The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Nothing to do with supporting children.

So-called "child support" has nothing to do with children. There is a huge government industry that takes billions of dollars from MEN and shares it among themselves. There are private corporations and government agencies that use the force of law and illegal debtor's prisons to extort funds from MEN. They use the LIE that it is for the children, but as this story so graphically displays, the "support" industry has absolutely nothing to do with supporting a child.

The idea behind so-called "child support" was first put forward by feminists at the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848. They established a goal of women abrogating their marriages, taking the children, and still forcing husbands to support them. One law which implemented this misandrist goal was the imposition of alimony. But many states refused to require alimony, or didn't require the husband to pay the greedy gold digging female as much money as she felt entitled to. Another law which implemented this misandrist goal was community property. Community property laws allow women to claim half of all the husbands hard earned assets immediately after the marriage. When these takeaway financial laws were combined with easy "no fault" divorces, the greedy misandrist females could earn a good living or even get rich by marrying and then divorcing men. But even that much money didn't satisfy the greed of the evil misandrist feminazi. And, the government saw an opportunity to greatly expand it's income and bureaucracy on the backs of emotionally destroyed fathers.

In the early 20th century the evil feminazi came up with the lie of so-called "absentee child support." Throughout human history a female brought her child to his father for support. According to paleoanthropologists marriage and the father's right to sexual access to the female and subsequent bonding with his child was one of the universal human behaviors throughout all human cultures for the past fifty thousand years. Western civilization recognized the father's right to his children throughout all of recorded history until feminism changed our culture. By a century of miseducation and lies feminism has convinced our government, and particularly their servants in the divorce industry, that our children belong to the female. The age old history of father's place in our families was overturned in the feminist century. By the end of the feminist century a family was redefined as "a mother and her children." There is no father in the feminazi definition of "family." When she uses the feminist law of "no fault divorce" to leave her hard working husband and take half of his money, she now is awarded "custody" of the children by default. Instead of taking half of his property greedy gold digging females claim that support of "her" children needs all of his property, and evil Judges, minions of Satan in black robes, bend over backwards to ignore law and judicial procedures to give her everything she wants. But even taking all of the "community" (the husband's) money was not enough to satisfy the evil greedy bitches who have become universal females in western culture. It wasn't enough to take everything the man had earned, his house, his car, his life savings. They wanted an ongoing series of payments into the future. So they invented the LIE of "child support."

Backed by greedy government bureaucrats and a huge collection industry the evil feminazi enslave ex-husbands with 20 years of indentured servitude. Indentured servitude, a form of slavery, has been illegal in the United States since the Civil War. Feminists brought it back under the false name of "child support." They claim that the father owes them money to support "his" children which they have taken away from him. They claim that he must pay them to support her children. They have converted children to pawns in their illegal game of extortion. It's not about the children. In the case of Daniel Davenport his daughter had died 11 years before, but the evil state collection agencies in three states went on and on for more than a decade extorting money from him. Were they supporting his daughter with his mony? No, like they always do they were pocketing the money. They have no intention and no process for supporting any children.

Hundreds of thousands of good men now rot in illegal debtors prisons which have been illegal in the United States since the Revolutionary War, but have been brought back and used extensively to illegally extort money from fathers. The government bureaucracies in California, Texas Kansas, and 47 other states does not care whether a child is supported or not, and in fact they have no process for supporing children. Daniel Davenport's child had been dead for more than a decade, and the state continued to collect and pocket his money because collecting money is their only motive. They didn't care that the child no longer existed because nobody is supporting the children with the money. It's not about supporting children at all. It's about forcing MEN to pay females and government bureaucrats, and that's all that it's about. It's the answer to the feminist goal of women leaving their husbands, taking the children, and still being supported.

When I owned apartments one evil tenant used her "child support" check to take her latest boyfriend to a night of gamboling and entertainment at the indian casino every month. She used the money extorted from a hard working man to have a great time with some other man who she opened her legs for. Her husband got screwed while she whored herself with any man she liked. Her children saw none of the money and never saw their fathers either. It's not about children, it's about forcing men to "pay." If you read anything the evil feminazi write on the Internet they always use the term "pay" instead of support. A father supports his children by putting an extra plate on his table at dinner time, by putting a bed in his home, not by paying some evil feminazi who destroyed his family and stole is children.

Its time for MEN to fight the feminazi system of lies, deceit and extortion. It's time to take clear decisive action against evil government agents of Satan like Judge Weller, and the legions of faux "child support" collection hate mongers who take our money without regard to the welfare of our children. Its time for MEN to get in the face of evil politicians who vote for feminazi laws that destroy families to pay greedy evil feminazi bitches. Its time for fathers and all good men to reclaim our families and our culture.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Affiliated Computer Services Inc.
2828 North Haskell
Dallas, TX 75204
United States - Map
Phone: 214-841-6111
Fax: 214-823-9369
Web Site:

The Government segment provides child support payment processing services; designs, develops, implements, and operates medicaid, child and pharmacy benefit management programs, and the information technology solutions; electronic toll collection, motor vehicle services, commercial vehicle operations and transportation related enforcement programs.


June 16, 2006 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a man can give a woman nothing but hatred, why would she want him in the first place?

Women who get divorced usually take a deep breath of the air of freedom. Then begin enjoying life. Most women live so much better without a man in the way.

Both men and women must support their kids. There is no such thing as an "ex-child".

June 16, 2006 9:28 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (June 16, 2006 9:28 AM)

Your recitation of misandrist feminist hate dogma does not change the evil of so-called "child support." First, men give women love. Women respond by giving men hatred. That's why we have the organized misandry of feminism. For a more expansive report on how all women hate men read, My Enemy, My Love, by Judith Levine. Feminists assume men act like them, standard human psychology, so they accuse men of hating women when the reverse is the truth.

Most women get divorced because they have no ethics and get big financial payments for divorce. Women use their children as pawns in a ruthless game of extortion. That is the goal of misandrist lesbian feminists, to take a man's money without the obligations of marriage. Females are all greed and demands without any though of reciprocity. Few women would be better off without the man's hard work and support, but under feminazi law they can just take the fruits of his labor while they whore around with a series of trash men.

If you read Bobstruth, reading for understanding is obviously beyond the mental capacity of you and most females, you would have noticed that Bob advocates men supporting our children. In your feminazi dream lies you equate paying women with supporting children. Paying females is NOT supporting children. Your lies no longer work. You have no right, by virtue of your cunt, to rob men or bind us into slavery.

You have a concurrent 100% obligation to support your child. If you can not or will not then your option is to take them to their father for his support. You can cram your lies up your arse.

June 16, 2006 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If women took a little longer to spread their legs and spent more time getting to know the man and his beliefs and values, there would be fewer female-initiated divorces.

Divorced women, by the way, have the habit of claiming that life is so much better without men, but then spend significant time pursuing every potential man-mate possible. Even Steinem didn't buy the "better without".

June 16, 2006 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope someday we'll have test tube babies. No woman should be bothered with a man. The male gender should die out. What a happy day!

June 16, 2006 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Child support goes directly to the children.

June 16, 2006 5:52 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to Anonymous (June 16, 2006 5:52 PM)
Your lie doesn't cut the muster. Child support, food and shelter, goes to the child. PAYMENTS go directly to the female, like the mother who takes her lover to the casino with her "child support" payment every month.

June 16, 2006 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do men continue to marry?

June 16, 2006 6:09 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (June 16, 2006 6:09 PM)
Many men are refusing marriage. Put "marriage strike" into google some time.

June 16, 2006 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No cruelty on earth can make a woman love a man.

June 16, 2006 7:43 PM  
Blogger Captain Zarmband said...

I should say that in my experience most women who divorce are suffering from what I call "other man's grass syndrome". They are bored with their life and think that divorce is a cure-all for their problems and a quick route to a better lifestyle they've seen in glossy magazines. The majority only find out the foolishness of this notion after they have divorced and when utopia is not on offer vent their bitterness on their ex-husband. The kind of comments from anonymous sources on this subject bears testament to this phenomenon. If "anonymous" is so happy without her hubby why does she spend so much time reading this blog an arguing with you?

Great blog by the way, I've posted a link to you on my blog, hope you don't mind.

Captain Zarmband

June 17, 2006 12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you think women should pay child support to their husbands? Let's assume the husband has dumped his wife and kept the kids.

June 17, 2006 5:52 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (June 17, 2006 5:52 P)
Your assumption is badly misandrist, no surprise there. Fathers usually work hard to preserve their families while wives suffer from "greener other side of the fence" syndrome. Wives, not husbands, are almost always the one responsible for destroying modern families.

