Robin Williams

Everybody is blogging about Robin Williams. His death was a great shock to a great many. One thinks of the poem “Richard Corey.” He was rich, famous, and adored. If his life wasn't worth living, what can it mean?

It was pretty obvious from the beginning of his career that he had a certain manic energy. Manic—as in manic depressive. So there's that.

However, one would still think that, at his age, and having made so much money, at worst he could have withdrawn from the world for as long as was necessary, or even permanently, to find serenity.

But in fact, he could not. And this is what killed Robin Williams. He was in serious financial trouble.

So how could someone whose movies grossed more than three billion dollars end up at 63 in serious financial trouble? Surely he must have gambled it all away in Vegas or something?

No; he did not. All it took was two divorces.

Given the alimony he was liable for, he was in the position of having to work as hard as hecould just to hold off bankruptcy. This forced him to take roles that he did not want, and inevitably, he just was not as good in them. But then, as his star faded as a result, meeting those payments became harder and harder.

He was on a treadmill he could not escape; except by this means. And this is not a rare thing among rich and famous men. John Cleese is apparently on the same treadmill for the same reason. Gordon Lightfoot has declared that, at his age, he cannot afford to become involved with any new women.

Something is very wrong here. We are enslaving and destroying men--especially the best and the brightest.

Given that woman are free to work and have their own careers, there is no excuse for alimony. If a divorced spouse is still receiving some portion of the other spouse's income, this should be only for services continuing to be performed. And as for dividing marital property, why should the value of a woman's housework rise and fall based on the value of the man's work outside the home? Traditional housework should have a fixed value. The woman's (or lower earner's) share in any divorce settlement should be based on having actually performed this function, and this fixed value, plus the other party's ability to pay. Settlements should accordingly be capped. At about what a live-in maid could earn over the period of the marriage.

As for child support, of course, it is not fair for one party to have the benefit of the children's presence, while the other party has only the bills. Whoever pays child support should, as a matter of simple justice, have full custody of the children.

Enough men have died that we ought to notice what is going on. The suicide rate for men is about four times what it is for women in the US. And that is without counting mysterious traffic accidents, probably the easiest way for men to kill themselves. The suicide rate is accelerating, especially for middle-aged men.

The War on Dads

Depressing reading.

Demographic Doom and How to Stop It

World Birth Rates, 2008, Wikipedia. Blue is bad.

Demographically speaking, and leaving aside all other issues, Western Civ is committing suicide. We have almost stopped making babies.

What is to be done? Some argue that, on the basis of all past history, we are already past the point of no return. But there are some obvious steps that might be taken. Most of them are steps that should be taken on grounds of human rights, equality, or humaneness in any case.

First, and most obviously, make abortion illegal. In the US, for example, this would boost the number of births by about 30%. Besides, of course, the matter of a right to life. Almost solves the problem by itself.

Number and rate of abortions in US to 2005. Wikipedia.

But we also have fewer marriages than we used to and a less stable family life. Without these, children are less likely and less advisable; a man, in particular, could find himself with huge liabilities and nothing but loneliness to show for it. Even if born, children from non-intact families are not going to get as promising a sendoff in life.

To support marriage, the first and most obvious step is to make adultery illegal. Indeed, we probably should make all sex outside of marriage illegal. As it everywhere used to be, until quite recently. We need to end no-fault divorce; if we do not, marriage is an unenforceable contract, and in an unenforceable contract, the innocent parties are always the ones who suffer. We need to outline the responsibilities of husband and wife under this contract, so that neither can be held to ransom; and these responsibilities must be fair and balanced. Sort of like they were in traditional marriage. If individuals want to enter into alternative agreements by mutual consent, fine.

We need to reform laws on child custody; at present, the wife always gets the children and the house, and the husband always gets the bills. This is obviously unjust, and an obvious disincentive to men to ever marry. It borders on the classic definition of slavery.

What would be fair? Either, whoever pays the bills gets to decide custody—“user pays,” natural justice—or the Muslim practice, in which the mother automatically gets custody up to a certain age, and the father after that age. Say seven--the traditional age of reason.

"Affirmative action," aka systemic discrimination, besides being inherently unjust, is also harmful to the family specifically. We know, for example, that the supposed “pay gap” between men and women is really a marriage gap. Without affirmative action, employers gave family breadwinners higher pay than either single men or women. This made good sense for the employer—married, single-paycheque workers are more reliable, more inclined to take orders, can put in more hours, and are more committed to staying on. We need to end all affirmative action programs to permit this to return. As with all discrimination, it must and will end as soon as government gets off the field. A free market ensures this.

The oppression of women by patriarchy in the traditional marriage. "Married life," 1918.

It should be obvious by now, if it wasn’t from the start, that the greatest cause of the demographic decline of the West is, in a word, feminism. By its nature, it is destructive to family life and to the interests of children; leaving aside entirely the interests of men. Because of this, it is detrimental to the overall interests of society, to the greatest good to the greatest number, even if it has been advantageous to women in particular (itself a debatable question). Yet the proponents of this doctrine have been heavily subsidized by public money all along. This is madness, as well as being obviously unjust. Public money should be pulled from all feminist organizations, and at the same time from all other special interest groups lobbying for one particular segment of the population. Any time the government funds such groups, it is discriminatory.

For my part, I would also want to pull all public money from the social sciences, with the possible exception of economics. The social sciences by their nature seem to always become no more nor less than lobbying groups for this or that special interest; and they generate no real knowledge.

We also need to deregulate daily family life. At present, the web of complex, illogical, and unpredictable regulations makes having a child a serious legal liability. Child seats, bicycle helmets, bans on spanking, social workers pulling children because their parents smoke or belong to the wrong political party. Getting rid of social workers is a start—removing public money from the social sciences would mean the government hires no social workers. But most of these regulations also should go. Parents may or may not love their children, but they are far more likely to love them than the state is. Giving advice should logically be the limit of the state’s involvement; if funds permit, giving out free car seats, bicycle helmets, or nutritional lunches to the poor. And help for runaways.

Finally, some parents may be deterred from having children because of the growing costs of, and growing need for, higher education. This does not actually seem to be a major factor—Germany has free post-secondary education, and its birth rate is still cratering. But it also makes sense on grounds of sheer equality and of ensuring that the nation maximizes its productive potential. Post-secondary education should be fully covered by vouchers at public expense, at least for the brightest students.

Might this be too expensive? No. First because you can limit the number of vouchers to match the funds available, and second because the increased earning potential over a lifetime of those students who receive the vouchers should more than return the public investment in future taxes.

Is any of this going to get done? Probably not. No politician dares to go against the desires of organized interest groups for the sake of the common good. If he does, he is most often weeded out at the next election, lacking election funding and volunteers and facing bad press.

It would take a moral revolution first. 

Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back

This case establishes the important legal point that any woman can kill any man at will. It kind of logically follows on from unrestricted abortion, I suppose.

Now she even has her kids back. After all, why would the person who killed their father represent any kind of risk to them?

Hat tip to Rob Housley for spotting the story.

Another Child is Born

In Prince Albert last week, a woman walked into a Wal-Mart, gave birth in a washroom, and left the baby face down at the bottom of the toilet. The store manager discovered and resuscitated the child.

The police asked that the perpetrator come forward “to ensure that she is OK.” The Saskatchewan Attorney-General announced that any woman doing something similar “won’t be prosecuted.” The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix reported “an unprecedented amount of public support for the mother and baby channeled through the store.”

A few days later, the woman did indeed come forward, and was given counseling. No charges were laid, although police say they are reserving that option. She spent no time in police custody. Her identity has been protected by authorities.

Now imagine the same situation, with only the sex of the perpetrator changed. A young man slips into Wal-Mart and leaves a baby face down in a toilet. The mother knows nothing about it.

Would he not be charged? Would his identity be protected? Would he be sent for counseling at government expense?

I doubt it. What do you think?

As the public outpourings illustrate, it is almost instinctive among us to want to exempt women from the entire criminal justice system. Laws, and discipline, apply only to men; women are free to do as they choose. In some cultures, this is a matter of law—in pre-modern Korea, for example, women could not be prosecuted for any crime short of treason. In our system, the pro-female bias is less overt, but just as real. I feel the same way myself—instinctively. It is, perhaps, man’s instinctive love for women. Even though, if this sort of preference were given to one class or race of men, over another, the injustice would be obvious.

But there is a serious disconnect here in our thinking. If women are not to be held responsible for their actions, they also cannot safely be given responsible positions. Notably, if they are not responsible for their actions towards children, they must not be given custody of children.

And yet, at that opposite end of the equation, we insist on equality, in the workforce, and absolute preference, in the case of child custody.

We cannot have it both ways. Though there are indeed two different ways in which equality of the sexes can be honoured.

The first way is the traditional one, in more or less all cultures: women are not held responsible for their actions, but are accordingly not given responsibilities, without some male supervision. Rights and responsibilities then balance out overall.

The second is to treat men and women in the same way. But this means, if we are going to insist on “affirmative action” quotas in the workplace and in promotions, we must also and equally insist on quotas in the prisons and in child custody. With equal rights to sue for compensation.

To have one without the other is the one really clear case of discrimination.

But this is not just a question of equality. It is a question of public safety as well. There is great danger in elevating to power and responsibility people who will not be held responsible for their actions, do not expect to be held responsible, and who have not had the prior experience of being held responsible for their actions. Individuals can rise above this, but statistically, it is hardly a prescription for peace, order, and good government.

We have our choice: two forms of equality. But, even for the sake of our future as a society, the current situation cannot be permitted to continue: one in which women have all the rights, while men have all the responsibilities.