black father and son

Black man’s burden: myth of the deadbeat

You’ve heard the rumors, for they are everywhere, and although unproven, they still resonate as “facts” throughout much of American society. The untruth that Black men don’t want to care for their children has become a staple in American folklore. Even sadder is the fact that these rumors are not only postulated by the numerically dominant white majority of this country, but are actually created, maintained and reinforced by the Black community itself.

Even President Obama, who rarely makes mention of the unique and unparalleled conditions facing Black men in this country, couldn’t help but join in on the carnage of the Black man’s image by telling Black church audiences during his first bid for the white house that “Black men need to take care of their children.” Obviously, trying to woo Black female voters, the Senator turned President is also guilty of reinforcing the image of the Black man as a “dead beat dad.”

The question put forth to you today is whether or not this unsubstantiated rumor is true? The answer is a resounding “No!” Not only do Black men love their children, and want to be with their children, many go to great lengths trying to secure their “state guaranteed right” to participate in the lives of their offspring, only to be met with constant betrayal at the hands of the all-too-racially & gender-biased family court systems that make up these United States.

As a therapist and facilitator of support groups and training programs for African-American men, I have seen first hand how so many Black men attempt to establish a relationship with their children only to have the proverbial door slammed in their face, even after being guaranteed “paper rights” to see their children, which are rarely enforced by the courts. The illusion and hypocrisy of unenforced “paper custody” decisions made by judges and hearing officers is made evident by the fact that, in many states and counties in the U.S., there is no credible enforcement process to ensure that men see their children when mothers decide otherwise. In other words, as long as primary custodial parents can evade the law by preventing non-custodial parents access to their children, without having to burden themselves with fines, warrants or transfers of custody by the courts, the Black man’s fight to play a meaningful part in the lives of his children will continue to be an uphill battle.

Most Black women love their children and are willing to put personal sentiments to the side for the sake of God’s greatest gift. Nonetheless, there is a growing population of Black mothers who are manipulating the family court system and/or are blatantly in total disregard for it, in an attempt to keep so many well-intentioned fathers from being a part of their children’s lives. The fact that Black parents cannot work out their problems in private without having to resort to intervention from the racist court systems, in the first place, itself is a significant indication that our relationship culture needs to be totally overhauled and reconstructed.

When we talk about the War Against Black Children, we cannot exclude the primary role that their parents play in the psychosocial destruction of our youth. Developmentally and spiritually, the mother, within any species, is usually the main advocate of protection for her young. However, after years of mental conditioning through slavery, today we have some Black women who will consciously deny their children the affection of a loving father for personal selfish reasons.

Behind closed therapy doors, I have had scores of Black mothers, benefiting from years of hindsight and maturation, admit, although all too late, that “yes, I kept my children from their father and I was wrong.” Although any admission of honesty must be granted its blessing, unfortunately, the years of damage created by this cycle of ignorance and emotional neglect cannot go unmentioned. So many Black children are literally being destroyed by their custodial parents, and way before the mis-education machine, and psychiatric exploitation cartel, has a chance to get their hands on them.

What are some of the unjustifiable reasons mothers keep their children away from their fathers?

1) Out of Sight/Out of Mind: The pain of relationship rejection causes many Black women to prevent the man access to his children in order not to repeatedly have to face the very person who rejected them.

2) Jealousy For What They Never Had: Yes, I have had mothers admit that not having a loving father in their lives can create a subconscious envy for their daughters leading them to disrupt the father-daughter relationship that they never had themselves.

3) A Woman’s Scorn: Revenge is often at the center of disrupted paternal emotional bonds. So many Black women lack the mature understanding that they and their children are not one and the same person anymore. Many women continue, for years after birth, to hold a pathological belief they what’s good for them is automatically best for their children; In other words, “If I don’t need him in my life, then he/she doesn’t need him in their lives.”

4) Child Support: Obviously if a man can find a job he should provide for his children. However, with so many Black men being undereducated and incriminated with felonies, it is quite difficult for many of them to find work. What children need most is the loving affection of their fathers. Although it costs to raise children, it doesn’t help to keep a father from his child for financial concerns alone. Unfortunately, in many municipalities the court systems have effectively separated custody issues from support matters which now gives mothers the right to collect the father’s finances and at the same time continue to keep his children at bay.

5) Keeping the New Man Around: Although I find younger mothers much more guilty of this than older ones, it is also growing in prevalence amongst older mothers as well. So many Black women suffer from the emotional dependency of always having to have a man around to validate their womanhood (a condition often created by their own fatherlessness) that some will go to great lengths to guarantee “the new guy” a place in the sun by keeping the biological father on the outskirts and then trying to force the paramour upon the child as the replacement dad.

Getting revenge against their ex-lovers, at the children’s expense, is a frequent theme in many family therapy sessions that often leads to broken relationships later in life after adult children learn that their mothers were the true reasons behind the absence of their fathers from their lives. Many mothers are able to effectively disguise their oppressive tactics against Black men under a false mask of innocence, projecting victimization by the father when in fact they are the victimizers; playing the helpless victim in public who is raising children without the benefit of the father, but is a merciless oppressor in private, deliberately keeping the father from his children.

This Black child custody crisis is not without its impact upon Black marriage. Many Black men, having friends and family already involved in this trifling state of affairs, are fearful of being caught up in a similar situation and are electing instead not to have children, are refusing to get married, and are unfortunately opting for a lifetime of serial monogamy, rather than risking possible divorce and complicated child custody disputes. In fact, even older Black men, many of whom are still married, are beginning to advise the younger generation to consider a life of serial monogamy or companionship with African women who are not American born. The reaction of Black men towards the pain and agony of having their children used against them is also not advantageous towards building and maintaining strong Black families. Thusly, many Black men are rejecting Black women altogether, as poor advice from older men is feeding the stereotype of Black women as vindictive “gold diggers” and “control freaks.”

