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, July 28, 2006

Fault based divorce?

Someone asked Bob about his thoughts on "fault" based divorce. For the past half century females have destroyed their families in huge numbers through use of "no fault" divorce laws lobbied into existence by the feminazi during second wave feminism. They have been a social disaster of unimaginable proportions. But what about fault based divorce?

In the first half of the feminist century, women could divorce by accusing their husband of adultery. Often these accusations were no more true than the "abuse" lies that females now routinely tell to divorce courts on the advice of lieyers. Further, the husband's occasional outside affair or mistress is not a threat to the marriage and should not be allowed as a reason for the wife to destroy the family. I am reminded of French President Mitarand who's mistress and her children came to his official state funeral and sat in reserved seats in the 2nd row, behind his wife and her children. The existence of a mistress has never been a serious threat to a marriage, and before feminist domination was not construed as grounds to destroy the marriage and family. Contrary to feminist dogma, a man's occasional sexual adventures increases his sexual energy which he brings home to maintain the excitement of his marriage bed.

Neither should feminist lies about "abuse" be grounds for divorce. Throughout history of successful families the husband has been responsible for the family. The wife is instructed to be subjugated to her husband. When she picks fights and then calls a gang of gun thugs to beat up and torture her husband the family and the whole society suffers. The so-called "abuse" laws, VAWA, etc., are anti-family hate legislation that is intended to destroy families and to hurt men and children. Lieyers today advise females to lie about "abuse" and "child abuse" to the minions of Satan in black robes of hell in order to rob the man's property and bind him into indentured servitude, slavery, for the next 20 years. Lieyers and agents of Satan in black robes who work every day to destroy familes and hurt children should be eliminated from decent society. The wife who picks fights, or fails to subjugate herself to her husband in other ways needs his discipline and corrections. A good hard over the knee spanking is enough for most females, and it creates love and respect for her husband. If she resists simple punishment then he may use additional punishment as needed.

Bob focuses on the situation when females file divorces because women file 90% of divorces in the US, largely because they are now paid to do so. The first remedy is to stop the incentives for divorce. The first incentive that needs to end is the gift of half, or more, of the family property as a reward for destroying the family. The family needs the house, the car, the kitchen pots and pans, and the savings. If the unfaithful bitch wants to run off with the newspaper boy she should be able to take her shirt, the one she's wearing, and her shoes, and that's all. The husband who is trying to keep the family together should be able to keep the kids and all the family property and assets which are needed to support the family. A huge mountain of data shows that kids who are taken from their fathers by divorcing moms are hurt in every measurable way. Kids who stay with their fathers, even when mom leaves, do as well as being raised by two parents.

We need to remember that marriage is the arrangement for creating children and maintaining a stable home for them to be reared well. The reasons for divorce allowed during the years while the children are growing up need to be very limited. After they are grown the purpose of marriage no longer is important so divorces could be granted if either party no longer wants to maintain the marriage. After the kids have left the home its purpose is finished.

What are possible reasons for divorce during the child rearing years you ask. Serious criminal abuse of the children is one. If hindsight were foresight, Andrea Yates should have been booted out before she killed the kids. Sexual mutilation of children, starving the children, or excessively beating children are also valid reasons. A female who attempts to murder her husband with poison or violence loses her rights to her family and husband. In addition, the moment she bears a bastard, which should be found by routine DNA testing at birth, she has already divorced and violated her husband and family. The former husband has justification to boot the whore out with her shirt and shoes.

In general, neither a female's lie nor the husbands adultery should be grounds for divorce. Neither should the lies females now tell about "abuse." None of those lies should be grounds to destroy a family. Female lies are reason and justification for the husband to exert some physical control on the female, not justification for her to destroy the family. In general the children belong to the father and in case of divorce have a far better chance of success in life living with fathers rather than mothers. Divorce lieyers, gangs of blue gun thugs, CPS family destroyers, and agents of Satan should stay the hell out of a family's affairs. In ancient law including religious and secular laws, before feminism, the husband was responsible for the well being of the family. Part of his authority and responsibility was to protect and care for the wife. He could divorce her if she no longer was satisfied with the marriage or when she was not adequately participating in the marriage. Women are emotionally unstable. They have demonstrated in horribly destructive fashion during the past century that they can not be trusted to maintain marriages and families when allowed "no fault" divorce or even "fault" divorce. For the protection of the children, women should not be allowed to exercise their "PMS" emotions and destroy their families.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

A mandatory DNA check would be placing the child first if hereditary disease plays any role in extending life.

Income earners should have preference. Children living with chronic unemployment in the home continue the “tradition”.

The desire for a goal of 50% custody between male and female needs to be expressed by the upper court and popular ruling parties.

A criminal conviction must exist before physical abuse is admitted in a court. Works only when a greater discretion applied to claims. Factors include, assault, excessive force+mutual combat, fraudulent claims, etc...

Placing blame on men because women want to be taken care of is no longer acceptable. She is accountable for herself before, during and after marriage. Compromises only need to recognize compensation to stay at home Moms and Dads in the form of (re)education, contribution to the household (starting from the premise that the household would not exist without his/her back in deriving an income), etc...

July 28, 2006 10:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a person marrying into money is bullshit. A outdated law, having relevance 150 years ago and in desperate need of a modern look.

July 28, 2006 11:05 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (July 28, 2006 10:53 AM)
Most of your suggestions are very good steps in the right direction. However, the goal of 50% custody for females who have broken up the marriage to run off with the plumber is very wrong. Kids living with mom are far more likely to be abused, and kids living with mom and her latest fuck are even worse off. The safest place for kids, and the place they will be most likely to succeed in life, is to live with their fathers. When she abbrogates her vows and runs off she takes her shirt and shoes, and that's all. Absent criminal conviction for child abuse, the kids stay with their father, 100%.

July 28, 2006 1:46 PM  
Blogger Felix_phl said...

When I read Bob's writings, I often feel as if I am reading something written by Bob, but inspired by a much greater source. The wisdom of the ancients, of the natural world, of the Creator, and imbued in his writing in a way that makes them nearly artful. What Bob writes could have been written 2,000 years ago, and perhaps 2,000 years from now, and been equally true.

July 28, 2006 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do agree a marriage is treated as a legally binding contract and infidelity or even a change of heart breaks the contract with many gains and few penalties where women are concerned.

The context I'm coming from is expanding the 'backlash' by attracting rich men (sports stars, businessmen, etc... ) who are prime targets for exploitation by the backward looking marriage laws. A little n.o.w. could save these men a whole lot in the near to mid future as well as put mens rights and general welfare front and center. Part of this context is the present discovery phase for legal arguments.

Legal perspective on marriage needs to change and starting from the premise that we take from a broken marriage what we walked in with may possibly be the healthiest perspective (because we all are equal and accountable for ourselves).

July 29, 2006 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the party that broke the contract left the Marriage without custody of the children, and no financial subsidies we would see Divorce rates plunge. We would also see Women choose men of character and morals rather than exciting Thugs, Players, Bad Boys etc.

It is the subsidy of Divorce that encourages more of it. The "Cashing Out" behavior that rewards one party for ending the relationship. As it is now Marriage in the US no longer makes sense for Men. Even for traditional Men who want children.


July 30, 2006 9:20 AM  
Anonymous C said...

Choosing women for marriage would be easy for men; without these so-called "marriage laws" that benefit dishonest,lazy, useless women.

These so-called laws have nothing to do with marriage at all. It has to do with: money for nothing. In other words, women getting money without putting any effort at all into the marriage to benefit these selfish, useless ameri-con women.

Here's a piece of advice:
Just stay away from ameri-con women.

Khankrumthebulgar has the right point of view.

July 30, 2006 12:03 PM  
Anonymous jay c said...

I don't approve of "ocassional sexual adventures" but I see no problem with a man with more than one wife (or concubine, if you prefer) so long as he provides for them and their children. 90% of the world's population throughout all human history didn't have a problem with it and neither do I.

August 02, 2006 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The wife who picks fights, or fails to subjugate herself to her husband in other ways needs his discipline and corrections."

Charles Manson agrees.

August 02, 2006 5:36 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (August 02, 2006 5:36 PM)

Your leap from an orderly family to Charles Manson displays the abject lack of rational thought from a typical female mind. You are obviously unable to comprehend the topic of discussion or to discuss in a rational manner. Your leap is like equating a mother who spanks her unruly daughter with Andrea Yates. Irrational females like you are exactly why husbands must rule the family. Thanks for the demonstration.

August 02, 2006 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, most husbands are irrational and selfish.

August 02, 2006 7:01 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (August 02, 2006 7:01 PM)

Just keep spewing the feminazi hate. It identifies you.

August 02, 2006 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a woman who is thoroughly disgusted by your post. I am NOT one of those bra burning feminists that have it in for men.
For the record, I believe in fault divorces. Marriage is not disposable. Divorces should be harder to get. Allegations should be proven. Counseling should be mandatory.
You should realize that plenty of men leave women for other women. Men are far from innocent. You should also realize that sometimes men with children remarry to women who DO NOT want to raise another womans child. The road goes both ways.

August 05, 2006 12:17 AM  
Anonymous C said...

Women always use emotional blackmail or red herrings/logical fallacies
to try to steer the topic off course.

It does identify their lack of trust, and their anger, fear and aggression towards men and their blatant inability to understand what goes on around them.

August 05, 2006 1:36 PM  
Anonymous C said...

You angry, hateful, mis-trusting diobedient women would rather fight men and be self destroying masochists and bring the whole world to hell with you, rather than helping men?

Talk about selfish, spoiled, useless women.

August 05, 2006 1:53 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Man-made laws are PROHIBITED by God.

Therefore man-made laws giving custody of a man's children to his wife are ILLEGAL. As also are laws giving women equality with men, or a say in their, or public, affairs.

August 05, 2006 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

male adultery= good
female adultery= evil

Can't women do a little harmless philandering and bring some excitement back to their husbands too?
i don't understand.

August 06, 2006 1:24 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (August 05, 2006 12:17 AM)

Yes, there are a few men who leave their families, but in the US females file 90% of divorces, usually for trivial reasons. Females are the major problem. When that is solved the rest will be minor.

August 08, 2006 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (August 05, 2006 12:17 AM) said...

"I am a woman who is thoroughly disgusted by your post. I am NOT one of those bra burning feminists that have it in for men.

For the record, I believe in fault divorces. Marriage is not disposable. Divorces should be harder to get. Allegations should be proven. Counseling should be mandatory."

You seem to be saying all the right things - but in fact you're just putting up a smoke screen.

You say you're not "one of those bra burning feminists that have it in for men"? Doesn't matter. You might just as well be one.

Especially when you carefully avoid what's at issue here: the laws today that effectively permit unstable, destructive behavior by women to destroy marriages and families.

Laws that were possible only in a feminist-influenced society that does not pathologize female bad behavior to the same degree as it does for male bad behavior.

Laws that were possible only in a society that, over the decades, have been tailored to the interests and preferences of women.

All your talk about "I believe in fault divorces," etc., is meaningless. You conspicuously leave out the significant role women play in destroying families in the western world today.

You talk like a typical woman in America today: shrill, nagging, self-centered, insincere - and ultimately dishonest. And that is why the attitude you display here is disgusting.

August 08, 2006 6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men become slaves to routine, wake up, shit-shower-shave, eat, car, work, lunch, work, car, eat, tv, sleep. It's a quiet and painful death. Behavioral problems often become entrenched by the time he realizes things have gone too far and the effort to change things is simply too much. He and his wife no longer speak the same language and he'll draw in because he has no one to talk to. He'll silently slip away from life.

Women get bored, become unsatisfied and are usually left to deal with the her problems herself because over time men get locked out of the marriage rather then keep keep the fight going. She should have known better and never have pulled rank and he should have never given in to extortion.

August 13, 2006 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is REAL slavery as it REALLY existed:

So tell poor persecuted men, quit whining and count their blessings.

August 15, 2006 9:23 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous said... "Here is REAL slavery as it REALLY existed"

Your web listing of articles was/is selected and published because these examples were the most extreme cruelty, not because they were the norm.

Anyone who abhores slavery would include the indentured servitude of millions of contemporary fathers, men driven to suicide, imprisoned for running or failing to do the work required by their overseers. Feminism had restored slavery to the US in numbers that are millions, curently totalling many more slaves than the 2-3 million of your article.

August 16, 2006 12:56 AM  
Anonymous C said...

No woman with strong feminist leanings or a spoiled princess will EVER be happy with the breakdown of tasks in the household. They will ALWAYS be preoccupied with so-called "fairness" in their terms and feel they are being taken advantage of all the time. They never realize that a marriage is letting your guard down and trusting the man you're with. If you can not trust a man then leave him alone.

August 18, 2006 10:40 PM  
Anonymous C said...

That "anonymous" above perfectly demonstrates what a red herring/logical fallacy is, put up the bait/smokescreen/false facade and lead the topic astray to whatever end that "anonymous" wants it to lead to.

August 18, 2006 10:43 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Anyone in therapy/counselling? She is getting 50 minutes a week of 'how to hate men' brainwashing. And it's expensive as fuck and the man will be expected to pay for it.
Counselling is useless!

August 18, 2006 10:51 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Ameri-con women today think they can just cop-out and take the gimme-gimme college education bullshit easy ride out of having real responsibility as in marriage.

Ameri-con women are afraid of marriage because their dog and pony act wears off as soon as the shit hits the fan and he finds out you can not do any thing other than tout and brag about your pointless college endeavours. Trouble is women do not know how to DO any thing else. They acquire NO talents from anyone. They do not clean their room, Nevermind the whole house, they do not know how to keep the bathroom clean. They spend money on aimless useless junk at will.
They have the most consistenly inconsistent attitude towards men.
they are angry, aggressive and fear committment to men and family life.

Why would men want to get married to an ameri-con woman? If they do not fulfill his high expectations then he looks elsewhere for some woman that will.

August 18, 2006 11:03 PM  
Blogger Masculist Man said...

I don't know who the unnamed bitch is (probably scared shitless to sign in here) but she sure is showing what's wrong with western women today.

August 24, 2006 3:03 AM  
Anonymous C said...

Here's a Description of the modern American woman.
I see most women below the age of 40+ as having unrealistic expectations, bitter, angry, aggressive,fearful, personality and mental problems, unpredictable behaviour, difficult to be around and at just having a plain old good time with, difficult to please, moods that vacillate/fluctuate more than taking readings from a power outlet with an oscilloscope constantly......taking exorbant amounts of medication/drugs/beer/weed, not able to keep a goal in mind and complete it, complain and nag, bitch and too much, enjoy fast food far too much, expect for the guy to pay for everything, base most of their joys on going out clubbing, purchasing clothes, and finally: pathetic status.

Most of them invest a lot of useless effort into making themselves appear pretty, special, and different than other females, but it is completely transparent when they all do the exact same things.

The modern American female is an empty shell of a human being, and apparently there are few exceptions.

PS: Most of them act like spoiled brat 6 year old's.

Immaturity, undeveloped self-esteem, constant contradictions, emotional overreactions to the SIMPLEST/spiting misstatement or problem/situation, an inability to handle adversity, constant self-absorbment/selfishness, a total failure of inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning or simple pattern recognition, short attention span, superficiality, an extreme need for dependence while loudly declaring (transparent) independence, etcetera...

September 04, 2006 1:35 PM  
Blogger byrdeye said...

Moral of the story is to avoid MARRIAGE to Ameri-con womyn if at all possible.

It's "all good" until you say "I DO."

November 08, 2007 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I agree that when there are children, a mistress shouldn't be justification to destroy a marriage.

But if a woman has trusted her man's promise of fidelity and has formed a bond of vulnerability, and is being an honorable and good helpmate, wife and mother, it seems immoral and unjust to allow a man to be a betrayer without any consequences.

A man's responsibilities include protecting his woman, and since women are emotional creatures, an emotional betrayal can actually do the kind of personal damage that feminists claim (incorrectly) can be caused by a good and hard spanking.

What do you think about these ideas? And if you agree, in some way, do you see any kind of reasonable approach?

Thank you.

March 09, 2008 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS. Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I am a man and I am asking this as a philosophical as well as procedural question. And I am presuming that the man and wife have taken vows to behave in specific and clearly understood ways.

I think that the strongest and most stable families are built on a solid foundation of trust, which enables the emotional bonds that inspire people to care for each other in spite of hardship.

Without reservation, the husband and wife must be able to trust each other, and the children must be able to trust their parents.

Reading from your earlier writings to this point, this is the first place where I don't clearly see how to create the best structure.

March 09, 2008 6:02 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous;
You are correct that a man should be required to keep the promise of marriage, but your understanding of the fundamental promise and meaning of marriage has been corrupted by feminists demands to own and control men. Marriage is an economic agreement between a woman who has a womb for sale and a man who has time and money/goods to support her. In a marriage, the woman sells agrees to 1) To accept him as her caretaker in charge of the family which she is a part, 2) to engage in sex with him 3) get pregnant by him and no other men 4) bear his children, 5) to raise HIS children for him, and 6) to take care of the traditional woman‘s work in his home. The husband agrees 1) To manage and administer his family of which she is a part, 2) to fuck the wife so that the gets pregnant with his child, 3) to protect and support her and HIS children.

Traditional marriage vows, before feminism, did not include a requirement that the husband abstain from other sex, and indeed in many parts of the world a husband with sufficient resources may still take a 2nd wife. The feminists started insisting on owning and controlling men in the 19th century along with opposition to prostitution and alcohol.

The strongest and most stable families are built on the solid foundation of understanding of the meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage is not about “love” or feminist domination of men. Traditional marriage is built on an exchange of value, her womb for his support. Trying to own and control him is a feminist over-reach that doesn’t work and helps feminism to destroy families. When you understand the basic of traditional marriage the rest is easy.

March 09, 2008 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found no benefit in your information early on in reading and realizing that you blaim the woman for everything. LOOOOOSEEERRR

August 26, 2009 6:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home