Four out of Ten Born Bastards in 2005

[amicus]

Bastard: (1) "A person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.

(Random House Unabridged)

~~~~~

No this is not just a 'flame' post to incite your anger, it is part and parcel of my ongoing book, "The Feminine Mistake" soon to be published.

Also, on another thread the other day I mentioned that I myself was a 'bastard' who never knew his biological father. Needless to say, some of the usual suspects took that as an opportunity to jab and poke.

This was on a couple news channels today, Fox and CNN, I think, google it if you want, I have no need to.

Forty percent of children born last year may never know their fathers...does that mean anything in general? And is it much different now than it has been in the past?

My contention is that it stems from the women's movement towards total independence from conventional marriage and from the resultant lessening of the morality concerning births out of wedlock; changing times and all that.

What does it mean for the future or does it mean anything at all?

Many of my short stories involve one or more characters raised in single parent families and I have determined that it does affect the way my characters view relationships, especially long term, formal relationships.

Grist for the mill.


amicus...

 

[Goldie Munro]

Ami - you may be right this may have something to do with the 'women's movement' but there was a 'men's movement' just before with the beat generation and the ideology that the individual was sacrosanct. Do not blame the changes in society or morality on women - this is a joint and collective responsibility. No one group is to blame. The facts you produce and the questions that arise from them are serious and the solutions amorphous.

 

[Misty_Morning]

Never mind, this was too vile to post. excuse me.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

You really thrive on the hate of others, don't you Happy Fun Ball?

Good thing your pedophile ass is going to die soon.

 

[Alessia Brio]

What does it mean for the future or does it mean anything at all?

It means our needs are changing & the outdated assumption that a traditional "nuclear family" is the be-all and end-all of child rearing needs to change, too.

 

[cloudy]

Ami fails to take into account how many of those "fathers" (and I use the term loosely, believe me) are the ones who make the decision not to raise their children.

But, of course, he would.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

According to statistics its because more men than ever have been abandoning their families for sex. Particularly at middle age. Also fewer women have been as wiling to shackle themselves to adulterers and child molesters.

So greater divorces.

Also, men are held to very little accountability as far as parental rights by insemination goes. A goodly size of men do a runner leaving the female with full parental responsibility. Both a DNA test and hiring a detective to track down a deabeat father are both greatly tied down in available time and are also prohibitely expensive for little to no gain. Even if you can track down the money, it usually isn't enough to be worth it or save the family so usually its better to just get to work.

Add this to modern theories of masculinity which are "too cool" to use protection and emphasize sexual prowess with many partners and which seems little interested in the methods by which the man "gains" that "prowess" and you have a modern culture which looks to women as fuckholes. Add this to the call to ignore safeguards as well as schools and parents being hesitant to mention such safeguards and you get the culture of today.

Does this add up to 40% bastards? Hardly, the statistics are skewed to begin with and the analyses is sure to ignore the main factor that creates bastards (that is the absent father). If more and more children are going fatherless, it's not due to the mothers. The mothers aren't abandoning their children. These children are not going their whole lives not knowing what their mother looks like. The fathers are.






The irony is that these fathers have so become the norm, so become the expected paternal pattern that it is rather difficult for a father to win custody rights as many men on this site can attest. They may misplace the blame and trolls may write their ignorant shitkicker books, but the data doesn't lie. What's fucking it all up is the father figure who feels he's too cool and mature to think of the consequences and yet flees them every time while the woman is expected to have full abuse reaped on her and do it anyways.

If this is a sign of anything, it is of the unfair condemnation we reap on the stronger halves of these non-married unions. The half that weathers these slings and arrows while the weaker halves are given free passes for their contributions (even if they pressured or forced them upon the women (both of these are forms of rape by the
way and very very very very common as ami can attest about his underaged conquests)) are allowed to go scot free, flee all responsibility and all societal blame.










But then this means nothing to the Happy Fun Ball and as such good riddance. He is only posting it because only through our hate does he continue to feel superior to us. As an ignorant wasted life whose pedophile ambitions never amounted more to an empty life online in a porn forum with children who hate him and no friends who can stand his puerile hate and immaturity anymore, he needs people to recognize his existence. Needs people to notice that he exists because without us he's already in the void.

With us, he can let his delusions fill in the rest. How the ladies argue because his stunning intelluct makes them so horny, how the impotent baby liberals argue and insult because they hate America and because he's got them on the ropes. And so we kick the Happy Fun Ball around because without us he's inert.

Without our delicious cocks lubing his insides, without the feel of our skins as we masticate his bile, without the touch of our ball peen hammers as he's unfortunately outed at the Young Republican's as head spy for our Glorious BinLaden Jew Masters. Without us, he wouldn't have a connection to the world outside of what he can see out his tiny tiny window in his empty empty house.

Pity the Happy Fun Ball. It weeps for the cupcakes.

It weeps for the cupcakes all night long.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Bastard: (1) "A person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.

(Random House Unabridged)

~~~~~

No this is not just a 'flame' post to incite your anger, it is part and parcel of my ongoing book, "The Feminine Mistake" soon to be published.

Also, on another thread the other day I mentioned that I myself was a 'bastard' who never knew his biological father. Needless to say, some of the usual suspects took that as an opportunity to jab and poke.

This was on a couple news channels today, Fox and CNN, I think, google it if you want, I have no need to.

Forty percent of children born last year may never know their fathers...does that mean anything in general? And is it much different now than it has been in the past?

My contention is that it stems from the women's movement towards total independence from conventional marriage and from the resultant lessening of the morality concerning births out of wedlock; changing times and all that.

What does it mean for the future or does it mean anything at all?

Many of my short stories involve one or more characters raised in single parent families and I have determined that it does affect the way my characters view relationships, especially long term, formal relationships.

Grist for the mill.


amicus...

You have made some quick assumptions of the status of the parents. Some of the births undoubtedly resulted from one night stands or short affairs. These children may never know their fathers. However, many of them are the result of a man and woman living together in a long term relationship. They are just as close as if they had bought a license and stood before a judge and repeated some words. Others are born to women, possibly lesbians, who don't want to get married and have been artificially inseminated. Some are probably born to women who are surrogate mothers, and the fathers are single men, possibly gay, who want to be fathers. These may never know their mothers, but they will certainly know their fathers.

 

[amicus]

Geez Luc...why beat around the bush? Why not come right out and say what you think.

Reading over my post again...I see very little that I made conclusions upon other than a more independent feminine movement over the years and certainly no personal attacks on any one even suggest in any way.

After all, it was a news article, go yell at the media, vent your anger where it might be deserved.

Some interesting comments from others however...


amicus....

 

[Seattle Zack]

If it were up to me, women on public assistance would be required to take advantage of the one of the many free taxpayer-funded contraception choices afforded to them. There's no reason for these nitwits to keep having children they (or the rest of us) can't afford.

I don't know where the four in ten stat comes from (I'd like to see a link on that) but at least one in three kids spawned in this country is indeed a bastard. Many are borne to mature, loving couples who are in a comitted relationship. Well, not many. More like a few. Er, next to none.

Fathers are often dismissed in our society, nothing more than despicable "deadbeat dads," living wallets than need to be hunted down and their wages attacked to feed the child support machine created by the federal government.

Never mind that the majority of these "fathers" never actually made the choice to become a parent -- that exclusive right is held by the mother.

Take a little responsibility here. Who was the one who spread her legs and said, "Stick it in me, stud!" even when you knew he was an insensitive jerk/abusive asshole/possibly violent felon. Who was the one who had the kid even though dad was in jail at the time for warrant violations on some old speeding tickets and a couple of minor posession beefs?

These breeders squirt out kids like there's no tomorrow, and it's all tax money that enables it. Is it so difficult? Is taking control of your own life too much to ask?

 

[Pure]

not bad slime, ami,

has all the hate ,but not quite the imagination as the mistress of slime ann coulter. here's a bit for comparison.

Even a dying party has death throes. If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate, Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation in time of war.


Democrats can't not be crazy. They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters. The only way to get Democrats to focus on terrorists would be to convince them that the terrorists are interfering with a woman's right to choose or that commercial jetliners exploding in midair are a threat to America's wetlands.

 

[Liar]

Forty percent of children born last year may never know their fathers...does that mean anything in general? And is it much different now than it has been in the past?

That's kind of the first question, isn't it?

And the second question, if the answer is "yes", is why. To which there can be a number of reasons. I doubt that legal and social equality for women would be on my top list of reasons.

And the third question: Why is this inheritedly a bad thing?

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK many couples make a conscious decision not to marry, but to live together in a stable relationship. Their children will be as welcome (or not) as those from a marriage.

IF they have competent legal advice there are a few disadvantages for their children even on death of the parents. If they do NOT have legal advice then there can be real problems if the relationship runs into difficulty or ends.

A basic registry office marriage is much cheaper than the cost of the competent legal advice.

Any registry office has leaflets about the myth of 'common-law marriage'.

Og

 

[scheherazade_79]

My contention is that it stems from the women's movement towards total independence from conventional marriage and from the resultant lessening of the morality concerning births out of wedlock; changing times and all that.

Comforting to see that the wind's still blowing from the same old hole...

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
My contention is that it stems from the women's movement towards total independence from conventional marriage and from the resultant lessening of the morality concerning births out of wedlock; changing times and all that.

Comforting to see that the wind's still blowing from the same old hole...

I have to say that Amicus has a point here, although my conclusions are different from his. Without the women's movement, I could not have achieved what I have. I would have been brainwashed into marriage and having chldren, and maybe working as a secretary until that happened. I think a lot of other women can say the same thing.

I don't have any children but that has been my choice. Other women have chosen to have children but not to get married because they did not have the economic need. Murphy Brown was a TV character but she represented millions of women who chose to go it alone in raising their children rather than being saddled with a husband they didn't want.

That's besides all the unmarried families I mentioned earlier.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

has all the hate ,but not quite the imagination as the mistress of slime ann coulter. here's a bit for comparison.

Even a dying party has death throes. If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate, Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation in time of war.


Democrats can't not be crazy. They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters. The only way to get Democrats to focus on terrorists would be to convince them that the terrorists are interfering with a woman's right to choose or that commercial jetliners exploding in midair are a threat to America's wetlands.

Pure, even you have to be aware that she is not serious. Sometimes Ann Coulter is over the top but here she is just being sarcastic.

 

[Guest]

Pure, even you have to be aware that she is not serious. Sometimes Ann Coulter is over the top but here she is just being sarcastic.

Sometimes she's over the top?

She constantly spews sarcastic venom.

 

[blackhaus7]

Better an accident of birth than a self-made man.

c/o the movie "The Professionals". Quoted by Lee Marvin.

 

[Pure]

comment on 'decline of marriage' and note to SweetP

seconding what OGG said. recent data about France shows large numbers (and proportions) of couples living together and having kids, but not marrying despite the longterm committment. some are very prominent public figures. this is approaching 30% of couples living together.

isn't it odd that a self labelled 'Libertarian' like Amicus is decrying people's choices-- both single women and the couples referred to above-- to live their lives without government-sanctioned arrangements? IMO, he's actually more a Puritan in Rand-ish or libertarian garb; his view correspond more or less with the Southern Baptists, etc. most 'moral decay' folks are, underneath, what the Randists call "statists."
---
Question: Outside of the Xtian right and its Faux Atheist ally Amicus, where does one see serious talk of 'bastards' as a way of stirring up one's audience?? It's as odd a word in secular society as 'fornication.'

---

SweetP:
First, the Ann quote was simply to show her flare, w/o comment on its content. She catches the reader in a way that tired local ranters do not. (She is, after all, bright and educated.)

That said, I think Ann's second sentence is quite serious:

They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters.

These are the fears of the right, and have, as does all propaganda, a kernel of truth. I have a feeling that impeachment will NOT be on the menu. "Slavery reparations" is an idea floating around for decades and probably is not going anywhere; Black Republicans would find it embarrassing.

BUT, I agree that Ann is a theatrical person. This is lost on the likes of Amicus and many of her audience. Her persona is not unlike "Borat"--engaging, very popular, and generating of piles of money. I think the Right has always had such apparently intelligent and literate people who are deliberately using the jargon for various purposes. Perhaps the last election showed that some evangelicals are not into having their strings pulled by nonsincere politicians with distinctly NON evangelical purposes.

 

[elsol]

It's the man who walks away from his responsibility.

But of course, let's blame it on women... I mean why change the male modus-operandi, right?

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Amicus, do you ever just give it a fucking rest?



Fuck....

 

[Guest]

Comforting to see that the wind's still blowing from the same old hole...

Yep.

Saw this - couldn't resist.

(Dang it - it isn't posting my offensive smilie.)

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

It's the man who walks away from his responsibility.

But of course, let's blame it on women... I mean why change the male modus-operandi, right?

Sometimes a man will walk away from his SO when she becomes pregnant. Such men are scum and should be made to take responsibility for what they have done.

But when it is a brief fling, they both should take precautions if they want to avoid pregnancy or STD or AIDS. If they don't or if it doesn't work, she is the one who makes the choice to have the baby or not.

It isn't his fault and it isn't her fault. It's their fault but she is the only one of the two who can remedy the situatioin.

 

[shereads]

Some people are born bastards. Others grow into it.

 

[Alessia Brio]

Some people are born bastards. Others grow into it.

Brava!