May 18, 2012

Long Live Life! (Death to Intelligence, Though)*

While Professor Jacqueline Stevens denounces laws of nationality and inheritance in the New York Times as "fantasies of immortality" intended to "alleviate anxieties about death" by reassuring doomed fools that families, nations, and racial groups "persist after one’s own life has ended," at least one American isn't discouraged by this atmosphere of nihilistic individualism that pervades our increasingly "liberaltarian" conventional wisdom. Desmond Hatchett is taking decisively proactive steps that ensure that some of his genetic patterns will help shape our nation's future long after he's gone. From Yahoo News:
Man who fathered 30 kids says he needs a break—on child support 
... a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support. 
Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV. 
The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn't amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old. 
Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice. 
Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.

----------
* In case you are wondering, the slogans "Long Live Death" and "Death to Intelligence" that I reference in the title of this and the next post down the page are attributed to the flamboyant Spanish soldier and intellectual Jose Millán-Astray.

71 comments:

Difference Maker said...

I could do the same, and with better girls, but I need the money to raise all the kids

Difference Maker said...

I could do the same with much better girls, just need money to raise the kids

Liu said...

This is why cutting off foreign aid will accomplish little for our bottom line- the liberals will just waste the extra $ on underachievers here.

Saul said...

Typical of the MSM, no one questions the stupidity of the women involved, who after having 1 kid with a guy making minimum wage and supporting scores of other kids, continue to have more kids with him.

Do the math- 33 kids, 11 women- most of these women are probably having 2-4 kids with this guy.

Bill said...

Clearly, the solution is to hold men legally accountable for supporting their children, and to take the burden off of the mothers.

Oh, wait, we already do that...

Let's think about the simple math involved. One father and 11 mothers created 30 children. That's twelve parents, but because the kids are all bastards it's 13 households. In a traditional Western-style situation, given 12 parents it would conceivably be six households, which is feasible (although stretching it these days).

However, thanks to the glorification of the single mother lifestyle, there are many more, with much more associated expense. We tend to think of Desmond as the beneficiary of this, but come on... The guy is still giving up 50% of his income before taxes, and that sucks.

Sure, he's an irresponsible idiot, but he isn't paying any more than a man who married, had four kids, and then lost his family to frivolous divorce (CS benefits are capped at four kids).

So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to jack up CS even more for any sucker who loses his wife for whatever reason, e.g. she wasn't happy (70% of divorces), or are we going to shift some of the burden onto single mothers?

There's only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone like Desmond Hatchett, but there's probably a lot more to be squeezed from the 11 babymommas. In fact, if they knew they'd have to pay for it, they wouldn't have had the kids with him in the first place. If women knew from the beginning that they'd get nothing - not even tax credits - if they had a kid with a bum, then Mr. Hatchett would probably have no more than five or six kids by now, I'd bet.

So why do we continue to reward single motherhood? Why are they eligible for so many goodies? There will always be a Desmond Hatchett out there; a fool who doesn't think further than the next orgasm. This story only confirms that controlling men's fertility has limited utility in preventing illegitimacy. One hundred men could be perfect gentlemen, and all it takes is one dumb cad to inseminate dozens of babymommas. So why is it that the average male has to be lumped in with such idiots?

I pay hundreds of times the child support Hatchett does per child, and I drive hundreds of miles per month to do my duty as a father, which is purely a voluntary exercise. I did the responsible thing, got married, and had only a couple kids. But it doesn't matter, because all we hear about are these stories, and that's what shapes the laws. This special kind of idiocy that absolves women of any and all responsibility for reproduction is designed to produce exactly the outcome you highlight here.

Until the name of each woman who had kids with Hatchett is in the paper, and each one held equally responsible for this crap, there will be no change. But instead we only focus on one parent out of twelve.

That's what shows a real lack of intelligence, IMO.

Saul said...

Sorry 30 kids, not 33. Essentially the same math, though

Anonymous said...

The question is, if this guy isn't supporting his 30 Kids, who is?

The answer no doubt is the US taxpayer.

Wesley said...

Yes, give him a break, and let him keep the extra $4/hr. He needs the cash to hook up with women, after all...

Anonymous said...

liberaltarianism - Notice the line " The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn't amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage." - is it just me, or do I detect sympathy - I am vomiting. Probably the only instance when a liberal sees the state as evil.

Brazilian said...

I'm surprised that Afro-Americans are only 13% of the American population.

slumber_j said...

Gavin McInnes in a recent piece at Taki's Mag points out that it's actually a lot harder to impregnate women unintentionally than one typically hears it is:

"I’ve slept with about 300 women in my lifetime—not that I’m boasting or want to call your attention to this fact, but if you want to know the truth, that estimate may even be low—but the only time I got a woman pregnant, it was intentional."

http://takimag.com/article/abortion_is_soooooo_90s_gavin_mcinnes/page_2#ixzz1vHbAfLYQ

Now, I haven't slept with nearly that many women, but I've had sexual intercourse with a certain number of them, and that's my experience too: they get pregnant when you want them to. Unless you're unbelievably stupid, that is.

Anonymous said...

if anything can break the feminist-industrial complex this can.

Anonymous said...

It is fundamentally an act of evil to bring children into this world that one has no means or intention of supporting and caring for.

Daniel! said...

Abortion, crime, and lifestyle diseases take their toll. Plus, many potential Desmonds are cared for by the state, and wisely kept away from women.

Anonymous said...

Bill makes perfect sense:
" In fact, if they knew they'd have to pay for it, they wouldn't have had the kids with him in the first place."

But the liberals control the narrative:
"A single mother, that's a sacred thing, man." - Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character from Jerry Maguire - a very big movie.

Even back then, I thought it was funny that Tom Cruise was getting a scolding for being a Playa. Hollywood can sell anything.

Maya said...

Difference Maker said:
"I could do the same, and with better girls, but I need the money to raise all the kids"

Well, that's the point, isn't it? I could have 10 children and with a much better man. Only I'd need the resources and the time to do right by all of them. People who care about their progeny, don't treat them like used condoms, so they can't have an infinite number.

Anonymous said...

And a judge has no right to make this guy get a vasectomy?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, okay, hold the women responsible too, but remember that one guy can make a lot more babies than one woman can.

Maya said...

"Now, I haven't slept with nearly that many women, but I've had sexual intercourse with a certain number of them, and that's my experience too: they get pregnant when you want them to. Unless you're unbelievably stupid, that is."

Both parties have absolute control over their fertility. Any man who blames a woman for trapping him, and any woman who blames a man for getting her in trouble is an utter idiot. There is no such a thing as an accidental pregnancy.

Maya said...

You guys are talking about holding women responsible, destructive feminist principles, men's rights and responsibilities, blah, blah, blah. Don't you get that all this discussion is completely irrelevant in this particular case and other similar cases?

Desmond isn't like you. His baby mamas aren't like the women you know. They have no higher philosophical/political principles. They don't think about the future. At all. They have sex because they are horny and the other person happens to be there, and then babies come as a surprise each time. Desmond didn't want any more children after getting into trouble for the 21 he already had. Now, there are 9 more because remembering that he has to do something and planning one little step ahead really is very difficult for such people. For you, it happens involuntarily. For him, it's almost impossible. Do you realize how many separate logical thoughts a woman must accomplish to make a decision to avoid sleeping with this guy when something tickles between her legs? 1. Sex leads to babies. 2. This man already has very many babies. 3. This man doesn't take care of his many babies. 4. It's kind of hard to take care of yet another baby, and it won't be very fun alone. Ect, ect. The women, you guys, know have probably finished high school, can hold down some sort of a job and are able to carry a conversation of some sort. The women in your circle could have all these thoughts register at the same time. Desmond's baby mamas can't. They aren't capable. I deal with these types of people everyday. They don't see this type of an outcome as a mistake. It's just something that happens to them, completely out of their control.

You think they would respond to withdrawal of the incentives? There's 9 months between the sex and the baby. These people need immediate reinforcement, positive or negative, not something that will or will not happen in 9 months. Their brains will not make the connection between something feeling good tonight and the discomfort/hunger/plight 9 moths later. They'll do it again. If you have any further questions, why don't you visit your nearest ghetto high school and talk to the pregnant girls with a kid at home already. Most of them are single, unhappy, struggling and really, really hoping for a man to love them and stay with them. Most of them were not in a relationship when they got pregnant. By the end of your conversation, you'll come away with an absolute certainty that they will do the same thing again.

Reg Cæsar said...

Sir Paul predicted this:

Desmond says to Molly, 'Girl, I like your face...'

Life goes on indeed. Time to bury this Hatchett.

By coincidence, I've just been reading a 20-year-old book by another Desmond, Desmond Morris. I doubt the Knoxville Desmond is engaged in the same level of Babywatching.

Will reading this José Millán lead me Astray?

Anonymous said...

Saul said...

Sorry 30 kids, not 33. Essentially the same math, though

Wesley said...

Yes, give him a break, and let him keep the extra $4/hr. He needs the cash to hook up with women, after all...


Saul I believe you might be a few days early.

Anonymous said...

" Most of them are single, unhappy, struggling and really, really hoping for a man to love them and stay with them."

Yes,"A single mother, that's a sacred thing, man."

Not buying it. They are having kids and we're footing the bill, they aren't so dumb as to rub it in the face of their benefactors - they put on a pity act for the white folks. I knew a half retarded black security guard who had a kid by every black guy who ever pushed a handtruck into an elevator. So sad. Not too dumb to have a half dozen sexual harassment suits against her bosses. So clever.

Anonymous said...

Jose Millán-Astray, the founder of the Spanish Foreign Legion, was a lot of things but he certainly wasn't an intellectual. An anti-intellectual, possibly. Maybe even out and out stupid (not a drawback for a Spanish soldier of the interwar period). But not an intellectual.

Maya said...

"Not buying it. They are having kids and we're footing the bill, they aren't so dumb as to rub it in the face of their benefactors - they put on a pity act for the white folks. I knew a half retarded black security guard who had a kid by every black guy who ever pushed a handtruck into an elevator. So sad. Not too dumb to have a half dozen sexual harassment suits against her bosses. So clever."

Obviously, there are different types of people out there. But you're wrong about a few things. Firstly, they rub our noses into it just fine. I attended federal unemployment extension "class" several times, with different mothers. There, people openly say that they could be working, or working full time, but they don't want to. At school, mothers who bring their whole broods for the free breakfast openly talk about having enough food stamps to feed an army, but trading them for fake purses and to get their hair done. I know these girls aren't putting on a show. No one here has any shame. They consider the government money a given, not something they need to talk someone into.

Also, it's strange that you don't believe that a 16 year old girl wishes she had a man who loved her. Next, you'll tell me that 16 year old boys don't really want to have sex. Yes, most of my elementary girls say that they want a really good husband and don't plan on being alone with a bunch of kids. They are just too dumb to avoid that situation, and they don't understand that having sex with a random guy who isn't even their boyfriend and having babies by him while in middle school will greatly diminish their chances to find that husband that almost all of them want. Young teenagers (they start YOUNG around here, I know several in their preteens) don't have babies to avoid work and get on welfare. They are legally children, aren't expected to work and are already on welfare. They ARE sad. Boys taunt them. In one of my summer school high school classes, I lost control when all the boys started telling a new mother that she's fat, dark, will never get a man to look at her twice and her baby is as ugly as she is. This kind of a thing happens a lot.

I'm not trying to make you feel sorry for these women (and men who get 50% of their paychecks garnished from their early 20s on). I'm merely illustrating that a lot of this happens due to complete lack of agency/ability to plan half a step ahead/ self-control, not due to manipulative behavior. A lot of the ghetto dwellers are... different than you.

Anonymous said...

It's so Libertarian.

Let's see:

1) "It's all or nothing for "the self"!" -

In Libertarianism people only value their selves, not more self like entities.

They can't really conceive that people value their ethnic nation or family in and of itself, just as a means towards an end for their narrow little self.

(Liberalism is similar, but they have don't have an obsession with self interest, just a problem with treating more self-like entities that are not the self better (you can see how Liberals tend to often be more selfish personally than Conservatives, but balk at the idea of favouring more genetically related persons over less, even as they privilege their self over everyone).)

2) "We'll deconstruct groups, but to apply that analysis to "the self"? Crimethink! -

You can deconstruct an ethnic group and find it doesn't and won't have eternal continuity over time. This is true.

But people's selves also change over time, and yet that doesn't stop people trying to maintain their sense of self in the face of violatory changes, or control the direction of what they would become, or maintain their integrity.

Libertarians are obsessive about people having this kind of control over and sense of continuity and integrity in their self, even though it is more, if anything, illusory than the kind of group integrity, continuity and control that they denounce.

pat said...

I wonder Steve if you are distorting the perception of the central tendency of the comment pool by censoring out the vicious and extreme comments.

Normally on Breitbart or one of the sites that shows video clips there will periodically be a webcam video of black men or women stealing, or rioting, or beating up a white guy. About two thirds of the comments will be just racial rage. White people can write some very nasty things about black people.

Yet here we have an inflamatory article that I would have expected to have set off a lot of refexive race hatered of the "I hate n******s." variety.

Maybe iSteve commenters are simply less emotionally volatile than average or maybe you only let pass the comments that are at least in part thoughtful.

Please share.

I think I've detected a new bittereness amoung whites in the most recent comments to videos of black misbehavior. It's hard to know since everyone is trying to keep the lid on. I'm wondering if there will be a white backlash at the election that we don't see yet at the various polls. I imagine that white people who are really upset about black behavior are still reluctant to express it in a political poll. If that is so Obama may lose by a larger margin than is currently expected. That unexpectedly large loss will look like a conspiracy to the left and lead to all sorts of claims about voter fraud.

Or maybe I'm full of beans once again.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

The phrase 'let's bury the hatchet' takes on a whole new meaning.
- and I've heard (more than once) that the unruly body member that is costing the US taxpayer so much money being called (vulgarly) a 'beard-splitter'.

Anonymous said...

Those 11 women were going to have illegitimate children with somebody so it doesn't really matter that it was the same guy in this case. The real question is what is this guy's secret in getting so many women to have sex with him? Must be a mega alpha.

Steve Sailer said...

Dear Albertosaurus:

As I say, I moderate comments, at whim. On this particular posting, there haven't been many comments that I haven't seen fit to approve.

This isn't an average site. My readers tend to be way above average. Moreover, relative to comparable IQ sites like Marginal Revolution, my readers are a lot more likely to get the joke already, so they are more interested in making new jokes or coming up with some serious thing that's new and interesting on the topic.

Anonymous said...

Listen to Maya here. We are all too aware of the existence of the testosterone-loaded borderline retarded; and yet, when faced with an example, we fall into a kind of empathy-projection fallacy, imputing our own hifalutin concepts of agency onto that 75 IQ specimen.

Gilbert P.

Anonymous said...

"As I say, I moderate comments, at whim. On this particular posting, there haven't been many comments that I haven't seen fit to approve."

Thanks for clearing this up Steve. Based on other blogs, I have the same suspicions as Albertosaurus; where is the usual white name calling and rage?

In addition, Im surprised your readers have not mentioned the root cause of this behavior (if they are as smart as you think they are).

Hatchet is a hero to "The System" because he is creating more consumers. Rich/powerful people are only rich and powerful because there are people who want/need what they own and control.

Without the people, all they have would be worth less.

I can't be the only one who gets this?

Anonymous said...

I think there is one advantage to being a slut in an irresponsible environment, the alpha male has no inhibitions or commitments, so the ugly girl is more likely to score a guy out of her league - he has no risks, her gene pool will benefit. White guys, even studs, are selective.

Anonymous said...

@Maya:

They have sex because they are horny and the other person happens to be there, and then babies come as a surprise each time.

I'm not so sure how much of a "surprise" these pregnancies are. I spent much of my teen years living in a black neighborhood, and had a number of black friends, Unlike teenage white boys, who typically have zero interest in becoming dads, many young black guys I knew seemed VERY eager to become "fathers"--especially if the opportunity was with a pretty girl. Having kids by a bunch of different women is considered the height of "manliness" amongst many black males.

2. This man already has very many babies.

I suspect that this fact makes him more, not less, attractive to the type of women he has ended up impregnating. And that attraction would make these women more likely not only to spread their legs for him, but to want to have his babies.

Anonymous said...

Desmond Hatchett & his 11 Baby Mommas: 30 children, 2.73 TFR

Maya: 0 children, 0 TFR

I mean, c'mon people, this ain't rocket science.

The problem is that Maya even has time to post on the internet in the first place - she ought to be BAREFOOT IN THE DADGUM KITCHEN!

When Bill says, "I did the responsible thing, got married, and had only a couple kids", I would counter by saying, "No, you did the IRRESPONSIBLE thing by having ONLY two children - you should have had TEN or FIFTEEN!!!"

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

This is simple arithmentic!

Evil Sandmich said...

Ending welfare completely is the only way to get women to exercise better judgement.

Chicago said...

He's no Jack Kennedy.
One picture is worth a thousand words. Now, let's have a picture lineup of the women and we'll be able to size up the situation. After all, water finds it's own level.

Anonymous said...

I think I've detected a new bittereness amoung whites in the most recent comments to videos of black misbehavior.

THIS.


PS: It's not just with blacks; it also extends to that agenda of orientalistic sexual grotesqueries which is being shoved down our throats.

rob said...

This isn't an average site. My readers tend to be way above average. Moreover, relative to comparable IQ sites like Marginal Revolution, my readers are a lot more likely to get the joke already, so they are more interested in making new jokes or coming up with some serious thing that's new and interesting on the topic.

As a reader of this site, I say keep saying how great we are.

Anonymous said...

Mainstream media reaction to all the comments: "Shut up and pay your taxes, you racists." We are suckers for supporting this putz passing on any genes.

Anonymous said...

Maya is right, about most of these women AND men.

That is why I favor forced sterilization.

Anonymous said...

The Yahoo story about Desmond Hatchett was posted on "Friday, May 18th." As of now (Saturday, May 19th) it's been recommended on Facebook 205k times. It's received 38,090 comments on Yahoo.

josh said...

Re iSteves readers " above average".I will surely read comments by poster Maya with more interest and respect from now on. Most of us observe the behavior of other groups from a (safe-we hope) distance. She was in the Belly of the Beast. (No pun inteneded.Get it? Belly? Pregnant teens?)

beowulf said...

"Listen to Maya here. We are all too aware of the existence of the testosterone-loaded borderline retarded; and yet, when faced with an example, we fall into a kind of empathy-projection fallacy, imputing our own hifalutin concepts of agency onto that 75 IQ specimen."

Agreed.
[Charles] Karelis... has a simpler but far more radical argument to make: traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/the_sting_of_poverty/?page=full

Anonymous said...

"They don't think about the future. At all."

That is why this is so gloriously awesome Maya, the system HAS to deal with these people, whether it wants to or not. And it has to apply the rules equally to decidedly unequal people. Therefore, the solution to this has to be a solution to all. So either feminism takes one, or the democrat special interest ball takes one.

"The problem is that Maya even has time to post on the internet in the first place - she ought to be BAREFOOT IN THE DADGUM KITCHEN!"

How Barbaric you low class scum! she can post from the kitchen wifi, this isn't the middle ages.

Anonymous said...

Having said I agree with Maya, that these kinds of people don't think before acting, that there's no impulse control, I have to add that almost 50 years of social policies that send them checks for that baby have to be considered in the mix.

These people existed 50 years ago, face it. Low IQ people have always been with us, people who don't think about consequences, people who have little to no impulse control. Maybe there are more of them today because they've bred so much, but consider that before our welfare society extended to include all kinds of goodies and before it was considered a source of social shame to be living off the dole, this kind of behavior was not as rampant as it is today.

Thus, I have to agree with many other posters who state that our largess is one reason the problem has grown.

Anonymous said...

This is dispicable. He has no right to impose the costs of feeding, clothing, raising and educating 30 children upon society.

Bill said...

Desmond isn't like you. His baby mamas aren't like the women you know. They have no higher philosophical/political principles. They don't think about the future. At all. They have sex because they are horny and the other person happens to be there, and then babies come as a surprise each time

-Maya


That's total BS. Only the most retarded of all do not understand that sex=babies. And these women were free to abort, and are surrounded by subsidized Planned Parenthood birth control resources. They freely chose to have those kids, probably because there was something about Mr. Hatchett they admired.

Even baboons understand the consequences of having sex with the wrong male. Yes, baboons. Are you going to tell me, Maya, that these people are dumber than baboons?

They did the deed and had the babies because they knew that the state would back them up. I, too, am familiar with the kind of people you mention. They are not as dumb as you portray them.

As hard as it may be for a lot of readers to understand, there was something about Mr. Hatchett that they liked, and that convinced them he was good babydaddy material. At least 50% of that was probably the understanding that despite his negative characteristics, the state would pick up the slack for his failings.

When the state takes on the role of provider, women choose other qualities in a man. It may seem to be a revolutionary concept to some, but in certain communities the guys who are not providers, and who give nothing to the state, are more attractive. The man who can get away with giving nothing to the state is the real alpha, because his resources go entirely into reproduction, whereas the rest of us fools work and work to pay for babymommas who have other men's children.

the solution is to stop making men pay for women who are not their wives.

Maya said...

"The problem is that Maya even has time to post on the internet in the first place - she ought to be BAREFOOT IN THE DADGUM KITCHEN!"

Joke's on you, clown. I WAS in the kitchen, with youtube on my laptop for company, posting while waiting for things to finish boiling, simmering and browning. And now I'm barefoot, though not in the kitchen. You obviously don't cook and don't have a women who'd cook for you, or you'd know that only an idiot would do it without shoes on.

But how, do you suppose, making curry, stir fry and a homemade apple pie for his majesty would raise my TFR? Do you even know where babies come from? Why don't you ask your parents. I will, however, tell you how happy, healthy children with a bright future come to be. They come from caring families with enough steady, secure income to support them and allow them to develop.

I sense a purely theoretical philosopher who observes from a distance when it comes to all things female, so it's a pretty sure bet that you don't have any children yourself. And that's a good thing since you seem to be in favor of outdumbing stupid animals, when it comes to child rearing. Just because you wish you could compete with cockroaches, it doesn't mean that normal people share your goals.

Maya said...

"Having said I agree with Maya, that these kinds of people don't think before acting, that there's no impulse control, I have to add that almost 50 years of social policies that send them checks for that baby have to be considered in the mix."

Yes, of course. From reading regional authors and listening to stories from the older teachers of humble origins, I think dumbass behavior was always present. And, no, I don't think they are more stupid than baboons. They do know where babies come from. It's just that they have trouble visualizing what it's going to be like or caring about something that might happen in 9 months. So back to the olden times of 50 year ago... Here is how I understand it: since the government didn't take care of these people, their quality of life was much worse and they relied on the smartest person in their clan to keep them fed, clothed and out of the rain. In turn, this one smart grandfather, mother or uncle realized that he or she is responsible for everyone, so this person beat the crap out of any kid who was observed doing anything which might create another mouth to feed or diminish the possibility of getting rid of her by marrying her off. Getting whipped into oblivion for being seen going off with a boy just a few hours after it happens is a lot more immediate than a baby in 9 months, and thus it's a much better reinforcement for those not oriented towards the future.

As far as the underclass babies of 50 years ago being mostly born within the bounds of marriage, that is true, but you'd be wrong to imagine that the majority of these marriages created functioning families. People were expected to get married, so they did. But husbands, among this population,abandoned their wives. A lot. Divorce was a lot more common than you think. Some didn't even bother with divorce and just got married again in a different state. Kids were commonly shipped back and forth between those somewhat responsible relatives who tried to keep them on the straight and narrow by beating them into submission (often with desired outcomes). If you don't have nice, elderly Southern teachers or church ladies from the poor areas to tell you these things, try reading Maya Angelou's autobiography, James Baldwin's depiction of the church going colored folk or anything about Oprah's life. If you want more, I'll send you some regional autobiographies and memoirs. It's all filled with god fearing, church going people who honestly try to do the right thing, but end up married several times and have their kids raised by someone older and smarter who used to beat them.

Bill said...

Getting whipped into oblivion for being seen going off with a boy just a few hours after it happens is a lot more immediate than a baby in 9 months, and thus it's a much better reinforcement for those not oriented towards the future.

-Maya


Ah, Maya, your heart is bleeding. Do you think daddies had to whip their daughters "into oblivion" to convince them to behave? Were you that difficult to control?

It doesn't even approach that. Unfortunately, fathers these days have no agency whatsoever in these communities. Actually, once you get down to the third quintile (i.e. middle middle class), fathers have no leverage, so it isn't only the poor who are lacking.

In the old days, a daddy could say "if you run off with that boy, you aren't getting anything from me." Today, only a father in the top 25% has that leverage. Whippings had nothing to do with it. Also, as in my case, a lot of us have no leverage either way. If my ex wants me to pay for my daughter to go to college to study queer studies, a judge will probably order me to pay for it -- until my daughter is 25! I have no agency whatsoever for the next 20 years. What Working-class woman wouldn't pass that up? Getting a divorce gives a woman a lot more control over the father than staying married to him would.

The real problem is that the state substitutes for both daddy and husband, as Obama's "Life of Julia" so explicitly demonstrates. So why should women prefer Honest Joe 9-to-5 to Desmond Hatchett?

If the woman isn't going to find a high-earning male to exploit (easier said than done), she might as well find one who's attractive. This is why all the outrage over Desmond Hatchett is misplaced. So what if he's the father of all those kids? It wouldn't matter if they had eleven fathers, since the women aren't going to get jack for child support anyway, and they'll get the same TANF. So why not have the babies with a smooth, attractive guy who makes them happy?

The dumbness really is displayed by men who think that punishing men for the choices women make will make a difference. I understand why you, Maya, would defend the girls, because why would the ladies want to give up this kind of candyland they've got going? I mean, if you had hookers paying men to sleep with them, you'd probably have a very vociferous men's lobby for keeping the status quo. But the problem is that we can't afford it, and it's wrecking society. Sometimes, you've got to make some sacrifices for the greater good, and make do without scratching that itch, or "tickle" as you put it.

Anonymous said...

When the present system implodes, the Iron Fist to come will put paid to the situation.Unmarried mothers will get no state aid unless they are fixed, and unmarried fathers who do not support their children will get fixed or be put in detention, like the Orthodox men in Israel who will not give their divorced wife a 'get'. Some will think this brutal. But it won't matter, because it won't be a democracy.

Anonymous said...

Maya - IT WAS A JOKE!!!

Lighten up.

You're gonna have trouble finding a man who wants to stick around if you're always gonna be that quick to bite his head off.

Maya said...

"You're gonna have trouble finding a man who wants to stick around if you're always gonna be that quick to bite his head off."

Joke's on you again. I'm staring at the engagement ring on my finger (I do that a lot, for some reason).

I sure hope that the whole "we must out breed them" sentiment was a joke.

Maya said...

Bill,

You have such a large chip on your shoulder and you are enjoying your brotherhood of victims to such a degree that you see everything through a very small window of the narrative that you and your support group have created. Then, you supplement every message you encounter with the voices of your fellow victims if what's actually there doesn't match what you and your fellow sufferers "know" the messenger is supposed to think, according to your world view. It's almost like masturbation at this point, much like hearing the "n" word out of a white mouth is for our great black victims or seeing a man looking at a cover model is for our great victims of the patriarchy. I'd tell you to go reread what I actually wrote, but none of it was in any way profound, so you haven't missed out on anything important. But what your fantastical misreading of my posts signifies IS important. You've grown so addicted to licking your own wounds that you've lost the respect of your daughter to a point that you suspect she might disregard your wishes regarding her education while exploiting you to pay for it.

Yes, our current custody laws, child support laws and alimony laws are profoundly flawed and need to be changed pronto. I've written to my congressmen about it, and I'd gladly vote for a politician who would do something about these issues. However, unfair laws are the least of your problems. You lack agency, mostly, because you fell into the trap of supportive victimhood and self-pity. You exchanged it for a communal pillow to cry into. The problem with the "rights" groups and movements is that while they make you feel understood by acknowledging that what happened to you was wrong, they also require you to believe in a much larger enemy than what's based in reality. That's because the people in the group who have nothing going for them are afraid that you'll heal, move on, and they'll be lonely losers once again. Paranoid fantasies about the whole opposite gender in being cahoots and out to get you will render you especially miserable because no one can have a fulfilling life without close, meaningful relationships with the members of both sexes. I feel sorry for you in a similar way that I feel sorry for those 15 year old girls who are pregnant with their second child.

NOTA said...

Someone should have offered this guy forgiveness on his child support obligations in exchange for a vasectomy, about a dozen kids ago.

Bill said...

You lack agency, mostly, because you fell into the trap of supportive victimhood and self-pity. You exchanged it for a communal pillow to cry into. The problem with the "rights" groups and movements is that while they make you feel understood by acknowledging that what happened to you was wrong, they also require you to believe in a much larger enemy than what's based in reality. That's because the people in the group who have nothing going for them are afraid that you'll heal, move on, and they'll be lonely losers once again. Paranoid fantasies about the whole opposite gender in being cahoots and out to get you will render you especially miserable because no one can have a fulfilling life without close, meaningful relationships with the members of both sexes. I feel sorry for you in a similar way that I feel sorry for those 15 year old girls who are pregnant with their second child.

-Maya


Wow, Maya, that's a dumptruck full of shaming language there.

Look, I understand that, being engaged and all, you may be feeling a little insecure about how your man feels about these matters. However, you can trust me on one thing: men (especially Americans) will generally give their women infinite chances, which is why it so often falls to brave, empowered wives to sever the relationship.

So you don't have much to worry about, except for the fact that you hurt my feelings, and I'm going to have to spend my night crying into a communal pillow (hopefully not a consumptive one).

I hope you feel proud of yourself!

Anonymous said...

Africa norms aren't patriarchal. It's a jungle. A matriarchy in other words. None of the below are typical patriarchal norms:

- Promiscuity
- Sex out of marriage
- Illegitimacy (due to sex out of marriage)
- Frivolous divorces (I'm not in LOOOOOVEEE with you anymore!)
- Single motherhood
- No extended family (due to smaller family sizes endemic in the feminist world)
- Cohabitation
- Etc

African men tend to impregnant various women and don't invest in their children. Neither are patriarchal. That's a polygamous system that benefits the "alpha males" (e.g. seducers and players, not providers and reliable men) and leaves a whole number of men out of having a wife themselves because women as a whole have become unsuitable. Couple that with the low IQs of Africans and it becomes even worse.

Feminism has ravaged the European world and we have already seen its destruction. Imagine the effects that it has had on the African-American community. It's much worse for them.

In our scenario we end up with below-replacement fertility rates (less than 2 children), promiscuity, no-fault divorce, unfair child support, false rape allegations, "strong women" taking jobs from men, an entitled princess attitude and so much more. The black community is totally dysfunctional by now and it was already bad back in the past.

Ah the fruits of racial and gender/sex liberation combined. Touche.

Anonymous said...

I sure hope that the whole "we must out breed them" sentiment was a joke.

No, that was the SERIOUS part.

PS: Speaking of outbreeding "them", does your fiancee know that you're having Thanksgiving dinner with Twoof?

Anonymous said...

"The real question is what is this guy's secret in getting so many women to have sex with him? Must be a mega alpha."

What, are you kidding? I don't think of myself as an Alpha, but I could easily sleep with a dozen plus women a year - attractive women. And I'm not bragging. Lots of guys could do that. Girls are pretty damn loose these days.

Matthew said...

Are any of the mothers named "Julia"?

Of course the biggest contributor to this problem is the fact that the women he sleeps with don't have to worry about who's going to feed those children: the taxpayer will. If they actually had to ponder a world without government welfare, at least a few of them would've bothered to use birth control or had an abortion.

Also, you guys should stop bashing poor Desmond. He manages to hold down a minimum wage job. In the ghetto, that's practically like being a billionaire.

Anonymous said...

This story is funny in an offbeat way but the real tragedy is that these 33 kids are likely to repeat mom-n-dad's 'mistakes' - though I'd hope on a less spectacular level - right on down the line because that's all they'll know.

The college-educated 30-somethings I know who have children sound like the heads of M&A departments of Wall Street firms when they talk about how they planned Emma and Jason. It's quite remarkable. And both parents are holding down demanding jobs and paying lots of taxes.

On the other hand, the type of 'parents' in your story here put no more thought into what they are doing than the average squirrel.

I also have to think that the prospect of a shot-gun wedding might have slowed a few of these guys down at least a bit. Now I see white working-class guys who might have been subject to that shot-gun wedding years ago and who made the best of it and didn't do too badly, all things considered, helping support their single-mom daughters - yes, more than one - who hooked up with some idiot of the caliber of Hatchett and ended up pregnant. They simply shrug it off as 'normal'.

If we can't reverse this trend we are doomed.

Maya said...

"Someone should have offered this guy forgiveness on his child support obligations in exchange for a vasectomy, about a dozen kids ago."

Someone should do it now, before he sires another dozen. How much you wanna bet this ain't over yet?

control freak said...

Shaming language. That's a hoot. Didn't they used to call it cursing? I actually agree that those girls cannot possible be that stupid. They just don't have enough impetus to control themselves. In their traditional societies in Africa or Asia, they controlled themselves or they were killed or suffered some terrible fate. Elsewhere, shaming language worked on some people and doesn't any more unless the law enforces it. That's why there's so many "bastards." I don't mean that in mean way because my dear niece just had one, but she does live with the dad who works at an auto parts shop and the-baby-makes-three group live at her mom's place. Maybe it's just IQ. Her mother, my sister, came up under much greater difficulties and had to learn computer programming and now makes six digits. Not bad even if the first digit is only a one. But the niece, with so many advantages, just doesn't have the same brains.


I admit to not knowing much about divorce and custody, but I know women who had to pay their husbands 50% of their business sales after divorce, and even women who had to pay child custody to ex-husbands. Maybe it depends on the state they're in. I am sure it is not common, but it does happen . Salary, savings, and job stability seem to be more salient factors in who pays through the nose than the gender of the particular parent, at least in the cases with which I am familiar. I live next door to a house husband who seems quite manly in his own way. I'm sure his kids will benefit and I am convinced that should the couple split (unlikely) the wife would have to pay him money because he'd have major custody. And I live in a state that used to be noted for favoring women in divorce situations. Doesn't seem to be that way so much now. So the laws are changing.
As far as these appalling teenage, low IQ reproducers go: how about a Star Trek scenario where they will walk through an invisible (so as not to traumatize them) archway that will sterilize them. If they prove their worth they can be un-sterilized later on.
In fact, maybe all teens should walk through the archway until they prove themselves. In the old days, most of those 30 kids mentioned in the article, would be dead before they'd be able to reproduce themselves. In the past 100 yrs, high IQ people allowed for the survival of the dumbest, and the smarter ones are paying and not reproducing themselves. Really sick.
btw, in China all those people would be sterilized by now. Those 30 babies, if conceived at all, would have been aborted or maybe sold to make herbal remedies. And they complain about their
"oppression" in the U.S. where they are literally paid to reproduce themselves at our expense.

Maya said...

"Shaming language. That's a hoot. Didn't they used to call it cursing?"

No, shaming language is a buzz word that men's rights activists stole from the feminazis, and both movements use it to dismiss all criticism towards the members, and, especially, towards the movement itself. I first heard the term from a humorless feminist who came to my health class to explain how the patriarchy employs shaming language to control women. It's all over feminist literature too. Our guest speaker gave a bunch of real life examples like a husband coming home from work and asking his wife who had a day off from her job, "Why didn't you cook dinner, and how come the house is still as dirty as it was yesterday? What did you do all day? Did you do anything useful?" I remember raising my hand to ask if the wife had a reason for not doing anything useful all day and triggering a long lecture about forcing others to live up to expectations and damaging self-worth or some such. Personally, I've been a victim of shaming language since forever. Daddy: "Maya, are you a big girl or a baby? What do big girls do when they need to pee? They tell somebody! Clearly, you're still a little baby! Do we need to go back to diapers? Well, do we? I think we do! Big girl underwear is for big girls. You aren't acting like a big girl at all! you are acting like a baby!" Sigh. You know, to this day I can't imagine peeing myself without feeling ashamed. I wish I could find a support group.

Bill said...

Daddy: "Maya, are you a big girl or a baby? What do big girls do when they need to pee? They tell somebody! Clearly, you're still a little baby! Do we need to go back to diapers? Well, do we? I think we do! Big girl underwear is for big girls. You aren't acting like a big girl at all! you are acting like a baby!" Sigh. You know, to this day I can't imagine peeing myself without feeling ashamed. I wish I could find a support group.

-Maya


Ah, OK, now I see where you're coming from.

Well, that wasn't very nice on your dad's part, but it isn't a fatal flaw. I never had that problem myself, but it took one of my kids a while to control it. Instead of blaming the child, I read up on it and saw that it's clearly an issue of hormonal and neuromuscular development, and almost always resolves itself.

Nobody wants to stop wetting the bed more than the kid, so no shaming language is necessary at all. Just ask the child if he/she feels ready to sleep without the pullups, and pass no judgment if there's an accident. Punishing a kid for wetting the bed is akin to hitting an old man with prostatitis because he needs to urinate more frequently.

But you really were a bit out of line, Maya. You don't know me, and yet you say the law is the least of my problems. That is far from true. I have perfectly good personal relationships with the women in my life. They are upset because of the situation I am in, and more prone to be angry at the women who put me there than I am. I tend to blame the system that caused this problem rather than the individual women involved. Actually, my relationship with my ex, although far from perfect, is not *that* bad. We have decent conversations about the kids, and are reasonable on most matters. It's only the big things, like parenting time and relocation, that we fight over.

And yet you and other feminists can't help but personalize it, and keep going back to the default "punish the losers" impulse that is so deeply ingrained in your instincts. You know, it really isn't other women's business when a wife leaves her husband, but women have consistently supported getting every branch of government involved. It's really a searing indictment of American women that they see fit to meddle in other people's families with the arm of the state. That's a disgusting, tyrannical trend they've started, and it will not end well.

My solution is both simple and elegant, and it will definitely work. Take government out of the family. Stop giving women incentives to have children out of wedlock and to leave their husbands. Don't punish them for making such a choice, but let them take responsibility for their decisions. I believe that women are human beings who are capable of making moral decisions. It's high time we gave them the gift of taking responsibility for their choices -- it will make them better people and improve their children's lives.

It will also reform men. Do you think some of the crazier, extreme manifestations of the gamer/PUA crowd would be so widely accepted if young women actually behaved decently?

Maya said...

Bill,

You sound like a nice enough guy and I'm glad you have a reasonably good relationship with your family. And while I'll repeat that there is nothing in my comments that's stellar enough to make them required reading, for Pete's sake, read them if you are trying to have a conversation with me!

Are you, per chance, someone who doesn't pick up on cues very well? Do you, for example, follow the plot in movies, but get lost in the dialogue sometimes? I'm not trying to put you down. It's just that this would explain a lot. You keep responding to me as if I wrote something other than what's there in black and white. Sorry if I took an irritated tone with you previously, but how would you respond if someone would address you to chide you for your support of cannibalism or indulgence in pedophilia and act as if they are responding to something you wrote? I'll assume that you are sincere, and point out some things that you can easily detect if you just reread my comments in this thread alone:

1. My claim that I need a support group for people who've been potty trained and would be ashamed to wet themselves publicly was tongue in cheek. I was dismissing the idea of "shaming language" being some sort of an evil tool that ruins lives rather than a minor part of everyone's life. My whole comment was set up to show my attitude towards shaming language and the last 2 sentences were clearly jokes. I'm glad my parents took time to potty train me, and I'm, actually, extremely close with my father.

2. I'm exactly the type of a feminist that you are. We both believe in equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to gender. I clearly expressed that view multiple times in this thread.

3. I never defended those girls who get pregnant at random without any means to provide for the child. You just made that up out of thin air.

4. Nothing I said even hinted at the notion of me being in favor of laws that allow irresponsible women to breed uncontrollably and reward them for such behavior.

5. Suggesting that I somehow want to keep the status quo and side with the third wave feminist laws of the day because it allows me to share in the power that I want directly contradicts everything I said in multiple comments. I get less of what I want under this system. I think I made that obvious in my very first comment here.

Maya said...

Bill,

I'll answer the couple of things you asked me:

6. No, you cheeky rascal, you, my father didn't have to beat me to control me. He didn't have to control me at all by the time I started to like boys. I already cared about my future, hoped for a good life and made concrete plans of achieving it. That's the gist of the majority of my comments here: these people are different. Sure, some women will respond by behaving better if you stop the gravy train. However, the majority of the ghetto dwellers (which I'm sure include DH's baby mamas) aren't capable of such advanced economic planning. They aren't like the people you know. They aren't like the women in your circle who schemed to screw over their men. Back in the day, these types of people were physically controlled by the relative in charge of the clan who felt responsible for them. Otherwise, they lived in extreme poverty or starved. There is no other option for them. That's why we need to make birth control a mandatory condition for receiving government funds. And i'm not talking about something silly like forcing them to sign a pledge. No, have them show up to a clinic where someone responsible will administer the shot or the implant. They can't be trusted with the pill. And i feel the same way about the baby daddy, but i don't know of a humane, reversible way that the state could impose on him as a condition of something or other. You think I'm exaggerating? These people (who are on very limited budget) buy 3 or 4 candy bars at the movies at triple the price when there is a gas station right next to the theater with the exact same candy. No planning necessary, just take an extra step. They don't. Mothers around here go to the store at midnight on the day their cards get refilled because they spend all the money they get in the first few days of the week, and the last day is rough so the shopping trip is urgent. Then, they proceed to buy expensive, inefficient crap that won't last them a week. Their cards used to get refilled every month, but the rules changed because so many of them were in truly extreme situations by the 4th week.

7. Bill, I don't really care about the PUA behavior. It doesn't affect me in any way and it never has. Some men have no values and not much to offer so they zero in on the young women with no values and not much to offer. Both groups are utterly boring and i don't care what they do in their bars and clubs. Anyway, they are a small minority among the intelligent, educated middle class young people, so they aren't bothering the rest of us. Let'em play.

Bill said...

Bill,

You sound like a nice enough guy and I'm glad you have a reasonably good relationship with your family. And while I'll repeat that there is nothing in my comments that's stellar enough to make them required reading, for Pete's sake, read them if you are trying to have a conversation with me!

Are you, per chance, someone who doesn't pick up on cues very well? Do you, for example, follow the plot in movies, but get lost in the dialogue sometimes? I'm not trying to put you down. It's just that this would explain a lot. You keep responding to me as if I wrote something other than what's there in black and white. Sorry if I took an irritated tone with you previously, but how would you respond if someone would address you to chide you for your support of cannibalism or indulgence in pedophilia and act as if they are responding to something you wrote? I'll assume that you are sincere, and point out some things that you can easily detect if you just reread my comments in this thread alone:


Hehe. No Maya, I got all the cues. I even understood that you were being either tongue-in-cheek or fishing for pity with the bed-wetting story, but I thought that was a decent opening for a return to civility.

It's just that I grew up around a lot of verbally skilled women, and learned to argue like they do. In fact, I probably got more rhetorical training from my mother, who has worked as both a nuclear analyst at the Max Planck Institute and a language teacher, than anyone else. The key is to keep opponents on their toes -- women in particular. Without a strong offense, it is very difficult to hold your own against an intelligent woman.

My poor girlfriend, who is no dummy, hasn't had the easiest time with it, but I'm fundamentally a pretty easygoing guy.

As for your appraisal of the less functional females out there, I still tend to think you are giving them too much slack. They will understand the consequences of having kids out of wedlock if they don't hear about things like WIC and TANF from every friend and social worker in the neighborhood.

As for birth control, I think the solution is fairly simple. Pay them for a quarterly depo shot or norplant. I think $250 per quarter is reasonable, since that will pay the iPhone bill every "urban" lady requires. First, however, we have to convince Wyeth that the market is safe despite the constant feminist threat of lawsuits.

As for control of women, I don't think it was ever very strict in an active sense. The Muslim controls introduced by the Wahhabis are as weird as our own tendency to put the burden entirely on men. The key is simply not to coddle women who screw up any more than men. And that's where I really took issue with what you wrote. It seemed to me that you were providing the same old justification for giving women the benefit of the doubt while holding men entirely responsible for the outcome.

BTW, I very seriously doubt all 30 of those kids are Mr. Hatchett's. I wonder why nobody brought that up? My bet is that at least 30% of them were sired by other men. That would definitely add a new angle to the debate, wouldn't it?

Maya said...

Bill,

So you were doing some sort of a passive-aggressive verbal sparring thing with me? Gotcha. I got most of my early verbal training from my father who is an engineer and a poet and older brother who is a tech journalist, so I was just being straight forward and sincere, even when a bit irritated at you for assigning me random beliefs that I never expressed. Is that some sort of a passive-aggressive technique? I avoided drama in high school and refuse to engage in workplace politics, so I guess that's why I didn't realize that you were doing some kind of verbal cartwheels. And, I'm sorry, but I'm still not sure about the purpose. Did you mean anything you said in your comments? Also, you thought I might have been serious about needing a support group for people who very much dislike the idea of soiling themselves due to having been potty trained, since you took that as a possible fishing for pity... What was your reading comprehension score on the ACT?

Getting back to the subject of an average ghetto dweller's planning and reasoning ability, my experience doesn't match your theories. I've given you plenty of real life examples, but you are free to disbelieve me, of course.

Every elderly black church lady I've talked to around here laments the degenerate black culture of today and remembers fondly the time when she was growing up at her father's/grandmother's/uncle's place and that father/grandmother/uncle used to make sure everyone in their hude extended household was provided for and beat the crap out of all young people who didn't toe the line. Feel free to conduct your own interviews or read some black memoirs like those by Baldwin, Angelou, Oprah and hundreds of others. Again, you can, of course, choose to not believe any of them.

Btw, my native Eastern Europe provides similar examples. If you're curious, you can start by reading Maxim Gorky's account of his childhood, specifically about his grandfather- a man in charge of leading the extended family clan who reasserted his control through scheduled weekly whippings for everyone below a certain age. Gorky, being a sensitive genius, suffered from such treatment. But seeing how so many modern day Russians freeze each winter because it sneaks up on them while they drink away their warm clothes/heaters and neglect to make the same preparations that have to be made every frigging year, I'd say that, maybe, a good number of them could benefit from a heavy hand of a responsible adult.

Anonymous said...

I assume this blog post was written to support free contraception and easy access to abortions?

Typical of the MSM, no one questions the stupidity of the women involved, who after having 1 kid with a guy making minimum wage and supporting scores of other kids, continue to have more kids with him.

Do the math- 33 kids, 11 women- most of these women are probably having 2-4 kids with this guy.


Bingo, Saul. Although it isn't the "MSM." It's just society as a whole. No one wants to see the rottenness that dwells in all corners of society. In addition you and the "MSM" forgot to mention that we have also confirmed there are 12 people that obviously don't give a f--k about HIV.