You don't support children by paying anyone. You support children by putting another plate at dinner and providing a place for them to sleep. Children should not be used for financial extortion as they are now by so many evil females.

June 17, 2006 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Putting that extra plate for the kid requires money.

June 17, 2006 7:25 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (June 17, 2006 7:25 PM)
Of course it is not free to support a child. Females should consider their future costs before they exercise their sole and exclusive "women's right to choose" to bear a child. Her choice, her responsibility. Females are 100% responsible for the cost of supporting the child that SHE chose to create.

Fathers also are responsible for our children, if we have married the woman and agreed to accept responsibilty. If the mother refuses her responsibility to support the child SHE chose to create she can bring the child to his father for support.

June 17, 2006 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should the extra plate mean daily filet mignon for the ex's boyfriend-of-the-month? Time to itemize the true expenses to the last penny with paper documentation.

June 17, 2006 7:56 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (June 17, 2006 7:56 PM)
Indeed, Satanic Judge Weller orderd that Carla Mack should be paid $10,000 per month indefinitely after she abrogated her marriage vows and left her husband. Plenty of filet mignon for her and her boyfriend-of-the-month.

June 18, 2006 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

The quick brown fox jumped over the fence.

June 20, 2006 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, it has little to do with supporting children. That's why some
of us MRAs refer to it as "mommy support": because it is actually the
mommy who is being supported.

If it had anything to do with supporting children, the following
conditions would have to hold:

Firstly, in situations where she chose to have the child and he
didn't, or he wasn't even asked what he wanted, he has no obligation.
Her choice, her bill. Period. It was no more his choice to create this
child than it was the man down the street's, or the woman down the
street's for that matter.

No, I don't care that he had sex with the mother. Child support
should not be about making him pay for having sex. We call that
"prostitution", and it requires that a fee be negotiated ahead of

Secondly, the bill has to match what it actually takes to raise a
child. No soaking some rich guy for a hefty chunk of his income or
his savings. His obligation is to support his child, not to transfer
his money to his ex.

If the father chooses to do more, that's fine. Most fathers in intact
families do more for their children than the minimum they calculate
they can get away with. But it's not an obligation. We don't require
parents in intact families to support a child to some high standard.
We don't put married mothers and fathers in jail if they don't give
their teenager enough money to buy all the latest fashions.

Specifically, the bill should be half of what it actually takes to
provide food, clothing, and shelter. And don't give me any of this
"creative accounting" that tries to pretend that the child caused
mommy's rent or mortgage to double or some such BS. Children in
intact families don't increase the family's housing budget by half,
and if mommy's that hard up for living space, why should she have

Thirdly, there has to be accountability, and plenty of it. Right now
we are so far from accountability that it's ridiculous. The mother
should not be able to spend the child's money for her own purposes or
at her own discretion. It's not her money - odd how we focus so
clearly on "it's for your child" when daddy is being dunned, then
forget it the moment that mommy gets the check.

If it's wrong for him not to pay - and often he simply doesn't have
the money - it's worse for her to take his money that was meant for
his child and spend it on herself. And she doesn't even have the
excuse of being broke.

June 21, 2006 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks to Child Support Women are now spawning Annuities and obtaining "Adult Support". Please explain the justice of obtaining child Support for a Child that did not exist in New Mexico. Or the Father who paid child support for a Daughter who died for 11 years after her Death.

High Earning Males pay Adult Support. A Billionaire who recently Divorced his Wife was hit up for $350,000 a month in child Support. DNA tests show the Daughter is not his. The child Support (Adult Support) was reduced to $150,000 a month. This amounts to Legal Extortion. Add to this that the States get a percentage of what they collect and you have a system created to Abuse the Rights of Men.

June 21, 2006 7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2 questions:

1) Where did the term "Feminazi" originate? Was it from Limbaugh?

2) Why would anyone have a funeral for a woman when she dies?

June 28, 2006 5:35 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

1. I have no idea who coined the term. It is a historical fact that the German National Socialist Party, Nazis, was swept into power as the first great success of female suffrage. The evil of Nazism in various forms is the result of feminist domination of politics.

2. Good quesiton. That has been debated among religious leaders for a thousand years and more. Why bother?

July 08, 2006 6:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home