Blindingly obvious point

But then all such points are blindingly obvious after someone has pointed them out. Not so much before:

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

39 thoughts on “Blindingly obvious point”

  1. I would have said marriage would be both people’s choices together. Child support mostly being woman’s decision (they most often get custody) with CSA as the method either as a threat or as actual calculation/collection agent.
    The bloke trying to have child support as his choice would drop the entire issue back on the taxpayer or the other parent – along with maybe little or no money.

  2. The “If she gets pregnant, you’re the one who’s screwed” reality driving the Mens Rights Movement has clearly not reached the authors of that paper.

  3. Well for many men at the lower edges, support is entirely optional. This is the “baby father” syndrome, wide spread in some areas of British society especially the Afro-Caribbean. This is a cultural innovation made possible by modern welfare and by changes in social mores undertaken without any thought for the consequences. And does anyone thing that we are better off for this, and especially, are the children better off ?

  4. Someone has to breed or there will be no taxpayers in the future.
    If the local inhabitants wont do it- most governments import breeders regardless.
    As for current people being better off – does the state care.

  5. Whats the optimal breeding point per woman on average to maintain a stable population? 2.35? Higher?
    I read somewhere a while ago that some Western nations have under 2.0 births per woman – so an ageing and shrinking population with immigration the only useful solution.

  6. I heard Japan just hit an unfortunate milestone; that thye sell more adult nappies (for incontinent geriatrics) than baby nappies….

  7. So Much for Subtlety

    john malpas – “Someone has to breed or there will be no taxpayers in the future.”

    The problem is that the people doing most of the breeding will not produce any taxpayers. When the underclass has more children, we simply get more problems further down the track. Not more taxpayers in the future, but more people who will vote for more money for the feckless to have even more children.

    As we have just seen in the US.

    “If the local inhabitants wont do it- most governments import breeders regardless.”

    The governments impose policies that make having children expensive and undesirable. So people don’t. The government is then forced to import Third World cheap labour to make up for the lack of children. Am I the only one that sees the problem with this? The solution would be for Western governments to allow Western women to do what most of them want to do – stay home and have more children.

    “As for current people being better off – does the state care.”

    Not that I can see.

    As for the article, marriage is indeed a man’s choice these days. As pregnancy is a woman’s. But child support is another matter as others have pointed out. However on a very basic level, even child support is a man’s choice. You don’t want to pay it, you can find a way not to pay it. The sheep who want to be shorn do and so the system sort of works.

  8. I doubt if the feminists have really considered what happens to them at age 70 plus. The erosion of old age will start relentlessly.
    Who will care for them – no family. And the immigrants might hold them in high disregard.
    Unless they are wealthy.
    A career doesn’t create the sort of ‘friend’ who will do your shopping for you.Let along cut your toenails.

  9. Can get out of child support by not working and not claiming benefit. Can get out of it by emigrating. Can get out of it by changing jobs every few weeks. Can get out of it by killing yourself.
    Not an attractive list for most men.

  10. So Much for Subtlety

    john malpas – “I doubt if the feminists have really considered what happens to them at age 70 plus. The erosion of old age will start relentlessly.”

    I assume they assumed that the feminist revolution would go hand in hand with a socialist one that would bring the perfect collective state where no one would lack for anything in their old age.

    “Who will care for them – no family. And the immigrants might hold them in high disregard.
    Unless they are wealthy.”

    As I have said, the future of the West is of a brown hand unplugging the life support machine attached to a white corpse.

    14 Martin Davies – “Can get out of child support by not working and not claiming benefit. Can get out of it by emigrating. Can get out of it by changing jobs every few weeks. Can get out of it by killing yourself.
    Not an attractive list for most men.”

    Depends where you move to. I think there will be a growth in defensive preparations for many men. It is a mistake to have a house in your own name for instance. Move it to a family trust in your children’s name.

  11. “an ageing and shrinking population with immigration the only useful solution” (#10)

    That depends on what the optimum population is. With the technological changes of the last century we can produce more with a smaller population, so shrinkage may not be a problem.

    It’s a similar principal-agent problem to quoted companies.

    Just as directors generally want to maximise turnover (so that they can cream off a tiny percentage of a huge income, and for enhanced prestige) so politicians want to maximise total GDP (except that they’re creaming off a large percentage rather than a tiny one).

    But just as shareholders are more likely to want to maximise profits, so the general population want to maximise real GDP per head (or something vaguer).