Unfortunately, an increasing number of Black women, spurned on by the “We Don’t Need A Man To Raise Our Children” Movement that is growing in popularity in the Black community, are contributing to the war against Black men by spreading untrue myths and rumors about “dead beat dads” while at the same time knowingly being guilty of “hiding the children.”

Unfortunately, the dead beat dad myth is so powerful that when others notice the peculiar absence of a caring father from the lives of their children, electing to ask why hasn’t he been around, mothers can readily put the “dead beat dad” myth into play by saying “he just gave up,” “he met another woman and forgot about my children, or “he doesn’t want to be bothered.” These lies are often enough to deflect suspicion. Since most already assume that the “dead beat dad” myth is true, a manipulative mother can benefit herself from the myth whenever necessary. The fact that she interrupts visitation, prevents telephone contact, and disobeys the partial custody agreement never figures into the equation. I have found, through therapeutic experience, that when a mother says the father doesn’t want to be bothered, this usually means he doesn’t want to be harassed with her particular “rules and regulations” that are often designed to complicate the custody arrangement (i.e., visitation on days when he works, visitation only when its convenient for her, cancelled visitations at the last minute when he had plans scheduled with the child, birthdays, holidays, etc.)

However, this behavior is not without its sometimes dangerous consequences for the women who enter into this game of manipulation and deceit. As a prison volunteer, I am increasingly encountering men who are being jailed for breaking under the pressure of having their ambitions to see their children maligned at every turn, and with an apathetically racist court system that couldn’t care less, issuing visitation orders with no teeth behind them, are instead choosing to seek vigilante justice against the guilty parties.

Although unacceptable, many Black men find it difficult to “turn the other cheek” and are putting hands on women, and their property (cars, homes, etc) as retaliation for being kept out of their children’s lives. Still further, many grandparents and relatives are standing by and watching this game of cat and mouse, with tongue in cheek, and are putting their relationships with custodial parents ahead of the best interest of the growing children. Even professional Black men, who have so much to lose, are suffering from psychological breakdown, and are being charged with domestic abuse and battery. Attacking any woman should and must never be tolerated, under any circumstances. When Black men resort to physical enforcement of paper custody orders, by attacking Black mothers, this perpetuates another myth, that of the “Angry & Violent Black Male,” which is used as cannon fodder by the mother’s family as further proof that he shouldn’t be allowed to see his children.

Being a felony charge in most states, even threats of retaliation for violation of verbal or legal custody orders is enough to give a Black man a felony record, which doesn’t sit well with his child support responsibilities. As you can see, this is a dangerous cycle of revenge and hostility that only affects our children and leads to disastrous psychosocial outcomes for the children involved. It is time for the Black community to stand up in defense of non-custodial parents, whether they be male or female, and fight for their God-given rights to participate in their children’s lives. Until we do, the collective community karma of Black America will continue to bring us more unhappy and violent youths.

Dr. Umar is a lecturer, motivational speaker, and author. He may be contacted through his web site here: DrUmarJohnson.com. –Dean Esmay

About Dr. Umar Johnson

Dr. Umar Johnson is a Doctor of Clinical Psychology, Nationally Certified School Psychologist, Child Therapist, Political Scientist, Pan-Afrikanist & Parent Advocate, who will be releasing his first book, "Psycho-Academic Holocaust Against Black Boys: The Diary of a Mad Black Psychologist" on November 11, 2012.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • napocapo69

    good article

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    As a white man, who fathered a chilld with a black woman: I can relate. This article is so true. She has even gone so far as to take my child out of the country with her. Knowing the courts will do nothing but facilitate her actions. She informed me that she was on birth control, and denied that she ever said it before after.

    72% is the number of children in a single black mother’s household without the father present, and that includes me, this white guy.

    A lot of black men discovered the same thing I did the hard way; what we were taught in public school is all a fallacy. Also, we are finding out that leaving women of our race makes us no better off than if we stayed.

    Many of these men tell me NABWALT. My response is: “bro, why should either of us care? They are going to screw us over anyways.”

    The ability of a man to find a mate anywhere nowadays that won’t go gender warrior on him after marriage over a twenty or more years timeframe is over; and is growing statistically impossible in my eyes. Also, sadly and my fault, I realize that I do the same thing to my foreign wife occasionally. She understandably does not like it; she also understands, and hates what is happening to me. It affects her too.

    It is difficult for us (men after separation from our kids) to not remain bitter when a woman of any race anywhere in the world can so easily, and legally with no recourse to you, rip your heart out by kidnapping your kid(s); and have a judge force you to pay for her misdeeds.

    I am fighting her, but it seems I am facing an impossible battle. My visitation is now denied by her, “How much do you pay El Bastardo?”, my child support is too high, “Thats nice! How much do you make El Bastardo?”, she ran away with my kid, and is destroying my family here, “That sucks, how much do you make El bastardo?”

    On and on it goes; where it stops-I definitely know; with men like me refusing to give them our strength, fight them up the corporate ladder; and replace them with foreign blood which is more worthy than they are if possible.

    To Suz, SSM, and Nurdy Dancing; I mean no offence! It just is what it is; hopefully, if the men’s movement gets huge we don’t do to you and the nation’s daughters, what some of your “peers” have done to us!

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    This should be talked about more often.

    What’s most fascinating to me is that it appears to me that this growing awareness of the problem in the black community needs to be addressed at a wider social level. This isn’t just black men this happens to, it’s men all across our society.

    • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

      I personally feel that the system that affects us all now; was instituted first against the black family before the civil rights movement as a “test study” for the rest of us! Largely because back then, Black-Americans had no voice in government. Many of them took the government dole; and black fathers were left out for what “was best for the child” if under hard times. Of course they were still “technically married;” but the damage was done. Soon, black women realized that if things got difficult, the money would still come in for them and they could kick the inconvenient father out of the home; and out of her life.

      My opinion is only a theory, it could be totally wrong. However, I think that it is possibly true; and after it took deep roots in the Black-American family, it seeped in to the other races as well over the last several decades.

      Feminism has little to do with women; they are merely the tool of government to take control of the larger picture of social life.

