Lion of the Blogosphere

Child support

A commenter linked to this WSJ op-ed critical of Obama for there being fewer child support orders.

I have to agree with Obama on this one. The idea of child support is archaic. It hearkens back to a time when it was assumed that people didn’t have sex until after they were married, and if it happened before marriage it was assumed that the man scammed the woman into doing something she didn’t want to do. Child support, perhaps, was seen as punishment for doing something immoral and then not getting married.

But today, premarital sex is the norm and virgins are considered weird (and a source of mockery like that movie) and women won’t even date a man who’s a virgin. No one is expected to get married just because they had sex, most women don’t want to marry then men they have sex with, and abortion is a constitutional right and birth control is sold at every drugstore and given away for free at Planned Parenthood, so no woman has to have a baby unless she wants to.

The other side of the coin is that the loser men usually have no financial ability to pay child support. Or if they do, being forced to pay it will ruin their lives, preventing them from obtaining college degrees and building careers.

If people are old fashioned and feel that there is too much premarital sex happening, I don’t see how they think the child support system designed for the morals of a hundred years ago is doing anything to prevent that. Maybe just the opposite, women would have less premarital sex if they knew that they were on the hook financially for raising their bastard children.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 11, 2015 at 10:18 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

58 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Child support could be seen as performing a eugenic function by discouraging too much breeding by the low-IQ. Whether it actually does so is a different story.

    “Maybe just the opposite, women would have less premarital sex if they knew that they were on the hook financially for raising their bastard children.”

    What that really seems to do is transfer the disincentive from men to women.


    March 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM

    • More likely to be dysgenic. Men with higher future-time orientation (a good genetic trait) will avoid getting women pregnant (which they already do). But there will always be some man with lesser future-time orientation who is horny enough to have unprotected sex if there’s a willing woman.

      On the other hand, women are encouraged to have sex and have babies, because the know that the welfare system or child support will cover them. Raising a kid on someone else’s dime is probably more rewarding than working a crappy job at Walmart.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM

      • Men with very high future time orientation have significantly less casual hookups.


        March 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM

      • By shifting the burden to the state you’re giving women who shouldnt be having children more of a reward for doing so. Before the mother had to deal with non payment and all the hassles of extracting money from the father. The incentives for the mother are much more important because women have much more control over whether a child is born than men do.

        Howie Stern

        March 11, 2015 at 10:46 AM

      • Generally what happens is that child support from fathers is used instead of welfare. From the woman’s point of view, it’s the same thing.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 11, 2015 at 11:50 AM

      • Generally what happens is that child support from fathers is used instead of welfare. From the woman’s point of view, it’s the same thing.

        Assuming it’s for the same amount the welfare is worth much more because the mother doesn’t have to deal with non payment and the hassle and expense of enforcing payment.

        Howie Stern

        March 11, 2015 at 2:56 PM

      • More likely to be dysgenic. Men with higher future-time orientation (a good genetic trait) will avoid getting women pregnant (which they already do).

        Then sterilize the poor and stupid, and abolish child support.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 11, 2015 at 7:48 PM

    • interesting…research has been done on abortion and crime, but child support?

      grey enlightenment

      March 11, 2015 at 12:19 PM

  2. If only it was a question for individuals. But Obama’s motives are to grow government and raise whole new generations of dependent-voters.
    Remember the travesty of cradle-to-grave “Julia?”

    Robert Arvanitis

    March 11, 2015 at 10:37 AM

  3. Reforming child support is probably a good idea. Why should fathers be forced to pay if they are allowed little access to their children? It remains to be seen whether there will be a social improvement, but at least this is an attempt to fix something that is legitimately broken.


    March 11, 2015 at 12:01 PM

  4. If the parents have joint custody, which should be the norm unless one parent is unfit, there should not be child support. Each parent supports the children when they are living with him/her. If one parent has sole custody, the other one should pay child support. People do have a moral obligation to take care of their children.


    March 11, 2015 at 12:04 PM

    • Why does a man have a moral obligation to “support a child” the other ripped away from his care with a unilateral divorce?


      March 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM

    • Do men have a moral obligation to take care of a child they never wanted? Women don’t.

      Howie Stern

      March 11, 2015 at 2:56 PM

    • Keep in mind, I said that if both parents are fit, they should get joint custody and nobody should have to pay child support. This should be the default. (Yes, I know in some states it is not the default, but we are discussing what the law should be like.)

      But if one person is clearly unfit, the other parent should get sole custody, the the noncustodial parent should have to help support. Yes, it is a moral obligation, whether or not you are a man Ora woman


      March 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM

      • Or a woman. You make it, you own it. Current divorce laws are biased against men, but that is a separate issue from whether or not there should be child support. It is worth pointing out that sometimes the man files for divorce.


        March 11, 2015 at 4:53 PM

  5. It’s already more expensive to be a married dad than a single one, despite the current child-support law. Why would we want to exacerbate that by watering the law down even further?

    Less child support won’t discourage low FTO moms either. Betas will just get squeezed for more bux to make up for going easy on the alphas.

    Furthermore, if a mom receives “child support” from the alpha in sporadic cash transfers whenever he’s in a good mood, she’ll probably act more illogically “grateful” to him than if she receives it from him in predictable wage garnishments.


    March 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM

  6. Um, no. How bout we just get rid of welfare instead? Taxpayers would just shoulder even more of a burden if child support were done away with.


    March 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM

    • Why not get rid of both….


      March 11, 2015 at 3:01 PM

  7. I’m not sure how a duty to support one’s offspring is “archaic.” Child support arose from parishes that would take in destitute single mothers trying to recover their costs from the fathers. And in most states, the amount an individual has to pay is determined by income. The biggest problem with child support is the fact that the Fathers have little say over how the money spent.


    March 11, 2015 at 12:53 PM

  8. Children do not get to choose their parents, so of course we should have some kind of state assistance in place. However, maybe the money should come as a loan rather than a grant. The political “optics” probably make this a nonstarter in terms of real world legislation, and it would not eliminate predatory borrowing, but it’s better than the current system.


    March 11, 2015 at 1:31 PM

  9. Years ago while working in a social services related position, I learned why single moms in the system are not interested in reporting on the fathers of the kids; they get welfare already, and if they get child support, it’s either reimbursed to social welfare services or deducted from their benefits. In other words, no advantage to single moms to squeal. Particularly when they can get extra off the books cash from the fathers if they keep their mouths shut.

    A useful, but therefore impossible reform would be if they just denied welfare benefits unless the father was known and reported. Also for single moms having kids via Medicaid, the kids should be automatically DNA tested and the stray dads tracked down.

    Mike Street Station

    March 11, 2015 at 1:59 PM

  10. Some states require ‘fathers’ to pay children sired by others, often black.

    Child Support is archaic and toxic, and that’s why fewer men bother to marry nowdays. If they don’t marry and are careful enough not to sire children, they don’t have to worry about such mess.

    toos is god

    March 11, 2015 at 2:09 PM

  11. I always understood that child support was for the benefit of the child, not the mother. So why shouldn’t the father contribute to the support of his child?? Lion, do I have it wrong?


    March 11, 2015 at 2:59 PM

    • Married men should take care of children born during marriage so long as such children were not conceived because the wife lied about using birth control.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 11, 2015 at 4:33 PM

    • Child support is really just rent and home-remodelling and vacation and car-service subsidy for Mom, who’d be able to support herself and child anyway; it doesn’t support the child. And Dad cannot afford to pay his own rent, after Mom has ended the marriage, while he pays 17% of his gross income to Mom, who continually threatens him with legal action and treats him as her part-time slave.


      March 11, 2015 at 6:23 PM

    • Because divorce is usually initiated by the wife.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 11, 2015 at 8:07 PM

    • There is no legal requirement that child support money be spent on the child. It is considered legitimate for the mom to use the money to raise her standard of living.

      I posted the whole WSJ article here.


      March 12, 2015 at 12:26 AM

  12. Folks, future time orientation, the way you think about it, is paranoid delusion. You only have about 50% change to have great-grandchildren (80% chance to have children, multiplied by about 80% they will have children, and about 80% they will have children, roughly). The only way to real future time orientation is to have as much unprotected sex with as many lower class women as you can get. Why lower? Because you will waste less time without much difference in quality of offspring. Genghis Khan had lots of future time orientation. He did not worry about child support.


    March 11, 2015 at 3:17 PM

    • You appear to be basing your calculations on the assumption that each generation will have either zero or one child.


      March 11, 2015 at 5:37 PM

      • Yes, but I use words ‘about’ and ‘roughly’.


        March 12, 2015 at 1:49 AM

  13. the lion has finally gone full on red pill, hell yeah!


    March 11, 2015 at 3:34 PM

    • Keep in mind none of Lion’s pills are legal even with a prescription.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 11, 2015 at 7:50 PM

      • haha, don’t even know exactly what that means, but i like it.


        March 11, 2015 at 8:35 PM

  14. Reblogged this on Rivelino's Diary.


    March 11, 2015 at 3:36 PM

  15. rivelino

    March 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM

  16. A big part of welfare reform was cracking down on deadbeat dads. People realized that many of the women on welfare would get off welfare if the father were kicking in. Of course most of those fathers were black men who didn’t bother to fight the mother in court, figuring that he was screwed anyway. I didn’t read the article but I bet Obama is going easy on the deadbeat dads because they’re mostly black.


    March 11, 2015 at 4:27 PM

  17. Lion, with all due respect, you’re committing a multitude of ‘libertarian-thinking’ errors here.

    If you think women are imprudent regarding pregnancy risk because they don’t potentially face 100% of the financial costs, just wait until men are absolved of all financial burden! Women will always have the lifestyle-cramping burden, which is arguably a bigger disincentive than money, anyway.

    If deadbeat men weren’t on the hook financially, they would bend women to their wills as a matter of course; condom-free sex is hotter and feels better and manipulating a woman and having a multitude of progeny is ego-boosting for many.


    March 11, 2015 at 4:45 PM

    • Raising children is not a “lifestyle-cramping burden,” it’s what most women want to do.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 11, 2015 at 4:49 PM

      • … until they actually have to do it. Child support serves as an added disincentive for men to engage in risky, unprotected sex. You talk about it as if they face loss of educational opportunities and career building, but it more likely translates into less money spent on the conspicuous consumption used to attract sluts and hoodrats.


        March 11, 2015 at 5:24 PM

      • Conspicuous consumption doesn’t attract hood rats. Being alpha does.

        Some Guy

        March 11, 2015 at 8:59 PM

      • “Alpha” is one of those abused words that should immediately raise red flags. More than anything, women are attracted to social status, and so-called alpha behavior is but one way to project status. How one looks, which includes style of dress, accessories, car, etc., also projects status. Moreover, human beings process information contextually, and we typically see a person before observing their behavior. While the stocky, balding professor may have all the typical alpha qualities, he’s still a short, fat guy.


        March 12, 2015 at 12:07 AM

      • It doesn’t matter how many tomcats get neutered. As long as there’s one with a pair of balls every tabby in town is having a litter. It reminds me of an old joke. What’s the definition of a “cad”? A man who doesn’t tell his wife he’s sterile until after she’s pregnant.


        March 12, 2015 at 12:14 AM

      • Of course the world “alpha” has been misconstrued or misused. Most inner city racial minorities have very low standards when it comes to women, and are thus able to sleep with many of them, and then dump them without hesitation, as the females raise their children by themselves, each sired by different men.

        CH (Chad Hearst) and other manosphere guys, are defining alpha in NAM terms. This goes to show you what direction White America is heading to.


        March 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM

  18. Billie Jean is not my lover, she’s just a girl who claims that I am the one, but the kid is not my son

    E. Rekshun

    March 11, 2015 at 5:12 PM

  19. I have to thoroughly disagree with any policy that makes the United States more like a Black ghetto hellhole. I don’t want to live in a world where non-Blacks have the incentive to live like Blacks. In fact, if such legislation were passed in all majority-White countries, I would have to seriously consider living among different race peoples.


    March 11, 2015 at 5:57 PM

    • Thank you, SC. You said exactly what I was thinking.

      I’m very surprised that a man of Lion’s intelligence, superior knowledge, and basic decency would want to advocate a policy that allows men to be irresponsible toward their offspring. I know that people want to have sex without having to worry about conception and parenthood as a possible outcome, but the truth is there’s no way to guarantee this. Which is one reason why the old sexual mores made sense. Lion said before that women are the traditional gatekeepers of sex, so that if women are willing to give it we shouldn’t expect men to refrain (and so then shouldn’t penalize them if a baby results.) But why should the burden fall solely on women? Men should be expected to exercise self-restraint also. Keep in mind that the “woman as gatekeeper” idea originated from an era when premarital sex was looked down upon and society took a sterner attitude toward those who abandoned their children. In other words, society gave more moral support to the women who waited for marriage to have sex and to the man that put up with this because he wanted to marry her. It seems Lion is trying to pick and choose what parts of the sexual revolution he wants to keep. Yes, to the free and casual sex. No to the responsibility. But they really are a package deal.


      March 11, 2015 at 10:20 PM

      • Of course when the Lion advocates this “no fatherhood unless he intended it” policy he is theoretizing. In his own personal life I couldn’t see him abandoning any of his cubs. He’d be far too curious about how well they could turn out with his help. The cubs would be drilled on SAT vocabulary words from a young age to insure that their SAT score (which Lion views as a proxy for IQ) is close to perfect.. And the little cubettes would be able to define “value transference” by age 10 or earlier. Only one question: Would Lion’s first daughter be named “Catherine Rampell Lion?”


        March 11, 2015 at 10:26 PM

      • I don’t think Leon is advocating irresponsibility so much as saying ‘if this is the situation then…’

        I agree that women are the sexual gatekeepers. Some women don’t like this role because they think they should be able to screw around without consequences the way they imagine men do. What feminists fail to consider is access to sex. Most women can get some guy to have sex by simply dropping their drawers. They may not be able to get the guy to marry them but they can get him to have sex. Not so for men. Most men struggle to find sex. That’s what marriage is about. Women make a commitment to be faithful and, in return, men make a commitment to support the children. This works because women NEED a husband to help support the children and most men are willing to fulfill this role in exchange for sex. I’m not discounting the importance of an emotional bond as well.

        Women’s “liberation” (ie. women going to university and having careers led to birth control and abortion and easy divorce which led to welfare and child support) broke this arrangement. This domino effect destroyed families through illegitimacy and divorce. I’m NOT saying women shouldn’t work and have careers. I’m saying that it changed the dynamics which changed the incentives. In order to fix illegitimacy and divorce we have to understand the dynamics. Unfortunately, the left views illegitimacy and divorce not as a bug but a feature. Destroying the nuclear family and replacing it with government was always a stated goal of marxist theorists. It’s not only a means to an end but an end in itself.

        As I said upthread “As long as there’s one tomcat with a pair of balls then every tabby in town will have a litter.” It doesn’t matter how many men refrain from sex. As long as women are promiscuous then a lot of them will be getting knocked up. That’s just a simple fact. If those women know they’ll be getting welfare and child support then they have much less incentive not to get knocked up. That’s also a simple fact. However, if women look around and see that women with illegitimate kids are struggling like hell then all but the worst will do what it takes not to be one of them. At the moment poor women find it easier to get knocked up than work. And poor women find it easier NOT to get married or take the father to court because they get more welfare if they don’t. Sometimes the father is unknown. Often the mother and father live together and deny it so the mother can get welfare. Meanwhile, middle class women file divorce, take the kids and get half the husband’s paycheck. If they’re young enough they have a bunch of boyfriends, some of whom will abuse the kids. That’s why fathers should get custody. Fathers rarely abuse their own kids and their girlfriends and new wives rarely do either.


        March 12, 2015 at 1:55 AM

      • I don’t think Lion would be siring any cubs (children) anytime soon, giving the fact that our diabolical, upper-hand Democratic elites have divided their citizens into 2 camps of political fodder, between the lazy lumprenproles and the striving status hoes, they’ve become robin hoods on steroids, by taking money from the latter and giving it to the former, all the while smiling as they get their share first . Lion doesn’t belong to any of these groups and does not want his children to suffer the consequences that are uniquely attributed to each of them. He desperately tries to find a common ground with the lower hand elites, but of no avail, who are like beta guys (Republicans) retiring at the sideline, as they watch more alpha guys (Democrats) chuck and f*ck hot ladies left and right in an orgy fest.


        March 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM

      • I don’t think of it in moral terms; I think of it like “What countries already practice policy X?” “How do they turn out?”

        Countries that promote irresponsibility in both genders are usually Sub-Saharan African. Countries that promote female chastity but male promiscuity end up like Middle Eastern countries. Countries and subcultures that promote responsible behavior for both genders end up like East Asia, or the elite members of Western society.


        March 12, 2015 at 10:26 AM

  20. This article genuinely made me angry.

    We are reaching end-game of alpha-fucks, beta-bucks, and even the government is in on it.

    Due to the ever diminishing integrity of our country and rule-of-law, the government is giving up on trying to extract money from alphas to pay for their children, so instead they double down on the low hanging fruit – beta bucks.

    If the government is “closing” hard to collect cases, where is the money going to come from? Gotta pay for those bread and circuses somehow.

    This is the ne plus ultra of anarcho-tyranny. If you are educated and work for a living, you are to be kept poor via taxation so that, while you “feel” you can’t afford children, because all of your income is going to someone who can because of your money!

    WTF. If a woman wants to have children out of wedlock when she is poor and with an untrustworthy mate, then just let her and her children starve to death…but no, instead our evil politicians choose to bleed the rest of us dry. This further incentivizes the collapse of family values and marriage and civilization…who the hell would choose to be a beast of burden for these fucking parasites?


    March 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM

    • You’re way overestimating the portion of your taxes that actually goes to these programs.

      Howie Stern

      March 12, 2015 at 9:50 AM

  21. But poring over NYS child support standards when I’m mad at my husband is one of the few joys I have left in life!

    slithy toves

    March 11, 2015 at 7:11 PM

  22. You don’t mean marriage literally, do you? Also, you don’t really know who lied about using contraceptives the man or the woman. I think anyone – a man or a woman who has one child that they cannot support should be sterilized. Will solve the low IQ and NAM problem and save tons of money.

    I knew a guy who together with 4 other guys was having a good time while the girl was trying to conceive. Guess what? She succeeded and the kid came out looking like that poor chap. The girl wasted no time running to court and nailed him for child support. Look, why should the kid suffer? Let the stupid guy pay his fair share. Would make sense to make three other contribute something to discourage this stupid behaviour.

    Now this is a riot. A friend of mine who is a real homophobe has this kid that is gay. So the gay kid and his partner both donate sperm to try to get a woman pregnant. Guess what? She has twin girls – one from each of these gays. Now this is real crazy, but these guys are real rich and don’t need welfare so we wouldn’t be able to sterilize them using the previous argument that I had mentioned. But I think guys should be sterilized regardless. They have no business messing up kids minds.


    March 11, 2015 at 7:19 PM

  23. A woman needs child support like a fish needs a bicycle.

    Live by your own standards, bitches.


    March 11, 2015 at 8:20 PM

  24. Philp Greenspun’s blog ( is mostly about the U.S child support system, and he has me convinced that the system is both insane and evil (and he has collected alot of data on the subject). Essentially its evolved to yet another way to reward system gamers.

    Its probably impossible to enforce child support in a way to ensure the money is actually spent on the child (there is now no requirement to do this at all, and the money is often not spent on the child), but it should be a flat rate per child calculated off of the poverty rate. If the custodial parent effectively denies visitation rights to the paying parent (such as by moving out of the area), then the obligation should be suspended. I’m actually fine with just automatically awarding custody to the women and support obligations to the man, unless the woman is in jail, crazy, otherwise incapacitated, or waives, mainly to avoid the nasty custody battles, though capping child support at a fixed amount would accomplish alot of this anyway.

    Women are no longer disadvantaged in the labor market, at worst it is harder for women to get really high level jobs (but the studies show it is easier for them to get entry level jobs), so alimony should no longer exist.


    March 11, 2015 at 9:42 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: