

Take a look at this article from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Ruth Blog)


Britain’s most feckless father is having another five children  – and is apparently ‘engaged’ for the third time in three months.

Unemployed father-of-10 Keith Macdonald – who pays just £5 a week to support his offspring – will cost taxpayers more than £2 million by the time all his youngsters reach 18.

He has got two new girlfriends pregnant, is having another baby with an ex and a fourth woman who was already known to be having his child has discovered that she is actually having twins.

But it remains unclear whether the latest pregnancies will make Macdonald, from Washington, Tyne and Wear, a father-of-15. The 25-year-old has admitted he has only eight youngsters, while one of his former lovers has claimed he already has 11 children – so when the next five are born he would have 16 in total.

[…]By the time each of his 15 children are 18, they will have cost the state £50,000 in child tax credits, £20,000 in child benefit while each mother could receive £30,000 in income support and £50,000 in housing benefit.

He’s also spent time in prison and is currently unemployed. So where exactly is this guy getting the money to convince all these women of his ability to provide for them?

The father, who has met most of his conquests at bus stops, claims £68.95 per week in disability benefits because he has a bad back and £44 per week in income support.

He has previously said it was ‘not his fault’ he had fathered so many children.

[…]He fathered his first child when he was just 14.

What can these women possibly be thinking, having sex before marriage with such a beastly man?

He is now engaged to marry 32-year-old unemployed Amy Ward, from Chester-le-Street, Tyne and Wear, and she is expecting his child.

Unemployed Emma Kelly, 18, and 21-year-old ex-girlfriend Clare Bryant – have also both recently been made pregnant by the feckless father, it emerged today.

And another one of his expectant partners – 24-year-old Danielle Little – has just found out that she is expecting his twins.

It remained unclear when Macdonald, who has been in and out of prison, will tie the knot with his expectant fiancee Miss Ward.

[…]But Macdonald was also engaged to unemployed Danielle Little, from Sunderland, in September.

He had promised to marry 19-year-old beautician Sarah Armstrong from Chester-le-Street in the same month when he discovered she was pregnant.

Miss Little warned Miss Ward about the feckless father on Facebook – but she reacted with fury in a post on the site.

She wrote: ‘Some people just don’t get on with their own lives and just like to cause s*** for other people.’

I think everyone can see that this man is not the sort of man that would pass any father’s pre-dating interrogation. This man is scum. There was a time when a man like this would not have been able to afford bus fare if he didn’t have a job. But now the government is paying him so that he can carry on with women as if he actually had a job. They are enabling him to act like a child well past the time where he should have grown up.

The author of the post on RuthBlog asks this:

Questions for Your Consideration

  1. What is the womens’ role here? Are they victims? Why is the article centered around the man?
  2. Imagine what these kids’ reactions might be when they grow up and learn their dad is the father of many other children, most by different mothers. Do you think the parents considered the kids’ reactions before having sex? Generally speaking, are a child’s future (and unknown) reactions something parents ought to consider?
  3. In your opinion, is this the sort of future most women dream about when they’re young? What is the government’s role, if any, in supporting the dreams of its youth?

Those are good questions, but I have one of my own.

Husbands or government

When women think about marriage, do they think about where the money is going to come from to buy all of the things they dream about? I know that they dream about babies, weddings, clothes, shoes, jewelry, a home, home decorations, a garden, furniture, drapes, vacations, and so on. But my question is – are they dreaming about who is going to pay for all of that? And if they know about these costs, then why are young, unmarried women voting to increase government spending on welfare? The only way to pay for all these benefits is by raising taxes and confiscating their future husband’s earnings and investments. It may feel good to “soak the rich”, but does it result in more marriage-minded men? (Obama has greatly increased welfare benefits, thus undermining marriage and the need to choose a man who can earn money). How does heaping taxes and regulations on businesses make a man more likely to be employed? How does raising capital gains and dividends taxes make a man more able to earn a return on his investments?

A man cannot pay for all of these social programs, (which just incentivize more and more costly behaviors), at the same time as he is supporting a family of his own. If the government is handing out money to single mothers, then women do not need men to prove that they are good earners before having sex with them. So men stop trying to do well in school and get good jobs, and instead focus on being popular, exciting and entertaining.

The man in the Daily Mail article is an ex-con and unemployed. He is the worst sort of man for a woman to choose – and yet women are falling all over him. Because the government is making it unnecessary for them to care about whether he can earn a living and act responsibly. The government is saying “we pay the bills, so you can choose men on the basis of sex, drama and to impress your girlfriends with the drama”. Women have decided that there is no way that men ought to be – they certainly should not be respected as the protector and provider and moral/spiritual leader.

Ends and means

I have been struggling lately to understand why women spend so much time thinking about what they want, and complaining about their friends who are getting married, and yet spend so little time acquiring funding, skills and knowledge to achieve what they want. One woman I know who wants to get married recently gave a one-word review of “Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”, which I made her read. Her review was “Barf!”. She has no idea what demands marriage will place on her, and resents the needs of men (and probably resents the needs of children too). However, she is very interested in Mark Driscoll and loves to load up obligations on men. Obligations on men = GOOD! Obligations on women = BARF! That’s how she thinks. It’s the feminist double-standard that Dr. Laura writes about in PCF Husbands. And, of course, if anything thing goes wrong with the intentions of women, they can just blame the man and claim that the failure was unpredictable and not their fault.

I once had a conversation with an unemployed Christian woman who was explaining to me how she had a right to collect welfare from the government in order to have a child out-of-wedlock by choice. She had NO IDEA what fatherlessness would do to a child, and NO IDEA how increased welfare spending caused higher taxes and reduced the number of men who could afford to marry. She was left-wing on most fiscal policies. (But she was also not a feminist and she was chaste, so not totally awful)

Contrast that woman with another Christian woman I know who did a B.S. and M.S. in engineering, worked 10 years, saved all her money, and helped her husband pay off their house, before becoming a stay-at-home mother. She wanted a husband and a home, so she went out and did two degrees in engineering so that she could help her husband pay for the things she wanted – before becoming a stay at home wife and mom. The engineer is vehemently opposed to big government, higher taxes and welfare because her husband’s salary is what is allowing her to be a good wife and mother, away from the stress of work.

Socialism and feminism

Why are women pursuing men like the unemployed ex-con? I actually wrote a post on why women prefer bad men, and why they would prefer not to have to deal with traditional men acting in traditional male roles. It’s less work for them if they just get a check in the mail – they don’t have to be respectful of a husband if a check just comes in the mail. Some women really resent the authority that a man has in the home as the primary earner, and they also resent having to respect men and deal with their other needs for sex, verbal encouragement, etc. They want government to replace men, because men, especially good men, are authoritarian and demanding and judgmental. And the result is skyrocketing rates of single motherhood. The out-of-wedlock birth rate is 40% in the United States, costing us 112 BILLION dollars a year.

Here is another post discussing research on the attitudes of college women to hooking up done by the University of Virginia. Women really are choosing this. No one is making them do it. They are doing it because they want to. The bounds of traditional sexual morality, traditional sex roles and traditional courtship  are not fun. Read the research and see for yourself what they say.

Socialism and Polygamy

This post on Haemet talks about the social costs of polygamy, which is another arrangement that can’t easily be sustained without government support.

Related posts

44 thoughts on “What happens when the government pays people to have babies out-of-wedlock?”

  1. Hmmm… In reading this, I can’t help but thing you are making two erroneous assumptions about the women in this story. The first is that these women have any real interest in marriage in the first place, or that if marriage is of any interest to them at all, that they think of marriage as a life-long commitment vs thinking they can just get a divorce if things turn turn out the way they want. The other assumption is that these women are doing any real thinking in the first place. Considering how many women he’s gone through in such a short time, he’s obviously finding women perfectly willing to have sex with a guy they barely know. I get the impression that, among this group, sex itself isn’t valued as a demonstration of love and commitment, but as a fleeting physical release with little thought or emotional attachment involved.

    Which might explain how a loser like this is able to “get any” at all.


  2. Been thinking on this.

    And to be sure, I think the government should stop handing out money to people, whether it be to support their loose sex habit or their drug habit or whatever habit these people feel entitled to engage in on my nickle.

    I’m not opposed to giving a hand up to people who really do hit on hard times, something to get them through until they can get on their feet.
    My husband lost his job a couple years ago and had to go on unemployment for a time. I really appreciated the help. We would have never made it without it. But is was temporary. Less than six months.

    But I am done just giving money to people who won’t work and refuse to work towards any financial independence.