  12. @14
    I would say that for men phased by the list you have given, there remains another option – work cash in hand and don’t declare it.

    I have seen enough folks doing this (although avoiding CSA probably isn’t the major driving force) to know it’s both common and not particularly difficult to arrange.

    If you want a variation on this, you can be officially self employed, right almost all official earnings off against expenses, and take the rest in cash…

  13. Mmmmm….
    Can’t say I read much by feminists or sociologists, life being too short, but I presume this comes as a bitter shock to one & all?
    But it does reinforce a view I’ve been developing in a lot of other contexts. You see the whole feminist schtik, like so much else, has been driven by wimmin with educashun. Now I’ve no doubt my Mum & her mum, who’d kept family & country together through a couple of wars, would have listened to the feminist pitch with an open mind, then politely excused themselves with some comment like “Boys will be boys” to go & put the dinner on. But it certainly wasn’t dreamed up by Masie & Betty on the assembly line. There was always an aura of a slender figure, hair streaming like a bright banner, clad in hand crocheted mail, leading the revolution on a white charger about it. No doubt with saddle bags stuffed with incomprehesible poetry. Yes, I know the image doesn’t quite match the hairy shinned Aussie bint who seems to have found a late niche in gardening programmes, but artistic license, OK? You rarely find all this progressive stuff originating amongst the horny handed sons of toil & their stout (but not implying high BMI) womenfolk. Because their innate & much derided conservatism (small C) is based on the presumption gained by bitter experience that there may be CONSEQUENCES.
    Unfortunately, this view does not seem to prevail amongst the largely academic prats who run everything. Can’t help wondering if that’s a result of what is loosely & erroneously called higher education. The tendency to consider so many things in isolation. As discrete phenomena capable of being described by theory & obeying arbitrary rules. Whereas the whole thing is an infinitely interconnected indiscernible mess the one thing you can be sure about is, if you prod it here, there’s a high likelihood another part will whip round & bite you in the arse.
    Which Mum would have told them, if they’d asked.

  14. SMFS>

    “When the underclass has more children, we simply get more problems further down the track.”

    Only if we keep doing the same things which created the current problems. That one of the feckless drops a sprog into the system doesn’t have to mean that the system then moulds the child into a copy of the feckless parents.

  15. “It is a mistake to have a house in your own name for instance. Move it to a family trust in your children’s name.”

    No idea why a house would be an issue. Most people living in a house won’t gain any income from it while living in it.
    Even the CSA charging orders on houses were a tiny fraction of claims, and usually for only a portion of arrears – which may be paid in 10, 20, 30 years or later – so long as the house is not sold, charging order doesn’t do much.

  16. Quite right, except for the implicit approval of giving women factory work; they should never have left the house, except to do the weekly shop, walk the children and dog, and certainly NOT educated beyond keeping the house fit for the use of their husbands. It is a pity such people as John Stuart Mill argued in favour of equality between the sexes; if only he had considered the CONSEQUENCES, which include INVASION of this green and pleasant land by brownskins and the untimely DEMISE of the white man at the hands of his brownskinned oppressor medic putting him on the Liverpool Care Pathway without so much as a by-your-leave…
    …we should replace women and brownskins with SEXBOTS.

  17. So Much for Subtlety

    Dave – “Only if we keep doing the same things which created the current problems. That one of the feckless drops a sprog into the system doesn’t have to mean that the system then moulds the child into a copy of the feckless parents.”

    You assume we know what we can do to avoid that. It is true that this is largely a cultural issue, but it took a massive social change, an actual Cultural Revolution, for the Methodists et al to change the feckless British underclass into upstanding members of the Middle class. Now the Methodists have been destroyed, who is going to do it?

    Where would we even start in trying to undo the damage of the past 60 years? Taking welfare from single mothers does not make them respectable. It means they will starve. It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but it is much harder to turn fish soup back into a healthy aquarium.

    ukliberty – “…we should replace women and brownskins with SEXBOTS.”

    Finally you have said something that I think we can all agree on.

  18. You know, UK lib, I don’t think Mum (who left school after having, I think they called it matriculated then [after being bombed for a few years of course] & went on to forge a career in the City, [before they had the builders in to install the glass ceilings) regarded herself as unequal. Nor did her mother whilst she was helping run things whilst the men were away fighting. And neither of them would have looked down on Masie & Betty grafting before rushing home to put on a meal for husbands & kids. Self respect & respect for others. And, do you know, I don’t think if a single bra hadn’t been burnt, they wouldn’t have all worked it out for themselves, and their daughters after them. Might have been a few less single mums bringing kids up on the soc. Don’t know what they would have said about the brown skinned folk but they were never asked, were they?
    Do you think they would have liked John Stuart Mill? Are they the little slim books? Mum was never was keen on slushy romances.

  19. john malpas // Dec 2, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Someone has to breed or there will be no taxpayers in the future.
    ————-

    But we are selectively breeding taxpayers out of the population.

    The people breeding and raising the next generation of workers and taxpayers are the ones with the low fertility. This is because their ethos of work and taxpaying is being punished by the state.

    The people who are breeding the next generation of jailbirds, welfare queens, drug dealers, gangsters, and rioters, are the ones with the high fertility, because their helpless hopeless feckless irresponsible sloth is being rewarded by the state.

    As Timmy has so regularly reminded us, you get more of what you reward, less of what you punish.

    We need to start forcibly adopting the new born babies of junior pram-face, and sending her out of the maternity ward with no benefits to show for her nine month project. Back to wherever and however she was living before. That’s just step 1. The deadbeat state won’t do it.

  20. bloke in spain, if your mum and her mum weren’t bothered, I honestly wonder what all the equality fuss has been about! Take women’s suffrage for example; most people DON’T bother to vote these days but those idiot women CHAINED themselves to railings and THREW themselves in front of carriages for the privilege! And women COMPLAINING about being expected to return to women’s work after toiling in munitions factories in the wars? Imagine that. Just goes to show how airheaded they are; anyone else would have been GRATEFUL for more time at home. Yes indeed, they should have asked your City career-forging mum her views before proceeding with this FOOLISHNESS.

  21. D’y know, UK Lib, I actually think you’ve got the point at last. Well done!
    For some totally obscure reason I’ve been giving myself a crash course on Finnish history. And wadya know! Universal suffrage, 1906. Must’ve been all those stocky blondes jumping in front of horses at Helsinki race track.
    You have one view of progress. It takes middle class intellectuals leading from the front. My view is much more complex. It’s that progress is also the response of the way we all interact together. That things generally come along when they’re needed, because they’re needed. Sometimes you get a bit of a logjam because vested interests try & resist. But market pressures are very strong & eventually they win.
    Equality for women? Why on earth do you want that? Men & women are different in lots of ways. As Tim often says about the pay gap, it’s mostly because women make different choices to men. So why try & force equality where it’s not wanted? Because equality’s a two edged sword. Everything’s got an upside & a downside. Or is your equality only on the upsides? I think ordinary folk are really good at working out upsides & downsides, left to themselves. Making choices. To suit them.
    Look at this interweb thing. No-one sat down & designed it. (Apart form Al Gore, of course) It grew in response to what individuals wanted. Bit here. Bit there. Bits that worked carry on. Bits that don’t fall away. But there’s no ‘equality’ whatsoever. Everyone’s trying to be different, not the same. Better.
    So in relation to what we’ve been discussing, I reckon peeps would have brokered most of what’s been achieved without the help of intellectuals. Might have taken a little longer but, because it’s their own lives, they might have made better choices.

    “And women COMPLAINING about being expected to return to women’s work after toiling in munitions factories in the wars? Imagine that. Just goes to show how airheaded they are; anyone else would have been GRATEFUL for more time at home. ”

    D’y know, I thought about my grandmother when I read that. She spent part of the war stuffing explosive into shell cases. Not a particularly attractive job when you can hear V1’s passing overhead & the bang, shriek of a V2 landing. Remember her telling me how happy she was to go home & be a proper mum when it was all over. Have dinner waiting for her husband when he got home. Shame all the kids didn’t make it. I don’t think she’d have appreciated you’re telling her she really should have been down the docks with Jack. His & her cranes? What if she’d have got the job & he hadn’t? Don’t think my grandfather would have made a particularly good househusband, somehow. He’d never have lived up to her standards.
    Or maybe you’re right & intellectuals should decide everything. I mean, it worked so well in Russia, didn’t it?

  22. Certainly a MISTAKE was made in 1864 when the middle-class examination at Cambridge was extended to girls. The girls who were examined may well have showed themselves quite equal to the boys in all intellectual studies, but look where we’ve ended up. Indeed, it was said this would “ruin the character of girls, and that it would destroy all their softness, and make them hard,” and so it came to pass.

