Decline of marriage is destroying our pupils, say teachers

It's not the decline of marriage, it's the high incidence of divorce that leads to the chaos. One might say it is having kids in an environment where people have learned not to put the kids' true best interests first (ie, staying together "for the sake of the kids"). Instead they have allowed a court system to decide the "best interets". If you're in a court of law punting to a judge, you have already made the wrong choice.

Rules:

1. Don't have kids 'til you're ready. Wait until you're 25 at least, in other words, and if you have any really bad habits (drink, drugs, gambling, violence), do not do it.
2. Don't have kids with someone you are not very sure about.
3. Don't have more kids than you can deal with.
4. If you have kids make sure you know what you are getting into.

Given what's at risk, you'd think people'd be more prudent. But they're not. When you break these rules, you create misery and hand over whacked-out people to the rest ofus to deal with. Gee, thanks.

If I were a case- or "family court"- judge, I'd find everyone "stupid" in addition to either "guilty" or "innocent"

From NoMarriage.com: "Children are so overrated

There is an unspoken taboo in our society where if you admit that having kids wasn't quite what you thought it would be and that if you could do it all over again that you would have chosen NOT to have kids, that you are a monster, an evil, despicable monster.
The truth is a large percentage of parents HATE being parents. They will never say it out loud and they can't even admit that to themselves because "only an evil demon" would come to that conclusion, they think.

However, underneath it all, underneath all the B.S. is the truth that we all know:

Children are overrated.

For every precious moment where the little brat does something special, there are 1,000 moments where they drive you crazy.

They literally tear your life upside down. Marriage, sex life, your wives appearance, your social life, the list goes on and on and on.

Oh yeah, the worst part is yet to come - the teenage years. I could write volumes on this subject.

The reason people have children is because of this unwritten societal norm where the standard is to get married and immediately begin to produce offspring because "that's the thing to do".

Here's another fact for you if you're interested in the subject: the highest points of martial satisfaction are: 1) after the kids leave and 2) before the kids were born. Look it up, it's true.

I decided not to have kids or a wife...
And haven't regretted it one bit!!! I look at all my sorry faced friends straining to make ends meet, having the endless honey do lists, soccer games, Dr bills, bitching, whinny little brats, debt up their asses!!.....and me....well I focused on work and saving money and have no debt, date all different kinds of women, no strings attached, buying a brand new custom house that my friends and family can only dream about, and will be able to retire at 45.....

Yea, I may grow up old and have no one but look....most of you will be divorced and so broke after raising kids, alimony, child support, kids college...that you will have nothing to show for it when you are 65 and still have to work till your are dead......sorry thats reality.

My relatives have given up asking. They know better. Then someone always pulls me aside and says, "I would love to have your life".

I think most people end up having kids because 1) They're too stupid to know how to use birth control properly and/or 2) They have an idealistic, completely unrealistic vision of what parenthood entails.
People imagine dressing their daughter in pretty clothes, or playing catch with their son. They don't think about being awoken at 2 a.m. by a sick, screaming kid who just threw up all over the bed, and who doesn't give a shit that you have to get up for work in four hours. They don't think about the mortgage company threatening to foreclose, or the electricity being shut off, because the husband can't pay all the bills on one income.

More people should think about these things, and fewer people should be having children. Parenthood should be left to those few couples who are willing to take the good with the bad.

NoMarriage.com manual will help you determine if you are ready and want to have children in the near future.

----------
Mr. Reality's New Story: "MAMA's BOYS: The dependency factor and how women create and nourish it in men"

Having kids out of wedlock, or divorce, leads right to the description in the article. With bastardy, the effect is nearly immediate.

The point is, the leftist concept of 'anything goes' and 'we don't need the paper' to live together, etc. lead to exactly what we've got today. The feminist programs that reward divorce and single-motherhood lead to societal breakdown. READ THE COMMENTS following the article.

Look at the number of feminist wives that choose not to have kids. That is their choice. But how about their husbands choice? Ultimately, these same people seem a little sad, later in life, when children are not there to extend their interests and take care of them when old and frail.

The old traditional systems were in place for a reason. Because they WORKED. What we have now, does not.

oregon dad

In the older systems men were rated by what they did for a woman, men today are rated by what they do for women. Chivalry ruled traidition and men were expected to treat women special, we have the same thing now.

The traditional way of doing things puts men in the same predicament; that of a slave with tons of responsibilities heaped upon them in order to be considered a man. Most think feminism started this, but misandry was around long before it took the form of feminism.

Also, most children don't take care of parents when they get older they stick them in an old folks home.

----------
Mr. Reality's New Story: MAMA's BOYS: The dependency factor and how women create and nourish it in men

I especially appreciated this comment by one poster to the thread --

"It's all very well pointing the finger of blame, but what are the solutions?...

Should young men be chemically castrated until they are married?"

