Good/Bad Guys Rasa Responds

Do Good Guys Really Benefit From Bad Guys?

Rasa Responds

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)     Sunday, 23 March 2025

NOTE:  This article is primarily addressed to men

One question that comes up over and over again is, do men really benefit from patriarchy?  The nuanced answer is, "yes, in a relative sense, but NO in an absolute sense in the long run".  It ultimately hurts everyone across the board, backfiring on men as well sooner or later, per the law of karma.  I would hope anyone reading this would realize that patriarchy is inherently a negative-sum game (lose-lose) in the long run.  And everyone regardless of gender would ultimately be better off without it, except of course the tiny few at the very top of the whole pyramid scheme (because that's what it really is).

Rasa says:  It’s kind of like this: There was a Southern slave owner who starved his slaves of meat all year long. But on the 4^th of July he pulled out all the stops & gave them a royal feast: pork, beef & chicken – with all the trimmings – all they could eat. Did they benefit? Only on the 4^th. Most slave owners did not even provide shoes for the children  not even in winter  until they reached a certain age – so if one slave owner provides the poor kids winter shoes – do they benefit? We’re talking crumbs from the Master’s table….. Now I’m watching a British TV series called Pennmmaric. The last couple episodes the wife of the Penmmaric heir is being assaulted by him. He calls her a whore & reminds her that when he met her he gave her 5 sovereigns to go to bed with him – that makes her a whore, & he dredges up her past, how she went from man to men for financial benefits – basically for support. But that makes her a whore. We women were put into a position – by evil means – to depend on men for money. Whether it’s coins or bucks in hand or weekly support, or a house, or whatever, we ‘ve leaned on them because they arranged it so - & in the end they denounce us for it! Men STOLE from us & are still doing it by paying us less for the same work, giving us worse jobs, & depriving us of opportunities. But do we BENEFIT from this patriarchy? Yes & no. As Ajax says, in some ways yes, in the long run no. That’ why we’re working to dismember patriarchy & assemble Matriarchy, so all would benefit.

AJAX (PETE) SAYS:  That's a great way to put it, Rasa.  Makes a lot of sense how you say it.  The sooner patriarchy ends and gives way to Matriarchy, the better off we will all be.

But what about the related question, do good guys really benefit from the existence of bad guys?  After all, bad guys are found in literally all walks of life and all socioeconomic classes, not just at the top (though they seem to be overrepresented there, not coincidentally).  Again, the answer is nuanced.  While it is true that the existence of bad guys (broadly defined here, ranging from crappy to absolutely horrible monsters) does set the bar for men in general at a pitifully low level, which makes it easier for the good guys to clear, this comparative advantage collapses when one considers the other effect that bad guys have.  Namely, the existence of bad guys makes it obviously harder for Women to trust men in general, so the good guys get lumped in with the bad guys and thus have a that much harder time getting Women to trust them enough to be with them in whatever way.  To put it in quasi-economic terms, this "safety tax" that bad guys impose on Women in general ultimately gets passed on to men in general in the form of a "risk tariff", thus making the dating market that much harder and costlier for the good guys as well.  Thus, we see here that any relative comparative advantage that good guys gain from the existence of bad guys is NOT worth it on balance, and the good guys would be better off without the existence of the bad guys, period.

 

          Rasa says: I wish you would define exactly what is a good guy & a bad guy & give some examples of behavior. As I find it difficult to respond without those details. It isn’t good for me to ASSUME I know what you mean because I could be off……for example –

There are criminal men, say a poacher, who shoots a deer on the wealthy landlord’s property. In a British TV series I saw, “A Horseman Riding By” this man get FIVE YEARS for the crime {he also broke the jaw of the game warden, so that was part of the sentence, lol}.

 Now at my local supermarket, routinely, this happens: You see something on SALE. Say recently the Pink Lady apples said 1.99 a pound. So I bought a bunch. But on the register it said $2.49. I caught it & received back the overcharge. This happened twice with the same apples within weeks – also with avocadoes & other items - I have received refunds from this market many times. I have never seen anyone else check their receipt or demand restitution. What happens is they accidentally on purpose forget to put into the computer the sale price, so they are STEALING from the customers & as I said I’ve never seen anyone else demand restitution so they are counting on the negligence of the customer to check what they are actually charged, so they make extra money by stealing. But of course, lol, they won’t go to jail for this…..

Another example – they keep changing the law so the rich get richer. In old days the rich simply took over the land of the poor – the King gave it to them, & it rendered these people who’d lived off the land {& owned cottages} for generations, destitute. But it was against the law to beg & when they begged they were given a brand on their forehead &/or jailed.

Now in the last few years they found gas & oil under the land here where I live – including my own – from what they cal the ‘Marcellus Shale.’ People were to get big money for this. So what did the local govt. do? They passed a law called the WINDFALL TAX where they get 40% of the initial payoff, which in my case would have been 40% of abut $250k {except I didn’t sign & our state passed fracking laws, so it never happened.} What was the windfall tax? Just another evil law to steal from the poor. So these examples are the bad guys. The good guys don’t do crimes like this, mugging people or business crimes.

{And btw the local owner of my supermarket is the nicest, sweetest guy you ever met, & his manager is the most helpful.  I get along great with both of them, but this is a mask for the conspiracy to pilfer money out of the customers – they are both in on it as I have seen it played out.}Don’t assume that all the ‘bad guys’ appear evil!

Just remember, bandits WEAR MASKS when they rob the bank!

 AJAX (PETE) SAYS:  All of that is unfortunately very true, Rasa.  And those masks can be either literal or figurative.  Most bad guys indeed wear some flavor of a "Good Guy" mask.  The self-proclaimed "Nice Guys" (TM) are in fact often the very worst when their masks begin to slip.  That includes the more modern incarnation, the fake "allies" and fake "empaths" as well, of course.  If a guy has to loudly broadcast that he is an ally or an empath, it means that he is probably NOT, or at the very least he doesn't practice what he preaches, and it goes downhill from there.  As for my definitions of "good guys" and "bad guys", I meant that in relative and general terms based on ethics, morals, virtues, or lack thereof.  And of course there is also a third category:  "neutral", those who all too often get swayed by the bad guys.

It's a deadweight loss to everyone, in other words.  That is, the marginal costs the bad guys impose outweigh any marginal benefits.

          Rasa says: Explain the costs & the marginal benefits

 AJAX (PETE) SAYS:  While men in general in one sense benefit from lowered standards overall for men in general ("hey, at least I am not like those jerks over there!") and thus things may SEEM easier as a result, such marginal benefits to the good and neutral guys are rather hollow when one considers that those same bad guys are the reason why Women have a hard time trusting men in general, as it can be difficult to tell friend from foe.  And when Women have a hard time trusting men in general, that has a chilling effect on any relationships that good guys may have or would otherwise have with Women.  The "male loneliness epidemic" is caused primarily by the bad guys, in other words.

WILLIAM SAYS:  I can give a personal story of how a bad guy effects my relationship with my wife. When I met my wife she was divorced, but her first husband was verbally abusive. So when she got involved with me she appreciates the fact I am a nice guy. This is also true of her children whom don't like their father and have said they wish I had been their dad. So they all contrast me with my wife's first husband and it makes me look good. 

AJAX (PETE) SAYS: That is true, William. And of course at the same time, unfortunately, the fact that Women have a hard time trusting men in general as a result of the bad guys has a chilling effect, to say nothing of all the trauma they inflict on Women. How many relationships would have otherwise occurred but don't as a result of what the bad guys do? So the net effect of bad guys is still harmful overall, even if there are some bright spots.

So fellas, if you really are genuinely good guys, stop validating and making excuses for the bad guys and stop mindlessly going with the flow.  You're not really helping anyone even remotely worthy of help by doing so, as neutrality only benefits the oppressors and never the victims, and you are ultimately hindering yourselves in the long run.

          Rasa says: There are very few men who ever care about or fight for women’s rights – they see it as hurting themselves & their privileges, & being traitors to their gender. Some of the men are brainwashed to believe, this is as it has to be – men should be controlling women. They WANT to believe this so they do. And sadly, some men wan to be dominated but instead of working for the Cause, they prefer to be dominated in a paid sexual setting, where they tell the dominatrix what they want – she does it & gets paid – this is called ‘topping from the bottom.’

          You might say what about the men who have joined NOW? And work as volunteers in their offices. As usual, men want to hang around & take part wherever there are women so they could get to know the women, be friends or on the odd chance, get laid, lol. I’ve seen this as I belonged to NOW. They aren’t there for authentic reasons; they’re there to get something out of it.     

That’s why I suggest when we start this new Order, men are NOT to be allowed entrance as volunteers or ‘friends’, it has to be all women as the men who would join have ulterior motives.  Even men who offer big donations – you have to be leery of because they want that pound of flesh. When we do accept men as members they must be totally under the control of the Order & obedient to its rules – they have no authority whatever & have little rights. This is not ordinary life – in life they can go out & do whatever, but in our Order it is the way we say it is – matriarchal.

I might add that we should eventually have some communities where we have generations of matriarchy – grandmother, daughter, granddaughter - & the men who are part of the family within the household. For privacy we could have cottages surrounding the main house, but the cottages are not where the man takes advantage beats up the wife & abuses the kids. The cottages are close enough so we can see what is going on if there is something out of line – especially with the children. All children should be housed in the main house up to a certain age {we need to discuss this-how it would work out because there is the issue of privacy vs safety…too much privacy to the man, he takes advantage - perhaps the husband & wife could have their cottage at certain times, not every day—this all needs to be worked out by the Elders}, then they can live in the Mom & Dad cottage if they wish. But remember, the nuclear family is designed to give freedom to the man & take it away from the wife & children.

AJAX (PETE) SAYS:  That is unfortunately true as well, Rasa.  Indeed, when it comes to the Order, you really do NOT want any such "foxes in the hen house", so it makes sense NOT to allow any men to join whatsoever at first.  And in the distant future if and when men are allowed to join in some capacity, it would probably be best for them to be associated as loosely and peripherally as possible.  (Note to the reader:  my own words in this article are speaking generally and are intended primarily about the outside world, not Rasa's Order.)

AJAX (PETE) SAYS:  That's all for now.  Very well said overall, Rasa.  Keep up the great work!

Do Good Guys Really Benefit From Bad Guys?

NOTE:  This article is primarily addressed to any men reading this.

One question that comes up over and over again is, do men really benefit from patriarchy?  The nuanced answer is, "yes, in a relative sense, but NO in an absolute sense in the long run".  It ultimately hurts everyone across the board, backfiring on men as well sooner or later, per the law of karma.  I would hope anyone reading this would realize that patriarchy is inherently a negative-sum game (lose-lose) in the long run.  And everyone regardless of gender would ultimately be better off without it, except of course the tiny few at the very top of the whole pyramid scheme (because that's what it really is).

But what about the related question, do good guys really benefit from the existence of bad guys?  After all, bad guys are found in literally all walks of life and all socioeconomic classes, not just at the top (though they seem to be overrepresented there, not coincidentally).  Again, the answer is nuanced.  While it is true that the existence of bad guys (broadly defined here, ranging from crappy to absolutely horrible monsters) does set the bar for men in general at a pitifully low level, which makes it easier for the good guys to clear, this comparative advantage collapses when one considers the other effect that bad guys have.  Namely, the existence of bad guys makes it obviously harder for Women to trust men in general, so the good guys get lumped in with the bad guys and thus have a that much harder time getting Women to trust them enough to be with them in whatever way.  To put it in quasi-economic terms, this "safety tax" that bad guys impose on Women in general ultimately gets passed on to men in general in the form of a "risk tariff", thus making the dating market that much harder and costlier for the good guys as well.  Thus, we see here that any relative comparative advantage that good guys gain from the existence of bad guys is NOT worth it on balance, and the good guys would be better off without the existence of the bad guys, period.

It's a deadweight loss to everyone, in other words.  That is, the marginal costs the bad guys impose outweigh any marginal benefits.

So fellas, if you really are genuinely good guys, stop validating and making excuses for the bad guys and stop mindlessly going with the flow.  You're not really helping anyone even remotely worthy of help by doing so, as neutrality only benefits the oppressors and never the victims, and you are ultimately hindering yourselves in the long run.

(Mic drop)

The Meme That Is Worth At LEAST A Thousand Words

Here is a great meme I recently found on Pinterest, that pretty much sums up so much about the age-old paradox between the sexes.  It's a meme that is worth at LEAST a thousand words:

Note that both people pictured are, by definition, attracted to Women.  But they clearly perceive such Women quite differently.  It's like they both know deep in their heart of hearts exactly who the better half of humanity really is, but one is in steadfast denial to the point of "reaction formation" as a defense mechanisms (Freud would have a field day!), while the other is fully honest about it.

Perhaps it's really not so surprising we find studies like this one, showing that Women in general, even those who self-identity as straight, often have "surprisingly" far more "implicit attraction" to other Women than was previously thought.  So fellas, you may wanna learn how to "think like a WLW" if you really wanna improve your chances with Women.  You can start by NOT objectifying them, for example.  Indeed, in other words, think in terms of "I and Thou", not "I and It".

(Mic drop)

Women Are Indeed Higher Beings (Updated Re-Post)

NOTE:  This article was originally posted in 2017, and updated accordingly since then.

A 2017 scientific study on gender difference confirms what we in the Matriarchy movement have already known, and thinkers like Ashley Montagu have discussed over half a century ago:  Women are indeed the better half of humanity.  And Women's and men's brains really are apparently wired differently, to one degree or another.

This study, consisting of behavioral experiments conducted by neuroscientists (Alexander Soutschek, et al.) at the University of Zurich, find that not only are Women more likely to be generous and men more likely to be selfish, but that there is a neurological explanation for such differences.  To wit, Women's brains tend to reward prosocial (unselfish) behavior where as men's brains tend to reward selfish behavior.  The brain's reward center (the striatum, which releases a hit of dopamine as the reward) was found to differentially activated in that regard in these experiments.  And when dopamine was blocked, the opposite tendencies were increased by both genders.  Thus, at a neurological level, Women are essentially rewarded for kindness, while men are rewarded for being selfish.  

Gee, who woulda thunk it?  In other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and a bear does its business in the woods.

Of course, the perennial "nature versus nurture" question inevitably comes into play here, and the researchers predictably conclude that their findings are more likely due to nurture than nature.  But I believe that it is, at the very least, a bit of both, if not more nature than nurture, as any explanation for the findings that relies entirely on nurture seems to merely coast toward such a conclusion.  Women seem to be naturally more prosocial and community-minded on average than men, even if culture can magnify (or reduce) such differences as well.

Thus, this study should lend support to the idea that Women are likely much better leaders than men, and that their feminine paradigm of leadership would be superior as well.  And any economy run by Women is likely to eventually tend more or less toward a "gift economy" rather than an "exchange economy like we have now under patriarchy.  (Though I would argue now that a pure gift economy" would be very difficult if not impossible to do at scale, and thus I advocate a "hybrid economy" of both gifts and exchanges.)  Remember, the literal meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts" in the original Latin.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin!

And to all the men reading this:  DO NOT take this study as license to be selfish jerks!  Women's kindness and generosity is NOT a weakness, and it is NOT unlimited, so stop treating it like it is unless you really want to see their dark side (yes, it does exist, and I strongly advise against activating it, ever).  Remember, when Women are happy, the world is happy.  And when they are not, watch out, fellas!

The Four Words To Psychologically Disarm Practically Any Patriarchal Man

This is probably the shortest post yet.

The four words that best psychologically disarm practically any man, particularly patriarchal men, are as follows:

"I CALL YOUR BLUFF!"

Because at least 9 times out of 10, if not 99 times out of 100, they are BLUFFING.  Not always, of course, but usually.  In fact, the late Ashley Montagu noted that the notion of male superiority is itself the biggest bluff the world has ever seen.

The End

The Lazy Gender

Let's be brutally honest about something:  humanity is basically a "lion's pride writ large".  Men have always been the lazier gender (relative to Women at the same time and place), and barring a truly quantum leap in human evolution, most likely always will be.  This has consistently been true in all known human societies, whether patriarchal, Matriarchal, filiarchal, tri-une, or anything in between, so it is not entirely a social construct like some would prefer to believe. 

The difference is that in an actual lion's pride, which is actually Matriarchal, the hardworking females have practically all of the power, while the lazy males have little to no real power at all, just the illusion of power as "King Nothing", like the famous Metallica song.  Whereas in patriarchal human societies, men generally have power without responsibility (which is very dangerous), while Women generally have responsibility without power (which is very harmful to Women and children).  And even for the most rudimentary job of all for males, to "guard the perimeter" to protect the females and their young, male lions still do it better than most men, as evidenced in the fact that 55% of American men just voted for, and thus bowed to, a known misogynistic fascist dictator, and when you include those who voted third party or didn't bother to vote at all, now you are looking at well north of 60%, that is, a solid majority of men who utterly failed to protect Women and children.  

Honestly, if you can't be a provider, at the very least, be a protector, fellas!  (Facepalm)

And, of course, men have long had the absolute GALL to, um, lionize the so-called Protestant Work Ethic (TM) (that is, "work for the sake of work, to justify one's own existence"), all while simultaneously and hypocritically devaluing and exploiting Women's unpaid and underpaid labor.

In contrast, in Matriarchal human societies, both historical and contemporary, Women have more power and more responsibility, while the men have less power and less responsibility (albeit sometimes holding puppet figurehead "chief" roles for show).  That is, power (or lack thereof) and responsibility (or lack thereof) go fully hand in hand, and as a result, gender relations are as harmonious as it gets.

So here's a good visual aid, courtesy of Wikipedia:

The Laziest Kitty of All

The Real Natural-Born Leaders

And last but not least, a hat tip to the ever-insightful Liz Plank, whose Substack article from a few weeks ago at least partly inspired me to write this article.  Thank you 😊

Why Telling Women "Just Get Married" Is The Most Tone-Deaf Advice There Is

An excellent article by Lyz Lenz was written recently as a rebuttal to that famous viral essay on marriage published in The Cut.  Lenz points out that, contrary to what some believe, marriage is NOT a panacea, nor is it really a way for Women to opt out of capitalism.  And telling Women to "just get married" as the go-to solution is utterly tone-deaf and really misses the mark by a very large margin.

The idea of "traditional" marriage as some sort of a "benevolent protectorate" for Women is really quite ironic, as under patriarchy it (like patriarchy itself) has historically been more like a protection RACKET.  That is literally why the "institution of marriage" was invented in the first place, for men to control Women (and not the other way around, as men often like to claim when they think they are being clever).  And while times have indeed changed, the fact remains that today's "kinder, gentler patriarchy" is still patriarchy, and can still be a trap for Women (even if it can sometimes backfire on men as well, granted).  That is not to say that marriage cannot ever be repurposed by Women for their own benefit, of course.  But the specious notion that it is somehow the end-all-be-all or sine qua non for everyone is woefully outdated and outmoded at best.  

In other words, as Lenz says, "gilded cages are still cages".  And as for it being a means of opting out of capitalism, that is also not possible as long as patriarchy and capitalism remain joined at the hip (as they have been for centuries). 

Anyway, Lenz does a better job explaining it than I ever could, so be sure to read her article. 

Why Do Cold-Blooded Psychopaths Rule Our World? (Updated Re-Post)

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson), William Bond, and Rasa Von Werder.

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog in 2019, which in turn was adapted from an Embodiment of God article from 2014 by Rasa and William)

It seems that these days, and indeed for as long as anyone can remember, psychopaths and sociopaths (the former are born, the latter are made) have long been grossly overrepresented in positions of power.  The higher the echelons of the power hierarchy, the greater prevalence of psychopaths/sociopaths there are.  And it seems to have only gotten that much worse in recent decades in fact, and more global as well.

(Garden-variety psychopath, knife optional)

So why is that?  The answer, it seems, is patriarchy.  The following article from 2014 is a conversation between the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and great author William Bond, originally published on Rasa's Embodiment of God website. (My interspersed comments, as Ajax the Great, are in red.)

PSYCHOPATH PATRIARCHAL LEADERS by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

If we want to understand why we live in a world of conflict — wars, violence, abuse, poverty and suffering, then we have to go back to basics.  What is undisputed is that men rule our world and have done so for thousands of years.  Male-rule is what feminists call patriarchy – masculine rule – and masculinity (as defined in our present society) is aggression, force, violence and intimidation.

AJAX THE GREAT: Absolutely true indeed.  Truer words were never spoken.

RASA:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, Women are rising, while men are falling away and falling apart, and have been so for a while now.

RASA SAYS:  THIS BEGS, FOR ME, A NEW DEFINITION OF “MASCULINE.”  I POSIT AS A MASCULINE MAN, FOR INSTANCE, SAINT REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.  THERE WAS A REAL MAN, WHO RISKED HIS LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS, AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS JESUS DID.  I READ HIS BOOK “THE STRENGTH TO LOVE,” WHICH WAS ABOUT LOVING THOSE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY BOMB YOUR HOUSE.  HE KNEW THE MEANING OF LOVE, HE WAS STRONG.  THAT’S A REAL MAN, OR A REAL WOMAN.  BULLIES ARE NOT REAL MEN, THEY ARE COWARDS, THEY ARE WEAK, CRUEL, AND THEY WILL BE REMOVED AWAY LIKE “THE CHAFF WHICH THE WIND BLOWETH AWAY”.  THEY ARE ALL BLUFF AND BLUSTER, BUT IN ETERNAL LIFE, THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE EXCEPT BURNING IN HELL.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, bullies have what is now known as "toxic masculinity", which is detrimental to everyone, and they are also cowards.  They are certainly not real men!

We can see this in the way male animals behave in the rutting season.  Every spring animals like bulls, rams and stags fight each other for dominance and access to females.  In these fights the winner takes all, the biggest and strongest males gain access to all females, while the weaker ones get zero.  A successful stag is not only bigger and stronger, but aggressive, ruthless and selfish.  Sharing with other stags is not an option; there can be only one winner who takes everything for himself.

RASA SAYS:  YES, INDEED, GOOD ANALOGY.  HOWEVER, I TAKE NOTE THAT ANIMALS KILL BY THEIR INSTINCT, TAKE HAREMS THROUGH VIOLENCE, BUT THERE IT ENDS.  HUMAN MALES ARE NOT ANIMALISTIC, BUT “SUBHUMAN,” AS THEY NOT ONLY FOLLOW INSTINCTS BUT THEY ARE SENSELESSLY SADISTIC.  ANIMALS DO NOT RAPE TINY ONE DAY OLD BABIES (AND MANY ARE KILLED) OR SMALL INFANTS….THEY DO NOT PLAN MURDER, THEY DO NOT DO “GENOCIDES.”  THEY DO NOT, IN ORDER TO GAIN PLUNDER, WIPE OUT THOUSANDS OR HOPE TO MURDER MILLIONS.  THEY DO NOT USE THEIR MINDS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SUCH AS ATOM BOMBS, INVENTION OF AIDS PUT SECRETLY INTO VACCINES; THEY DO NOT PLAN TO MICROCHIP MILLIONS AND USE THEM AS SLAVES, THEY DO NOT CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH OVENS READY TO EVAPORATE PEOPLE AT 2,500 DEGREES.  THEY DO NOT SKIN OTHER ANIMALS ALIVE TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PELTS.  THEY DO NOT PLAN FRANKENSTEIN CROPS LIKE GMO’S NOR DO THEY PLAN TO MAKE HEALTHY FOODS ILLEGAL.  HUMAN MALES HAVE TAKEN THIS INSTINCT TO THE POINT OF DEMONIC SUCH AS HAS NEVER EXISTED – THAT IS WHY MOTHER GOD IS RENDERING HUMAN MALES EXTINCT.

AJAX SAYS:  Very well-said, Rasa.  Indeed, sub-human or demonic is the best way to describe such evil and sadistic behavior that goes way, way beyond natural instincts.  And even many of those who are not so extreme are still willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre.

We see the same in patriarchal societies.  The vast majority of the wealth and power of any country is possessed by a small minority of people.  Like rutting stags, the winner takes all, while the losers, the poor, get “the crumbs from the rich man’s table”.  Men, also like stags, are violent, because the boundaries of any country are decided by war.  For this reason, all countries have to have a strong military against invasion.

AJAX SAYS:  There are in fact more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to have a decent standard of living, yet poverty and extreme inequality remain.  Why?  Patriarchy features winner-take-all economics, and reverse Robin Hood economics.  Rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class until there are only two classes left:  master, and serf.  And plenty of violence and war, which enriches the oligarchs.

In contrast, as the late great Buckminster Fuller once noted, the feminine paradigm of leadership would reject men's outdated, inane, and insane self-fulfilling prophecy that war and scarcity are somehow inevitable.

Until then, mechaninzation is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites--most of them MEN.

RASA:  IT IS A PATTERN.  UNTIL AND UNLESS WOMEN TAKE OVER COMPLETELY THIS WILL GO ON AS IF BUT HALF THE WORLD IS PATRIARCHAL, THE OTHER HALF HAS TO HAVE ARMIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEIR VIOLENCE.

AJAX SAYS:  Very true.  Certainly, abolishing the military entirely would be very naive and foolish so long as other countries remain patriarchal and maintain their own militaries.  Though in the USA, we can certainly downsize by cutting our "defense" spending in half and we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world.  Because currently it is not used so much for defense, as it is wars of aggression for plunder and empire, to enrich the psychopathic oligarchs at the top.  See "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, truly a must-read for everyone. 

In any patriarchal society – where men dominate – we have the rule of force, aggression and violence.  If “masculine” people rule our world, then off course it is going to be a brutal where “might is right”. If we want a loving, caring world, then the only way to achieve this is to be ruled by loving and nurturing women.
The abuse of women and children is going to happen because they are smaller and weaker than fully grown men. Men use can use their greater size and strength to get what they want from smaller and weaker people.  The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud hinted at this in his Oedipus complex theory, where the son wants to kill his own father, and possess his mother.  The actual reason for this is probably that the son was being abused by the father and hates him.  He also wants to protect his mother from abuse by the father, but Freud wasn’t allowed to say this.  The tragedy of this is that the son, when he grows up, is likely to treat his own wife and children in exactly the same way.
Freud did write a paper on the physical and sexual abuse children suffered by their fathers and other male relations, but this paper was censored.  To save his career, Freud no longer posited the theories but only hinted at them.  Since then, things have changed with the rise of feminism.  Women are now able to assert themselves and take more control over the children.  As the result, men who beat their wives and physically/sexually abuse their children can now be sent to prison.  As women gained power, children were protected from male abuse.

RASA SAYS:  EXCELLENT POINT.  UNTIL WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, THEY ARE LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.  WHEN WOMEN GO TO THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS POLITICIZED AGAINST THEM, IN FAVOR OF MEN.  I HAVE BEEN THEIR VICTIM.  WHEN A WOMAN IS RAPED, THEY BLAME THE WOMAN.  WHEN A CHILD IS RAPED, THEY REALLY DON’T CARE.  IF ALL THE MEN WHO RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE PUT INTO PRISON, PROBABLY HALF OF ALL MALES WOULD BE INCARCERATED.  MALES STICK UP FOR OTHER MALES.  THE MALE POLICE PERSUADE WOMEN TO DROP CHARGES.  MALE DA’S WON’T PROSECUTE CRIMINALS FOR INJURING OR RAPING WOMEN – IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE.  THIS IS CHANGING, BUT IT STILL EXISTS.  IN MANY COUNTRIES, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SLAVES AND THEY ARE SAVAGED.  LOOK AT THE THEOCRATIC MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE STATISTICS PROVE WOMEN ARE RISING, MEN ARE FALLING.  BUT IT IS THE WESTERN WOMEN THAT ARE RISING, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE REST OF THE WOMEN IN OPPRESSED COUNTRIES.  IT WILL TAKE TIME.  WE WILL DO IT.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, having male leaders in charge of prosecuting male violence against Women and children, is like the fox guarding the henhouse.  The "good ol' boy" network is all too real, as is the victim-blaming mentality.  Things are slowly but surely improving in that regard, with significant declines in rape, domestic violence, and child abuse statistics since the early 1990s, but we still have a very long way to go before we are anywhere close to a truly "civilized" society.  Women really need to take over.  Yesterday.

The more males dominate a country, the more violent it becomes, as women, children and other men suffer violence, rape and abuse. In such a brutal world we end up with psychopaths running everything, as they are the most vicious and brutal.
An example of this would be Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003.  He became the leader as being a psychopath and had no qualms about killing or torturing people.  In the eyes of many this made him a strong leader.  In fact, people now claim that the people of Iraq suffer more from violence, since he was deposed by the USA, than while he was in power.  This is because without a strong brutal leader, in this extreme patriarchal county, law and order has broken down.  The whole of history is full of leaders like this, who take power and hold on to it, through violence and brutality.
Unfortunately, psychopaths not only exist in extreme patriarchal countries but in more moderate, democratic countries.  In their book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”, by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert Hare, Ph.D.  They point that in business, psychopaths are far more likely to be successful.  The reason is that they have the ‘right’ qualities to succeed in a male dominated world.  To quote. –
“Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”
This doesn’t only apply to businessmen; you only have to look at successful politicians to see the same thing.  A politician in a patriarchal system has to be able to appear on TV and tell lies without any hint of shame or embarrassment.  This means that being a psychopath is a big advantage in patriarchal politics.
Men off course invent all sorts of excuses to justify why we live in a world of injustice and violence.  Patriarchal religions like to blame the Devil for all the harm men do.  The big problem with this idea is that if God has created everything, then he made the Devil as well.  So why would God make a person like the Devil, who opposes him?  Religion also tries to blame women as well, in spite of the fact women are far less violent and far more caring than men.

RASA SAYS:  MY OPINION OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN IS THE ORIGIN IS MEN, IT COMES FROM THEIR PSYCHE, THEIR ID.  THEY HAVE UNLEASHED THE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF DEMONS ON THIS PLANET.  IT COMES FROM THEIR LOWER CHAKRAS AND INSTINCTS.  BUT THEY ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS, THEY ARE SUBHUMAN, AS I ALREADY SAID.  IT IS NOT ALIENS, IT’S HUMAN MEN.  IF IT WAS ALIENS, WOMEN MIGHT BE AFFECTED – BUT THEY ARE NOT.  WHY ONLY MEN?  THE ALIENS ARE THE FALL GUY, THE EXCUSE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE.  THEY TRY TO USE ANIMALS AS EXCUSES, THAT WE ARE VIOLENT AS THEY ARE.  BUT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS ARE THE BONOBOS.

AJAX SAYS:  That makes sense.  According to Paul Levy and Jack D. Forbes, it is the "wetiko" mind-virus, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  Essentially the same thing as Satan and demons.

CONSIDER THAT, WILLIAM BOND.  INDEED THERE ARE BULLS AND STAGS.  BUT OUR GENEOLOGY IS CLOSEST TO BONOBOS.  THEY ARE MATRIARCHAL, THEY ARE HORNY, FRIENDLY, THEY SOLVE ALL CONFLICTS BY TOUCHING AND FEELING.  THE MOTHERS RULE THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY, AND THEY ARE STRONG, AND THEY POSTURE, BUT THERE IS NO WAR.  WHEN MALES INTIMIDATE FEMALES, THEY ARE MOBBED AND PREVENTED BY SEVERAL FEMALES, THEY CANNOT DOMINATE.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, "make love, not war" is essentially how the bonobos live.  That, and like the Robin Morgan quote, "sisterhood is powerful".  We can really learn a lot from them.

Science tries to justify men’s selfishness and violence onto “evolution”.  They claim that the violence of male animals is “survival of the fittest”; where the strongest and fittest males get to breed the next generation of animals.  They totally ignore the female’s role in evolution.  The fact is that the mother gives birth and cares for the young, and this is a far more important role in the survival of any species, than what males do.

RASA SAYS:  WHAT A BRILLIANT POINT WILLIAM HAS MADE, THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT MEN, AS MEN WANT US TO BELIEVE.  THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEMALE WITH HER OFFSPRING IS MORE IMPORTANT!

AJAX SAYS:  Brilliant indeed, as usual, William!  You really hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Even Darwin himself was apparently not a Social Darwinist at all.
 
Conspiracy theories try to blame secret societies like the Freemasons, the Illuminati or even alien reptiles for the ills of our world.  The rich tend to blame the poor and the poor blame the rich, but few people will acknowledge the fact that as it is men who are ruling our world, then the problem must be male rulers.

RASA SAYS:  ABSOLUTE LOGIC, ONCE AGAIN, OF WILLIAM BOND.

AJAX SAYS:  BINGO.  Psychopaths/sociopaths are completely ruthless since they have no conscience, and since the patriarchal paradigm rewards ruthlessness and aggression, then psychopaths/sociopaths will be the ones who inevitably rise to the top under male rule.

It must be obvious that any system that puts psychopaths in leadership positions is a bad arrangement.  Yet, this is what patriarchy does all the time.  Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and this is not a real problem if they are kept under control.  Unfortunately, when men rule our world the most violent, aggressive or devious men end up in positions of power.

RASA SAYS:  SURE, IF WILLIAM BOND OR JESUS CHRIST RULED OUR SOCIETY WE’D HAVE A PEACEFUL AND LOVING WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  True.  And Ajax the Great as well.

Patriarchy also breeds psychopaths.  It has been discovered that many psychopaths had appalling childhoods.  A case in point would be Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein – all of whom were beaten mercilessly as children.  Extreme patriarchal cultures encourage this, as they claim that abuse, “toughens up” boys and turns them into ‘real men’.  Certainly turning a man into a psychopath makes him a good soldier, as he can kill without mercy.  A more ordinary man is not such a good soldier, as he has qualms about killing the ‘enemy.’

AJAX SAYS:  So very true, William!  And you can add Pol Pot to that list (by his ruthless teachers) as well.  It seems that "beating the devil out of 'em" is really more like beating the devil INTO 'em, which is what the sinister agenda of the demonic patriarchy really wants to do to turn boys, and thus men, into cannon fodder and "Good Germans" at best, and subhuman demonic zombie killers at worst, to do the bidding of the psychopathic oligarchs at the top. 

RASA SAYS:  GOOD POINT.  BEING BRUTAL AND VIOLENT TOWARD MEN MAKES THEM SO, AND THEREFORE, OUR WORLD ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE THROUGH ALL MEDIA; GLORIFIES IT.  THEY HAVE EXCUSES FOR THIS AS “ENTERTAINMENT,” AND “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” BUT IT’S MORE THAN THAT.  THEY WANT TO BREED DEMONS – MEN WITH NO FEELINGS WHO KILL WITHOUT MERCY.

If we do not want to be ruled by psychopaths then the obvious solution is for women to rule our world.    It is known that psychopaths can be created by extreme abuse, and in a patriarchal society where women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male, they are far more likely to suffer abuse of all kinds.  Yet, in-spite of this, there are still far less female psychopaths then male.

RASA SAYS:  ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT I FIRST HEARD FROM WILLIAM BOND.  THE SAME ABUSE/VIOLENCE ON WOMEN DOES NOT ENGENDER THE SAME REACTION FROM WOMEN AS IT DOES MEN.  IT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAIN, THE INSTINCT.  WOMEN HAVE A STRONGER INSTINCT TO GIVE LIFE, MEN LESS SO; THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS SO THEY HAVE MORE VIOLENT TENDENCIES; BUT THESE MUST BE TEMPERED AND GUIDED RIGHTLY, NOT RUN AMUCK.

AJAX SAYS:  I am not sure how much of this is nature versus nurture, but I would hazard a guess that it is a mixture of both.  Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

So it makes sense for us to be ruled by caring and nurturing females rather than aggressive males.  We can see all over the world the more women are oppressed the more violent societies become.  But in countries where women are empowered society is peaceful.  When women are powerful, everyone benefits – bear in mind how brutal men are to other males.  Abusive fathers appear in elite families as well as poor – men such as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam were brutalized.
The only way to overcome all these problems is to have women take over.  It is true, there are caring men, but the psychos rise to the top — What psychopaths do is take acting lessons in how to appear loving and caring, then they are elected.

AJAX SAYS:  So true.  For thousands of years, the "good guys" have proven wholly incapable of defeating the bad guys on their own.  If us fellas could do it, we would have already done it long ago.  Even when a particularly notorious mass-murdering genocidal dictator like Hitler was defeated, that was achieved with the help of another, equally evil dictator, Stalin, who only gained strength afterwards and subsequently turned against the Allies after we no longer had a common enemy in the Nazis.  Only Women can truly defeat all of the bad guys for good.

RASA SAYS:  YOU CAN SEE LIARS ON TOP OF ALL GOVERNMENTS PRETENDING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR LIES.  IT HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIES.  TAKE KIND HEROD TELLING THE MAGI TO LET HIM KNOW WHERE JESUS IS BORN SO HE TOO, CAN GO WORSHIP HIM.  THEN HEROD SENDS OUT HIS SOLDIERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWO.  HE EVEN DUPED THE WOMEN TO BRING THE CHILDREN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS SO THEY COULD BE FETED – THEY BROUGHT THEM ALL DECKED OUT IN GARLANDS OF FLOWERS, WHERE THE SOLDIERS STABBED AND SPEARED THEM TO DEATH.  AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HEROD AND ALL THESE MALE LEADERS WHO KILL SO MANY PEOPLE?  THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE EVENTUALLY BUT USUALLY ON EARTH, THEY, LIKE THE GODFATHER, DIE OF OLD AGE.  BUT THE INNOCENT ARE KILLED.  SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE ON EARTH, CERTAINLY DOESN’T EXIST IN A PATRIARCHAL WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  They give with one hand, and they take with the other.  And they take plenty of lives in the process.

Yes, there are ruthless and deceiving women as well, but not in the same numbers as men.  Women have a powerful maternal instinct and once this instinct is activated then she not only wants to love and care for children of her own, she has the same desire to care for other people’s children, to look after the sick, old people and animals.  If we look at violence, we find that men commit over 99% of all acts of violence.  The reason is that because as women bring life to our world and want to nurture it, so it is harder for women to be cruel and uncaring for others than with men.
The competitive and aggressive instincts of men make them totally unsuitable to rule our world; they instigate conflict, war and injustice.  The maternal/ nurturing instincts of women enable them to run the family and the world – A world ruled by women would be fair, loving and caring.
by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

RASA SAYS:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND.  THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY.  HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL.  THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT.  THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

FINAL THOUGHTS:  Can I get an AMEN?  So very true indeed.  We are all ruled by an oligarchy of a few hundred to a few thousand cold-blooded psychopaths and sociopaths at the top.  And that is the logical conclusion of patriarchy, basically.  Worse, even if they are deposed, these evil villainaire rulers will ultimately return if we don't stamp out the conditions that cause such evil to rise to power in the first place.  Thus the better half of humanity, Women, must rise up and take over once and for all, Goddess willing.  Only then will there ever be true peace on Earth.

What better time than now?

2024 UPDATE:  It was recently revealed in a new study that the prevalence of Female psychopaths and sociopaths is likely significantly greater than previously estimated, likely because they often use different tactics compared to male ones, and because other people's cognitive biases don't always easily register their behavior as such.  That said, unlike patriarchy, there is truly ZERO evidence that Matriarchal societies systematically incentivize psychopathy/sociopathy in any way, and in fact they strongly disincentivize psychopaths and sociopaths from rising to the top.  In fact, the very best way to defang, neutralize, and ultimately prevent such evil people, regardless of gender, from doing so is Female Empowerment in general, hands down.  It is really only when Women in general are disempowered, that the psychopaths (of either gender) inevitably fill the resulting power vaccum sooner or later.

Should Child Support Laws Be Eventually Phased Out?

First, I should note that I do NOT approve of actual deadbeat dads under the current system.  They are literally welchers of the worst kind, and I cannot stand welchers of any kind.  To any fellas reading this, I strongly advise you NOT to have any unprotected PIV intercourse at all unless you either 1) had a vasectomy, and/or 2) can afford to set aside the quarter-million dollars or so per child to raise such children with at least a halfway decent standard of living from birth to age 18 (or an even higher age in some states for child support obligations).  And that doesn't even include college or the possibility (nay, probability) of massive medical bills in the USA.  Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.  Under the current imperfect system, if you want to play, you may very well have to PAY.  And if you don't pay, well, then you get to face the modern-day version of debt peonage or debtor's prison.  You can thank the patriarchy for backfiring on you per the law of karma.  Also don't forget to thank neoliberalism (including the hypocritical President Slick Willie in the 1990s, one of the biggest rakes and cads in modern history) as well for essentially gutting what passed for a social safety net, and thus for "hunting you down and making you pay" in return.

In other words, fellas, discipline yourself to say, "no glove, no love" as a matter of course, lest you play a risky game of Russian Roulette both physically and financially. 

That said, as we make the rocky and often nonlinear transition towards a Matriarchal society, a very vexing question will inevitably come up.  What to do about child support laws?  Should the very concept be phased out?  Many men will reflexively say, "Hell Yeah!", while many Women would say, "Hell NO!", or at the very least, have an abundance of caution about the overall idea.  On social media, for example, I have even encountered some Women here and there who say they want to create a world where no one knows or cares who the father is, yet somehow still want to force men to pay for it all.  I guess they want a rule of "joint and several liability" or "deep pocket rule", of all of the potential fathers for all children, not unlike what Lenin briefly had in the USSR during their ill-fated first attempt at a "sexual revolution" in the late 1910s and early 1920s, that is, before Stalin did an about-face and abruptly reversed it after the orphanages became (paradoxically) packed to the brim with unwanted children.  Yes, that was before modern birth control and paternity testing, of course, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that sort of policy probably would NOT end very well at all under late-stage capitalism today either.  That circle simply does NOT square at all.

Meanwhile, many right-wing reactionaries (including so-called "reactionary feminists"), believe that the more obligations people have in general, the better, because reasons.  Even if some tacitly believe that Women should have all the rights but men should have all of the obligations, or vice-versa.  That circle doesn't really square either.

Yet in actual Matriarchal societies, past and present, such as the Mosuo, we know that men generally have no real liability for their own (putative) children at all.  Why?  Not only due to the traditional lack of paternity certainty (at least before the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing), but also because the Women do NOT want themselves or their children be tethered to or dependent on the men, for obvious reasons, as that is a major conflict of interest.  Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and with men's shekels come the shackles.  And men, as a rule, in every society patriarchal or Matriarchal or anything in between, have always been the lazier gender overall, and often seem to be congenitally allergic to responsibility.  Sure there are exceptions, but those exceptions really only prove the rule.  If Women are going to inevitably carry the bulk of the "mental load" regardless, to say nothing of the physical load too, they might as well be fully in charge as well. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and heavy is the head that wears the crown.

In other words, it is understood that with power comes responsibility, and thus men would have both less power and less responsibility relative to Women under Matriarchy, particularly in regards to children.  That makes sense, as it's a trade-off.  Women would also be the richer gender as well, and children would ultimately be raised (more or less) collectively by the "village".  And to paraphrase the philosopher Iris Murdoch (in a different context), one cannot simply go on indefinitely living off of the interest of a capital that one has long since rejected, at least not for very long.

(Perhaps that is one somewhat esoteric reason why, contrary to popular opinion, even Feminists have long been divided on the issue of child support laws and reform.  Any Feminist Women who do support reform (despite it being a very hot-button, "third rail" issue), however, generally use equality-based arguments to openly make their case, though.)

And yet, abruptly ending all child support obligations right now (especially in the USA) would be nothing short of catastrophic, leaving millions of Women and children high and dry, while rakish men get to laugh all the way to the bank.  So that is clearly a no-go, hands down.  Especially in a world where Women's hard-won reproductive rights are currently on the chopping block as we speak.  

The fellas can't have it both ways, of course. If Women are to be treated as brood mares, then it logically follows that men would be....WORK HORSES.  And we must all say "NEIGH" to both of those "traditional" and dehumanizing gender roles.

Long story short, in the long run, I do support gradually phasing out the child support laws, for children born at some point in the future, but we must be very careful NOT put the cart before the horse.  Before we even begin to do so, we must do ALL of the following first, at a minimum:

• Fully codify and guarantee Women's reproductive rights in federal law.
• Birth control and abortion access must be readily available to all on demand.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all, aka Social Security For All, with NO strings attached.  Goodbye poverty!
• At the very least, we must have some flavor of UBI for children, similar to what we very briefly had in the USA with the expanded child tax credit.  We could even call it "collective child support".
• Universal, single-payer Medicare For All.  Goodbye massive medical bills!
• Generous paid family leave for both genders.
• Free or subsidized high-quality childcare for all who want it.
• "Baby bonds" to make every baby a trust-fund baby and build generational wealth.
• Free college and/or trade school for all who want it.
• As long as other social welfare and safety net programs like TANF still exist, remove the perverse requirement for single Mothers to name the father in order to receive benefits (you can thank Slick Willie for that one). 
• And so on.  In other words, the genuine progressive wish list, funded collectively via progressive taxation, Georgist-style taxation, financial transaction taxes, Pigouvian taxes, vice taxes, and/or money creation.

After that, the first phase of the phaseout would be to allow men to get a so-called "paper abortion" early on before birth of the child, wherein they irrevocably sign away all parental rights and responsibilities.  Even before that, one can nibble around the edges a bit and start with ending all existing child support requirements at age 18 (albeit with a grandfather clause, of course) and not a day later, and also categorically exempt all vasectomized men from child support going forward as well.  Then, gradually phase it all out organically from there.  Eventually, it will simply become the norm to put "father unknown" on birth certificates by default.

(And repeal the Bradley Amendment too.)

"But men will behave even more like cads then!", some Women may object.  Well, I've got news for you:  men have been doing that since before Jehovah had Witnesses, lol.  That is, they have their own personal Jehovah between their legs, and their balls are the Witnesses, lol.  And it is only a fairly recently innovation that men ever had any real "skin in the game", legally speaking. One can, in fact, draw a straight line between men's newfound "skin in the game" on the one hand, and their more recent aversion to procreation, commitment-phobia, work-shyness, and overall penchant for Peter Pan-style perpetual adolescence on the other.  Men have always been stuck in perpetual adolescence, of course, and it simply went from subtle to overt, in other words.

Thus, the answer to the question is ultimately yes, but a VERY, VERY qualified yes.  In the long run, phasing out these rigid and increasingly outmoded 20th century policies is a truly necessary step (though by no means sufficient by itself!) on the way to finally extricating Women and children from the age-old quagmire of patriarchy for good, God willing. 

P.S.  Men are NOT the only ones who are forced to pay child support, by the way.  Women often have those very same laws weaponized against them as well, particularly when crooked Family Court judges perversely grant abusive men full custody of their kids.  And the forced payments directly from the alienated Mother to the abuser (!) thus add further insult to injury as it gives the abuser even more power over her and the kids.  Yes, that really still happens frequently even to this day, though the mainstream is deafeningly silent about it:  just Google "Motherless America" to learn more.

UPDATE:  The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder later remined me that there is also yet another thing that can backfire just as hard on Women if not harder, and that is called PALIMONY.  It's basically like alimony but for those who had lived together without being officially married, typically if lived together for eight of more years per common law (but that varies by jurisdiction).  It is nuanced, to be sure, but that needs to phased out even sooner IMHO, with the aforementioned safeguards in place, of course.