    So, in thinking of some way to turn this titanic of government handouts around, my friend suggested that all Americans should have a limited amount of time where they can ask for help. It would be a life-time limit of a certain amount of years. And when they use it up, they are done. They are on their own.
    Along with this would be helps toward financial independence. But when time is up, it’s up.

    Though I appreciate you, Wintery, wanting to reason with those men and women who milk the system every chance they get. Reason won’t work. They are content with their free ride. It needs to not be free any more. It needs to be reduced and limited.


    1. Good comment, Mara.

      I’ve been thinking about this too. There are sometimes valid reasons for people being unemployed. And then it’s good if they can get help. But there’s also huge abuse of the system.

      I was wondering whether it might be an idea to (as you said) limit the time for which someone can be on unemployment benefits. Perhaps there also needs to be proof that the person is actively seeking employment and taking definite steps to get it, not just sitting around and watching TV all day. I saw a doccie on Sky News not long ago where there was an unemployed couple who did exactly that. They had no motivation to change. The government handout was basically enabling their lethargy. On the other hand, another unemployed guy they profiled had gotten involved in a community centre to build up his skills and teach skills to others. So he was making something of his life. Of course it would be a lot harder to do the admin on this, but perhaps it could be an improvement on the current situation where irresponsibility is rewarded – even encouraged.


      1. How about this… how about people, when they are working, have to save their own money for a rainy day?

        And, in order to encourage this, the government can completely dismantle the unemployment insurance administration and take that money and MATCH all contributions of workers to THEIR OWN PRIVATE TAX-FREE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. Which they can use FOR ANY REASON or NO REASON.

        Sometimes I think government is just too feminized! We need it to be more masculine – self-reliance, personal responsibility, emergency preparedness, moral boundaries.

        Basically, the government should not be doing anything to protect people by transferring wealth from producers to consumers. If people feel that their own education and career decisions are risky, then they should put money into their own unemployment fund. For example, I am in IT, and I should be paying for ME, not for everyone else. Other people make other decisions and they should have to live with those decisions and face them on their own. If they want my money, let them ask me with their hat in their hand instead of voting to have the government confiscate it against my will.

        Re-distribute my work ethic, not my earnings.

        We need to make it so that boring virgin apologists with multiple engineering degrees and a stable career history are more highly valued as husbands and fathers than unemployed criminals paid by the the government with the money taken from boring virgin apologist with multiple engineering degrees with stable career histories.


        1. Good response, WK. People should save – if they can. Of course some people with low incomes and lots of people to support just don’t make enough to save. (Maybe this is not much of a problem in America? I don’t know.)

          I was thinking that instead of having the government distribute unemployment benefits by redistributing taxpayer earnings, there could be NGOs that help unemployed people, which are supported on a voluntary basis and where those who apply for help are vetted to see whether they’re trying to milk the system. That would be much better.

          It’s pretty much analogous to ministry to the homeless – which I suppose is the extreme version. Sometimes people are homeless for valid reasons (e.g. an abusive spouse and family) and sometimes they are homeless because of irresponsibility. I have friends who work in a church-run homeless ministry and who deal with these issues. They tell me about how they encourage responsible behaviour and help people without enabling a destructive lifestyle. So it can be done.


          1. I am OK with tax incentives for private charity. Abolish government agencies that are often politicized (HUD working too closely with ACORN, etc.) and use the money for matching private charity. And penalize any charity that uses matching dollars for political influencing and contributions.

            Like I said before – on the one hand women want husbands, on the other hand women want to discriminate against men in schools and tax away all their money. Make up up your minds – either you want marriage and family, or you want government to redistribute wealth. Which is it?



            You’re criticizing the wrong woman, dude. Stop it.


          3. Then don’t say “you”. Be more specific. Say exactly what you mean. Say “most women”, if that’s what you mean. You’ll get a better reception from those who actually agree with you.

            I’m just saying this to help. I think you have some really good stuff to say, but you could convey it with more accuracy and precision to greater beneficial effect. The pen is mightier than the sword. But that’s not because it’s a caveman’s club. ;-)


          4. “Like I said before – on the one hand women want husbands, on the other hand women want to discriminate against men in schools and tax away all their money. ” – Wintery
            Speak for yourself- I have never seen evidence of discrimination against boys in school. I saw girls do better, but no reason to believe discrimination is the reason. Leave alone reason to believe women, including mothers of boys, want discrimination against boys in school.
            As for women wanting to tax away men’s money, all the most left-wing, most communist people I know are men. By the way, is there any tax in America which is only for men and not for women in the same tax bracket? If not, welfare lovers tax both sexes, with money going to both sexes- to men like Keith McDonald, to women like those who have his kids, and equal amounts to support each of his out-of-wedlock boys as each of his out-of-wedlock girls.
            And I am a woman, and I want neither discrimination against boys nor against girls in school. I read conservative and even libertarian blogs because I believe in small goverment and low tax, but men who run such blogs are misogenic anti-women fire-breathers. (That last sentence is less of a generalization than the sentence “women want to discriminate against men in schools.”)


          5. Wintery, I started and ended with questioning the “women want to discriminate against men in schools” statement. It’s not the first time I ask you to provide evidence of that.

            As for your PDF, it don’t go far enough to prove your generalization. I’ve seen enough to convince me that most American women from the 1900’s up to today are more in favour of large goverment than the men of the same country and era are. But you cannot replace “most American women from the 1900’s to today” with “women”, as the set is much larger than the subset. If you want to prove your point, you need to prove it about the set, not the tiny minority of the world’s women who live in that one country. America is not the biginning and end of the planet.


          6. Wintery,unless I miss it,that link does not mention any form of discrimination against men.

            It seems to me your reasoning is: “There are more women with higher education than men. Ergo, women discriminate against men in school.”

            Similar reasoning would be “There are more male body building champions than female.Ergo, the Body Building federation discriminate against women.”

            Whatever imbalance you see, you regard as the fault of either anti-male discrimination or indulging women. Women take more depression pills? We are not harsh enough on their emotions. Men commit more suicide? Poor little mennies, they can’t cope with the big meanie women discriminating against them. (I can’t remember you mentioning male suicide, but other manosphere blogs do.) Women doing badly in voting? Women are ill-informed and naturally inclined to want the wrong things. Men doing badly in school? It’s those big meanie women discriminating again!


        2. Agree. We need to make it so that boring virgin apologists and Good News Club teachers with a proven love for children and God, and a proven capacity to be faithful to her man, are more highly valued to be wifes and mothers than whatever loose girl would jump into bed with a man the quickest.


          1. I actually put a lot more emphasis on skills, savings and plans than on soft stuff. My example of the engineer woman who went out and got two engineering degrees so that she could help her husband pay off the house. Then she quits and is a stay-at-home mom. This woman drives a stick-shift, likes guns, chases her husband out of the house to play with his male friends, and is incredibly frugal. They bought a fairly new house so there would be no maintenance, close to husband’s work so he can come home for lunch. She doesn’t spend too much time cooking or cleaning, and she weighs about 105 lbs and wears attractive yet practical stuff around the house. She is also an accomplished apologist and teaches classes with her husband on Lee Strobel and Greg Koukl books and so on. She makes the handouts when they show William Lane Craig debates at the church so the people can follow along. This woman is basically the perfect wife. OH! And she understands how men feel about sex. She was virgin when she married, too. She is naturally a fiscal conservative, and rages at the government welfare programs and taxes.


          2. And this, Wintery, is why I keep coming back.

            I want women to be empowered like this lady.
            Not so they can act the fool and live selfishly. But so they can be a strong leader along side their husbands in home and church.


          3. According to this article, 70% of single women voted for Barack Obama. Exit polls showed that 77% of young, single women voted for Barack Obama.

            Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. That means that 77% of young unmarried women prefer a President who votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. They prefer Supreme Court Justices appointed by a President who votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The prefer that the laws of the land, and the court rooms, and the public schools, reflect the views of a President who votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

            Here’s the video from CNN:

            Those are the facts. Would you say that these women are ready for marriage, voting as they do? Are they prepared to love a husband and children self-sacrificially? What do you think men should do when confronted with a number like that? Should they seek to marry in a country with laws and courts set by such a majority view? Are men responsible for how these women voted? Can they be blamed for it?


          4. No, but I imagine their male counter parts aren’t any more ready than they are.
            But culture has always made room for men to sow their wild oats.
            Not so women.

            Society traditionally has wink, winked, nod, nodded at young men who act the fool and act selfishly saying, they will grow up.

            Traditionally young people quit going to church once they leave their parents homes, but when they get married and start having children of their own, they mature and leave behind foolishness and often go back to church.

            My sister-in-law came from a conservative family. She toyed with liberalism in college as an act of stepping out, kind of like getting a tattoo.
            But now she’s married to my brother, a military man, and she’s staunch conservative.

            Perhaps instead of looking at these women as total derelicts, you should offer them the same consideration that society has always extended to males and their youthful foolishness.


          5. Yes, the men are even less ready that the women! I agree with you! I just don’t want everyone saying that men are the only ones who need work.

            When you think about the roles men are supposed to satisfy Biblically, they are absolutely awful!

            Married women are pretty good – there is something about marriage that makes men and women act so much better.


          6. I’m glad we agree.

            Another thing I forgot to mention about voters maturing. I wonder how many of those young unmarrieds now regret their vote.

            I’ll bet many of them learned more than my friend did who was a Mondale/Ferraro supporter before she was old enough to vote.
            When Mondale/Ferraro were defeated in a landslide, it made my friend angry. But it was more about a woman being on the ticket than anything else.
            She wanted to see the first female vice-president back in 1984.

            She kept the election poster up in her window for many months after Reagan won.

            I guess you can still get tee shirts. Wonder if my friend has one.



          7. Yes, I know… people vote for all kinds of reasons, like your brother’s wife and her liberal phase. But I do think people do have some obligation to think these things through… and to understand the effects of what they are doing!


          8. At the time those people are living in, that late adolescent stage, somewhere between 18-25, where the brain simply isn’t fully developed, I’m pretty sure they thought they did think it through.

            You live and you learn.
            It’s true for individuals.
            It’s true for nations.
            This is where our prayers come in. We pray that the eyes of people’s understanding would be opened to the truth.
            You know this is an enemy prowling around trying to darken people’s minds and understanding.

            Keep on with apologetics. But don’t forget to pray.


  3. Agree with Mara. Also, int he US, moving welfare from federally-directed benefits to something exclusively under the auspices of a state, and directed by a county, would bring accountability to the matter. It used to be that you had to ask your town manager for welfare, citing your expenses and current income. Then you would get some money for a certain amount of time – maybe a bit more than you absolutely needed, to help you get ahead on your bills – and then you had to plead your case again.


    It’s also that female engineers are more conservative (on the whole) than their peers in liberal arts disciplines. Aside from the truism that engineering has absolute right and wrongs (although not true at the margins of advanced technologies and quantum mechanics), as well as definite results-oriented analysis, engineering makes you work your butt of and then rewards you for it. You have about five times as much homework as your friends who are getting their poli sci degrees, but then you get paid three times as much as they get paid, get a master’s paid for, and then work a relatively stable (for a professional career) job.

    Oh, and the liberal arts types look down upon you for majoring in a “trade” – the hallmark of what Thomas Sowell would refer to as the Vision of the Anointed.


    1. Roxeanne, I like your response better than Wintery’s,
      So I’m going to ignore his and talk about yours.

      I think taking it away from the federal and giving it to the local is better.
      Much more local accountability.

      I also feel that limiting it so that people who use it up must turn to faith based charities (or for the Atheist that wants to get involved, faithless based charities.)
      And that those faith based charities should hold people accountable for their sins.
      (and in the case of Atheists, they can decide how they want to help and whether they want to support child after child born out of wedlock.)

      Note: the reason I’m ignoring you, Wintery, is because you simply cannot stop everything as it is and completely turn the other direction. Changes need to be made, but for the very poor who cannot save money, your solutions to them are like asking them to climb mount everest in the buff.
      They need incremental change. It can be done. Things can change. But it must be done in a way the benifits, or better, encourages the poor rather than just expect them to stop thinking like poor people all in one day and think like rich ones the next.
      They can be taught.
      But you have no clue how to teach them.

      A more merciful move is to start saying, “Soon these benefits will end. Let us help you find a way out of the hole your government and ancestors dug you down into.”

      If they refuse the help, and some/many will, believing they are entitled, it’s because they refused, not because everything changed in one day and they were suddenly expected to act different than they have always acted and how their parents and perhaps grandparents acted before them.



    For heaven’s sake, Wintery, there is nothing wrong with women as women. I don’t know why you see something you don’t like and slap the “feminine” label on it, but it’s fantastically irrational.

    I feel like going all Princess Bride on your butt: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”.


  5. Let me get this straight. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments were both passed before the 19th. Yet women are always blamed. Rather than asking why a bunch of property-owning men screwed up a hundred years ago, you want to… blame women. Yay for you.

    So what do you propose? Stripping me of my right to vote, when my paycheck gets taxed?

    So what is your argument? Anyone who sticks up for women can be mocked with “MS” (ha, ha) and is just expected to tow the Wintery Knight line: that women are stupid fools, and everything wrong with the world is due to the feminine aspects of it – right up until it comes to courting women, at which point you stuff us onto a pedestal? Wow, someone has a “virgin/whore” complex that manifests itself in everything from dating to politics. Weird.


    1. My solution is for every woman to turn into Michele Bachmann, who understands these things perfectly, and I hope she becomes President.

      My concern is that women who vote for bigger government, as the peer-reviewed article showed, do not realize that they are undermining the very things they say they want – namely marriage. I do not want the government to insulate people from their own decisions by transferring wealth so that people have the sense that they will be secure regardless of their own personal decisions – because it will result in more risky/selfish behavior and more social costs. I think women have a tendency to promote compassion over moral standards and that if this is not controlled, as Michele Bachmann can control it, then it will result in bigger government. That is why I say that I want them to promote free market capitalism, risk, entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, etc. in the way they vote, even though it may go against their instincts that value compassion, security and empathy.

      I mean you no harm. I have a feeling that you are one of those women who has control over those instincts since you are a conservative and you calculate the costs of too much emphasis on compassion and security and “fairness” and not enough emphasis on risk, entrepreneurship, accountability, personal responsibility.

      And I am not the only one who says this.

      Read this Dennis Prager piece:




      However, with the advent of contemporary feminism and other social trends that coincided with the rise of feminism — among them the elevation of compassion over standards, the great emphasis placed on feelings, the rejection of patriarchy and the devaluation of traditional masculine virtues (like subdued emotional expression) — female nature came to be seen as far less in need of discipline than male nature.

      So, while society continued to teach boys to control themselves, it stopped teaching girls to do so. Girls’ emotions and feelings were inherently valuable. And denying this was attacked as sexist, if not misogynistic.

      That is exactly what I mean when I say that women need to inform themselves and then freely choose to VOTE masculine. And Prager is wise. I am not as bad as you are making me out to be!

      I apologize for not being clearer and hope this helps as much as it can.


  6. Wintery: “I think your position is more realistic than mine, I was just stating a principle.”

    Let me tell you another reason I initially ignored your responses to Roxeanne.

    Here you have two conservative women talking about what we should do to stop the damaging practice of funding out of wedlock births. One of those women is a left-brained engineer.

    Instead of discussing real options on how to deal with this problem, you regress into another one of your tirades about the feminization of this that or the other thing.

    I believe you have just run off the engineer, that intelligent, conservative woman who might have been able to talk in the direction of real solutions.

    I was waiting for her to come back and over look your insults of her and her sex. But she hasn’t yet.
    Hopefully she will.

    But then again, maybe she’s smarter than I am and doesn’t want to waste another moment of her time on a man who feels obligated to openly abuse her sex and to coninually use the term feminization in a derogatory sense.

    Do you really want to drive off all the good ones with your incessant need to go after the boogie (wo)man.

    Really, Wintery, you are starting to come off as a witch hunter on the trail of Jezebel. You are doing far more damage than any good on your vendetta because you are rounding up scads of innocent women on your way and holding them to accountable for sins they have not commited.


    1. I understand that this is your opinion, but I am interested in public things like laws, policies, statistics, voting records showing how women vote, and what women vote for. Why do young, unmarried women vote 77% for Obama? That’s not a tirade, that’s a fact. It has nothing to do with me.

      And why do women vote to continuously expand the size of government:

      Roxeanne didn’t really have much to say about that peer-reviewed research, but it shows exactly what I am arguing. Women substitute big government for men. (Not you, and not Roxeanne, but women as a whole favor big government, which is opposed to the institution of marriage).

      Note also that Roxeanne is a self-proclaimed feminist. It’s not clear to me that she is on my side, in the way that I think you are. I felt that I explained what I meant pretty well. I do think Roxeanne is very intelligent and talented, but it’s not clear to me that she is on my team, and not clear to me that her positions are supportive of marriage and parenting.


  7. Okay, Wintery, you leave me no choice.

    Here is the raw history leading up to the issues we face today from way back.

    Male heads of Roman households who were married and kept a family, also kept slaves and was able to demand sex from the female ones. They also entertained courtesans who they got sex from.
    The lord of the manor in the middle ages kept a wife and family, but also had the freedom to ravish the inn keeper’s daughter and deflower any and all of the daughters of his serfs.
    The Southern plantation holder also made his living off the backs of slaves and had freedom to keep a mistress and visit his female slaves.

    This masculine sin is call the sin of entitlement.
    It is basically adhering to the fallen male version of the golden rule. Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

    The entitlement mentality carried over to business men back in the days before feminism. Those business men had a wife and family, perhaps kept a mistress or visited the brothel, and perhaps had a thing going on the side with the secretary.

    Okay fine.
    Women decided that they wanted to be entitled too.
    So along came feminism.
    And what is feminism? It is women wanting to act like men. In other words, it is the masculinization of women.

    Then guess what happened?
    The poor decided that they should be entitled too.
    So now our hard earned money is supporting out of wedlock births and drug dealers and users.
    And our poor, as a whole, have been masculinized. They feel entitled to whatever they want, just like the lord of the manor in the days of old.


    The women (who voted for Obama) want to continue to be entitled, and the poor (who voted for Obama) want to continue to be entitled like rich men always have been.

    Problem is, we can’t afford it.

    Now, we ALL need to get over the fact that any of us should feel entitled to that which doesn’t belong to us.

    It’s a tough sell.
    NOBODY wants to give up what they feel entitled to.

    It’s a much tougher sell when you run around telling women, “We can’t stop men from being entitled, because, well, you know. Boys will be boys and are expected to act that way. But we can and will stop you. You are the source of all the problems anyway. Everything was fine as long as women didn’t feel entitled.”

    This line of reasoning ignores how we got where we are. And it ignores any sort of fairness.

    Before feminism, successful business men were practically expected to have a mistress.
    Women married to these men had no choice but to stay.
    Why? Because whoever has the gold makes the rules.

    Guess what?

    Obama’s plan IS better for women, as long as men feel entitled to make their own rules.
    (I know many of you Christian conservative men would never expect your wife to stay with you while you keep a mistress nowadays. I’m glad for that. But just remember. You are not the majority. And this is not how it was back in the days before feminism)

    I’m calling on all conservative men to get over the masculine sin of personal entitlement, live the way God wants them to, lead the way OFF of the road of entitlement. Then perhaps women can trust men/fathers/husbands over the government.

    It would be a better world if men and women could trust each other.
    But trust has been broken over and over.
    And it hasn’t been the women doing all the trust breaking.

    This is why I keep going back, again and again, and saying, we’ve got to work together.
    Stop harping on surface issues (women voted for Obama) and start dealing with the root issues (Why did women vote for Obama? Because some aspects of the way conservative men have lived has let women down terribly and trapped them in situations no man would ever tolerate.)


      1. First of all, that’s your opinion (about the men).

        Second, it’s like I said. Women have been masculinized. They want to be able to walk around like entitled men who can have loose sex whenever they want and not have to pay the consequences.

        I’m not saying that’s a good thing. I’m just saying how it is.

        I’m doing what I can on my end to increase the number of female prudes in my neighorhood. I trust you are doing the same on your end to increase the number of male prudes.


  8. This issue is one that’s easy to blame on big government, but the truth is that like the issue of abortion and gay marriage, this is a cultural failure and a failure of the church rather than one of government.

    The job of the government is to keep society operating as functionally as possible. Let’s say the government did not provide these benefits–or significantly reduced them. What would happen? Well, abortions would undoubtedly increase, more women would struggle to provide anything for their children, leading to increased crime, worse ghettos than there already are, more health problems because of the lack of preventive care, etc. Then society would have to build more prisons to house this generation of miscreants who were left to fend for themselves on the streets. More money would have to be doled out for emergency health services–because hospitals cannot turn people away. Public schools would have even more of a burden because there would be even less stability in the homes.

    Society is going to pay for this moral problem one way or the other. Seeking a political solution will fail because the problem is not a political one. Women didn’t start having more babies out of wedlock because of welfare–it was because of increasing acceptance of sexual promiscuity. The only thing welfare is set up to do is prevent even worse consequences to society.

    Government cannot and will never be able to patch a moral problem. The Church is supposed to be the thermostat in the house and it hasn’t done its job.


Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s