    Perhaps the proverbial final nail was enfranchising some 8m women in 1918. Why bother passing through the lobby to give them the vote? They would naturally have gained it eventually [is this right?].

    La femme regne et ne gouverne pas, hmm?

  23. It’s interesting that in your comment, UKL, you’re pretty well proving my point for me.
    Firstly because it was MPs, you know, those people who reckon they should tell us all what to do, were deciding the question.
    And secondly by your completely weird way you view the world. Do you truly believe we’re all separate armed camps each trying to get a leg up on or suppress the other? Yes, you probably do. That’s the progressive thing isn’t it? Doesn’t it occur that most people are actually trying to get along with each other, help each other. Votes for men, votes for women. What real difference did it make? They’re both voting for the best for each other & the family. Women”s right to work? Women had been working for centuries before it became an intellectual issue. The luxury not to work would have interested more of them.
    WTF’s bothered about what happened at Cambridge U in 1864? Or now for that matter? Raise it to the ground & salt the earth. Oxford the week after. Do us all a favour. Most of us are more interested in what happens in Cambridge Road, Cambridge Street or Cambridge Gardens. Something relevant. We want the politicians & their intellectual ideas off our backs, not more of them. Look at the suffrage issues for 2012. Votes for prisoners. Votes for 16 year olds. Some of them can’t even read & write, yet & I’m not sure which group I mean. Is this something we’re demanding?

  24. bloke in spain,

    It’s interesting that in your comment, UKL, you’re pretty well proving my point for me.
    Firstly because it was MPs, you know, those people who reckon they should tell us all what to do, were deciding the question [of enfranchising women].

    In Britain, absent revolution, who but MPs (exclusively men) could decide the question of enfranchisement of women?

  25. Oh, I suppose they could listen to their constituents. You know, the ignorant sods they’re supposed to represent. All of them under our system. Not just the ones who voted for them. Although I suppose that’d have been too much to expect. They don’t do that now. We’ll get votes for prisoners because a bunch of foreigners insist & no doubt, votes for 16 y/o s because there’s an electoral advantage.
    I can remember votes for 18 y/o s. Not saying it made the slightest for me being too young before & old enough after. Can’t remember a single contemporary being at all bothered either way. Better things to think about. That being, in retrospect, why I’d say it was a bloody stupid idea. Which can’t, unfortunately, be undone. My views had rotated 180 degrees about 3 times in those 3 years. Most people’s do if they’re actually going through a learning process rather than pretending. Part of growing up. Becoming a participant rather than a spectator. Paris streets having a different attraction in ’71 to ’68.

  26. Voters were exclusively men (but not all men had the vote). Voters were not largely calling for women to be enfranchised. Women were calling for women to be enfranchised. Yes MPs should listen to their constituents, but what incentive is there to listen to non-voters? Unless of course la main qui berce l’enfant gouverne le monde, but I think that was a convenient fiction. Although it must be said that Judy (from Punch) wrote to Mill, saying “Why should we wish to exercise power through the franchise, when we are already omnipotent over those who have the franchise?”

    Women lacked the essential qualities to be capable of responsibly exercising the vote; enfranchising them would distract them from their social and domestic duties; the nature of the feminine is unsuited to politics and voting, it would debase them. Men actively denied women enfranchisement on such bases. It was not about armed “suppression” but social subordination. Was your mum or her mum incapable of responsibly exercising the vote? I imagine my Nan would have given short shrift to this idea.

    Here is a flavour of the debate:

    He (Mr. Karslake [opposing]) humbly begged to differ from [Jonn Stuart Mill], for while he believed that a man qualified to possess the franchise would be ennobled by its possession, woman, in his humble opinion, would be almost debased or degraded by it. She would be in danger of losing those admirable attributes of her sex—namely, her gentleness, her affection, and her domesticity. … the very disabilities to which women were subject, taken on the whole, showed how great a favourite was the female sex to the laws of England.

    Then there is the question of enfranchising married women, because surely that is inevitable if we enfranchise single women:

    Mr Karslake said … it was clear that votes could not be given to married women consistently with the rules of law as regarded property and the husband’s dominion over the wife’s movements. Then how would it be in the matter of voting? In the course of his canvass, which was still vividly in his recollection, he often canvassed the wives of voters. And he generally found that the female persons were “blue.” It was their usual reply—”Oh, I am blue; but my husband votes yellow.” Sometimes, he admitted, it was the other way. How did the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with these differences of opinion between the head of the family and her whom the poet called “the lesser man?” He pointed out this as showing the difficulties that would exist in the way of women exercising their right of voting in opposition to their husbands.

