This weekend we met the Smith family, and we witnessed the consequences of trusting a single mother. Let’s see if we can deconstruct Jenny’s story, in order to fully grasp all the important points, from the perspective of the man in such a relationship.
Down in the comments, Jew613 brings up a most important point, which I would have missed. He writes:
The guy was made into a fool, so he wants a clean break, maybe its not the kindest decision in the world but its perfectly understandable. Plus if he is truly bipolar then he was really taken advantage of, people with that condition tend to make extreme and rash decisions. Cutting off Susie is probably just another one of those.
In the first place, I share Brother Jew’s sentiments. If you are in an untenable situation, and you find it necessary to sever ties with one or more of your children, I won’t fault you for it.
Why, Boxer? Here are a few of the factors that lead me to this conclusion:
- Tablet IV, of the ancient patriarchal Roman laws, provide for the absolute right of a father to take a child in adoption, and likewise the absolute right of a father to disinherit a child, whether adoptive or natural. This concept was called paterfamilias – and it desperately needs to be revived.
- Contemporary precedent, set by men like AfOR, who justified his own decision in detail, too many times to count.
- The present legal structure, which allows for a man’s children to be held hostage by the feminist state, at the whim of ex-wives, social workers, or faggot divorce-court judges. If your children were “yours” to begin with, none of this nonsense would be possible.
- The ease of life at present. It is currently impossible for a child to starve in any western country. If anything, children today are too well-fed, and many die early due to diabetes, heart failure, and general overeating combined with zero exercise.
There are other reasons, but these are a few.
Earl writes:
Sounds like he’s back to being the alpha male of some slut’s dreams.
Brother Earl has taken a machete to the text-jungle with this sentence. In my opinion, the climax of Jenny’s dumb tale was her reference to her husband’s affair of three years, with a woman I’ve never heard of, who we called Janice.
No doubt Janice is the “younger, hotter, tighter,” which often swoops in, all buzzard-like, to feast on the dying corpse of a collapsed marriage. If Old Joe Smith had the self-awareness to learn from his mistakes, he’d fight for his freedom, but he’s given over to one bitch already. It’s no surprise that he’s repeating all his same mistakes.
Recall that Jenny wrote, about her husband:
its a control thing… he can’t control me anymore so he is doing this…
This is nothing, if not displacement. Joe lost control the minute he walked down the aisle. It is actually Jenny, who has lost control of her slave. The punk bitch who paid her bills for the last decade is now (at least partly) free to take Janice out to dinner. This drives the bitch so crazy that she has to send unsolicited texts, pages and pages long, to strangers at 01:30 her time, bitching and moaning.
And now, for what is arguably the most important point, Sharkly writes:
…all the relatives seem to be taking sides and weighing in with the mom and child, like that does any good, after the fact. It seems that the grandparents are the only ones that sound like they’re doing the right things for the child. What a mess!
When my own mother kidnapped my sister and I, and took us, illegally, across an international border, without my father’s permission or knowledge, she did so with financial and moral support from my own father’s parents.
If you are married to a treacherous bitch, learn this lesson well. Your parents, your siblings, your aunties and uncles, will all generally side with your skank-ho wife. You will have no one in your corner.
They will do this, for no other reason than the absolute primacy that wimminz wield in the divorce courts. Your parents will want to continue to see their grandchildren, and they will stay in the good graces of your skank-ho ex-wife to do so. That is what the law requires, and that is exactly what they will do.
And now, for the postscript, which was broadcast directly to Casa Boxer, only hours ago…
Jenny’s husband came by, and she called the police on him. That much I believe. Whether the rest is true, or not, is beyond my ken. I lean toward it being a setup, if only because the RCMP is generally eager to book any suspected husband for even the slightest insult to his wife. Either way, he continues to pay the price for his goodness, love, kindness and decency.
Let this be a lesson to us all.
In conclusion…men prefer debt free virgins with no tattoos. Katie and the Canadian wimminz can cry crocodile tears all they want…but I highly doubt any man prefers the latter when he fully sees what happens when he weds that type.
Even marrying a debt-free virgin with no tattoos is only like taking one or two rounds out of the cylinder before your fateful game of Russian roulette. Remember, they were all debt-free virgins with no tattoos at some point… There’s really nothing you can do to a female . not popping her cherry and especially not marrying her . that’s going to work like epoxy hardener on her personality. Until the SYSTEM changes, relations between males and females are destabilized until further notice.
The “daughter” didn’t choose him, and instead went to the grandparents. Wonder if she was trying to milk both mom and “Dad” too see who wanted to buy her love the most…
I have a male in-law going through a divorce right now. His mother’s priority is maintaining contact with her grandkids. Doesn’t seem like she could care less about the hell his STBX was putting him through.
Interesting that she’s more concerned about her grandkids than her own child.
Do you have an academic citation for the claim that an adopted family member could be disowned? Christianity has long claimed that while a biological son could be disowned, an adopted son who was explicitly chosen by the paterfamilias could never be disowned. I’ve not, however, been able to find a quick academic reference that confirmed it one way or the other. It is pertinent to the question of whether salvation can be lost, although perhaps that right would just never be executed (Romans 8:39).
Under Roman thinking, Jesus reached his spiritual majority when he was baptized and God officially acknowledged him (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), becoming God’s “heir”. As God’s firstborn, he became paterfamilias (came into his inheritance) upon his death and resurrection (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18; Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Revelation 1:5). Christians are co-heirs with Jesus through adoption, sharing the inheritance (Romans 8:17; John 1:12; etc.). Our previous debts (sins) are canceled when we enter into the new family and we take on the rights and responsibilities of this new family.
Since God doesn’t recognize divorce, it makes sense that he wouldn’t recognize disowning. So if God would never disown us, then I’m not comfortable justifying Joe’s choice to disown his daughter.
Dear Derek:
Classical Rome isn’t really my area of interest, but I have read a bit about this stuff.
You’re using the term paterfamilias, but the word has no meaning in a Christian context; since the XII tables were already gone by 350 BCE. That aside, if you want to see children (natural or adopted) getting disinherited (and sometimes executed) for their crap behavior, by the paterfamilias, then Ovid is a good first source.
Early Romans were prohibited from distinguishing between adopted and natural children. Orphans or servants who came into the family through the will of the paterfamilias inherited citizenship and wealth as a natural child would.
In contrast, Jewish adoption doesn’t really exist, and I expect that’s the source of the misunderstanding. There really isn’t any healthy patriarchal “father” concept in Jewish and Christian tradition.
For instance: A Jewish family who adopts a child has a duty to foster ties to that child’s biological relatives. The Roman pater would have had no such obligation, since the child becomes, for all legal, moral and social purposes, a member of the paterfamilias’ family.
This is from the Jewish Virtual Library.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adoption
It’s interesting to note that after the duodecim tabulae were destroyed, materially and symbolically, Romans came more and more to abandon their healthy patriarchal traditions, and adoption became more and more aligned with the Hebrew and Christian notion, that is, it became unhealthy and matriarchal. By the first century BCE, adoptions were no longer being recognized in Rome as anything more than legal fictions. Examples (called “testamentary adoptions”) are recorded in Hugh Lindsay’s Adoption and Succession in Roman Law.
Click to access 4.pdf
Page 60 contains examples of adopted children being disinherited along with natural ones. Even so, this sort of partial adoption lines up pretty closely with the Hebrew interpretation of guardianship, which isn’t an equivalent of the Roman pater, and it wouldn’t be the goal that we seek in establishing a healthy patriarchy today.
In short, Judaism and Christianity are a source of the feminist problem, at least in this context, and they won’t be part of the solution.
Boxer
I’m thinking this story is not over yet. We’re still mid Jerry Springer.
FWIW I call my wife’s relatives “her Jerry Springer family”.
OT
Shirt saying…I saw at the gym
Thick thighs, thin patience
Says it all.
I should make a shirt that says ‘Thrills don’t pay the bills’
Better make somebody else wear the shirt though. It makes the wearer sound like the non-thrilling type who is just there to pay her bills. A Beta Bucks advertisement. Although I heartily agree with the statement.
I’d have to find a better rhyme to make it into a more spiritual context.
Much like the gays have #LoveWins…I’d do one where it would say #LoveIsNotSins