially:
http://culturalfascinations.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/women-who-hunted-an-examination-of-gender-roles/
It seems to me the "traditional arrangement" isn't probably that recent in human history, but when it did arise, the cultural and legal safeguards to keep men from getting shafted should they take the plunge were in place. Now they're not.
So really, to sum up my opinion, it's this:
1. Man=Provider/Woman=Providee is a social construct at first designed to add stability to complex societies wherein familial relationships couldn't always guarantee that children would be provided for and women either were not expected or allowed to participate sufficiently in the paid economy. At this point in western society's evolution, however, this model is out-of-date and patently unfair and confining, esp. to men; options to be or not be "dependent" on a man are readily available to women as are ways of using and exploiting financially and legally marriage and motherhood at the man's sometimes debilitating expense.
2. Marriage as an institution now exists to create a lopsided set of obligations burdening men most arduously most especially should they procreate with their wife. Should the wife choose for whatever reason to get a divorce, she is virtually guaranteed to get custody/primary residence of any kids they had and thus to get the "child support" payments in whatever amount the gov't sets and also possibly alimony payments (some states have other names for it, but a rotten fish by any other name still stinks to high heaven) for whatever length of time it deems "fair".
3. Men becoming fathers at this time represents such a substantial risk for their well-being and future life stability that I cannot recommend this path to any man not because having kids is, despite my own Earth population-size concerns, a bad thing, but simply because it is now too risky and is under ordinary circumstances, even should the marriage work out, a very expensive proposition with little or no practical rationale.
Now if our current social structures and values change so that women in general stop trying to sell/rent themselves to men in the fashion you describe, and when men have stopped cooperating/submitting to this paradigm by bidding for sex, then we'll have made real progress. It is a new paradigm for us but as my Wikipedia entries show, not only can it be done, it's been done for centuries. But before I can recommend men engaging again in routine marriage/procreation, I'd need to see the legal system recalibrated to stop beating the living daylights out of men and start to actually treat men both like human beings and actual citizens should the marriage not work out for them.
BTW, I also want to say that I do think there are indeed natural differences generally between the sexes that can safely be considered trends. However I don't think conventions like man-buys-sex-while-woman-sells-sex is one of them.
Huh? Matt, I would have to
Huh?
Matt, I would have to give you a crash course in Biology 101 to respond to all this. If you think biology or family structure for the past hundreds of years is just a trend or is anyway parallel to the thinking from the slavery era, you are beyond the time limit I have to respond.
"I do think there are indeed natural differences generally between the sexes that can safely be considered trends." -Matt
Natural difference = biological difference. So your saying biology is a trend?
You said: "arguments of not-long-ago that said that because women were "obviously" incapable of reasonable or logical thought, they could not with rare exception be able to meet the demands of science, law, or politics." -Matt
Matt, I don't think that was the argument. I think it was that woman had no use for science, law and politics because up until 50 years ago women had their first child in their teens because of BIOLOGY. Nowadays women are often taken OUT of their "natural" biological state by being surgically or chemically altered with birth control. Not all women want to be surgically or chemically altered for 20+ years or make promises based on being altered from their natural state.
I will end this on a more agreeable note: if marriage and children is not a good deal for men they should stay out of it and get a vasectomy. I have not argued against that point at all. I have only stated the biological reasons as to why men and women make trades in regards to sex/children and provisions and I suggest men get the best deal. But if a man thinks or expects to get sex, pregnancy, childbirth, recuperation, permanent body damage, and his own unique progeny all during a woman's prime career years and not give her any compensation or security, he is going to have a hell of a time getting a woman on board with that plan....It has to be a fair deal for women too, ya know.
Agree to disagree
Yep, I don't think we're going to change each other's minds on this topic. But discussing it has been good in that I think we've laid out the two positions pretty well for anyone else reading it. It's up to others to decide for themselves where they stand.
Fine. But your links didn't
Fine. But your links didn't persuade me in any way. Here is what I learned from your links:
Some women in indigenous tribes hunted (often with their babies strapped to them, and Mbuti tribe indicates men did the more dangerous hunting). All links indicate the indigenous women are primarily caregivers. One indigenous Agta women was observed hunting while 8 months pregnant, and some Agta fathers soothed babies by letting them suck on their nipples. For the Agta women who hunted, the article said that while observed for 185 days the women accounted for 22% of the tribe's meat. Agta men had some cross-over of roles by participating in cooking and tending to children...Oh, and there is some wife swapping in indigenous cultures : )
I didn't see anything that disproves anything I have said, and nothing that I can see in the links supports social construct over biology like you say. Historically, I don't believe women have ever been the main providers while men were main caretakers as you are trying to prove. Think of it, no baby formula, and there is no physical/biological way men could replace the females role in pregnancy and childbirth, and w/o birth control women would be pregnant and/or nursing much of the time.
If you want to believe traditional roles are a trend set by "social construct" and not set by biology, well that is something you and feminists have in common.
If you think there is just no longer a reason for traditional roles, you may be right for some people. But lets remember biology hasn't changed. Just ways to fool biology has (i.e birth control). Not every woman can/wants to use birth control, as you are asking/expecting women to be chemically or surgically altered for about 20 years of their lives. Women also know the failure rate of birth control and want to be with partners who can accommodate their feelings and plan of action in regards to birth control failure. Also birth control only effects reproduction aspects. It does not equalize physical, emotional, cognative and sex drive differences between men and women. And some men and women want children, and if so, a woman can only accomodate that before she reaches age 35 or risks go up.
I can agree with you on this
"If you want to believe traditional roles are a trend set by "social construct" and not set by biology, well that is something you and feminists have in common."
Yes, suppose I do. But unlike feminists, I acknowledge that male gender roles carry far less power than they insist they have. Two of those includes "obligate provider" and "cannon fodder". The fix to this is only this: just don't participate in such scenarios. Simply... don't. A lot of men don't realize this, but it really is that simple. Avoid marriage/kids until or unless you can be extraordinarily certain of who you're getting involved with, assuming you want this at all (a lot of men these days don't). If you never find such a person, then don't just decide to toss dice; the house loads the dice. But until/unless the law and society changes in any case to reduce the typical man's risk:reward ratio around this topic, marriage/in-wedlock birthrates will continue their jaunty decline. And *that's* a _natural_ (or more accurately, logical) consequence (biological or otherwise) of what we got going on nowadays.
And as for men-as-cannon fodder: Don't enlist. Just... don't. It's that simple. If you feel you really want/need to, well, that's your choice. Just understand, your body becomes gov't property when you sign on that line.
Well at least I know the
Well at least I know the perspective you're coming from.
Although I respect your opinion about men being "obligate provider" and "cannon fodder", it really seems to me like your opinions are reactive responses based on the world today, but not necessarily about how the world should be. A society could never survive by not having and providing for children and never being willing to defend itself in a war against aggressors.
I hope you will give what I say about "men and women make trades when forming families" some more thought. It is healthy, normal and nothing immoral about it and it has been occurring since the beginning of time and is the basis of all relationships more then I think you realize. Children that come from these arrangements are most likely to be properly cared for. Wether you believe it or not, you having a wife instead of being in a domestic relationship with another man supports my claim that women have something that you want and are wiling to trade for (and you have something she wants) and these things you two are trading has to do with your biological differences and biological desires. She is providing you with something that a man cannot. (Unless you believe you could have just as easily paired up with a man.)
As long as both partners get what they want and the trades are equitable, healthy families and healthy society will form. When the trade is lopsided or no trade is made at all is when things fall apart and not good for families or society.