    And a response:

    Mr Fawcett said… The whole of the hon. and learned Member’s speech was based on the fallacy that man possessed a superior kind of wisdom, which enabled him to decide what was best for the other half of the human race.

    And one more for the road:

    Sir George Bowyer said… though, generally speaking, women do not occupy themselves with politics—nor was it desirable that they should do so—he maintained that, being taxed, they ought to be represented.

    Yes, my bit about Cambridge was obscure. It’s about education being extended to girls – imagine that – and finding they were just as capable of passing the Cambridge examinations as boys – again, imagine that. Indeed, “they were also declared to have done their part more steadily and in a more business manner”. So are they really intellectually incapable? This was in the debate quoted from earlier.

  27. The problem I’ve got, UKL, is most of what you’re quoting seems so irrelevant. Not only to me but to most people at the time. The debates going on in the first weeks of ’18. The first war’s in it’s 4th year. Half the families in the country have somebody serving. Had, in a lot of cases because they’d either come home maimed or weren’t coming home at all. Couple months later the German Spring offensive went through the village I used to live. There’s a dozen cemeteries around there packed with English dead. Go to the Menin gate in Ieper (Ypres) & look at the butcher’s bill carved into the marble. Do you really think the ‘women of Britain’ were engrossed in the wafflings at Westminster? My grandmother was doing her first stint of war work & worrying about her new husband sailing with the Atlantic convoys. It may have been a big issue in the drawing rooms of Kensington but it wasn’t making a splash in Poplar.
    (As an aside, I can remember reading somewhere about the women of Britain boycotting sugar during the slavery thing. What fucking sugar? Most families were lucky if they could afford sugar.)
    So women got the vote. Like they say, if voting ever changed anything they’d abolish it. You know the last country in Europe to give women the vote?. Surprised me. Switzerland. In 1971. Even then, the last canton didn’t get it until ’91. I’ve been all over Switzerland so I must have at least passed through it. I don’t remember any oppressed Swiss women being dragged through the streets in chains. Wouldn’t like to try either. They’re some of the fiercest in Europe. Didn’t seem to do the country any harm either. Wish I could afford to live there.
    It, none of it, has the importance you think it has. Not to most people. Vote or not vote we mostly get ignored until the troughers want their meal tickets renewed.
    And like I said above, I don’t give a toss what goes on at Cambridge although I might have a passing interest in Park Road Juniors. Because so little that goes on there is worth knowing about. The whole things a fraud & always has been. Same as the place on the Thames. Mutual masturbation societies. Had a little rant about it over at Katz if you want to read it. Final comment, last time I looked. http://www.countingcats.com/?p=13186 Result of too much black coffee & waiting for the Yanks to answer e-mails. But I’d stand by it. Bloody places only managed to stagger into the C20th just in time for the 21st. At least they do proper science now.

  28. This is like having to explain a joke.

    Do you not understand that women were actively denied the same or similar opportunities as men? They were denied education, the vote, the same liberties, similar work opportunities. I am not saying women must have this or that particularly, or they that must be interested in it, I am saying they shouldn’t be denied it if men have it just because they are women. Is that clear? If the majority were not interested in such things – and some MPs reported that they received no letters demanding such things – fine, it’s up to them. But hundreds of thousands of women did demand such things. Why actively deny them?

    Do you understand why the wars were pivotal to this? Having been given those shitty and dangerous munitions jobs, among other things, many women did actually start thinking “I am as good as a man but I don’t have the same freedoms. This has to change.”

    And like I said above, I don’t give a toss what goes on at Cambridge

    You’re hard work aren’t you? It’s what’s known as an example. It’s symptomatic of the times: deny girls an education because they are incapable and/or because it would debase them and so on. Best to keep them pretty and airheaded. But of course they weren’t incapable were they? Again, was your mum incapable? Her mum? No, I am certain they were not.

    The vote thing is an example too. See, I’m using it to illustrate the attitudes of the day, the reasons for denying women the same freedoms, rights and opportunities that men enjoyed. It gives context to the claims I am making and I can back up my claims with quotes as opposed to talking about my maternal relatives.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU – that’s a satire of such attitudes, in case you don’t get it. It has a laughter track so you’ll know when to laugh.

  29. Do you understand the difference between (A) the person not receiving something because he is uninterested and (B) the person not receiving something because he is denied it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *