Direct Link to Latest News


Marriage a Minefield for Men

June 2, 2015


As this article shows, the satanic Masonic bankers and their minions have inflicted irreparable damage to the institutions of marriage and family.

Ultimately women are the biggest losers as men abdicate the responsibilities of marriage. 

Nevertheless, men who want families should not give up. 
There are still plenty of women who are in touch with their natural instincts, and are loyal and loving.

By Peter Lloyd
Excerpt from Stand by Your Manhood
(Abridged by

The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery. 

According to the Office for National Statistics, marriage in Britain is at its lowest level since 1895. In 2011, there were just 286,634 ceremonies -- a 41 per cent free fall from 1972, when 480,285 couples tied the knot. For an army of women, Mr Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him.

 And the reason? When it comes to marriage, men are on strike. Why? Because the rewards are far less than they used to be, while the cost and dangers it presents are far greater. 

'Ultimately, men know there's a good chance they'll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and -- if it all goes wrong -- their family,' says Dr Helen Smith, author of Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream. 'They don't want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over. 'Men aren't wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They're being smart.' ...

'Be in a relationship, even live together. But don't get married. Especially if you have any prospect of making money.' American social commentator Suzanne Venker agrees. The problem with divorce settlements, she says, is women want to have their cake and eat it. 'We messed with the old marriage structure and now it's broken,' she says. 'Back in the old days, stay-at-home mothers got a financial reward because child-rearing doesn't pay cash. 

'Now we want total independence from men, but if we divorce -- even without having children -- we expect to get alimony for ever. We can't have it both ways.' Along with the prospect of endless domestic criticism, this is why men are saying 'I don't' rather than 'I do'. Men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle. 'Many women have been raised to think of men as the enemy,' says Venker. 'It's precisely this dynamic -- women good, men bad -- that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. 

'After decades of browbeating, men are tired. Tired of being told there's something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren't happy, it's their fault. The rise of women has not threatened men. It has just irritated them.' But by far the most negative aspect of marriage is the likelihood of being edited out of your children's lives -- if it all goes pear-shaped -- by a state that has relegated the role of father to its lowest point ever. It wasn't always this way. In the 1800s, men typically got custody of the children in the event of a split -- not as a result of privilege, but because they were solely financially responsible for them. 

They got the children, but they also got the bill. Benefits Britain didn't exist, encouraging single mums to go it alone. Now, 200 years on, women get the children, but men still get the bill. Sometimes, men even pay for children who aren't theirs. The Child Support Agency has 500 cases of paternity fraud a year, where a mother names a man as the biological father of her child, even when she has a good idea he isn't. And that's just the cases we know about. According to a YouGov study, 1.2 million men doubt they are the fathers of their partners' children....To this day, no British woman has been convicted of paternity fraud. 

 The Children Act of 1989 specifically declares: 'The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.' A year later, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research called The Family Way saw Harman declare: 'It cannot be assumed men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion.' Even now, the Children and Families Act of 2014 doesn't mention the word 'father' once. Not once. 

Sir Bob Geldof was one of the first high-profile men to challenge the legislation after losing access to his daughters Peaches, Pixie and Fifi when Paula Yates left him in 1995. 'It was beyond expensive,' he told me. 'I had to borrow money and was close to losing it all. In the end, my circumstances changed, but it could have been very different. 'Men still spend thousands getting court orders that aren't worth the paper they're written on. The whole system is disgusting. 

Meanwhile, young women 'act out a skewed version of femininity that prioritizes the use of sex and relationships with men above all else'. Cruelly, this creates the cycle all over again, with teenagers jumping into bed with each other without a thought for the consequences. The Trust for the Study of Adolescence recently proved scores of teenage girls in Britain are deliberately becoming young mothers as a career move because, with the state and the father contributing, it offers more guaranteed security than a job. 

Even 13-year-old girls admitted this, which might explain why Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, at an annual government cost of nearly £63million. Perhaps the law-makers need to think about radical action to break the cycle. Maybe men could be allowed to have a financial abortion from a child to which they didn't pre-consent. 

In a specified time -- say, legal abortion guidelines -- men could be allowed to formally relinquish all monetary obligations, rights and responsibilities if duped into fatherhood. The woman still wants to proceed? Fine, that's her choice. But not on his salary. Controversial? Yes. But overnight we would see fewer acts of conception by deception. And that can only be a good thing -- for men and for society. 

The problem is exacerbated by the way fathers are portrayed in countless films and TV shows as being utterly inept and untrustworthy. Off the top of my head, I can cite Men Behaving Badly, Last Of The Summer Wine, The Simpsons, Everybody Loves Raymond and Friends as examples, plus Three Men And A Baby -- the highest-grossing box office hit of 1987. 

Marriage Contract Means Children belong to State

Stand by Your Manhood (Review)

Why Men Won't Marry

First Comment by Dan:

America has a modern phenomenon called 'welfare mothers' *.   States pay subsidies to 'single mothers'.  It caught on decades ago, that girls of no ambition learned if they had babies, the state would give them support and food stamps so they could stay home and watch TV instead of flip hamburgers at McDonalds, or other exciting careers that await the high school dropout. Want more money? Have another baby...the state pays you more. 

Somewhere back in the '90's a California state legislator noticed that the brilliant result of this arrangement was a baby boom in California's 'immigrant' population, a baby boom of fatherless bastards growing up in squalor with doped out party girl 'moms' and this had become a serious drain on the California budget.  Not to mention a demographic nightmare -overpopulating the state with ineducable dependents. 

I've forgotten the legislator's name, but it made national TV news for weeks when he proposed a bill to offer girls 13 up a couple of thousand dollars up front if they'd consent to be sterilized.   Naturally the national media seized upon it and the entire juggernaut of the Left destroyed the man's political career, and that was the last time anyone suggested any alternatives at all to this problem. 

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Marriage a Minefield for Men"

PG said (June 3, 2015):

What a timely and on tone article this is.

Over here in the UK the next big nail in controlling the rights of humans to decide upon their own reproductive affairs is about to be fired.

You will remember that as home to the Tavistock society we have often played host to the outrolling of the next initiative snd it is this:

The law defining rape is about to br widen to include sexual intercourse where the "raped" can claim " she (or he) was so drunk that they were incapable of agreeing to have sex subjectively assessed after the fact.


Does this seem like "Bad Law" perhaps?

The same Rockstar politician "cam er on" is bringing you this little beauty as gave you same sex "marriage" in the UK.

I still think in positive terms about the General Election result despite this shirtlifter

Tony B said (June 3, 2015):

Here's a true example of how to solve the "child support" racket:

In 1948 or 1949, in Pottstown, PA, a high school girl got pregnant. It was a big deal in those days. Also the girl was the daughter of the owner of the business in Pottstown which kept the town alive, boiler making.

The girl accused the football quarterback of that year of being the father. He denied it and it went to court. Now the judge of that court was a friend of the boiler maker business owner. Probably both masons but that is not recorded.

The day in court was interesting. There was a long parade of high school boys, including practically the complete football team, who took the stand and swore on the bible that the child could possibly be theirs.

Of course, this showed the girl to be a wanton whore. But her dad and the judge were the "big" people in town. The judge summed up the case by ordering that every one of those boys would pay child support. That was in the afternoon.

Before the sun set that day in Pottstown came the solution. Practically the whole town of "little" people showed up at the judge's home with a brand new rope. He was given the choice of rescinding the order or hanging immediately from a nearby lamp post. He rescinded the order and left town, never to return. So did the business owner and his family.

Now that was over half a century ago when American men had balls. Don't know how many men are left who would stand up to tyranny today but it is definitely a positive solution to that problem.

Anne said (June 3, 2015):

Why are women copping the blame for the actions of degenerate White male politicians? It is the politicians who enacted these divorce laws who should be blamed for the negative effects that result from them.

AH said (June 3, 2015):

"Even living together" is a dangerous suggestion. In much of the West, living together is legally equal to marriage after a very short time.

Marrying is worse than a minefield, it is more like "going over the top" in the WWI trenches, almost certain death.

I've often thought that should provide some practical advice to young men seeking a female companion. I suggest as a start:

No matter how stricken your heart is, no matter how lovely the object of your desire, ** find out if she is infected with cultural Marxism ** (see Henry's previous articles). This is not normally broached during courtship. Yet if present it will lead, in Jekyll and Hyde fashion, to transformation of the woman into a harpy. You will never be able to lead your family and when divorce does come, you will be taken down with maximum force. Due the the worldwide presence of Hollywood, cultural Marxism everywhere, so don't imagine that a foreign bride is a panacea.

Without a legal antidote to this attack, society will be 100% transformed into illuminati drones as a matter of course.

Could children be signed over to the man before or immediately after they were born?

Could a separate dwelling be assigned to numerous "wives", at a cost of perhaps 50K USD per man? Legally the woman would be assigned a different address, which would exist, including toothbrush.

A legal antidote is imperative. Has Mr Lloyd thought about this?

Victoria said (June 3, 2015):

So many of our current problems result from our being totally ignorant of the machinations of the lawyers through the legal system and the use of what we think of as ‘our’ legal names. In fact, these are copyrighted by the ‘Crown Corporation of the City of London’, and every time we use them (as, to sign a marriage contract) we are breaking copyright and committing fraud. If you want to know more about this, go to this blog:

In days past, people recognized the spiritual nature of marriage, and ‘marriage' was within the purview of the church alone, and was ‘registered’ only in family Bibles. However, now that all churches have unwisely sold out to the ‘authority’ of the State (through preferential taxation, as well as the ability to write tax receipts), they must now do the bidding of those entities, even against their own teachings. it would seem that the best answer for couples who believe in God would be to write their own vows, and speak these in front of a gathering of family and friends, and live ‘in sin’ - leaving the interlopers out of what should be a recognition of a purely spiritual union. Then, ‘official’ church marriage could be left to the gay and lesbian community whose ‘unions’ can never be recognized spiritually as they are totally in opposition to the nature of God’s creation.

Robert K said (June 2, 2015):

Lloyd says: "Perhaps the law-makers need to think about radical action to break the cycle. Maybe men could be allowed to have a financial abortion from a child to which they didn't pre-consent." Why would the legislators who have facilitated these family-destroying measures want to break the cycle? (The orchestrators of the policies are planted anonymously in the bureaucracy, in turn taking their "inspiration" from the banker-backed major foundations.)

How hard it is to break free of the assumption that governments are merely making mistakes, when in reality they are, out of whatever motives, obviously active collaborators in the radical deconstruction of society.

Al Thompson said (June 2, 2015):

There's a lot of truth in this article; however, I think the other problem along with feminism, is fornication. Fornication is having sex outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman. It has been my experience that nothing good comes from fornication. While young people think it's fun, the problem is that it destroys the dignity of both the man and the woman. The man, because as a potential leader of the family, has demonstrated his low moral value--making him unable to lead a family properly. The woman because she is allowing herself to be treated like a just someone with no moral principles. My experience with this is that fornication doesn't work for the benefit of those people who engage in it.

If I had it all over to do again, I would refrain from sex until I got married. Emotions get too twisted when fornicating. The purpose of sex is for procreation and enjoyment of the other person in a loving environment under the bond of marriage. Fornicating turns the natural order of the family on its head, just as feminism does.

By avoiding sex during courtship, the couple can check out each other on a more intellectual basis and plan their lives without the emotional pain or stupor that comes from fornicating. This would go a long way to solve the major problems between men and women.

CR said (June 2, 2015):

In response to MC's comment:

I don't think that the solution is as simple as paternity testing. The problem is that it won't stop girls from intentionally getting pregnant by a guy with money.

Sure, there are cases of girls sleeping around with a whole bunch of men and then when they get pregnant they claim that the richest one is the father, but in those cases the men often request paternity tests anyway.

Poor people don't want to do that because (at least in Canada) the test costs over $1000. How much money can she get from a man who works for minimum wage or collects welfare anyway? The idea of women choosing men who can support them is nothing new, but these feminist-inspired laws (alimony, child support) turn women into parasites and men into victims. In the end, it's all part of the depopulation agenda. The bottom line: stay away from money-hungry sluts and feminists.

Tony said (June 2, 2015):

Hello Henry. Yes marriage is a bad deal…there is no question about it …for men it’s a very risky undertaking….a prenuptial agreement is MANDATORY, not optional like many men think.

In the case of my divorce from the crazed Cabala Russian girl….if I did not have a prenuptial in place at the time of the divorce she would have gotten over $500,000 as a settlement (I would have had to sell assets to pay her)…but the “prenup” allowed her only $14,000…that’s a game changer! Without the marital agreement of our short 7 year marriage, I would have given this crazed person half of the wealth that I accrued over my extensive 30 year career. It would have destroyed me in more ways than financial.

So yes Henry marriage is a bad deal for men and getting to be worse of a deal with each passing day. How can anybody get married without a prenuptial agreement?….especially when one understands that the divorce rate is over 70%...and maybe higher. Marriage should be looked at without emotion….like one would approach a business deal….because that is what it is .…a business deal…. that can wipe a man out of his wealth very quickly.

MC said (June 2, 2015):

The solution to the entire gender wars mess created by the Illuminati is simple and relatively inexpensive: mandatory paternity testing for all babies. We have mandatory drug testing for newborns in many jurisdictions; why not mandatory paternity testing? That would certainly put a brake on many young women's recklessness vis a vis indiscriminate sex and pregnancy as a "career choice".

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at