      • Darryl X

        I wanted to repost this under your comment.

        There are some great articles by David Usher addressing your question about testing misandry on blacks first. The answer is “yes”. There are very strong relationships between the KKK and feminists. The irrational child support system was used first to separate black fathers from black mothers, encouraging the black mothers to divorce. Then the bureaucracy expanded from there. It really serves no purpose but to impose upon and control and destroy men. First black men and now all men.

    • Theseus

      Yes, his list of “unjustifiable reasons” crosses all color lines.

  • Theseus

    Thank you for this article Dr. I have maintained that men’s rights are black men’s rights; there cannot be a separation between the two.

  • knightrunner

    Thanks for the article doc. Always good to have another head shrinker with us.

    Is it just me or does anyone else think that all of the misandry in society was tested on the black population first. Or maybe I have my tin foil hat on too tightly again.

    • Ricardo

      Perhaps your view is extreme but perhaps not so extreme. Much of what we see here seems to have started with the black Americans but seems to have spiraled outward from there. Racists used to say black women would have babies out of wedlock and that supposedly made blacks inferior but guess what most women do now. It makes you think, no?

      I wonder if Dr. Umar realizes that these things he describes, they are happening in the latino and white communities now too. We have long kicked around the black man and blamed him for everything but now we blame all men who are not rich “alpha males.” We browbeat young boys, we pump them full of ritalin and drugs, we throw them in jail, we give them no hope, we take their children away, and then we teach them they are inferior and must “man up.” It makes you think, no?

    • harrywoodape

      I agree that the black community was targeted and subjected to enormous cultural and social subversion campaigns first and for a very long time and its devastating effects are tragically apparent. For a long time the white community had no idea and were “privilege blind” as to what was being done to the blacks. Racism was stoked to keep that division. Truth is, we are all ending up in the same boat now. Poverty is putting us all of the general public in the same shoes. At least, that’s what I think.

    • Darryl X

      There are some great articles by David Usher addressing your question about testing misandry on blacks first. The answer is “yes”. There are very strong relationships between the KKK and feminists. The irrational child support system was used first to separate black fathers from black mothers, encouraging the black mothers to divorce. Then the bureaucracy expanded from there. It really serves no purpose but to impose upon and control and destroy men. First black men and now all men.

  • harrywoodape

    Great article.

  • Aimee McGee

    Thanks Dr Umar, I’ve got no real understanding of the Black American culture but saw identical patterns in Maori communities in New Zealand.

  • Tim Legere

    I suggest that if the word “Black” were removed from this article then everything stated would still be valid.

    • Skeptic

      Yep, men are the new niggas.

      Welcome Doc.
      Good to have you on board.

    • http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism Human-Stupidity.com

      Right. I post this issue further down.

      Any racial differences are the consequences of gender injustice, of not holding women responsible to even keep up their part in already unjust and biased court orders.

  • Kukla

    I agree. Most black fathers aren’t bad guys, they just get screwed over by the system.

  • Tawil

    @Dr. Umar Johnson: “So many Black women suffer from the emotional dependency of always having to have a man around to validate their womanhood (a condition often created by their own fatherlessness) that some will go to great lengths to guarantee “the new guy” a place in the sun by keeping the biological father on the outskirts and then trying to force the paramour upon the child as the replacement dad.”

    99% of women are princesses viewing the world through the lens of status, dignity, self-esteem, and social station… all that princessy stuff. So when the new guy enters the scene Ms. Princess projects her status game onto him and onto the biological dad, believing that the new guy will be more happy if given higher status in the children’s lives than the dad – “that will make him stay and love me!”. The biological dad is demoted for the sake of a romance in which the children’s wishes are never considered.

    Female narcissism at its historical worst, aided and abetted by society and the courts. Its no wonder that in later years when the drug haze of romance wears off women realize they were mean to both the father and kids for the sake of her relationship status.

  • MarkofWisdom

    Great article but there is just one thing I don’t quite agree with-”Attacking any woman should and must never be tolerated, under any circumstances.” should instead be “Attacking anyone should and must never be tolerated, under any circumstances.” Specifying that women must never be attacked implicitly means that it doesn’t matter if men are attacked, either by other men or by women. JtO has written a couple of articles about it and done some videos-his basic phrasing was something like “the explicit mention of one thing excludes all others”.
    All that said, good article and it’s good to see more new people putting out quality work on AVfM

    • http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism Human-Stupidity.com

      right. Women are free to disrespect the law and disrespect court orders.

      And men are not protected by the law, their rights are not enforced.

      Again, I don’t advocate violence. But if a man’s rights are taken away by an ex-wife in collusion with government, what is a man to do? resign? kill himself? revolt and violence looks like the only way out. Of course, a lone revolt, a lone revolution will only lead to senseless violence and more government repression.

      And Hollywood does not help. No Bronson death wish movie showing vigilante justice to avenge family court injustice. No plot with Rambo fighting police out to arrest him for not paying support to a wife that does not uphold her end of an agreement.

      So Hollywood movies legally promote sympathy and understanding for illegal vigilante revenge for common crime victims. And we still have to hedge and declare that we do not promote violence, even if a man’s life is totally wrecked by permanent and constant and life long persecution by government and ex-wife. And yes, I do not even promote Bronson’s vigilante tactics, though I enjoyed his movies.

    • Shortcircuit

      “Attacking anyone should and must never be tolerated, under any circumstances.”

      That statement promotes violence by demanding a reaction without analyzing the situation. If you call the police you are still committing violence by proxy. Others will then be in violation unless they do something about the actions of both you and the police. If there are exceptions then the statement is wrong.

      I agree with the spirit of your change, but it is still a paradoxical platitude. The original statement was pure white knightery, complete with subtle implication of self-righteous violence as the expected solution. Removing the chivalry does not make it rational.

      • MarkofWisdom

        I agree that taking that statement literally would mean attacking someone is always wrong, but there is a small loophole-self defense isn’t “attacking” someone else, just defending yourself. Now if that “self defense” extends into above and beyond what is necessary to ensure your safety and that they can’t/won’t attack again(i.e. the “battered wife syndrome” defense that some murderesses’ attorneys have used to try and get them off of killing their husband in his sleep-even if they utterly mutilate and desecrate the body and show ample evidence it was premeditated and shows no history of abuse) then it goes back to attacking someone. Of course all of this is really just semantics and what it boils down to is that the reality of the world is that violence is a fact of life, and while it should never be initiated onto anyone else, it may be necessary to defend your life and/or the lives of those you hold dear, and if the world was “perfect” or even “fair” would only be an option in those circumstances when all other options are exhausted.

  • http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism Human-Stupidity.com

    Human-Stupidity deals with racial issues (and gets flak for pointing out racial differences in IQ and criminality).

    But, it seems this is not really a racial issue, though it might disproportionately affect Blacks.

    The real issue is feminist inspired law enforcement that simply has no respect whatsoever for male visitation rights and that allows women to disobey visitation orders with total impunity.

    If Black women are more abusive of the court system, or if Black men are less patient and take the law into their own hand, this is just secondary.

    The fact is that there are family court orders that are only binding for men to have to pay and women to do whatever they want, to prevent visitation and to freely pursue their private vendetta.

    While I have to clearly say that I must not advocate violence in any form, I keep wondering why men, mistreated by their wives and the court system, do not snap and commit wanton acts of violence against an unjust system. Like Thomas Ball who immolated himself, but might as well have taken some of his tortures with him.

    I mean you have a court order that says 2 things: Man has to pay, and women has to permit visitation.

    And the second part is just a bad joke, it is totally irrelevant and totally not enforced. And the first part is enforced, with medieval rigor and debtor’s prison, no matter if the man is incapable of paying.

    Nothing to do with race. Though it might somehow impact races differently, because of racial differences in IQ, violence, income, impulsiveness, sexuality, birth control, ……

    The basis of it all is that women are not held responsible or accountable to fulfill their part of a court decision.

    A decision which already is biased against men, even if it were enforced fully and equally.

    I probably speak against the official line of this site if I say this: in old times, when there was no forced child support payment, women had to please the father of their child, in order to get him to pay.

    You don’t spend the money on my child, you waste it on your clothes, I, father, will not pay.

    I do not pay you, I will deliver food, will pay school, gym, books, health insurance. But will not give money.

    That system would give a good man the power to enforce his rights in exchange for pay.

    Yes it would give the bad man a way to skirt his responsibilities, even if the woman behaves responsibly.

    Now all is inverted. The man always is responsible to pay money, even if he does not have it. And independently of that, the women can do whatever she pleases, to pursue whatever immature unjust vendetta and revenge she wants to pursue.

  • Astrokid

    Christina Hoff Sommers’s bullshit
    Feminism, Freedom and History
    We know from common observation that women are markedly more nurturing and empathetic than men.The female tendency to be empathic and caring shows up very early in life. Female infants, for example, show greater distress and concern than male infants over the plight of others; this difference persists into adulthood. Women do not merely say they want to help others; they enter the helping and caring professions in great numbers. Even today, in an era when egalitarian feminism is dominant in education, the media, and the
    women’s movement, women continue to be vastly overrepresented in fields like nursing, social work, pediatrics, veterinary medicine, and early childhood education.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I don’t see the statement as necessarily being in conflict. That they’re attracted to certain professions like this has been true for a long, long time. That doesn’t make them less likely to be alienating mothers/parents or abusive in other areas, unfortunately. I know one guy whose alienating ex-wife IS A PSYCHOTHERAPIST.

      It’s sort of like expecting that people in the psychiatric profession are less likely to suffer mental disorders. That’s not really the case.

      • Astrokid

        I should have elaborated.
        Roy Baumeister says that women have evolved primarily in the environment of the private sphere and men have evolved primarily in the environment of the public sphere. The female characteristic of nurturing/empathy extends only to the private sphere.. I dont see it translating to the public sphere at all. Thats why they just cant see the pain of the males outside of their biological families.

        Hoff Sommers thinks that women gravitate towards the helping/caring professions (in the public sphere) because of some innate “goodness” that naturally extends to the public sphere. Thats bollocks.. its probably because those jobs are some of the easier jobs around.
        http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/2work10.htm
        In 1900′s 47% of female workforce was in ‘Farming and Domestic Work’, 8% in Clerical and Sales and 20% were in ‘Teaching, Nursing and Other Professions’.
        In 1998, dramatic increase in the latter categories.. 37% and 52%. More comfortable jobs.. thats all.

        I am struck by the lie that even a largely anti-feminist Hoff Sommers peddles, while in reality women are kicking men out of their children’s lives.. look at all the reasons Umar mentioned..
        1) Out of Sight/Out of Mind
        2) Jealousy For What They Never Had
        3) A Woman’s Scorn
        4) Child Support
        5) Keeping the New Man Around
        Men’s lived experiences show that generally speaking women’s circle of empathy doesnt extend to men (outside of their biological families).. thats why as soon as the feminist laws facilitated it, we are kicked out and sent through a grinder. This betrayal makes sense only when viewed in the light of Schopenhauer

        “It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder. So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.”

    • IrieDave

      The part she leaves out is that they’re only empathetic to other women, and only to the extent that it doesn’t cost them anything. For example if two women are in competition over a man they find to be alpha all that empathy b.s. goes out the door.

  • Shortcircuit

    “Attacking any woman should and must never be tolerated, under any circumstances.”

    If someone is too important to be forcefully stopped when charging with a knife, she is more than important enough to deny another parent’s visitation on a whim.

    What will he do if he shows up and she charges him with a knife? Call the police? They cannot lay hands on her either. What they can do something about is him “attacking” her by calling her crazy, making her feel threatened. If not that, then the gasoline the police used to get down there would be a wasted. That is the situation that platitude advocates.

