It's Finally Happening

I was on a date with a guy recently, and I was starting to get the vibe that he was a little bit of an incel, or like, at least just hated women a little bit secretly. And so I was like, "Okay, this is going nowhere. I'm going to start [ __ ] with him. Like, I'm going to start saying stuff to piss him off."

But, um, me and him were talking about marriage, and I was talking about how I didn't really want kids. I didn't really want to get married either. And, um, I remember I said to him, I was like, "Well, if I ever did have kids, I would want it in the prenup that if me and him ever get a divorce, that he gets full custody, like, he takes the kids."

I kid you not, the reaction from this man was like guttural. He was just like, like a disgusted kind of like, uh. And I laughed so hard, and I tried to contain myself a little bit. It was just so funny to watch this man's reaction. It was almost like his reality shattered. Like he'd never even considered that to be a possibility. As if, like, those kids wouldn't be his as much as they would be mine. Like, it wasn't making sense to him.

We moved on from that topic pretty quickly, but I said some other things to piss him off too. I think also, just me not wanting kids or not wanting marriage was enough to kind of trigger him a little bit, but, um, we had a little falling out after that.

I mean, this feels condescending to have to explain this, but he's not disgusted by the idea of him being a full-time father. He's disgusted with the smug pride that you have in your own complete lack of humanity, the absence of any femininity, any motherhood instinct, or like, love for children, any decency. How was that not obvious? The guy explicitly said that he wanted children. So why would you assume that he's disgusted by the idea of fatherhood? That's not it. He's disgusted by you. You, a woman, pre-abandoning your children. That's what he found disgusting.

She thought that she's like dunking on this man. Women are so lost. The brainwashing and the propaganda has obviously just been so strong that young women like this actually seem to believe that men have like a fear of spending time with children, of being fathers. And in an extraordinary move of audacity, you've had feminists claim that the bias that the courts show against men in child custody cases, obvious discrimination against fathers, they claim that it's actually sexism against women. How do you make that make sense?

Well, apparently it's because society is so sexist against women that they think women are the traditional caregivers. And so it's actually a terrible thing that custody gets pushed onto women. And that's where this young woman is coming from. She's like, "Oh, you won't catch me like that. I'm not going to be a mother who looks after my own children. Nice try, patriarchy."

But this is completely delusional. This idea that men are terrified to be fathers or see their own children. It's insulting. You've got fathers who only see their children two weekends a month, and they're standing on the sidelines listening to all of this, thinking, "You stole my kids. You destroyed my life, my purpose for living. The whole system was complicit in acting against me." And as if that's not enough, you have the nerve to claim that it is you that is the victim in this situation.

Well, gentlemen, if you are expecting a lot of doom and gloom, then I'm afraid that today you've clicked on the wrong video, because I actually have some good news. Scratch that. I have some great [ __ ] news. After I found out about this, I could not keep a smile off my face for the rest of the day.

7 years ago in the state of Kentucky, there were important changes made to divorce and custody proceedings. These changes were aimed at removing the female privilege, and the impact has been enormous. The data is in, and it completely destroys all of the feminist propaganda. It makes these women look so bad, and this looks like it really could be a watershed moment because these changes in the law, there's a bunch of other states ready to follow suit. Gentlemen, this is really, really good news.

In this video, I'm going to explain the law, the new data that we have on its impact, the implications, and of course, how women are reacting. But before we get to that, I want to share some more good news, which is that I have lost 15 kg since I was at my heaviest. ChatGpt says that if I lose five more, I'll be able to see my abs. I haven't seen them in 10 years, and I'm pretty motivated. Not carrying all this excess weight, I feel so much better. But there is one downside, which is that my pants no longer fit.

Luckily, the sponsor of today's video, Anson Belt and Buckle, have come to the rescue. Instead of using the outdated hole system, Anson Belt and Buckle use a micro-adjustable track system that works on quarter-inch increments so that you get a perfect fit every single time. Trust me, once you switch to these belts, you'll never go back to the old ones. And what's also amazing is that because of their unique design, you can mix and match any belt and buckle to create unique combinations. This customization is so useful. It gives you so much choice so that you can find the perfect match for your outfit. People love this product. There's a reason they have over 40,000 five-star reviews. They built their brand on trust. They are family-owned and they offer a lifetime guarantee on functionality. And because Anson Belt and Buckle are sponsoring today's video, when you click on the link in the description box or use the QR code on screen, when you build a box set, you'll get a bonus buckle and strap completely free. That's three buckles and three straps, which can be mixed and matched in nine different combinations all in one box. It's an exclusive deal that you won't get anywhere else. So, click the link, build your set, and upgrade your belt game today.

Okay, back to the video and this big news out of Kentucky. In 2018, Kentucky became the first state to pass a law making equally shared custody the default arrangement in divorces and separations. Four other states, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida, and Missouri, have since passed their own versions of Kentucky's custody bill. Around 20 more are considering or close to passing similar laws. This is huge.

For years, women could divorce their husbands and just trust that the children are going to come to her, and she will decide how much visitation Uncle Dad is allowed to have. Thanks to this bill, it is now the default expectation that all child custody arrangements will be 50/50, and women are pissed. This is not good for them because they were used to using his children as leverage against him. Holding them hostage, denying visitation, using them to emotionally torture her ex-husband and extract more money. And these women felt righteously entitled to do so. They didn't feel guilty because deep down, there is a sexist belief that they think that as mothers, they are the real parents of the children. Children belong to their mother, not to the sperm donor. But that's come to an end, and they are shocked to find out that they actually have to share their children with their father. They are angry because they legitimately thought that their children were something that they as women owned.

"I was a stay-at-home mom full-time for 12 years. The divorce was filed in Kentucky, and there was no other choice but 50/50 unless you can prove the other parent unfit, which neither of us could do. If it had been up to me, I would have had primary custody of my children, and we would have divorced in Utah. When I was told the 50/50 was my only choice in mediation, it was the most heartbreaking thing I've ever been through in my life."

Did you hear that? She said that she had no proof that their father was an unfit parent. But if she could have, she 100% would have pushed for her to have primary custody. So many women want the leverage. They want to keep their ex-husbands by the balls, and they know that their children are their weak spot. She wanted primary custody. She didn't want 50/50. She didn't want to share. But thanks to Kentucky's new laws, she had to. The game has changed. Child custody arrangements are no longer as rigged as they once were.

And so we have to ask, what has been the impact of all of this? The law has become a model for other states, not least because Kentucky's divorce rate has plummeted. Between 2016 and 2023, it fell 25% compared with a nationwide decline of 18%. So, to be clear, the divorce rate across the United States has already been falling at a rate of 18%. What's significant is that Kentucky outpaces the national average, and divorce rates are dropping at a rate of 25%. Comparing those two figures, it means that Kentucky's divorce rate is falling 39% more than the nationwide average. It is an extraordinary piece of data, and women are not liking what it reveals.

Does anyone else find it funny or even a little strange that the second Kentucky added laws for, you know, equality and child support and custody cases during divorce, the suddenly divorce drop rate dropped 25%? It's almost like a lot of these women were only filing for divorce because they knew that they were going to win, no matter what the circumstances were, right? Like, you could literally be a cheating [ __ ] that has kids with other men, and you're still going to get half. Not anymore. It's almost like if women can't have their life subsidized by their ex, they're more willing to try to make things work.

I mean, of course, women are not happy with this. It reminds me of that quote that's like, "When you're accustomed to privilege, then equality feels like oppression." Like, women are shocked. What they should be shocked with is how long they managed to get away with this. The whole divorce process has been insanely discriminatory against men. She takes half the stuff, all the kids, alimony, child support, and so the marriage is struggling. And is she going to put in some effort, try and fix it, or is she going to think, "Well, what's the downside in a divorce? I can walk away from my marriage commitments, but his financial commitments to me, they continue." Well, no more.

Because guess what? If child custody is now 50/50, that means an end to child support. And isn't it interesting that the moment that the money dried up, the divorce rates started dropping? This comment underneath the Wall Street Journal article sums it up really well. "Divorce plunged because women realized they weren't going to take half of everything and get the kids full-time. When the economic disincentive materialized along with the fact that they can no longer steal the children from the father, suddenly divorce isn't the cherry that modern women seem to think it is." Just perfect.

This new law in Kentucky is how it should always have been. Each parent has 50% custody of the children. Obviously, what's fair? Who could object to this? Everybody who has ever espoused believing in principles of fairness, equality, justice, surely this new law is a cause for massive celebration. Well, no. When I saw this article posted on Facebook, it turns out there are many women who are not pleased.

"Oh, men aren't going to like that. Wait until they find out parenting isn't cramming fun into two days, and it actually takes work and monotony." Again, this sexist idea that fathers don't want to be with their children. You think men don't want equal custody to be fathers to their children? Please call our bluff. Support legislation that demands that across the world. Please do it.

If they can't do 50% of the child care while married, why would a woman trust that they can do 100% for half the time? Well, you know what is the best thing about this new law from Kentucky is that the trust that you're talking about here is no longer relevant. It actually doesn't matter whether or not the woman trusts the father. It's not up to her anymore. In fact, he doesn't have to prove [ __ ] to you. Your trust is meaningless because guess what? He is their father. He is just as much their parent as you are. And it is the courts that are going to enforce his rights, which means that your opinion on the whole matter is irrelevant.

Well, it's kind of hilarious reading these comments where men are complaining about a disadvantage just because they are men and demanding laws to combat it. Try living with that for centuries, centuries and centuries that women have gone through being discriminated against under the law. And what is the result? Is it a strong sense of justice and compassion for other people who are also discriminated against under the law based on their gender? No. She laughs at it. She thinks it's hilarious. Modern women are just so quick to jump on this ferocious like, "Well, we suffered, so you should suffer, too." And I'll never understand why they are so willing to give up the moral high ground, why they aren't more ashamed in perpetuating the very thing that they claimed was so unjust. I'll never understand it.

There are reasons why courts favor the children's mothers. Just saying, it wasn't by accident. We all knew that we'd get to this. The old men are inherently dangerous and abusive angle. Coming back to the original Wall Street Journal article, there is so much time dedicated in the article to hearing these one-sided stories about a woman's unpleasant divorce. Each one carefully calculated and told in a way to present men as though they are inherently dangerous to children. The writing is so over-the-top, so sexist and biased that luckily even the everyday citizens, just regular readers of the Journal, noticed how ridiculous this was and called them out in the comments.

"The assumption here that all the abuses on the male side is ridiculous. Stereotypes of mothers as saints and dads as devils. How about some unbiased coverage? Drug addict mothers and typical loving dads could be used for a whole different slant." The article was laboring the point, droning on and on with all of these sub-stories, trying to present the idea that this equal custody could be dangerous because these men could be abusive. But the most ridiculous thing of all is that the legislation itself already protects against that. If the man is abusive, then the presumption of 50/50 custody automatically gets overturned. The law quite clearly in black and white protects women and children in the instances that they are complaining about. But for some women, I guess that's not enough.

"And there is a real danger that the divorce rate is going down because it's harder for women to leave." Apparently, we need to have biased custody arrangements in divorces because otherwise it will be harder for women to leave. Douglas Nejami, a family law professor at Yale Law School, is not convinced that the law adequately accounts for what could go wrong. "We know many people experiencing domestic violence for good reasons don't necessarily get an order of protection," said Njami, explaining that many women are too afraid of retribution or of not being believed to pursue a formal order. "Now there's a presumption of equality that they need to overcome."

I don't understand this. Isn't Yale one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the United States? This guy is a law professor, and he is pointing to shortcomings in domestic violence procedures as a mark against legislation for equal custody. And to be clear, I have no idea how efficient or accurate the process in Kentucky is for these domestic violence protections. But even if they are terrible, and there's a bunch of awful guys out there who are getting away with their abusive behavior, the solution to that, and I can't believe I have to explain this, is not to just grant default biased custody to all women. One injustice does not solve another. How is punishing innocent fathers helping anybody? If there's a problem with these domestic violence procedures, then clearly the solution is to just fix those. How am I the one who has to explain this to a Yale law professor?

And what about this final sentence? "Now there's a presumption of equality that they need to overcome." How is that a sentence that a human being can actually utter? Are you serious? Like, "Oh no, it's so terrible for these women that they have to overcome a presumption of equality." Like, what? That's so discriminatory? Are you for real? This whole article is so sexist.

Check out this comment. "Where does the author cite the number of females who have done violence to children? Same old assumption wrapped up in the premise of mother is an angel and men are always the offender. Sad reality without balanced reporting." We have got to get away from this narrative that men are inherently dangerous. That women are always innocent and men are monsters. And so of course the default should be that custody of children should just go to women because women are the nurturers and the protectors of children. And we need to give children to women to keep them safe from men. It is lies. All of it is lies.

Let me tell you the facts. It is not ambiguous. It is well-documented, clear, and consistent. Children from single father households vastly outperform children from single mother households. Children are better off with their fathers than with their mothers. And when it comes to protecting children from harm, let's have a look at what the actual statistics say.

This analysis from the National Center of Health Research found that of almost 200,000 perpetrators of child abuse, they found that 46% were male and 54% were female. Well, that's interesting that women are actually more likely to abuse children than men. But when it comes to examining the biological parents of children, the data is even more damning because of male perpetrators, 51% of the time it was the biological father. Not great. 51% is not good. It should be zero. But amongst the female perpetrators, 86% were the biological mothers. So, just to recap, not only are women more likely than men to abuse children, but when we're talking about child custody as to which biological parents the children should go to, statistically speaking, biological mothers are significantly more dangerous to children than biological fathers.

And that's not even taking into account the danger that biological mothers expose their children to by the men that they bring into their proximity. Because as you can see here, of the male perpetrators that are not the biological fathers, mom's boyfriend is the perpetrator 10% of the time and the stepfather 8% of the time. You see, these biological mothers, they have terrible judgment about what men to bring in to be a part of their child's lives. These men aren't safe. And 18% of male perpetrated abuse comes from these guys that mom brings in. And so, let's see if biological fathers are displaying that same poor judgment. According to the research of the female perpetrators, only 4% were stepmothers, adoptive mothers, or the father's girlfriends. 4% compared to 18%.

And let me be clear, this is not a single piece of data. I had in my notes a bunch of other studies I was going to include, but I didn't want to labor the point. I'm just going to bring up one more to demonstrate that this is not a small sample size we're working with. This one here, it had almost 500,000 different perpetrators that were analyzed. So in this research, what they were interested in finding out is that which gender is it that is perpetrating abuse when it is one parent acting alone, and they found that 37% of the time it was the mother acting alone being abusive to the children compared with only 23% of the time when it was the father.

I may repeat myself sometimes, but that's because I really want this message to get through. Do you understand that the myth that men are inherently more abusive and more dangerous to children is not only sexist, it is wrong. Objectively, statistically wrong. It is a lie. The truth is that children are safer with their fathers than they are with their mothers.

I know that that may be hard to get your head around. Like, maybe you just casually click on my videos sometimes and you're like, "Oh, it's interesting to hear a different perspective. I can agree that occasionally there's some discrimination against men that gets overlooked, but deep down you still believe the feminist myth that women are sweet and gentle and nurturing, and men are basically just scumbags, like scoundrels that are always violent." I'm telling you, the reason that you believe that is not because of facts, but because of propaganda, relentless brainwashing over decades. It's a lie.

Like, I'm getting pretty worked up emotionally while filming this video, but that's because this topic of child custody, it really hits home for me. Like, maybe you as an individual, maybe you've been through this process, and I'm so sorry. Or you maybe know like a couple of guys, like some friends, and it hits home to you that way. I understand from my perspective, having done the work I've done for the last eight years, I've just heard so many men's stories in like the men's groups or in the private consultations that I've done, and it's just brutal. You know, that's the nature of my work is that men tell me their pain, and I see things that maybe, you know, no one else gets to see. I've listened to so many fathers just completely break down with grief about not getting to see their children due only to an insanely manipulative ex-wife or a hugely biased court system.

But today, I feel hope. I feel energized. I can't believe that this law has finally been passed, and that the data is exactly what we said it was always going to be. When I first heard this news, I was reminded of a video I shot back in 2022. And I want to play you a short clip from that video. So, here's a blast from the past. Enjoy the long hair.

"We're going to talk about the one area where men are receiving contradictory messages that really makes me sick to my stomach. I'm not looking for understanding or tolerance on this one. I'm looking for real change. I really have no tolerance for women who disagree with me on this one. So, fair warning to any women listening. If you disagree with me, I think you're a sexist. I'm talking about the contradictory messages we have about fatherhood. Are fathers equal parents, or are they the lesser parents? My perspective is a father is an equal parent of exact same legitimacy to a mother, and that's the end of the discussion. Now, women tend to agree with me when they're in the relationship with a father because they want him to step up and and help out. You know, help out with the children. They're your children, too. I want some alone time. I want to go see my friends. I want to have a career. It's time for you to step up and be a dad. We're in this together. It's all meant to be equal. Yes, she's very much in favor of treating the father as though he's an equal parent while it suits her. But the moment that the relationship breaks up or they get a divorce, she's the mom and she's the real parent. You're the sperm donor. You know, a father is not a real parent. If he's lucky, he gets visitation. She as the mother grants him the right to see his own children. Visitation for your own children. What the [ __ ] is that? They are his children as much as hers. 50/50 custody split should absolutely be the default unless there are exceptional circumstances. Do women have any conception of how confusing this is for men? To be told that as fathers, you are the equal parent and you need to step up, and then the moment that she decides she doesn't want to be with you, you're meant to just accept the fact that you're the lesser parent. It's called motherhood entitlement, and it is a disgraceful stain upon the morality of our society."

That got more dark than I intended. Yeah. So, I've already spent a lot of years being angry about this issue. And filming this video and and talking about all of this, it's bringing a lot of that grief back up to the surface. But coupled with that today is a sense of relief, some optimism, and some hope. Like I said, when I first heard this news, I could not stop smiling. I was just so happy. And I may be an atheist, but today I want to say, God bless Kentucky. God bless you fathers who pushed for this legislation. And God bless the Kentucky politicians who passed it into law. Kentucky, I've always had mad respect for the way that you fry your chicken. But today, you've done something even more incredible. Thank you for that hope, and thank you for also being a catalyst for change.

Because according to the article, there's around 20 other states who have already passed or who are considering passing similar laws, which is just the best news I've heard in a long time. You guys in the men's rights advocacy space who've been doing so much of the groundwork, we owe so much gratitude to you for all of your efforts. On behalf of fathers everywhere, thank you. It's an incredible feeling to know that your brothers have got your back. And I know that some of you guys might just be coming to this channel to learn about like dating or whatever. You're too young. You don't think that this really impacts you yet. But one day, it probably will. Fatherhood must be protected. And even if you're single now, you might be a father one day. And I guarantee that at your wedding ceremony, you're going to be so much more comfortable signing that marriage certificate if you know that the legal system has got your back. That if things do break up, you will get your children 50% of the time.

So, let me finish by saying this. Fathers, husbands, single men, all of you, please write to your representatives. Do it this week. Ask them to support this legislation. Encourage them to pass laws around the country that protect fatherhood, that stand up for men's rights. Whatever we've been doing, it's been working. There's been some changes. Keep pushing. Stand up for your fellow men, and stand up for the children everywhere that need their fathers.

And it's that last point, that standing up for fathers is standing up for children, that I want to spend the rest of this video talking about. Because in the Wall Street Journal article, they quoted a woman called Emma Johnson. She wrote this book on 50/50 custody arrangements. And in the article, she wrote this. "We've all been watching Kentucky," said Emma Johnson, a divorce shared parenting advocate and author of The 50/50 Solution. She said she believes her kids are best served by spending as much time with their father as they do with her. Johnson argues that the expectations that kids belong with their mothers holds women back. "I can't get ahead at work if I'm always taking time off to pick up a sick kid," said Johnson, who lives in Richmond, Virginia.

I understand that she may be coming from a good place, but that actually annoyed me because it made me think about how reluctant we are as a society to frame change as necessary simply because it benefits men. Somehow we always need to frame everything as being good for children or good for women in order to justify change. So I want to explore that psychology, and then I also want to talk in practical terms about how we can use the fact that this is how society operates effectively as leverage to get the change that we want. So that's what the topic is going to be for the extended version of this video. If you want to keep watching, please come and join me on Patreon. Running a 37% discount for October because it's my birthday month. So my Patreon's never been more affordable. If you like in-depth stuff, you're going to love the extended versions of my videos. You're welcome to come and join.