Now, on first blush that sounds very anti-male... until you realize that what she describes as "chemical castration" is simply a reliable male birth control pill, which the majority of men have been advocating for a couple decades.

Apparently Big Pharma can make big money on erectile enhancement drugs, but the research dollars just don't exist to develop a male birth control pill or patch.

Wouldn't every thinking man use a reliable birth control drug if it were available?

Very nice to see that feminists openly admit the total disaster to which has come the whole philosophy which they have been following for HUNDREDS of years. Women cannot be the main building material of society and leading force in this world.

Artificial Womb is on the way!

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

This whole notion of an Artificial Womb is fascinating.

Because how can you establish a legal agreement with an appliance?

Presumably there would be a corporation producing and leasing the wombs, right?

So what happens if a man's fetus is aborted through some malfunction?

Who does he sue?

What if the artificial womb baby has birth defects?

Where do the eggs come from? How do you harvest fertile females to produce the ovum you need to implant in the artificial womb?

Is Wal-Mart going to add egg suction and insemination kiosks to their superstores?

This science fiction reality is at least 100 years away .... but it will happen.

One of the main features of the Artificial Womb is that it does NOT require TWO sexes for creating a fetus. Scientists several years ago already managed to produce eggs from stem cells of a male mouse, and recently there have been reports about successful creating sperm from female eggs. So, it is up to the choice of a user of technology whether he/she wants to use cells from both sexes for creating an embryo, or maybe sperm and egg will be created using cells of one person.

> This science fiction reality is at least 100 years away .... but it will happen.

This reminds me the famous phrase of Bill Gates that no one will ever need more than 640 KB of operative memory in computer. They already make clones of pets on commercial basis. AW will be available for commercial using no more than in 5 years.

----------------------------------------------------
Single men is the only social group benefited from feminism.

I suspect it will be the political and social, rather than the technological, that will delay any widespread acceptance of AW.

Do you really think there is a market for AW because men want to make babies outside of any human relationship with their children's mother?

"Oh honey, your mommy was womb pod # 4763!"

That is not a conversation a whole lot of men want to have with a five year old...

Tons of responsibilities were heaped upon men in the past because "the family" was the father's. Thus "the family name" was that of the Father. He was the provider and the protector of "his family". The children were his children.

Traditionally children absolutely did take care of their parents. You can see it as recently as "the greatest generation". My parents took care of my grandparents. (I am 54). But then, I grew up in the midwest USA where this type of behavior was more the norm than not.

What I am saying is, it was "better" when the families were thought of as that of the Father. Society was way, way better off within that framework. Lower divorce rates, lower illegitimacy rates - the kids were better off.

Now what we have is a presumption of the children being property of the woman. And if the family splits, all of the blame and responsibility is laid at the feet of the father, while in many cases eliminating him from any realistic parenting role in the lives of his children (I do not consider 13% of their time (4 days per 30 day period) as enough time to effectively parent a child).

As I mentioned, the reason that old fashioned system was better was it worked. People married, not for a 4 year period, but for life. This is the best environment for children, even if it stresses out the parents. They need to take responsibility for their decisions. Because it is a huge decision. Today, people do not take responsibility for their decisions because marriage is as disposable as a coffee filter. And some even use it and bastardy as a strategy to accumulate wealth.

oregon dad

..and they are slaves now.

Men were heaped with responsibilities (then and now) because men are pigeonholed into being the workhorses of society.

In the past men were rated by what they did for women and children and today they are rated by what they do for women and children.

One form of slavery is no better than the next. We need to move forward not backwards and men don't need to be stuck with the fraudulent "men are the providers for the family" label that forces them into servitude to women and children.

Marriage doesn't make people resonsible, which is why there are so many divorces. Responsibility is a part of one's character long before marriage is even thought of. If you have an irresponsible woman -- of which there are many -- marrying her will not change shit except show you how irresponsible she is when she expects you to take care of her(even after the marriage is over).

I repost what I wrote earlier which is based on facts:

In the older systems men were rated by what they did for a woman, men today are rated by what they do for women. Chivalry ruled traidition and men were expected to treat women special, we have the same thing now.

The traditional way of doing things puts men in the same predicament; that of a slave with tons of responsibilities heaped upon them in order to be considered a man. Most think feminism started this, but misandry was around long before it took the form of feminism.

Also, most children don't take care of parents when they get older they stick them in an old folks home.

Men don't want to be pigeonholed into being wage slaves for women and children anymore. It was because of that belief that men are to this day taking care of these grown ass babies that call themselves women. Maybe you bought that line about men being "providers for all women and children" but most men today don't buy it. I sure don't.

Men are not "providers for women", no matter what the old school thinks. Women are grown they can feed themselves. Get a job whores. The hell with tradition. Children are another matter...if they are really his that is..

----------
Mr. Reality's New Story: MAMA's BOYS: The dependency factor and how women create and nourish it in men