  • keyster

    The Black Leadership (NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, Action Network, et al) is corrupt. They need to turn from the blame and shame game to critical self-analysis. They’re so attached to their individual power they won’t dare question themselves.

    WHY?
    Why does this cycle continue for generations of black families? It wasn’t like this before the Great Society. Then something happened. What was it?

    Does anyone ever ask the fathers, why there is a lack of fathers in black households? Does anyone ever seek them out and ask for their input? Or do we just keep faulting them from a safe distance?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      I agree, but I think the analysis needs to go further than the standard examination of traditional racism and its equally destructive counterpart — white liberal social policy that undermined the Black family.

      There needs to be an examination of the matriarchal nature of Black American culture. Note the following articles by Black women:

      http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/09/dear-black-men-its-time-for-you-to-step-up/

      http://rollingout.com/culture/black-men-must-step-up-and-volunteer-to-save-young-black-boys/

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013002120.html

      What we read here, like so many other articles like them, is Black women sounding exactly like White male social conservatives lecturing men to man up and make themselves more useful. And just like White SoCons, the chastising is delivered with complete indifference to the struggles already hanging on the necks of Black men like anchors.

      Slim Jackson even seems to surrender to the fact that Black men just don’t know what to do with themselves without say-so from a Black Woman.

      http://www.singleblackmale.org/2012/04/25/do-men-ever-step-up-without-a-womans-words-or-actions/

      I agree with nearly every word of Dr. Johnson’s article, and appreciate that he calls Black women to task on their attitudes toward Black men. But this seems to be attributed more to generational influence than to a core problem in the Black community.

      I think that is a mistake.

      Feminism, an ideology created by White middle class females with more time and money than responsibilities, was very attractive to Black women because feminism added to the already lopsided influence and control over men in their community that they already had.

      To me, that means Black men must step up in the same way White men need to. They need to take control of their balls from feminine influence and begin to act in their own interest. The result of that will give their sons (and daughters) more of what they actually need, with no demeaning lecture from indignant and demanding Black women.

      • dragnet

        “There needs to be an examination of the matriarchal nature of Black American culture…

        Feminism, an ideology created by White middle class females with more time and money than responsibilities, was very attractive to Black women because feminism added to the already lopsided influence and control over men in their community that they already had.”

        Yes, but this “lopsided influence and control” that black women have isn’t really an organic development within black America—it was manufactured and forced upon blacks by whites beginning with slave culture. The notion that blacks were always predisposed to matriarchy has no real historical basis. At every point, status/authority was transferred either from black men to white men or from black men to black women. It’s really difficult to address the issues raised by Umar Johnson just from a mens’ rights standpoint because racism is, and always has been, an integral part of the equation.

        That said, a lot of effort has gone into addressing the problems of race in this country—but almost nothing has been done to combat misandry.

        Btw—I’m a longtime lurker at this site. I read every day and think you guys are doing incredible work—hats off to you all.

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          Welcome, Dragnet. I’m glad you stopped lurking and I hope you stick around to keep taking part in the conversation. We need more voices like yours, and Dr. Umar’s.

          I believe one of the ways that the hateful feminist ideologues in America have kept us divided for a long time is to try to separate men out by race, pitting black man against white man against latino man. Dr. Umar is absolutely correct when he says that feminism by and large is and always was a movement of privileged white women. I’ve spent a lot (a *whole lot*) of time in the black community and feminism never, ever, ever had any real pull there until pretty recently and even still not so much. I think that’s for a wide variety of reasons, but it comes down ultimately to the fact that they can deny it all they want: it’s privileged white women who claimed women were oppressed, and black women historically always saw the bullshit in that. Black women were always powerful *within* the black community, always, and still are.

          Hell, even the Suffragist movement to get women the vote kicked black women to the curb–a nasty little part of that story that not enough people know.

          Now it’s reached a point where black women routinely treat black men like garbage, and then bitch and moan there are no “good” black men left for them. Well shit, sister, do you throw your kid’s daddy under the bus? Then what the fuck did you expect your sons to turn into? Or your daughters?

          From my point of view it is not disputable that racism is still part of the story of the black man and the challenge he faces. That’s also true for latinos (and relations between black and latino community have long been strained). But it’s also a problem felt by white men, especially lower class white men. Yes, a disproportionate amount of the prison population is black and latino, but an EVEN BIGGER disproportion is the number of men of all races, period.

          We as men need to stop letting them divide us by race. That’s one of the ways they fuck us, and our kids, over. It’s not the feminists alone, in America it’s also the cultural “conservatives” who treat all men like we’re disposable.

          • dragnet

            Co-sign all of this. I’ve made similar points elsewhere in the manosphere.

            Race is largely a red herring—and it’s been so for a long time in this country. It’s been a time honored strategy of wealthy and powerful to incite and enforce divisions among people who should, left to the inevitable, combine against their predatory overreach. As an example, by 1860 only 12 percent of whites could even afford to own a single slave…yet poor whites were among the fiercest defenders of the insitution because they were duped by white elites into thinking that their skin color made them better than the very same blacks they often toiled next to.

            After the Civil War, white elites worked hard to engineer an artificial divide between blacks and lower- and working-class whites when it was feared that the new class of freed blacks and poor, war weary whites would join together to bring change. This has been extensively documented by historians and Senator Jim Webb has spoken very eloquently about this.

            The real battle lines are not drawn by race—they are drawn by class/wealth and in that battle it is absolutely crucial to keep MEN weak and ineffectual, no matter their race. The (largely white) elites that actually run shit don’t see average white guys as being like them just because they have the same skin color.

            If there isn’t a broad-based movement to take this country back from it’s corrupt elites, the gap between rich/poor in this country will continue to expand and eventually the middle class will be bled dry. To those folks, racial distinctions exist only to the extent that they can be exploited to pit the lower classes against each other.

            What average white men are facing now is really just a milder (although rapidly worsening) version of what black guys have always been up against in this country. Joining together as men (and red-pill women, too) is what’s most important now–probably always has been.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Dean: “it’s privileged white women who claimed women were oppressed, and black women historically always saw the bullshit in that.”

            Black women saw the bullshit in that, but they went along with it because of the (false) perception they benefited from it. Black men saw the bullshit in feminism just as much, but instead of calling Bullshit on those privileged white women for hijacking the civil rights movement for their own agenda, black men went along with the “oppressive middle class to lower class white man” scam, accepting the scarce few scraps thrown their way from time to time.

            Dean: “Now it’s reached a point where black women routinely treat black men like garbage, and then bitch and moan there are no ‘good’ black men left for them.”

            Many of the “good” black men seek reprieve by dating or marrying white “trophy” wives while black women look on with hurt bewilderment. ( I am not discounting true love or genuine human attraction, but that’s not the case too much of the time).

            As always – it’s a win/win for Privileged White Women.

            Not only are privileged white women the overwhelming beneficiary of the stolen civil rights movement, ( It was only AFTER the burnings, beatings, attack dogs, jailing and murders subsided that Privileged White Women “found their voice”) they can enjoy their “you’re-sexist-and-RACIST-if-you-don’t-go-along-with-feminism” cake and eat it too.

            “I’m not racist, I dated a black guy in college” smoke screens a feminist’s blatant racism.

            My son has been friends for many years with an incredibly beautiful black woman. No exaggeration, she could give Halle Berry a run for her money.

            Her mother taught her to ONLY marry a white man because ALL black men were no good.

            We live in a city with major sports teams, and often very well known black athletes are totally smitten by her, but she turns up her nose at them.

            She’s almost 30 now, and still hanging with the guys as “just a friend”, waiting for the “good” white man her mother would approve of.

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            @cotton: And the Brown Paper Bag Club mentality continues, underground and in a new form but still reality to anyone who actually lives and hangs out close in the black community and has eyes to see.

            It’s sick. There’s nothing wrong with interracial marriage per se, but when it comes in the way you’re describing (and what you’re describing is quite real) it’s a horrible, festering sore that just grows like a cancer.

            It’s amazing how sophisticated we think we are, yet how oblivious we often are to the socio-cultural forces at play around us. We almost have to be smacked in the face to see it.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          “Yes, but this “lopsided influence and control” that black women have isn’t really an organic development within black America—it was manufactured and forced upon blacks by whites beginning with slave culture. The notion that blacks were always predisposed to matriarchy has no real historical basis.”

          First, welcome!

          I should have taken my observation further. I am aware of the etiology of the modern matriarchal structure of the Black family. My point, which I did not articulate as well as I should have, is that there needs to be an examination of the consequences of that reality, especially by Black men, outside the confines of racism.

          What racism and slave culture caused, feminism exacerbated, and freedom and racial tolerance, even successful separatism, won’t cure.

          Then there is also the influences of modern feminism that have nothing to do with race, as we see them played out in all sub cultures. Just like the war on drugs and VAWA have targeted all men, both have been amplified in minority cultures.

          More is needed…like the MRM and MGTOW, as much as the continued struggle for racial equality, or so goes my two cents.

          EDIT: And now I have just read your response to Dean. I see we are on the same page. And I second his wish to see your thoughts posted as an article. It is sorely needed.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      From what I’ve seen, ALL they do is fault the black man.

      Who’s “they?” America’s social conservatives and, America’s feminists. Black preachers from their pulpits, leading their little street corner churches full of women in their big hats and veils who tithe to pay the preacherman’s bills.

      And very quietly, in condescending and hushed tones, the well-heeled white liberals.

      In fact the condescending white liberals are arguably the worst of the lot. I say that *as* a white liberal.

      It’s always the fault of the black man. It’s the message beaten like a drum into their heads from the time they’re little boys. It’s taught to them by their mothers, by the preachers at church, the (mostly female) teachers at the schools, in the popular culture. They even start to internalize it: “I’m no good. I’m dumb. I can’t read and don’t even want to. I’m shiftless. I’m lazy. I’m useless. I don’t give a fuck for anything or anybody, cuz that’s what I am and all I am and all I’m ever gonna be.”

      Should it be in any way a shock that a ton of them say “fuck that and fuck you” and turn to something like drugs or a street gang because at least there they have a sense of brotherhood and belonging and RESPECT that they don’t get ANYWHERE else?

      This isn’t a black thing ultimately: you see the roots of it in the lilly-white UK and light brown Latino countries and anywhere else street gangs run full of young boys with no hope and no future and no respect. You see it in every community and every color like this.

      I was a little sad reading some of Dr. Umar’s other stuff as he seems to be a believer in black separatism. Well I mean I don’t object to people doing that per se, but to me that seems rooted in the wrong assumption: that this is all a war on black boys. No, it’s a war we started on all men and boys 40, 50 years ago. It hit the poor and lower class boys first, and they were mostly black (but some poor white and many latino). And that war’s expanded, spiraled out to hit everybody. Liberals, conservatives, feminists, traditionalists, they’ve all missed the one crucial thing all along: treat boys like they’re privileged when they’re not, treat them like they have power when they don’t, give them no compassion and no respect, and make them and their lives irrelevant, and what the fuck do you THINK is going to be the result?

      • dragnet

        Agree with this 100 percent. I’d heard of Umar Johnson before this and although he’s right on a fair number of things, I think he’s dead wrong about the necessity of black separatism. And besides I think he’s a bit of a self-aggrandizing, self-promoting blowhard…but there are many incentives to be this way in the age of social media, I suppose.

        Full disclosure—I’m black, male, American, late 20s.

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          If you want to write all that as a single front page article, Dragnet, we’ll put it up. I’d be honored to help you get that done. You just let me know.

      • IrieDave

        So why not instead of being a modern ‘liberal’, which favors collectivism, misandry, victimhood ideologies, etc., don’t you become a ‘classical’ liberal or libertarian instead? That way you can actually fight the structure that imposes feminism on us instead of just talking against but then voting for more of it. Maybe you don’t realize that that’s what you’ve been doing which is why I’m spelling it out. It’s not like we’re all born knowing this stuff but once you do know it’s your job to apply the knowledge into action.

    • IrieDave

      “The Black Leadership (NAACP, Rainbow Coalition, Action Network, et al) is corrupt. They need to turn from the blame and shame game to critical self-analysis.”

      The part you’re leaving out or forgetting is that they’re all decidedly left wing groups. So naturally they are all in support of feminism. I don’t know why admitting this has seemingly been such a point of contention in the men’s rights movement. You don’t have to be a ‘right winger’ to acknowledge that feminism is part of the left.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        I’ve run into many conservatives and libertarians who call themselves feminists, and even people who claim that to be a “true feminist” you must be a conservative, or a libertarian.

        I will ally with anyone who cares about the rights of and plight of men, regardless of whatever political label they choose for themselves.

    • Johnny Nitro

      “Why does this cycle continue for generations of black families? It wasn’t like this before the Great Society. Then something happened. What was it?

      Does anyone ever ask the fathers, why there is a lack of fathers in black households? Does anyone ever seek them out and ask for their input? Or do we just keep faulting them from a safe distance?” – Keyster

      After LBJ pushed for measures for a “war on poverty” and to strive for the “great society”, the nuclear family started to become systematically destroyed by the government.

      Probably the most destructive of his policies was a change to the program AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children). Before the change, only single mothers who had lost their husband (normally the breadwinner) through death, not divorce, would qualify for benefits. After the change, ANY single mother qualified for benefits. This made it much more lucrative to be single with children. So the message was, if you’re married, get divorced! If you’re not married, don’t even think about it!

      These measures enacted to fight poverty and to become the “great society”, simply re-enslaved the poor (many minorities). The nuclear family creates a social, sexual, and psychological dynamic that is irreplaceable to the health of children. This destruction of the family unit keeps the children in poverty, and their children in poverty, and on and on.

      Ironically, before many of the measures of the “great society” were put in place, poverty and crime were falling year over year. Marriage rates for blacks were much higher and out of wedlock births were much lower. And after…..well, we know what happened.

      This is not a black problem, it’s an ideology problem that transcends race. I personally would find the article much more powerful if race was left out of it. There is a new phenomenon called anti-white racism which exists today, and I get the feeling there is much of this in the undercurrent of this article. I would use caution when featuring articles like this.

  • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

    I believe there are more black men in prison now than the entire historical population of black slaves.

    Perhaps the institution of slavery morphed from one of overt legal disenfranchisement to covert social disenfranchisement disguised behind charity and ‘white guilt’.

    • Skeptic

      Given the fact that some prisons in USA are run as profit making enterprises using prison labor, paying inmates absolutely peanuts, then yes, slavery seems an apt description for the incarceration and exploitation of many black, white and latino brothers.
      The fact that also in the process so many folks in USA be they left-wing, right-wing, white or black, religious or not look the other way whilst this is happening tells me a great deal about the USA.
      Welcome to Men’s prison USA – the new plantation.

      • IrieDave

        Actually if there was full competition in the legal system as far as fully private competing security companies without a centralized government there would probably be a great deal more justice than there is now and fewer people in jail. You have to look at what the incentives are. For example if you get caught by private security with drugs at a lot of places they’ll just throw the drugs out and make you leave instead of trying to lock you up in a cage. Because they’re only trying to protect the interests of that business and locking you in a cage isn’t going to produce any profit for them. Nor is it going to help them keep a good reputation. Slave labor if you look into it isn’t a very efficient kind of labor. During the time of slavery the South was held back from advancing due to their slave system as compared to the North. So the market was actually punishing them for their coercion against the slaves.

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          Prior to laws being enacted by government forbidding such things, it used to be that companies (such as the Ford Motor Company, under Henry Ford) could and would keep private security forces to do things like make sure all their employees were behaving morally (and thus not giving the company a poor image) so they would do things like follow you around and see if you were cheating on your spouse, or come to your home, knock on the door and demand to be allowed entrance as a requirement for keeping your employment status, and search around and fire you if they found you doing immoral things like drinking beer. (Yes, the famous Henry Ford really used to do that. Those same security forces were also used by Ford to do things like beat the crap out of and even maim people who talked about unionizing. It’s all right there in the history.)

          The assertion that slave labor is costly is belied by the fact that it’s still being used in much of the world; here in the United States we buy a shocking number of goods from people who are slaves or effectively slaves (living under contracts of indenture, a marvelous little capitalist invention) or forced child labor (yet another thing that boils down to slavery). It’s also belied by the current use of prisoners within the US to work forced labor.

          So no, I’m not super interested in a system wherein fully private security forces are what protects me, because such fully private security forces only care about the company managers feel to be in the company’s best interests. That’s not just historical reality in this country, it still is reality in a lot of countries we buy many of our manufactured goods from.

    • IrieDave

      Statism, i.e. government, is in itself a form of slavery. The bigger the government the more enslaved you are. That’s the point everyone misses because the left has been extremely successful in convincing people that free market capitalism is exploitative and that government protects us from it. When really it’s the opposite, businesses are restricted from forcing people to pay for their services in a free market and are thus regulated by competition. If you don’t like their product or don’t like the price there are other options available. Whereas government exists purely through force and if you don’t like what they doing and want to resist it they can send guys to your door with guns to talk it over with you. And the more involved government is in ‘regulating’ the economy the more big businesses are able to monopolize industries by getting control over the regulatory agencies and using them as a weapon against competitors.

      This misunderstanding, combined with feelings of envy that the government and media are always drumming up, is at the root of our problem. Get rid of government and government granted privileges for women and watch feminism wither away. Force them to compete in an uninhibited free market with no hiring quotas or ‘equal pay for equal work’ i.e. pay women more for doing less laws. This is what needs to happen. There is no legitimate version of anti-feminism that maintains a large government. Women are a huge voting bloc and they vote for specifically gynocentric interests much more than men are voting for MRA type shit. Politicians will always pander to the majority of women voters who want more and more government granted privileges, so unless the MRA goes libertarian and anti-government I believe it’s efforts will be fruitless.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        “Free market capitalism” is distorted by that little government intervention known as the “limited liability corporation,” which was created by government, and whose very existence requires government force to continue, and which is not a natural outgrowth of the free market but rather is a government imposition upon the market.

        Historically, it is also indisputable that business interests will do as much as they’re allowed to do to crush competition and take choices away from customers. These are called “cartels” and “trusts” and they’re hugely powerful, all the moreso when they are in an environment unregulated by government.

        If you want to see “market capitalism” in its purest form, just watch how street gangs behave in the drug distribution market. Or just look at how large companies routinely behaved in this country before we had laws forbidding companies from behaving in certain ways.

        For that matter, in countries like Thailand today, employers routinely do things like distribute Methamphatamine to employees, because it keeps them awake and productive for 16 or more hour stretches at a time, and those who refuse the drugs may just be fired or let go because they aren’t working as hard or as fast as the drugged up ones. Sure, the meth-head employees eventually burn out as the drug destroys them, but that’s OK, there’s plenty more workers to be had so once the drugs have destroyed those employees they can just fire them and get new ones that they use up until they’re no good anymore either.

        One of the reasons I reject modern economic libertarianism — I’m a former libertarian, just to be clear — is that it’s just another ideology and just another form of Utopianism, sort of like Marxism in reverse (and it’s just as wrong as Marxism is, by the way—one says the sky is yellow, another says it’s pink; both are wrong, just wrong in different ways). Libertarian blindness to the reality of corporations and large business trusts, and to the power that large business interests always and inevitably exercise when they’re left without government oversight (rent-seek, monopolize, crush and even kill competitors) is one of the reasons I walked away from that particular ideology.

        That said, I’m still happy to work with any self-described libertarian who’s willing to step up and fight for the rights and interests of boys and men.

  • AntZ

    Thanks for this great artcile. Hard to say much about it, other than “bravo.”

  • nikonian

    I am 1/2 black and most of my friends say that I am totally whitewashed. Part of the reason is because of black women. Out of the hordes of black women I’ve met only a dozen havent been controlling, demanding, manipulative, and “put a man in his place” kind of attitude. Many posses this attitude as 9 year old girls and it only gets stronger

    Most other women on the other hand seem to go through the transformation in college from being nice ladies to snarky fembots so it takes longer for the attitude to show.

    I don’t like to classify a race as following a behavioral pattern but having been in the culture before there is a stark difference between non black women vs black women.

    Black men often turn out how they do because their dislike for black women…

  • jsaund

    In the past, I have been shamed of what has happened to me. There are people who love to spread lies behind your back and once you receive the information. You spend most of your energy trying to set the record straight. It is like climbing up a large razor blade. Today, something came over me and I was led to create a short 6 minute video to explain my side. Now for those who think that all fathers are deadbeat dads….take a look at my story.

  • Holmes

    I 100% agree with the article, a number of Black women are becoming controlling, demanding and manipulative, I cite Christelyn (do not date/marry a poor man)Karazin as a classic example.

  • http://Socraddockmethod.com Clayton Craddock

    I’m glad you got Dr. Johnson on this site. He has been a big advocate for men and boys for quite some time. I have followed him in a few documentaries and on YouTube.

    In this piece, he knocks it out the park! He summarizes everything I’ve been saying on my blog (socraddockmethod.com) and is very clear in his message.

    He is a no-nonsense-get-to-the-point type of man. I dig that. He also is unwilling to back down from controversy because he is as convinced as I am that we need to get our communities rebalanced.

    This idea of “I don’t need a man” is dangerous and harmful to everyone that lives among other human beings. We need each other.

    Yeah, a mother might not think she needs a man, but get children sure need their father when they come into this world.

    Bottom line in my opinion? Men and women need each other. Until there are enough heterosexual women beaten down to a point where they start realizing that radical gender feminism is working again their best interests, we ain’t going nowhere. They are the ones that have to speak up along with us to change laws and our culture. No one wants to hear men complain. No one.

    Unfortunately, there are too many men with NO balls in politics. There are too many feckless men who will never stand up to radical gender feminists (like Barak does every day -as so eloquently pointed out in this piece).

    I’m sick of it all.

    When you hear the words man up…next time do just that. Be a man and stand up for yourself. Don’t back down from men or women who want to perpetuate a system that is doing more harm than good. Use logic, scholarship and be calm in your approach. Emotion ain’t gonna work with irrational highly emotional beings. Challenge ANYONE who claims they want equality by asking if they are willing to start with 50/50 custody arrangements post break up or divorce with no government ordered child support. If they say no, you know where they stand with this ‘marriage equality’ stuff. Stand up for yourself in court, in relationships, and as a human being. Yes, this piece is about black men like me, but I have way too many white friends in the same boat as I was. Luckily I found a way to man up and stood up to everyone around me during my divorce. I am a better man for it and my kids are too.

    Understand what the problem WITH A NAME is, work out solutions, and implement them. In this piece, Dr. Johnson is naming the vast array of problems here.

    The solution? Get men and women involved to change our culture to reflect more balance, specifically in our family courts, change the laws and make sure that this never ever happens again. No more permanent alimony, no more mandatory arrests for domestic violence accusations, no more mandatory sentences, no more federal financial incentives for writing state child support orders and collections…..

    I could go on and on and on but this sums it up for me. This is from the Moynihan Report -The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (1965)

    “From the wild Irish slums of the 19th-century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future–that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder. . .are not only to be expected, they are very near to inevitable. And they are richly deserved.”

  • b.fernandez

    Can’t help but think a lot of this would be avoided if men stopped fathering children by women with serious emotional and clearly mental handicaps (anger issues, narcissism etc.) pick better mates! Same for women who pick dead beat dads. Stop having children after being married for a year, and stop getting married after only having known each other for a year…this barely knowing your mate but thinking you know them well seriously contributes to this issue in my honest opinion. I’m sure some people will agree and some will disagree but oh well