~ archived since 2018 ~

In any one on this sub is still wondering why men won't marry let this be your object lesson for the day

wazzup987

May 20, 2015

18 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	In any one on this sub is still wondering why men won't marry let this be your object lesson for the day
Author	wazzup987
Upvotes	18
Comments	67
Date	May 20, 2015 10:04 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/36ojyx/in_any_one_on_this_sub_is_still_wondering_why_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/in-any-one-on-this-sub-is-still-wondering-why-men.282054 https://theredarchive.com/post/282054

Comments

[–]NitziPromoter of Love, Peace and Equality19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not doing anything against it is almost silently agreeing to it. And people wonder why men want to marry less and less. As if it isn't obvious by now. I mean if you wouldn't sign a contract with a friend agreeing that you give him 50% of what you have, when the contract is broken on a whim, then why would you do the same with a woman and marry her then? She holds almost all the power. The children become either hers at default or you will be a piggy bank for at least 18 years. Siphoning your money, AKA all your energy to keep yourself affloat. Only wealthy people can risk getting married and even then it hurts them deeply. The only real stability a man gets out of marriage is that he doesn't have to "search" for another woman. A women gets the security that someone will keep her "safe" for example financially. This may sound really pessimistic, but those are the dangers. That being said the amount of first marriages that hold are like 75%, but thanks to serial marriages the rates drop all the way to 50%.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]kick6Red Pill Man21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]scummcdirt 13 points13 points13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Shiningknight125 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shbro1Purple Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The government will avoid paying a nickel more welfare than necessary by enforcing paternity tests on any mother accessing welfare. If there's a man willing to front up to accepting responsibility for a child, the government will gladly accept that commitment of responsibility, regardless of biological paternity, if it's just cheaper and easier all round to do so. More (even nominal) parents for a child = less in welfare payments the government deems itself necessary to provide.

Really, it's just 'good business' for the government to insist on a declaration of paternity - tenuous non-biological connections deemed equivalent to the exact opposite - before forking over any amount of welfare cash whatsoever. Twice the number of parents equals half the welfare amount payable per child, right? (Not really, but you get my drift.)

IMO, the 'solution' to unjust deemed paternity of children for the sake of reducing the government's welfare payment expenses, is to completely overhaul the welfare system for parents altogether. There should NEVER be an acceptable financial incentive for the government to impose deemed paternity on non-biological parents.

If a mother is unwilling or unable to provide adequate proof of her child's parentage, she should nevertheless be paid at least a subsistence amount of welfare. Additional child support payments from a non-custodial biological parent to the other custodial biological parent should be deemed a windfall for the family unit alone, and never a cost-saving welfare measure by the government. The incentive to force the issue of paternity in order to save a welfare expenditure dime becomes too enticing, leading to the injustices complained about here.

An order for child support payments should only be made against biological parents, with an equitable system in place which compensates the custodial parent fairly for the costs of raising the child, in proportion to the amount of time each parent accepts responsibility for that child.

No easily (cheaply?) determined biological father? Too bad for the government - they still need to pay a base welfare rate to any mother who both requests it and is eligible for it. Volunteer non-biological fathers shouldn't be punished with a financial burden to raise a non-biological child just because they are romantically involved with the child's mother, either, especially not if or when that involvement ends.

The contribution of volunteer non-biological parents to raising any child should be rewarded by the government, not penalised, because volunteers lift the significant financial burden on the government to support families with dependent children. An unwillingness to act as a volunteer due to fear of financial commitments which outlast the relationship is counterproductive to the government's aims of reducing overall welfare expenditure. Such fears should be redressed through reform of welfare policy which currently binds acting parents to the same standards of biological parents.

The contribution of any volunteer non-biological parent should be taken into account when calculating child support/income/time ratios. A proportional burden should be lifted from a non-custodial parent to pay child support to the other parent if there is another willing party to share the same child-raising cost burden with the custodial parent - usually in the form of a domestic relationship between the custodial parent and his or her volunteer non-biological parent partner.

This partial release from obligation to pay an equitable rate of child support should not be deemed everlasting for any period beyond the putative domestic relationship between a biological parent and his or her volunteer non-biological parent partner. The withdrawal of any non-biological parent volunteer from the supporting domestic relationship with the biological parent should be made official within a reasonable length of time, after which time new child support payment calculations should be made and then enforced between the biological parents as per usual.

Notwithstanding legal adoption, no non-biological parent (volunteer or not) should ever be deemed the putative parent of a child against his or her own wishes for the sake of welfare payment expediency alone. As the enforcer, the government should bear all reasonable costs incurred in proving, or disproving, contested parentage cases if required for the sake of determining eligibility for welfare and/or child support payments.

[–]Shiningknight120 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

. Twice the number of parents equals half the welfare amount payable per child, right?

Its possibly worse than you think. When looking at combined income, they give you very harsh diminishing returns for extra spouses. IE The Earned Income Tax Credit starts the married couple off 5 thousand dollars higher for determining benefits.

to completely overhaul the welfare system for parents altogether. There should NEVER be an acceptable financial incentive for the government to impose deemed paternity on non-biological parents.

What would need to happen is the government would have to decouple welfare benefits from marriage and household income. Only look at the income of the individuals. This would do a great deal to encourage couples to get married and stay together. Particularly in the middle class. You would see a lot more spouses choosing to stay home and raise children.

Unfortunately, the government is too addicted to using committed families as a tax subsidy for the irresponsible.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kick6Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysRedditIndependent thinker6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]kick6Red Pill Man6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kick6Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kick6Red Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReginleiferOnly Zombies want female brains1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shiningknight121 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blametheboogiefresh dressed with the fly green socks1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shbro1Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhisperSecretly a Talking Dog0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AjaxelerBrownish colour7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No they are completely sexist. Men aren't awarded alimony if the woman makes more money only women are if the man makes more money. Men aren't awarded anything above minimum visitation even if they are stay at home fathers.

And things get far more complex if you actually investigate the family courts, instead of read news "stories" and wank off on reddit. VAWA and false DV charges are incredibly common moves taken by women and the lawyers who act in DV are the same ones that profit from the man in all areas of family law.

If you want to have an actual discussion about this I invite you to dalrocks blog. He will be back soon. But based on your comments and your ego you won't fit in. It's filled with actual knowledgeable people. Maybe you could make some posts and ask some questions and actually learn something. Then you could stop spreading misinformation.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not an MRA because I find that Men's Rights is full of false information, barely knowledgeable angry people, who mostly just sit around and whine. Though I used to be a very active MRA. Years ago.

I have actually researched the family court systems and you are completely full of crap. The application of the laws is still quite sexist. Men who make less then their (ex) wives ARE RARELY being awarded alimony. I've seen it OVER AND OVER for the past year. Women who make less then the man get alimony, men who make less then the woman DO NOT get alimony.

No matter what the law "says". Family "law" is almost entirely simply up to the judges discretion. I suggest you stop spreading your disinformation and go find a divorced men's support group and fucking ASK the men. Ask them what actually happens in a family court.

Or ask me and maybe I'll tell you about one of the fifty or so cases I've personally watched. The application of the laws is done in an incredibly sexist manor to benefit the woman. The intent of this is simply to cause the man to spend more and more money that gets funneled into lawyers and judges pockets.

They rarely award alimony to men and just the fact that they are rarely doing it is enough to swing the system into action. To help women more.

Viewing alimony, or any one little piece of family "law" alone, is pointless because it all works together.

I've seen your posts. We are almost entirely in agreement on everything. Except I am telling you I have spent a lot of time actually in the family court systems watching cases. The application of the laws are entirely sexist against men and you MUST look at the entire system to understand how stacked things are against men.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steelpuppy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boscoistRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HawanjaAncient Deadly Ninja Baby0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HawanjaAncient Deadly Ninja Baby-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_Your_Ego4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HawanjaAncient Deadly Ninja Baby-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[S,🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link