Happy Father’s Day to all the men who nurture, teach, coach, raise, support and love their children.
You are heroes. Without you, society falls apart.
From David Blankenhorn‘s Fatherless America:
- Approximately 30% of all American children are born into single-parent homes, and for the black community, that figure is 68%;
- Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug andalcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics.
- Over half of all children living with a single mother are living in poverty, a rate 5 to 6 times that of kids living with both parents;
- Child abuse is significantly more likely to occur in single parent homes than in intact families;
- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census;
- 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America’s rapists grew up the same way according to a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law;
- 63% of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child;
- 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes according to the National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools;
- 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes according to a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior;
- In single-mother families in the U.S. about 66% of young children live in poverty;
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes;
- Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.
- 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes according to a study by the Center for Disease Control;
- Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates about 65% were committed by either boy-friends or ex-husbands, compared with 9 % by husbands;
- Girls living with non-natal fathers (boyfriends and stepfathers) are at higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers;
- Daughters of single mothers are 53% more likely to marry asteenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages.
- A large survey conducted in the late 1980s found that about 20% of divorced fathers had not seen his children in the past year, and that fewer than 50% saw their children more than a few times a year.
- Juvenile crime, the majority of which is committed by males, has increased six-fold since 1992;
- In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households,” according to a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.
- The Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have declined more than 70 points in the past two decades; children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school according to a Congressional Research Service Report.
The most important criterion you can apply to choosing a husband is his potential to be an excellent father.
No related posts.
{ 861 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 3 4 5 6 »
@Kathy
Maybe…
However, after the hospital Friday I feel much better and can keep a good heart rate longer.
This, to me, is the biggest place where women prove they either get what equality means and then either embrace equality or sit down and look at biological differences and how a civilized society addresses them. Too many women what to take both paths depending on which benefits women. I’m very disappointed that Susan is too typical because I honestly thought otherwise.
I’m not sure if abortion on demand plus child support is a cause or a symptom of the fundamental disconnect on mating our society has. Most likely it is both in a complex feedback loop, but the reality is the two are incompatible.
Men since I was in HS (I graduated in 1985) have said, “If she gets pregnant she can just have an abortion.” We were taught from a young age (most men under 39 from birth) that pregnancy is only about women. Convincing them that it is also about them gets harder each year and the law can either catch up or we can accept that men will find more and more ways to make reality match the law anyway.
Women cannot have it both ways, at least not for more than a couple of generations. Susan, in trying to do so, is insuring she will fail in her primary goal.
Don’t compliment until she uses it when it isn’t to her benefit.
Herb, Susan is attempting to argue her points. You don’t agree with her. Even if you don’t care for approach to this debate, hopefully you will ask yourself this question: Is Susan attempting to be reasonable?
If your answer is “Yes”, then that should inform your tone.
If “No”, then, again that will inform your tone.
I know what my answer is.
@Herb
There are many ways in which male biology favors the male. Non-consensual sex is an example. So is control via physical abuse. In a time of crisis or physical hardship, men are more likely to survive. Men can ward off attackers better than women can. Men do not risk dying in childbirth. (My OB told me that 100 years ago I would have died in childbirth. I was in labor for 38 hours and never dilated. There would have been a “child” or “mother” decision.) Men are not physically bound to their children as nursing mothers are – they have more choice and mobility.
Jackie (596),
Thank you!!!!!!! This is the responsibility that EVERYBODY has (but unfortunately many ignore).
I agree that the current system is messed up. But if things change, then I think that the ideal system would be one that holds BOTH parties accountable for their actions/choices.
What I don’t get is why everybody is so up in arms about Cad Rights.
The sluts and the cads are the ones who have messed up the SMP in the first place. The sluts usually get their comeuppance in the end (although they’re often a bit slow to notice) but cads usually suffer from no consequences. And now people want to remove pretty much the only risk that the cads face for their recklessness (babies). If they’re let completely off the hook, they’ll probably go around impregnating even more women. (And realistically, what the single mothers lose in child support, they’ll probably just end up getting in state support.)
I agree that unrestrained female sexuality is a big problem, but unrestrained male sexuality is not the solution. I’m fully in favour of increased female accountability, but decreased male accountability would only cause more problems.
In conclusion:
Screen your partners!!!! All of you!!!!! This applies to the guys and the girls.
It’s a free country, but I think that some of the vehemence in this thread and the hostility towards our host’s opinions on a very difficult and emotional topic are misplaced and run the risk of damaging valuable friendships.
“For example, I know one self-described “slut” who says explicitly, I don’t have sex with anti-choice (i.e. pro-life) men. She knows she wants an abortion in the case of pregnancy, and is absolutely upfront it. For her, that is a really good strategy. She refuses to have sex with guys who don’t match her beliefs.”
Wow. Just wow. So this young woman has already decided to destroy another life so that she can enjoy sex consequence free? What a perfect show of just how crappy her character is. And also a fine example of how the woman’s right to choice trumps everything in the eyes of a feminist.
Welcome to the future.
Should Lovers Sign a Pre-Sex Contract?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=128101&page=1
This will kill all the nonsense.
With both of your john hancocks on the dotted line and initials on every page of the Long-Fuck form, you will see an end to:
-false rape claims
-acknowledged waivers of responsibility to parenthood
-clear delineation of responsibilities by both parties post sex
Hell you could even have an app for that on your iPhone or Android device where you could digitally sign it by using your registered account to acknowledge it with a one touch operation. (otherwise you’d have to create an account and sign in which might kill the mood a bit, but hey, you’ll have the account for all future casual encounters). And by using the front facing camera you can create a video of yourself saying a short legal blurb that shows up on the screen, kind of like karaoke, saying that you are of sound mind and judgement, not intoxicated and fully conscious to the fact you are about to enter into consensual sex.
HOLY SHIT!
Ok, this is my idea, im patenting it right now. If anyone runs with this one i’ll sue
@Bastiat
Hooking Up Smart for men, as mentioned earlier:
I’ve also written about the 20 Signs of a female narcissist, and other posts that encourage men to vet women for character.
Don’t commit to a woman who isn’t head over heels for you in a way that is obvious every single day.
Don’t give a woman approval, respect or affection until she has earned it.
Don’t buy women drinks, or tolerate any demands for spending on her, especially if she has her own career.
And finally, a key part of any successful strategy is mapping and preparing for market conditions. Roe is huge. Every man should conduct himself with it in mind. None of these consequences are unavoidable. All are easily preventable with just a slight bit of preparation.
That’s why it’s ironic.
I was not talking about monetary commitment. IDK, Ted, 20-something women are making 107% of what their male counterparts make in U.S. cities. 50% of American households have a female primary breadwinner. I really don’t buy the whoops pregnancy as a cushy addition to disposable income.
“It’s a free country, but I think that some of the vehemence in this thread and the hostility towards our host’s opinions on a very difficult and emotional topic are misplaced and run the risk of damaging valuable friendships.”
I have friends that are VERY pro-choice and we manage to get along just fine, as long as we don’t discuss abortion, or any women’s/men’s rights issues. I agree that hostility is unwarranted, but vehemence is something that comes with passion, and I for one am very passionate about the abortion debate. In fact, much of my vehemence in regards to men’s rights in this discussion is because I am pro-life. But, I am reasonable enough to concede that point, IF the law is somehow changed to give men the same “choice” that women get. If that cannot be accomplished, then to me abortion should be made illegal and removed from the debate entirely.
Either it is fair for everyone, or unfair for everyone. I’m a big fan of equally unfair to all.
Yes, I was channeling Ramble re the different standard, as he wrote about it in late May and I thought he made an excellent point:
Since men get off easy I decided to figure out what “getting off easy” constituted in as many states as possible.
The income figures are taken from the US Census (source). I am using median income for single earner families (which changes my GA number). I am providing annual income, child support minimums rounded down to the nearest thousand, the 18 year cost, and if that exceeds Susan’s maximum of $75,000 or not.
I am assuming only one child is being supported. In states where both incomes are required I assume both make the median income. In cases where cost of family group health insurance is a factor I’m using $414/month, the family average in 2011 and assuming the custodial parent provides the insurance. Where visitation is a factor I assume the paying parent has 182 overnights.
I’m done with the A’s and only one is below Susan’s maximum at the median payment that’s assuming assuming 50/50 physical custody with the odd day going to the non-paying parent and equal parental incomes.
Alabama: $38,321, $395, $85,320, exceeds, factors both incomes
Alaska: $52,611, $1084, $234,144, exceeds, includes health insurance
Arizona: $41,385, $12, $2592, does not exceed, factors both incomes and assuming the paying parent has 182 overnights (effective joint physical custody)
Arkansas: $34,203, $486, $104,976, exceeds
Do I need to continue or can we dispense with the median income facing a maximum of $75,000?
I was joking earlier, but think about it – women deal with menstruation, pregnancy and the pain of childbirth. They feed their child from their own bodies. My husband was wonderful to me while I was pregnant, so I’ll be generous and say that he suffered about 2% of the inconvenience. (And that isn’t even considering my two c-sections.) It makes sense to me that the person actually carrying the load gets a bigger say.
LOL.
It’s funny, but at the beginning of my first pregnancy, I ran around saying, “We’re pregnant!” as though we really were doing this thing TOGETHER. Then I miscarried, and even though DH was extremely supportive, they weren’t scraping out HIS uterus. I realized that, no matter how much he loved me, a lot of the experience was going to be me going it alone. I had a horrendous labor with my older son that ended in a forceps birth. During the labor, DH said several times that if he could have borne the pain for me he would have. I joked that I’d have happily let him, but his good intentions aside, it was 100% my deal. He ejaculated, he was a supportative husband during the pregnancies, he’s been a terrific father, but in terms of carrying those kids and giving birth to them, but possibly could he do?
Why is it this group of MRA’s scream about fathering kids they don’t want, and can’t veto, have to pay for, but also don’t want to wear the jimmy hat to prevent them?
Despite the efforts of Republicans in southern states to define personhood at some point pre-conception (to outlaw Plan B), the common law definition of a person is one who is born alive. A fetus can sue for injuries done it in the womb, only if it is born alive. That’s English common law, centuries old, adopted wholesale in the USA, see Blackstone’s Commentaries.
For this “veto” plan to work, you must overturn the concept that women are persons entitled to equal protection. You must say that the State has ultimate power to direct that women give birth, for the interests of the State. Which, by the way, is what the Nazis did in the 1930′s – they outlawed all birth control.
With that proposition is this one: since the State has final say who must give birth, it has the power to declare who must not. In other words, have the power to force abortions and sterilization. E.G., brown people. Don’t tell me it will never be used. See Stalinist Russia, Communist China.
And I thought all these conservatives were for “small” government. So how do you enforce this big new public works program? Forced ultrasounds? Done by who? If not new bureaucracies, do you rely on Upright Citizens Brigades?
Oh yeah, Happy Fathers Day. (Yes I am one, so shut up guys).
@Underdog
Thanks for checking that. I wouldn’t want to leave erroneous info. standing in the thread.
@Herb
Good catch on the “maximum” claim. I was wrong to couch in that way. I was using the mean and median as a sort of range, much the way we often do when talking about numbers of lifetime sexual partners. It’s not accurate, and it is certainly true that men may pay much more. Celebrity cases make that very clear.
@Susan
Men who do so are imprisoned. As we discussed early, women who do so (the rare few who can) get child support if they get pregnant.
Again, we imprison men who do so and have a large support network for women escaping it that in all by a handful exceptions refuse to help the handful of men facing the same.
Hence the policy of women and children first (which feminist complain if not upheld).
So the state employs men to defend women.
Correct.
Hence the fact we force them to support children.
So, of six you cited all but one are addressed by law in the civil society.
Yet, the limits on women’s absolute control of childbirth, the inverse of two above, we have created law to reinforce the advantage, not ameliorate it.
That is the problem. The law constrains men’s biological advantages and reinforces women’s biological advantages.
Is asking the law to constraint both unreasonable? If so, why? Remember, I’m happy to limit abortion (I’d prefer it) but you’re the pro-choice one so my only counter in that world is male financial abortion.
You know, if I had just left out,
Susan, this is not hard.
I wouldn’t have sounded like a dick.
@Jackie
They really do. Most of this heartache and hardship could be so easily avoided. In a culture where people get drunk in order to lose enough inhibition to have sex with a stranger, it doesn’t happen often.
@Emily
Which is more likely: women agreeing to restrain theirs or men having theirs unrestrained as well.
I’d prefer A, but I’m old enough to know I’ll never live to see a US (or West in general) that will embrace it.
@Jackie
HAHAHA! That sure beats giving out a fake phone number.
Susan – “I was not talking about monetary commitment. IDK, Ted, 20-something women are making 107% of what their male counterparts make in U.S. cities. 50% of American households have a female primary breadwinner. I really don’t buy the whoops pregnancy as a cushy addition to disposable income.”
Come down to my neck of the woods sometime, and let’s see how the 107% works out for all these women on welfare.
I get that in UMC world my issues are irrelevant. But as much as I dislike the “1%” concept, there are FAR more poor people than rich. I personally know of women that have “accidentally” gotten pregnant for the “disposable” income. You can pull numbers up all you want, but as has been pointed out numerous times, stats can be manipulated to show just about anything. How about the fact that unemployment stats don’t count people who’s benefits have run out? “Look unemployment is down!”. Nope, just less people collecting benefits that are now probably on welfare. How many of those 50% of households with a female breadwinner are also single parent homes? Is that even included in the stats?
I’m positive your average “career” women isn’t getting pregnant for free money. I can tell you that the average welfare women often does, as often as she can. And in all of those cases, child support becomes a state controlled function. At that point, all fairness (what little there is to begin with) is removed for the man in question. Pay up or go to jail. And unlike the men you seem to be thinking of, these men WILL have their entire lives ruined by this. They are poor to begin with and having the state directly removing money from them will not help them improve, which would actually allow him to assist with his child(ren) better. In many cases, these men simply stop trying to find a job, and live on welfare themselves. Guess who foots that bill?
Honestly it seems like everyone here assumes all of this happens in some UMC bubble. The fact is, most of this is completely moot in that SES group. But come down to the bottom of the scale, and just one unplanned pregnancy can literally ruin a man’s entire life. And honestly, where do you think this issue is bigger: in a class where people actually have disposable income, or in a class where people have NO income?
Susan…
“There are many ways in which male biology favors the male. Non-consensual sex is an example.”
That’s why the law punishes rapists. Balance/justice/deterrent.
“So is control via physical abuse.”
Again, the law is used to counterbalance this.
“In a time of crisis or physical hardship, men are more likely to survive. Men can ward off attackers better than women can.”
True. And men have always been utilized to take that advantage and apply it towards helping/saving women&children first (until recently).
“Men do not risk dying in childbirth. (My OB told me that 100 years ago I would have died in childbirth. I was in labor for 38 hours and never dilated. There would have been a “child” or “mother” decision.)”
Agreed, tho women usually did not risk dying to find food/provisions for that child. Where modern medicine nullified the childbearing death risk, supermarkets nullified the death while hunting wild boar risk.
“Men are not physically bound to their children as nursing mothers are – they have more choice and mobility.”
Agreed, yet for the most part they did stick around…
..tho women for the last 40 years have seemed to make the argument that they didn’t require a man for anything including parenting period, much less physically bound.
In each case there is a counter balance, whether by law or social etiquette wrt to understood differences in genders and addressed it to be as equal as possible.
There is no balance in the abortion argument you make by using biology as the scapegoat. It is precisely this type of mentality that is making the rise of expatting to other countries desirable to escape child support payments of children they never had any intention of having. Men are starting to financially abort already. The only cost is knowing they can’t come back, but it’s the lesser of two evils.
To them, the children that popped out and breathed life don’t exist, anymoreso than the what-could-have-been’s in the dumpster piling up out back of the clinic. Your asking men to retroactively care about something they didn’t want just because it made it out of the gate.. they took the feminist approach, consider it aborted and moved on without caring what was going on in the mothers womb. Thank feminists for that mentality in men.
@Ted D
“Wow. Just wow. So this young woman has already decided to destroy another life so that she can enjoy sex consequence free? What a perfect show of just how crappy her character is”
How would you describe the character of men who would like to enjoy sex consequence free?
In short, guys need to escalate and girls need to filter.
Yes, it is more complicated than that, but these “talks” that need to take place, in a more sane world, would likely be initiated, much more often, by the one party and not the other.
Apparently with these new tests, there is no reason for the parties to wait until birth to discovder who the father is.
Wow! That’ll be quite a game changer!
Fred – “You must say that the State has ultimate power to direct that women give birth, for the interests of the State.”
Well, the state can already take my money for it’s own interests. What? You say it is for the child? Really? Then why is it that women on welfare have that support collected and managed BY THE STATE?
“And I thought all these conservatives were for “small” government. So how do you enforce this big new public works program? Forced ultrasounds? Done by who? If not new bureaucracies, do you rely on Upright Citizens Brigades?”
I am for small government. But, since I had to accept Obamacare anyway, THEY can pay for it.
@Herb (#621)
Which is more likely: women agreeing to restrain theirs or men having theirs unrestrained as well.
I’d prefer A, but I’m old enough to know I’ll never live to see a US (or West in general) that will embrace it.
=======
Hey Herb,
You can still have influence, though. When someone starts “prude shaming” , you can speak up and it will mean a LOT coming from a guy.
You can encourage positive behavior in all kinds of ways. Maybe not for the whole country, but definitely within your social circle and online. Really.
@Fred Flange
Demanding child support when women can abort at will overturns the personhood of men by harnessing their labor to the whims of another without their consent (remember, if sex is consent to fatherhood you must explain why it’s not consent to motherhood) and violates the Constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.
Then again, I’m betting you’re Plain Jane anyway.
Jackie – “How would you describe the character of men who would like to enjoy sex consequence free?”
Maybe you aren’t familiar with my opinions, but I mostly dislike anyone that sees sex as consequence free fun. I’m not a practicing Catholic, but I still adhere to most of its teachings in regards to morality despite my disagreements with the Church (meaning the organization that pretends to be about faith). I hold both men and women to the same standard, and frankly it is a pretty steep one. I’ve made it clear that I think cads (meaning men that deceive women for sex) are just about the lowest form of humanity next to child molesters and rapists, and anyone that actively participates in hookup culture are morally corrupt and ethically challenged.
As you can imagine, my views aren’t very popular in the Western world. But I’ve walked the walk, and I have no problems sitting on my high horse.
But you were right, it isn’t hard.
I recall recently calling you an asshole, and you said, “I’m just being myself.” lol
@Ramble (#626)
“Yes, it is more complicated than that, but these “talks” that need to take place, in a more sane world, would likely be initiated, much more often, by the one party and not the other.”
Can you elaborate on this, please? I’m not sure I understand your implication. It seems like the ones who need to initiate the talk the most, judging from this thread, are the men.
I also don’t think it would have to be complicated. Like Emily said above, If the girl says, “If I get pregnant, I’m staying pregnant.” Or the guy can, I *never* want kids. Do you have Plan B, just in case?
Definitely not romantic, but WAY less headaches down the road.
“if sex is consent to fatherhood you must explain why it’s not consent to motherhood”
THIS
THIS
THIS.
e·qual·i·ty/iˈkwälitē/
Noun:
The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.
The condition of being equal in number or amount.
You do understand that you live longer, right?
In general, yes–though I’m not entirely sure why. The article I linked to says the gap is closing as more and more men make lifestyle changes like quitting smoking and staying fit. These are individual choices, so fairness really doesn’t apply.
It may be that women do have a biological edge in terms of longevity for some biological reason, but my initial comment regarding fairness and biology was tongue-in-cheek. You can feel that biology is unfair, but what can you really do about it? (unless of course you’re in medical research)
@M3
BTW, before you say the risks aren’t the same I’d point out that consent to military service to be an Air Force Yeoman and consent to military service to be a Navy Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (carrier deck crew basically). Yet we treat the consent the same and they’re on the same pay scale.
I’m not sure how legit this video is, but here’s a Brazilian doctor who said he created the male birth control pill but was shut down by Betty Friedan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o
Men always were “persons.” Women were, sort of. Until recent times. Again, see the historical precedent I cited, that you can’t be bothered with.
I am not talking about unjust child support awards, esp. in a cuckold situation. Different topic, actually on that I can agree with you more than you might think. What I see is you and your buddies talking about outlawing birth control so men can “have their say.” Only one way to do that, as I said. If your view prevails, then you’ve done it.
I also see you dodge my eugenics point: that if the State is to dictate who must give birth, the State can dictate who MUST be aborted/sterilized.
And if your heroes win and Obamacare is outlawed, I ask again: how do you and your small government plan to enforce your new social order?
Me and my Plain Jane self will wait over here for your answer.
@Ted D
“I’ve made it clear that I think cads (meaning men that deceive women for sex) are just about the lowest form of humanity next to child molesters and rapists, and anyone that actively participates in hookup culture are morally corrupt and ethically challenged.”
Ted, thank you for sharing your views. I didn’t realize you felt that vehemently against the hookup culture, as there have been many threads where people (mostly guys) have bragged about promiscuity, that didn’t seem to elicit this kind of response from you.
The result — unwanted pregnancy– moves you to much stronger feelings. Or so it appears to me, these threads get pretty long and I miss a lot.
By the way, how would you react to someone on *their* high horse judging you for cohabitation? Even if they were not religious?
The most common answer involved the idea that the insignificant (teenaged) girl would become something important after having a child.
That tends to be a lower SES thing. Often the only goal these girls have is motherhood and, since marriage is not the norm in their enviornments, they feel that nothing is to be gained by waiting. Ironically, the birth of a child sometimes motivates these girls to have other goals. When my folks were in the nursing home, I met a lot of aides who were slowly gettting their lives together because they wanted to do well for their child.
MC and UMC girls tend to be more careful in avoiding pregnancy because they do have other goals and dreams that they know an unplanned pregnancy will kill.
@Fred Flange
I ignored it because it does not follow.
Preventing the intentional termination of a pregnancy interrupts a natural process. In outlawing it you’d be saying, “if you engage in behavior that results in a sequence of events beginning you must allow it to continue.”
Sterilization is the intentional prevent of natural processes from occurring. It does not naturally proceed from any normal human action. Prevention of interruption of a natural occurrence is quite different from preventing a natural occurrence by forced intervention.
You’d been smarter to try birth control.
Also, historically, advocates of abortion and sterilization have more often been the same people and advocates of eugenics have consistently advocated for abortion and sterilization as part of their process. If outlawing abortion was a pro-eugenic policy and aligned with sterilization why sterilization advocates been abortion advocates while the most prominent anti-abortion forces have also been anti-sterilization.
Sex is consent by both parties that should an unwanted pregnancy occur, the decision will be the woman’s. This is what I told my then 17 yo son. I said, “The choice is hers. You have no choice. Do not get her pregnant. You must wear a condom every single time.”
No one is being deceived here. There is full disclosure. This is the world we live in. If you don’t like the laws, work to change them. Personally, I think the equality argument falls flat due to real sex differences, but that’s just my opinion.
Herb
“BTW, before you say the risks aren’t the same I’d point out that consent to military service to be an Air Force Yeoman and consent to military service to be a Navy Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (carrier deck crew basically). Yet we treat the consent the same and they’re on the same pay scale.”
Herb, i’m agreeing with you. I’m talking about the same act spawning a different outcome based on gender.
both understand risk of sex can = pregnancy.
woman is allowed to opt out of risk at all stages, including not having sex. she cannot be compelled to become a parent at any stage.
man is allowed only to opt out by not having sex. else he is compelled by the state to become a parent against his will.
in a world that feminism fought for the right of women to be able to enjoy sex for pleasure and enjoy being sexual beings without the fear of it ruining their lives by becoming parents long before their time, it’s about time to extend that courtesy of ‘without fear’ to men as well.
that’s why i added the dictionary definition to what you said, to bring into sharp relief that equality is not what women want if they say the status quo is the proper route.
@Fred Flange
Welcome to the debate. I can confirm that you are not Plain Jane by the intelligence of your arguments. It should be obvious to all. (PJ is a female troll who mostly talks about Desi Indian mating practices.)
I’ve shared before the story of my son’s gf doing Teach for America and how she had 4 pregnant girls in her 9th grade math class both years. According to her, the identity of the fathers was ignored, even if known. The boys had zero involvement, none of the girls even called them boyfriends. None provided financial support of any kind, nor did the girls seek it. All of them planned to use mom (approx. age 30) as a full-time babysitter. In the lowest SES groups, men really are being eliminated from the picture. I recall Kate Bolick writing in her article about a woman she spent time with in a Baltimore neighborhood. There were women, and children, but no men anywhere in sight.
@SW, 596
Then what about this:
In order to safeguard the best protection of the child and trump the personal gain for both parents, the mother makes the final decision concerning abortion (meaning the father cannot have the “veto” ability), but the child comes first by limiting the privacy of the custodial parents:
- The money spent on the child can be tracked by both parents;
- Child support is split among parents proportional to the time allowed with the child times the income of the parent. Mathematical expression by (1,2):
child_support = x*t_x*i_x + y*t_y*i_y (1)
y*t_x*i_x = x*t_y*i_y (2)
child support: costs for child
t_x: time spent with mother
i_x: income of mother
t_y: time spent with father
i_y: income of father
- Proportionality ratio constraints imposed (R1 = t_x*i_x/t_y*i_y and R2 = 1/R2).
Now if we traverse all the possibilities (in all cases the mother keeps the child):
- Mother focused on the child, both parents financially stable: no problem here, conform with today’s earnings.
- Mother focused on the child, mother financially unstable: father must pay more, his duty to support child.
- Mother focused on the child, father financially unstable: mother pays more. Deadbeat dads not respecting the proportionality ratio constraints get punished (how?)
- Mother wants money: feedback system of child cost allow father to demand refund of money not spent on child. Gold-diggers sad. Less cost for mother if more time spent with father. Father may demand limitations on spending (e.g. no 5 ponies for birthday).
- Mother wants money, fails and wants to lower her input: proportionality ratio constraints must be respected, mother gets punished (how?).
In short, irresponsible parents get smacked and the problem of gold diggers is regulated. Now the blanks need to be filled in and the model must be tweaked.
I have nothing but gratitude for being able to have the privilege of carrying our child, given my past difficulties, stillbirth and miscarriage.
Isn’t it so amazing that we women will endure all that and still go back for more–and feel it’s a privilege on top of it? Despite all my troubles, I was still trying for number 3 until the doctors said it was impossible. I love having my kids, and I loved being pregnant.
Like I said, I wouldn’t have sounded like a dick.
@Susan
I’m well aware of that and I believe it is unsustainable.
The understandability actually comes from one of your biological differences: males have higher mobility without children (and don’t have the restricted period in pregnancy).
Then how about an economic one.
In the natural state women bear all the risk and responsibility for pregnancy but they also have all the control. Men have none of the above. Social rules were created, as I said, to swap risk and responsibility for authority. Pregnancy was not to be ended but men had to be responsible for child they created.
Thus, an exchange of resources was negotiated: baby making for support of some form.
Unrestricted abortion on demand is a method to remove the risk and responsibility externally. However, with the risk removed externally, instead of by transfer, makes the viability of the responsibility transfer zero in the long term.
Men are now paying a price for children without being able to be ensured children. People forced to pay for something they never receive will eventually find a way to quit paying.
If you don’t like male abortion or abortion restrictions how about default joint physical custody (which is being fought every time it is introduced) and putting as much effort into custody enforcement as we do child support enforcement?
@Herb
However, after the hospital Friday I feel much better and can keep a good heart rate longer.
Were you sick? Are you OK now? Did I miss something?
No, I was not leading to that, though, in the context of child0support laws, I would not disagree with that.
I was trying to say that for the “separation of concerns” that exist between the sexes, and that we *want* to exists between the sexes (i.e. we want girls to be feminine and guys to be masculine), it would be up to girls to initiate conversations about what his intentions are.
IOW, for a man to be pragmatic at a time when he needs to escalate and be sexually exciting (and mysterious, god god do girls love it when you are mysterious) is not, well, pragmatic.
The girl is on the receiving end of his advances (he’s storming the castle, she’s the castle) and she is the one that needs to filter these things.
So, if they just met and she thinks he’s cute and charming, she will stick her tongue down his throat without too many “important” conversations.
But, after a few dates and he is getting friskier and friskier, she might put on the brakes and (broken record, here) say: Hey, you are hot as hell, but blah blah blah…what are your intentions?
Someone can come up with a better way to communicate it, but you get the idea.
@Susan
And you don’t see the problem with that?
Because that’s where we’re headed and this idea of reproductive freedom and equality is the underlying reason. You cannot teach men forever pregnancy is only about a woman and not have them believe it.
I think it’s bad but if that’s where we want to go, then let’s be honest enough to do it.
@J
Went to the doc with chest pains and tachycardia Thursday. He sent me to my cardiologist who scheduled a heart cath for Friday.
I came away with stints two and three to correct two 90% blockages and an overnight stay at Emory.
…since marriage is not the norm in their enviornments…
No, but it used to be. Ultimately, certain people made certain choices.
MC and UMC girls tend to be more …
IME, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class and upper class girls tend to go after what they want.
@M3 #607
I love it!!! You really should make an app for that. I doubt it would stand up in court because, as Lisa Bloom pointed out, a person could be coerced into signing or to drunk to know what they were signing, but perhaps having a little bit of business to attend to before drunkenly screwing a stranger might be sobering for both parties.
Wow, Herb, sounds like a close call. Is a stint like a shunt that holds the blocked area open? What is the prognosis? (I don’t mean to be nosy, just concerned. If it’s too personal for the net, I understand.)
Susan, re: HUS for men. I wonder if young women may face the old Groucho Marx dilemma—”I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member”—in the near future. If the smart play for men becomes the avoidance of marriage and co-hab, then women may start to feel that the genuinely commitment-minded men are either fools or desperately lacking in attractive options.
Future Conversation…?
Anne: “I really like Steve. I hope he’s the type who wants to settle down…”
Julia: “Anne, nice try, but Steve’s not an idiot.”
Anne: “You’re right. In this SMP, a smart guy with options would never want to settle down. If I was a guy, I sure wouldn’t.”
(collective sigh)
@Susan Walsh
The choice is hers, you have no choice.
Well, the choice is also his as to whether he wants to marry or willingly father children, at any point in his life.
A number of my friends in their 30′s and 40′s do quite well – lawyers, accountants, small business owners, tech – and in another age, they’d be considered a “catch” for a young woman – tall, confident, affluent guys.
Most of all them are single, though they’ll rotate through a cycle of pretty girlfriends.
Occasionally, people ask them why they’re not married.
They pretty much all say,”Why the hell would I put myself in that position? ”
It may be that most, if not all young or fertile women feel that all of the parental, financial, reproductive, and legal choices are justly theirs, due to “their biology.”
But men have a few choices available to them as well, and not marrying (even for UMC, college educated guys) is becoming increasingly popular.
Your unwavering support for complete female control of relationships is precisely why so many men are abandoning the idea of marriage and fatherhood altogether.
We enjoy having relationships. But we are not complete idiots.
@J
Not really, the last time I waited until the doc was amazed I hadn’t had a heart attack (the proverbial guy who just drops dead at 42).
That’s pretty much what a stint is (Wikipedia has a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_stent).
Prognosis is I was almost a bypass candidate this time so I need to get the diabetes under control. Even with that, given my family history I suspect more stints and bypass are in my future (when and how much is what I can control).
In the lowest SES groups, men really are being eliminated from the picture.
Althought there is a lot of objection about this in the ‘sphere where the majority of men are educated and middle class, I wonder what percentage of unwed fathers IRL do actually want to be involved. The ‘sphere aggregates men who have been hurt by family law, but I’d bet there is a larger cohort of young men, primarily lower SES and fatherless themselves, who are glad not to be involved.
Diabetes too? Hell to the yes, you’ve got to get it under control. MY FIL died of a combo of uncontrolled diabetes and heart trouble. It’s a worrisome family history, but you should exercise all the control you can.
Every time you get ticked at the nurse, think of it as validation for good life choices. Some patients feel relief when their spouse is forced out of the room. That is the real tragedy.
Question: do you think that enabling people to “live in tragedy” is a way to improve future conditions for themselves and others? Just curious you seem to have bought the whole “people are stupid we should protect them from their stupidity” without thinking on how to reduce such stupidity. The whole “If you feed a man a fish, you had saved him from starving that day if you teach him how to fish then you had saved him from starving all their lives” When I keep getting my pregnancy pamphlets asking if I’m in an abusive relationship, every single month I did some research and they only say that “some women will think about this and maybe get motivated to move on” listed some cases but there are not numbers of how many of this women compared with the ones that are no constantly bothered with this actually do leave. And as mentioned before I’m a woman of results, this sounds like enabling and pandering more than offering solutions.
I think that she meant, like a Wordpress poll.
Now I’m confused I meant like Polldaddy polls were people just pick and choice and vote, like MTV awards…is there any other kind of poll? Did my native language screwed up?
And, as one commenter here stated, some, at the extreme, believe, “You are not a real man, you don’t even have a child.” While I am guessing that is not representative, it may help explain some of the thinking.
I can tell you that when J showed us the level of illegitimacy in my country as higher I can tell you that at least 50& of those pregnancies were planned whether to take a chance to tie up some guy or because in certain environments after certain age not having any child is a mark against you for both men and women, environment makes the natural law, sad but true.
And where’s my tax credit for not being a single mom? (half joking)
Next to your tax credit for not being overweight, not smoking, not using illegal drugs, not contracting STDs…is it me or we are paying people for doing stupid things more than we are recognizing smart ones? Nah that is just crazy talk what kind of intelligent species would award bad behaviour and ignore good one…;)
but cads usually suffer from no consequences
Oh they do. It takes for their dicks to start to not work for them to see the consequences of their actions but trust me there is nothing more pitiful that seeing an old man rotting away on solitude because every single kid he sired hates his guts and in the case of the childless they also look at their last days knowing not a single tear will be shed and that some will even celebrate their death. It takes a time but Karma is a bitch.
I want to clarify that this guys here are not defending Roissy and his PUA’s (hey that sounds like a rock band name!) most of the guys saddle up with child support are usually Beta guys that though they got lucky Alpha’s already know how to deal with this, like mentioned before if the woman gets a “I’m late” they clearly show their intentions to leave them and most women will quietly get a procedure done, and I know one of my friends that learned to make a “special tea” for this cases. So I think most of the time is about a guy that thinks is getting lucky but then finds out he is not, YMMV.
Related
Halle Berry ordered to pay child support to the father of her kid.
http://www.gossipcop.com/halle-berry-child-support-gabriel-aubry-20000-month/
Ultimately, certain people made certain choices.
I’m not sure who you mean by “certain people.” Among welfare receipients, the government made some choices back in the 60s that lead to the dissolution of families. A women could not receive “aid to dependent children” if there was a man in the house because taxpayers were loathe to support unemployed men who were said to be abusing the welfare system.
IME, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class and upper class girls tend to go after what they want.
Who doesn’t?
Now I’m confused I meant like Polldaddy polls were people just pick and choice and vote, like MTV awards…is there any other kind of poll? Did my native language screwed up?
No, you got it. I thought that was what you were referring to.
Jackie – ” By the way, how would you react to someone on *their* high horse judging you for cohabitation? Even if they were not religious?”
Lol. I am a non-religious economic conservative with libertarian leanings. I’m so used to everyone looking down on my views that I’m pleasantly surprised when someone agrees with me. I will be the first to admit that my morality and ethics are often extreme, but I really do believe in being equally fair (or unfair) to everyone. Including myself.
One can pat fathers on the head, call us heroes, thank us profusely, or even argue till the cows come home about the moral codes of chivalry or charity or what have you, but –
As long as women hold all the cards in marriage, parenthood, relationships, etc, you’ll see fewer and fewer men signing up for oodles and oodles of potential financial and emotional devastation.
Unless and until marriage is made desirable for men again, we will see more illegitimacy, fewer stable, loving relationships, and more and more acrimony, distrust, and resentment between men and women.
And we’ll see more and more people at older and older ages participating solely in that “hookup culture” that we all profess to despise.
Men’s needs matter, too, no matter what legal protection or privilege we extend to women, based on their “biology.”
@Quarter pounder with Cheese #591
I just meant that lefties like to make out that the ‘State’ will pick up the bill, not any ‘person’. In fact ‘Teh State’ is the tax payers – victims of legalised theft.
I don’t wish to be individually robbed by a woman, I’m just saying that state benefits just mean that society (including me) in general is being robbed – liberals tend to try and obfuscate that.
(p.s. like your name too ‘RWC’, just teasing)
@Ramble #446
“Just1x is about the greatest representative the MRA community ever had.”
You forgot the smiley, just sayin’
I know. And, IME, many, MANY, people in the lower class are very much in favor of large, centralized (expensive) programs from which they “benefit”.
who doesn’t
My response was to this:
I was going to go into a long explanation as to what I was getting to, but, instead, I will simply say this:
I have plenty of experience with girls, and people in general, from the LMC. So, so many of their problems are self-inflicted.
So when you say UMC and MC girls do X, it implies that LMC girls are different. And they are. You are not wrong. But, their choices, regardless of how much they are influenced by gov’t programs, are often bad on their face.
@Susan
“Personally, I think the equality argument falls flat due to real sex differences, but that’s just my opinion.”
yeah, that’s about where I end up as well. I don’t like it, I just think that no equal solution is possible in this issue. The non-hormonal male pill should provide a major step forward for the non-fuckwit men. I don’t want the ‘chop’, but a non-hormonal pill – cool.
Just1X, a lot of MRAs have that bitterness that they just can’t shake. And it makes their message to hard to swallow or even listen to.
You, like a good Englishman, are able to deliver the message with just enough sugar.
I have plenty of experience with girls, and people in general, from the LMC. So, so many of their problems are self-inflicted.
I would agree with you re the LMC. Both DH and I have proletarian roots and worked very hard to escape that environment.
@Ramble
I had the anger, I just think that it doesn’t help, especially here. I don’t think that this path is unique to me. The red-pill takes a while to go down but interacting with intelligent people here has helped. That’s why I value Susan’s extreme patience at times and why I don’t rail when my views are not 100% aligned with what’s said here.
and thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it even as I can assure you that it’s beyond reality.
Things to do, good night
” If the smart play for men becomes the avoidance of marriage and co-hab, then women may start to feel that the genuinely commitment-minded men are either fools or desperately lacking in attractive options.” – Bastiat Blogger #657
I actually think this is already the case. I’ve experienced tremendously poor result when dealing with women from a relationship-minded angle, as well as much better results when operating with a short-term, no-commitment angle. Although I’m not sure it anything to do with marital laws, and more to do with the heightened SMV of a uncommittable man.
@Feral
You’re too smart for me with that fancy math, but everything you suggest in your model strikes me as extremely reasonable. For the record, even if the parents are not together, I think the best thing for the child is 50/50 custody. Fathers should have equal access to their children. If they don’t want it, they don’t have to put in the time, though they still have to provide.
Not sure what you mean here. In the natural state women have no control.
Until recently, very few women attempted to end pregnancies, and many who did died trying. I believe monogamy arose as pair-bonding was shown to increase life expectancy for offspring, and it has thrived because it promotes industry and innovation.
Ah, I see you anticipated my comment already. I absolutely support maximum rights for fathers re custody, visitation, no moving away, and full accountability for child support payments. Not a penny goes to the mother or even toward joint expenditures like vacations or a family car, etc.
@Herb
Of course I see the problem with that. Believe me, nothing I’ve said here mitigates the societal problems we’re facing as a result of the availability of the Pill and abortion on demand. It’s a disaster. I just don’t think “financial abortion” (I hate that term, btw) is the answer.
I’m so worried about this country. Last night I was talking with my husband about Bastiat’s concern about possible hyperinflation here, and my mention of Weimar Germany. I thought he’d say, pish posh, no way. Instead he said he shares my concern and could definitely imagine that as a worst case scenario.
I think we’re in for a rough ride all the way around.
About state benefits, I knew a guy who was shacked up with a woman but not married to her, and her paychecks from the kids she has with him also go to him. I also know of a guy who lives with a woman on disability benefits and essentially leeching off taxpayer money.
It’s really sad that these cases exist, but I feel a bit sorry for them, too. It isn’t like they are able to live amazing lives. They are just parasites, able to get by without doing honest work. If they had been born in a third world country it would be very different.
Obviously, incentives matter. People in very poor countries will work back-breaking jobs for some money. They don’t get those state benefits. They will starve on the streets or be at the mercy of charity if something unfortunate happens to them. There is no such thing as a social safety net. One can debate the morality of this, but the result is definitely higher work ethic.
Earlier I proposed that men can absolve themselves of child support duties, which incentivizes them to not care if they impregnate a woman. But at the same time it is a disincentive to women who want to sleep with a rich guy hoping to snag some of his sperm. That might bring some equilibrium, since women are supposed to be the sexual gatekeepers. There is also the possibility of giving up the child for adoption in this scenario.
Thus the woman has the right to give up motherhood, i.e. give up the child for adoption, and the man has the right to give up fatherhood. It’s equality as the MRA has demanded. The state might pick up the slack, or it might simply place the child in adoption. I don’t see why my suggestion was so horrendously offensive, as the scenario does not involve forced abortions.
OMG I missed this too! Herb, I’m so sorry you had that scare. You definitely might want to reconsider getting all worked up in this thread!
@Cooper
“I actually think this is already the case. I’ve experienced tremendously poor result when dealing with women from a relationship-minded angle, as well as much better results when operating with a short-term, no-commitment angle”
I can back this claim. This is especially true in a college setting.
@ SW:
+1,000,000
Economically, a single mother is way worse off than the father will be. Ultimately, I feel like the issue is that men feel it’s unfair women make the final choice on whether or not to have a baby. Biology isn’t fair — babies grow inside the mother’s body. That’s how it is.
Now custody laws and paternity rights — those are things we can make more fair. I agree, right now it’s stacked towards women. (As I previously stated upthread, if the parents are unwed or divorce I think 50/50 custody should be default which nullifies the child support issue.)
But I do not, nor will I ever support allowing men to force women to abort or continue pregnancies against women’s wish. Her body, her choice.
@Bastiat
Your comment is alarming and at the same time seems prescient.
That really would be hypergamy run amok.
@andronicus
That’s fair. Although I would deny that I support female control of relationships. In fact, the female has no say in acquiring one. Knowing that a man will be legally obligated to support any offspring is hardly what I call “complete control.”
No doubt! I don’t think those babydaddies at the high school gave it a second thought. They were no doubt on to the next 9th grader. In fact, this whole brouhaha started when I shared the story of a young man I know who fathered a child and opted to have zero involvement, including financial. The kid is now five, and the mother has never asked the father for a penny. Eerily, the kid looks just like him, and the resemblance is seen by many on Facebook. Yet another way Facebook may change lives. That kid won’t have any trouble figuring out who his father is if he ever gets curious.
SW @ 523:
Well said, Susan!
I agree with all of that. I think acknowledging gender differences is important! We are not the same, but that doesn’t make one gender lesser than the other.
@Ted D
” I’m so used to everyone looking down on my views that I’m pleasantly surprised when someone agrees with me.”
Haha! May I join your club?
I think I may be even more of an outlier than you, possibly. I try not to bring up my views in real life, though. I am WAY more free here on HUS, safe in anonymity.
@andronicus
Again, that’s fair. But the shame is that when marriage works, and children are planned for, life is good. Much, much better than being single, for both sexes. In fact, it’s financially efficient, i.e. beneficial and emotionally gratifying.
Every man must decide whether he wants to take that risk. So far, as many male Millennials as female Millennials cite marriage and family as a very high priority. The marriage rate is declining, but not in the MC and UMC.
@Just1x
“Just1x is about the greatest representative the MRA community ever had.”
Co-signed! I called it way back when he was posting YouTubes of Deliverance mashed up with quotes from Joseph Conrad’s _Heart of Darkness_. The horror, the horror.
My dream is for Uncle Tom Munson to get well and then combine forces for the greatest podcast that ever was.
Meanwhile, I imagine Just1X to be the James Bond of MRAs, living a cool lifestyle with all the gadgets and breaking hearts, across the pond.
Been too hasty with the model, should be:
child_support = x + y (1)
y/x = (t_y*i_y)/(t_x*i_x) (2)
Set a maximum value for child_support, any excess money will be refunded using expression (2). A system like this would balance the problems without any pendulum swinging past its intended value. Of course, this is theory and in practice we will often see unexpected outcomes. But its a more realistic approach towards “meeting in the middle” than the male abortion idea.
Parents may opt for a simple 50/50 scheme, both in financial contribution and time distribution. In problem situations where you wouldn’t expect parents to reach consensus because one or both are manipulative, greedy, … the model will come down hard upon those not respecting the other. Additional dynamics can be build in, I’m thinking of:
- The right of each parent to increases the joint physical custody towards 50%, if he/she can bear the extra demanded resources.
@Just1X
I have a question for you. I’ve heard MRAs say that women don’t want it, because it robs them of control. I guess they mean feminists, but I really don’t understand this. How could anyone oppose the right of anyone else to prevent pregnancy? Are feminists actively fighting against male birth control? I think it would be awesome – it will definitely go a long way toward solving this intractable problem.
My parting shot for this thread is whatever anyone’s opinion on the matter, i’m doing my part. Already booked the appointment for the vasectomy.
Looking forward to the day men get safe reversible birth control available to them. I have no lack of faith in them taking it and using it. In conjunction with women taking theirs, i see a 100% non failure rate, and no more ooopsies the pill failed.
I can’t wait to see what happens when the price of sperm joins that of the egg on the evolutionary scale when the supply of man goo dry’s up. I hope im around to see it
@Herb
Herb, I’m so sorry to hear about your recent health woes. Get well soon and take it easy!
I cannot answer your questions directed at me, Ms. Walsh, because frankly I cannot tell what your true mission is. With respect to my wish to talk to the men who appear here, I’m merely following the dictum of another female blogger, Alte:
“Nothing will change until the money runs out. Until then, women won’t care…If you have a rational argument, take it to the men.”
@Just1X #673
“@Quarter pounder with Cheese #591″
Just1X: “I just meant that lefties like to make out that the ‘State’ will pick up the bill, not any ‘person’. In fact ‘Teh State’ is the tax payers – victims of legalised theft.”
I lean left. I embrace the benefits of some level of tax-based support for the poor, including single mothers. My feelings are not based on pity, though. I think that without taxes, America’s lower class would resemble the sprawling shanties in India and South Africa. That’s bad for the country as a whole.
Just1X: “I don’t wish to be individually robbed by a woman, I’m just saying that state benefits just mean that society (including me) in general is being robbed – liberals tend to try and obfuscate that.”
I don’t feel like I’m being robbed. I see my taxes as an investment in my country/ society. It’s a bit painful, but it works. Now, the idea of having those taxes jump up after letting fathers off the hook for child support, that’s what made me change my mind a bit. Even if the guy got cuckolded, he is more directly responsible for the creation of the “baby’s mama” situation than me. If he isn’t going to get billed for it, and I’m already supporting her at some level with my taxes, I don’t want to be the one paying even more on top of that.
@Herb
I’m sorry to hear about your issues, please take it easy, breathe and try to relax you don’t do any good by getting ill.
Hope #593
I’m not sure what your conclusion is supposed to be. The argument repeated here is that women face unique risks when they attempt to procreate. I pointed out that the same applies to men as well. What’s your point?
@Hollenhund
I have a Mission Statement on my About page.
As I said, I have no problem with you debating with men, but why are you crashing the party? Is the manosphere leaving you a bit anemic lately? Not enough red meat? You certainly spend a lot of time online – can’t you start your own blog?
Anyway, I’ve already returned to regularly scheduled programming. I’m sure you’ll have no interest in discussing the history of dating.
Hollenhund, my point stands. You arguments had some personal attacks and emotional appeals, so I made some emotional appeal of my own.
Ramble, thanks. You got my point.
>> “Meanwhile, I imagine Just1X to be the James Bond of MRAs, living a cool lifestyle with all the gadgets and breaking hearts, across the pond.”
I’m so used to seeing his avatar that I just assume that he’s *actually* Ben Stiller.
I’m so used to seeing his avatar that I just assume that he’s *actually* Ben Stiller.
I though he was The Comedian from Watchmen :/
Um…yeah, I know about the About page, but it’s so generic it reads like something straight out of some advice column in a glossy women’s magazine or some mainstream book about relationship advice. Nothing concrete about your views.
Red meat is indeed disappearing because the mainstream discourse about “gender relations” is plunging to such depths in quality it just makes all sane men yawn. It was interesting to see how Manosphere bloggers eviscerated the first “Man up!” and “Where have all the good men gone?” type of dumbass mainstream articles, but now such articles are practically everywhere and have no originality to them whatsoever, and they’re so lame and tiresome it’s not even funny anymore. I’m sure the time is coming when nobody will actually bother to debunk them. Waste of time. And on the part of traditionalists and other useful idiots of gynocentrism, I see the same idiotic arguments repeated over and over again.
The simple fact is that everything is completely predictable at this point. As the vicious circle in the SMP continues and female hypergamy becomes more and more frustrated, all the hand-wringing, shaming, whining and cries for even more anti-male laws – coming from middle-age women and their hangers-on, plus other minions of the Man Up Brigade – will grow more and more shrill, and since the situation is unsalvageable, the only sane and laudable approach is to rescue some men from the insanity through clear reasoning.
Again, remember what Alte has written: “nothing will change until the money runs out; until then, women won’t care.”
>> “I though he was The Comedian from Watchmen :/ ”
I think his old avatar just stuck in my brain. He’s not fooling me with this new avatar. I know the truth!
@Susan
“Are feminists actively fighting against male birth control? I think it would be awesome – it will definitely go a long way toward solving this intractable problem.”
I’m not Just1X nor an MRA but I can answer this.
Two issues involved.
1. Lots of sperm. Very hard to kill all the lil wigglin bastards.
10years ago it would have been impossible. Recently (say 5 years) theres been huge advances in SARMs (I might have that screwed up a bit) which “modulate” (up or down) androgen (testosterone) receptors. They can be targeted tissue specifically.
Its pretty much exactly the same as the method used for the female pill. (I believe you ladies take SERMs).
So only recently has a male pill been a real possibility.
2. On the feminist shutting research down.
I’m not gonna point fingers but pretty much everytime someone brings it up it gets shouted down. That probably was largely due to diffculty (impossibility?) of the task.
However now that its realistic big pharma’s going at it like a bar slut at Tucker Max. However for some odd reason their hitting road block after roadbloack. (Not just od the scientific/medial/thinking-cap variety but buearacracy.)
We could go back and forth on whether or not its the feminists but let me explain why a male pill is bad for women. (Like a hundred times worse than the female pill was for men.)
You’ve said it yourself egg > sperm (BTW biologically true but I would certainly hope any wife appreciated hubbys juice as equal to her own. If not that’d just be weird.)
Now with pill, egg = sperm.
Men have always kept commitment, resources etc. (btw isn’t it just lucky that women evolved to enjoy love and not resources otherwise reproduction would’ve stopped completely?)
Women have always controlled sex i.e reproduction.
The female pill actually fucked the system by increasing the price of reproduction but dropping the price of sex.
A male pill will basically eliminate the reproductive control of women.
Reproduction, men = women.
Commitment, men >women.
Sex, women>men.
Technically for the first time in human history men and women will be entirely equal. However women are going to take a step down. Thats not gonna feel good.
Also, for women who don’t want reproduction or commitment they are pretty good to go as king of the pile.
Women who want commitment and babies however are in a screwed position. Why?
Reproduction is now equal but as I stated earlier the price of sex is quite low.
Therefore commitment will hold greater vaue than sex.
The uncoupling of reproduction and sex has created a system in which women had their power split into two camps.
Sex got priced way down.
Reproduction has remained the trump card.
Remove that and you have nothing to offer a man. I.e Men then control both relationships and reproduction because sex is vaueless.
P.S I think preventing a women from having an abortion is inhumane and ridiculous.
Susan said:
“Herpes is definitely transmitted via a genital sore, and a condom does prevent it.”
____________________________
Viruses are amazing little things – little Terminators that exist solely to make copies of themselves, half machine and half alive.
There are two types of herpes relevant to our conversation – Herpes Simplex 1 and Herpes Simplex 2.
Back in the day, everyone considered HSV1 to be oral herpes (cold sores) and HSV2 to be the type on your junk.
That’s no longer the case – you can have either type on either place. About 40% of new sexually transmitted HSV infections involve HSV1 on the genitals. One of the interesting things about this type of virus is it’s reluctance to move around the body – basically, if you’ve got HSv1 oral herpes, you won’t get it on your genitals. Nobody knows why that is, but it’s a hot topic in virology. By the time the virologists figure it out, the damn thing will have mutated anyway…
Don’t feel too safe, though – a person with HSV1 orally can still pick up HSV2 genitally. HSV can also be tranmitted through oral sex – either type. Also, the amount of viral shedding is at maximum slightly before a sore appears, so people are very contagious just before they exhibit symptoms of another outbreak.
Nobody has successfully predicted the length of infection, either – in some people, the virus causes one outbreak and just fizzles away after 5-10 years, while others are doomed to painful lesions periodically for life.
Also, I don’t have herpes. My serum HSV1 and HSV2 antibody levels are available upon request (IgG and IgM, bitches!). I just think viruses are cool.
@Herb:
Hope you feel better, man. Avoid the CABG if you can, stents are wayyyy better long-term. Work on that blood sugar, sugarpie.
Herb said:
“I’m back to wondering if the best strategy isn’t assuming (at least on a social/legal/political level) women are the enemy.”
_____________________________
I think considering women the enemy is a bit of overkill. Men should just keep in mind that even the most objective, fair, and ethical woman is going to have a few blind spots, and a few biases that are irreconcilable with his.
My best friend is a hardcore social issues Republican. I’m a card carrying Libertarian and think he’s wrong/unethical/unthinking on a few issues – but he’s still my friend. We have tremendous arguments when we combine beer and politics. The best happen in public. I will use words like faggot and peter-puffer while agruing in favor of gay marriage and equal rights. He is exquisitly politically correct (even says GLBT community) while touting the oppressive SoCon party line. It’s fun to see people try and make up their minds about who is right.
Yes, we are both assholes with diametricaly opposed views on things, but we love each other (no homo!) anyway.
well, up to about comment 692 or so, this was certainly a shitstorm…
Ana said:
Question: do you think that enabling people to “live in tragedy” is a way to improve future conditions for themselves and others? Just curious you seem to have bought the whole “people are stupid we should protect them from their stupidity” without thinking on how to reduce such stupidity. The whole “If you feed a man a fish, you had saved him from starving that day if you teach him how to fish then you had saved him from starving all their lives”
________________________________
A direct question deserves a direct answer:
“do you think that enabling people to “live in tragedy” is a way to improve future conditions for themselves and others?
Yes. It is a way. Is it the best way, or the only way, or the way I’d like things to be done? Absolutely not. Does it work all the time? Hell no.
That’s not what I was talking about, though – I was specifically addressing patient privacy issues. You get to decide who knows what, because you are the patient.
As far as “buying” that people are stupid –
Look around you. See how dumb the average person is? Half of humanity is even dumber than that “average” dumbass.
And the rest of the quoted paragraph touches on InnerDogsquat™ Brand Cognitive Dissonance. People do horrifically stupid things all the time. People are mean, dumb, nasty, and ruthless creatures with a staggering capacity to sef-delude. Yet I spend my life helping them. I enjoy my work for the most part – futile as it is, ultimately. How I think about this stuff is complicated by many other issues, as well.
Ana said:
““If you feed a man a fish, you had saved him from starving that day if you teach him how to fish then you had saved him from starving all their lives”
Dogsquat said:
“Give a man a match to start a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set the man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.”
@Susan
“Many unmarried people who are together in serious relationships would contest your claim that they are not committed. My husband and I were in a committed relationship for over two years before marrying. The only people who have a right to define the relationship are the two people in one.”
The last line is not true: the government defines what legal marriages are and what are the legal responsibilities of the parties. The legal responsibilities of the parties WRT child support should be marriage=child support. No marriage=no “final” legal commitment=no child support
I’m late to this party, but a few observations.
I think the concern of many (just1x and others) that absolving the male of responsibility will shift it to the state is largely overstated. Those single mothers who are so poor as to qualify for that sort of assistance probably got knocked up by guys who have no money anyway, so we’re already providing that assistance.
Secondly, there seems to be a false choice mentality going on here – namely that we either let men walk away entirely or stick it to them for 20% of their pre-tax income for up to 21 years. If you are worried about the state having to step in in lieu of the father to avoid poverty (or just think the guy should at least contribute something), then you could allow the male who didn’t want the kid to limit his liability to what the state would have had to pay. In fact, you could even go a step further and say that, even if the mother isn’t poor enough to qualify for government assistance, the father would still be on the hook for his half of what the state would have to pay to foster parents (many of whom manage to break even or turn a profit on their efforts). What’s not cool is telling some guy whose girfriend had an “oops” pregnancy that he has to fork out huge sums (tax free to her, not deductible by him), sometimes even beyond the point where the kid turns 18.
@susan
“First, you had your influence when you had sex. You knowingly assumed the risk of fatherhood, knowing that the choice to carry to term or abort was your partner’s. ”
This and similar arguments are a bit tautological. We know that is the current legal reality, but we are discussing what the law “should” be, not what it is. Those arguments were equally true when made against abortion rights (i.e., she made her “choice” when she had sex), in fact, they were even more true in most cases, but they were not accepted. I understand that the biological realities are different, and some consideration needs to be made for the kids, but it doesn’t follow from that that an unwilling father should be made to cough up 20% of his pretax income (often close to 40% of his take home pay) for up to 21 years.
As to feminists fighting against male birth control, they claim a fear that men will lie about being on it so they can raw dog women and get them pregnant. Seriously. As if men are so anxious to get hit with paternity suits that they will lie their way into them. lol Most guys I have known probably would have kept it to themselves that they are on such a pill or whatever, so that the woman stayed on the pill as well (double the protection). I guess they might have a point among really low income types, but they are already getting pregnant anyway because the women get goodies when they do.
Of course, the real reason is that they want women to maintain control.
Anyway, thanks for the fathers’ day well wishes!
”Are feminists actively fighting against male birth control? ”
Watch this from a Brazilian doctor(it has English subtitles);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o
Dogsquat (704)
Re: HSV1
So does that mean that the cold sores that you got as a child could potentially end up on your partner’s junk???
@michael
I have read elsewhere that the nominal reason that drug was shuttered here was that it caused permanent sterility in an unacceptable percentage of cases (whatever it was). So, to avoid men having a risk of permanent sterility to have effective birth control, we choose instead to offer them a method that all but guarantees permanent sterility (vasectomy).
Whether it really did cause sterility that often, I don’t know. It would surprise me if the feminists influenced things behind closed doors. other countries don’t see to be having the same problem with it. Also, there was that very promising sounding treatment in India that amounted to a reversible blocking of the seminal tube. But I don’t hear of anything happening in this country to move it forward. Some might say it’s because big pharma has no incentive to pursue it since it is so cheap and is not a recurring revenue stream from a particular person (unlike medication), and would probably reduce purchases of birth control pills for many couples. Maybe. Or maybe it’s that in combination with feminist groups. Or maybe I’m too suspicious.
Emily said:
“So does that mean that the cold sores that you got as a child could potentially end up on your partner’s junk???”
___________________________
If you’re doing a little viral shedding and what you truly have is oral HSV then the answer is yes.
However, people mistake lots of stuff for oral HSV cold sores. Also, your viral load can get pretty low after a few years, so it’s harder to pass on.
I think herpes is the most difficult STI to get accurate information on. There is so much bullshit from both sides, and the science has changed on it to boot. It’s so bad that I have corrected physicians on their misconceptions – a perilous task for a lowly ambulance driver like myself.
Go find a PhD biology type who likes viruses for the real deal.
@Lokland
Best line of the week. That’s hilarious.
Of course. I was speaking strictly in economic terms.
Yup.
OK, bear with me, I’m getting confused. Why for the first time in history? Doesn’t this just take it back to the time before women had birth control?
For women, commitment holds greater value than sex now. We have nothing to offer men who don’t want a family. Even after male BC that will still be true, no? If a man does want a family, he commits.
Also, it’s not very acceptable to say so, but honestly, both men and women want to fall in love and make babies together. Not all men and not all women, but from my POV, male BC will just help clean up the OOW mess, assuming those thugs are responsible enough to take it. Those who want to make relationships will make relationships. I’m trying to prepare women to be in that group.
@Dogsquat
I don’t know what we’d do without your medical expertise. It’s like we have our own consultant a la Grey’s Anatomy or something.
You raise a good point. The only real test for herpes that matters is a blood test. Relatively few people get it. Much more common is a guy or girl who goes to student health with a sore, it gets swabbed and they get the results. If it’s not herpes, they’re telling everyone they definitely don’t have herpes. Do you see the problem here?
I believe guys are silent carriers much more often than women are (another fun fact about female biology – we get more STDs!). Most guys with the antibodies don’t even get sores, but they do shed, and they can transmit the virus.
I know you will correct me if I got something wrong.
@Passer By
I’m glad you brought that up. That loophole should definitely be closed.
Good advice. That way everyone is taking responsibility for their own outcome.
Yes! And his could wind up on yours! I have read that HSV1 outbreaks in the genital region are less frequent and painful than HSV2. But what sucks is that you still have to tell your partners you have genital herpes.
Oof…I know that it’s a bad idea to wade into this thread and stir things up with my following controversial opinion. However, I am willing to change my mind, given a concrete argument. My opinion is entirely fueled by emotional thinking here, not logic.
So, now that those disclaimers are out of the way, here goes…
I disagree with this viewpoint, Susan. I don’t think a male BC pill will clean up the OOW mess. Thugs will not take responsibility – in fact, I’m sure that to some extent there are men out there with a “spread my seed” mentality (e.g. Julian Assange).
In fact, I think that a male BC pill will probably add more destruction than benefit to the SMP that was already partially caused by the female BC pill. (For the record…I’m not too fond of the idea of the female BC pill, either…) Female BC allowed women to shirk accountability, for the most part. I can see male BC going the same direction. We should be thinking about ways to add *more* accountability to the SMP, not less.
(And I highly doubt men would be more responsible about taking it, anyway. Please, men are infamous for being of “two minds” — whichever one happens to possess the most blood at the time.)
That’s not to say that men shouldn’t be allowed to take it. Who am I to advise men or women against taking something that affects their own bodies? My concerns are mostly about the social and economic repercussions.
@Dogsquat
Thank you for your answers.
@Susan Walsh:
“Of course I see the problem with that. Believe me, nothing I’ve said here mitigates the societal problems we’re facing as a result of the availability of the Pill and abortion on demand. It’s a disaster. I just don’t think “financial abortion” (I hate that term, btw) is the answer.”
I don’t think anybody here would have a problem with your stance if you also spoke out *against* abortion. It’s the fact that you square “her body – her choice” doctrine with a “his body – her choice” dogma. And this double standard is just tyrannical and absolutely *not* just.
If a woman has reproductive choices as in the unilateral abortion of a pregnancy a man must have the same choices as in the abdication of his legal and financial responsibilites. This is manifestly *HIS BODY – HIS CHOICE*.
Your country went to war with the UK because of tyranny. What was that famous quote? Ah yes: “NO TAXATION WTHOUT REPRESENTATION!” It is exactly the same situation here: You want to tax men without them having any say, any representation in the matter. And that is the essence of tyranny, hypocrisy and double standards. Funny that I, a foreigner, have to explain this simple and obvious concept to you, an American.
But thank you Susan. I have long since had my doubts about you. Now it is all in the open, for all men to see. I don’t think your reputation with men will remain the same. Judging by the responses of other men I wager…you have managed to alienate even the pragmatic, modest, friendly guys who were willing to give you the benefit of doubt beforehand. No longer. They have – in a sense – had their own red pill moment. They have found out that many women such as you don’t care for justice and equality. You just look out for your best interests and that of the sisterhood. Equality where it benefits women and where it doesn’t we’re suddenly once again not equal…and women deserve special consideration.
“I’m so worried about this country. Last night I was talking with my husband about Bastiat’s concern about possible hyperinflation here, and my mention of Weimar Germany. I thought he’d say, pish posh, no way. Instead he said he shares my concern and could definitely imagine that as a worst case scenario.
I think we’re in for a rough ride all the way around.”
Trololololol. So suddenly you are worried? Just yesterday you responded to a comment of mine that this new society would last for several generations. *HEH*. Not so sure anymore, are we? Keke, Susan, how come you’re the economic “expert” and I’m a layman and yet you don’t seem to be able to connect the dots? Maybe the Fifth Horseman is correct: women really do seem to have a problem with cause and effect. So I’ll make this extra simple for you:
Cause:
Injustice, inequality and special privileges for pampered princesses due to first and second wave feminists and other gynocentrists (you). In consequence of which we have female privilege in the economic, social, sexual, educational and familial sphere. Men are marginalized, their rights are systematically trampled on and they themselves are denigrated.
Effect:
Men withdraw from society. Men withdraw from family. Men no longer marry. Men no longer work hard because women don’t reward hardworking “nice guys” but rather deadbeat bad boys, d-bags and cads. Men no longer keep the economy working because they lose their incentives due to the abolution of meritocracy in favour of a – you guessed it – pink socialism for entitled princesses. The economy suffers. The system fails. Wealth evaporates. Security evaporates. Men no longer protect women because women managed to destroy the male-female bond. Women suffer in consequence.
So in consequence vis a vis your overal posture and evidenced especially in this abortion affair it is arguably *YOU* Susan that is the problem. You are trying to create a new society of injustice. Thus there is no real difference between you and the feminists in power at present.
And, tragically, you don’t seem to realize that men must have a stake in society, an incentive, a chance. Deny them that and you will soon have first row seats watching Romen burn.
Yeah now you can delete my comment again. Which just proves that you can’t tolerate serious dissent. And you don’t have rational argumentation on your side…so you resort to suppression.
@Dogsquat
Do you study Biology or do any lab research? I love the information you contribute. You always take the words right out of my mouth.
@Susan
If you’re in favor of “biological law”, then you would have to be against state-mandated child support, which is completely unnatural in the biological sense. As we both agreed earlier, biologically speaking, a man isn’t responsible for anything after he’s impregnated her.
I have no problem with double standards in the way people think (and there are plenty that go against men), but I have a big problem with double standards with LAWS.
And as others have said, nobody’s debating “the way things are” here. We’re all very aware of the way things are. We’re making logical arguments for the way things should be in a just society.
I think you’re usually a good and sound debater, but “that’s biology” and “that’s the way things are” are both pretty weak arguments IMO. Hell, segregationists used the same arguments back in the 50s and 60s.
I think Ghost actually summed up my feelings pretty well in this paragraph:
I’m perfectly cool with “her body – her choice” as long as its coupled with “his money – his choice.”
@Ghost
Crazy, I was thinking of the exact same comparison yesterday.
@SayWhaat
Well if it cuts down on unwanted pregnancies, that’s a good thing, it reduces the need for accountability. And it should reduce the number of abortions, which is a good thing.
Women shirking accountability for their sexual behavior is a done deal, and there have been nasty repercussions, but at an individual level they harm themselves. There are natural consequences to their choices.
Men are not accountable for their sexual behavior in the same way, obvs. In fact, we know they may be penalized by women for not having had enough sex.
I’m not sure it’s going to be the huge game changer people think it is. The potential is there, but I’m skeptical that men will flock to it.
I think many men view contraception as a woman’s job. I know that half of college hookups skip the condom. I think that men will be wary of taking a daily pill. And I think that the men who need to take it most are the least likely to sign up.
@Ghost
I disagree. I think the equivalent is male birth control. It’s a technology issue.
You’re late, MRAs wrote me off ages ago. For the record, Just1X is the only modest and friendly MRA I’ve ever met. The comment threads at your favorite blogs are vile. I want no association with any of you.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. I am profoundly worried about the economy right now. I think the SMP will take several generations to settle. Your dream of mechanical wombs is a silly fantasy akin to The Jetsons or Woody Allen’s Orgasmatron. Even when the technology exists, it will be the refuge of men with no options.
I agree with this and have said so many times. I’ve written posts saying so. I do not believe either one of us will live to see it come to pass, but I do believe we are headed in this direction.
I do not believe that “financial abortion” is a solution for the reasons I have stated repeatedly.
Everyone can now see what kind of a man you are. I invited you in, let you have your say, and you shat all over my rug. You have no grounds whatsoever to accuse me of suppression. But even if I did delete your comments, that is my right. This is my blog and I am under no obligation to let people like you in. You’re rude, and just a general drag. No fun at all. You haven’t said one thing that could ever make a difference to a single soul. You’re just part of a big MRA circle jerk that knows how to win enemies and alienate people.
The more you come around, the worse you look, and the more misandry you’re likely to breed. For the sake of your movement, crawl back to obscurity. It’s impossible to fight misandry with guys like you getting in the way.
@Jimmy
A couple of things. First, “that’s biology” is not an argument being used here to differentiate between people who are the same, i.e. skin color makes a man materially different biologically, and “less than.” I am observing that women have eggs and a uterus. Men have sperm. No argument that does not account for this biological difference is invalid. There is an unequal investment in the physical process of reproduction, and the woman contributes about 99% of that seed capital (heh). Your argument does not sufficiently account for this reality, in my view. The level of parental investment is starkly unequal, both before and after birth. As I’ve said repeatedly, even if a father contributes child support, the lion’s share of the resources will still be provided by the mother.
We know that a father’s provision is essential to the raising of children. In the ancestral home children who didn’t get that benefit died. Today, the state has stepped in and said that a father who is unwilling to do that will be compelled to do so.
Second, I am not arguing that the way things are is ideal, or even recommended. I am saying that all of us need to think strategically. A young man needs to fully understand the law of the land to avoid this kind of dilemma. Regardless of whether you think it’s fair that men pay child support, there’s no excuse for a man’s being surprised when he is ordered to do so.
More importantly, despite all the hand wringing, there really is a very simple solution. Prevent pregnancy. Wear a condom. Use a spermicide. No one is compelling men to pay for children they don’t sire. And no one is compelling men to sire children. Why is this very obvious solution being ignored?
Obviously, I don’t accept that. I don’t think it’s logical, frankly. The comparison is invalid. I’ll leave it here. We’ve beat this horse to death ten times over.
Future Conversation…?
The future was the most interesting part of Susan’s OP.
What does a mass of lower SAT scores, lower male academic performance, higher rates of behavioral disorders do to a nation/economy? What frictions will exist between marrying groups and low-skilled bastards, when does it reach critical mass? What (catastrophe) would bring bastards back to marriage? How do demographics play out?
Civilizational prerequisites: #1.) Reproduce at or above replacement levels. #2.) Feed and nurture the bodies of the next generation. #3.) Instill pro-social norms and values in the next generation. #4.) Teach useful technical skills to the next generation’s workers.
My read: American educated/married fail at #1. American uneducated/unmarried fail at #3 and #4. What’s left is a mass of asocial unskilled bodies supported by an aging skilled subsociety until there’s no #2. At which time the unskilled bodies learn skills and instill pro-social norms, or else die.
I thought that Passer_By made some very sound observations. Male liability in the event of an “oops” could be capped at the state’s equivalent participation level. I’d think that a good argument could be made that this should be a hard cap—i.e., regardless of male income, rather than based on ability to pay. Of course it should be tax-deductible. Thus, a woman would retain the very valuable call option on pregnancy, but the man’s exposure would at least be somewhat limited (as if he was carrying some kind of synthetic insurance policy).
The direct consequence of this would be to make an unwanted pregnancy even scarier for the woman than it already is. We could speculate about a few effects at the margins:
1. The attractiveness of condomless casual sex would probably decrease for reproductive-age women;
2. Men (particularly affluent ones, who would benefit the most from the cap) would feel even more comfortable with condomless casual sex;
3. Abortions would probably increase somewhat as single motherhood became a less attractive option;
4. Women would have increased incentives to screen for men who would be potentially good fathers;
5. Men who had sired kids would be more competitive in the SMP because they would retain more resources;
6. Marriage rates and divorce rates might be dramatically effected.
Thoughts…?
Susan – “No one is compelling men to pay for children they don’t sire. ”
This is 100% wrong. THE STATE often “compels” men to pay for children they did not sire. That is a FACT, right now as I type this response.
Jackie – “I think I may be even more of an outlier than you, possibly. I try not to bring up my views in real life, though. I am WAY more free here on HUS, safe in anonymity.”
Me either. Perhaps with a very select few friends of like mindedness, but in general I DO NOT bring religion, politics, or sexuality up and do my best to stay out of those conversations when I hear them. The religious folks think I’m a heretic, and the lefties think I’m a bible thumper.
M3 – “Already booked the appointment for the vasectomy.”
I’ve been seriously thinking about doing the same. I brought it up about a year ago, and at the time my SO asked if we could shelf the idea until after we get married. We both already have children, but I think she was on the fence about having another. I pointed out to her how much it would suck to start over now that her youngest is 11, and how much more we would enjoy a convertible instead of another kid.
I guess at least I can feel good knowing she is seriously considering my DNA as worthy. (and I can’t deny that we have a good chance of making very cute kids. I’m blonde and blue eyed, she is blond and green eyed…) But I’m going to be 42 in July, and I have ZERO desire to start over. I guess this is what I get for partnering up with a woman substantially younger than myself… :p
@SayWhaat
“(And I highly doubt men would be more responsible about taking it, anyway. Please, men are infamous for being of “two minds” — whichever one happens to possess the most blood at the time.)”
REALLY!?!?
Comment i left in response to a commenter on my site. Thought it be appropriate to share here.
If a man has condomless sex with a woman, he’s on the hook even if he didn’t want it. No argument from me there. (tho as i stated above, how stupid can a woman be to allow it? are we admitting women are idiots now or so emotionally crippled in wanting ‘love’ from a boy they allow the most stupid shit? if this is the case, they shouldn’t be allowed to operate motor vehicles or vote)
Secondly, i think something was lost in translation. Every bit of my arguments where about where every precaution was taken, man wore condom, woman said she was on pill, etc… and they hit the 0.01% and ‘oops’ it. This is where it all breaks down. They both knew the risks, both took the precautions. Yet legally she would be free to avoid parental responsibility if she chose, or she can choose to lock him into parental responsibility, even tho his use of the condom would be a clear indicator if his intent to not wish to be a father. It is in this scenario where the state allows 2 people committing the same sexual act with the same level of liability to have completely different outcomes based on gender alone.
Jimmy’s comment at 722/723 respectfully nail it precisely.
@Bastiat
I’m happy to cosign this, it seems eminently reasonable. The MRAs will still call you a traitor to your sex and a misandrist, though.
Re 1: I agree, and that’s a good thing.
Re 2: True, but it’s the woman’s responsibility not to allow that.
Re 3: Is single motherhood really an attractive option? How much can a woman profit today? Even if she skims off the payments, the child does require considerable resources. Also, does anyone know what the state pays, and what kind of gap we’re talking about?
Re 4: Agreed, and that’s a very good thing.
Re 5: Eh, I’ll disagree here. Men with kids are not attractive for a first marriage. The only exception is the wealthy old goat with trophy wife.
Re 6: How so?
Saywhaat – “And I highly doubt men would be more responsible about taking it, anyway. Please, men are infamous for being of “two minds” — whichever one happens to possess the most blood at the time.”
Are you being serious? Surely the “thugs” won’t bother taking BC, but they don’t bother now anyway. I can tell you any man with a dime to lose WILL take control of his sexuality, because he KNOWS the risks. (as Susan seems to think is enough…) I remember several years back reading that some random woman attempted to go after Ozzy O. for child support for a supposed baby he fathered. He came out and said “that can’t be, I’m shooting blanks!”. THAT is exactly why any man with an iota of common sense having sex with women he isn’t married to WILL TAKE an effective, easy, cheap form of male birth control. Shit, I’d have my boys on the first day they started HS. If the method being tested in India works out, I would bet thousands of young men will be waiting in line the first week to completely eliminate the chances of having some woman ruin his financial future. I’m getting married in August and *I* would be standing in that line too!
Susan, single motherhood must at least be PERCEIVED as being desirable by a whole lot of women, or else we would not have an illegitimacy rate that is approaching 50% (and that, in some communities, is well over that and has been for decades).
“Please, men are infamous for being of “two minds” — whichever one happens to possess the most blood at the time.)”
If this isn’t man-bashing, I don’t know what is.
And SayWhaat tries to call me out for bashing women.
PUH-LEEEEZE.
What about preselection?
@Jackie
the real star of the clip was Mr Munson, what style, what verve! Of course this was after his 70′s perm and porn star moustache days (oh yes he did).
Regarding James Bond – The first rule of ’00′ status is…’nuff said.
Gadgets though? Hell yes.
”What about preselection?”
Preselection only vouches for the man’s sexual value, and that’s when women are looking for casual sex or at least a sexual relationship with an Alpha male(15-30). Formerly married men aren’t attractive for a first marriage because the divorced dude is probably playing alimony and child-support. How’s the dude gonna pay child-support and alimony to his next wife?
Single motherhood certainly has its allure among the poor. This comment was left by a woman a long time ago on Steve Sailer’s blog:
@Ted D
” in general I DO NOT bring religion, politics, or sexuality up and do my best to stay out of those conversations when I hear them. The religious folks think I’m a heretic, and the lefties think I’m a bible thumper.”
To quote The Simpsons, I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
@Just1X
“the real star of the clip was Mr Munson, what style, what verve! Of course this was after his 70′s perm and porn star moustache days (oh yes he did).”
Hahaha!
Well played, Mr. Shaken-not-Stirred.
Speaking of Mr. Munson– has anyone seen him around the blogosphere? Any idea how he is doing? I miss Uncle Tom.
”Susan, single motherhood must at least be PERCEIVED as being desirable by a whole lot of women, or else we would not have an illegitimacy rate that is approaching 50% (and that, in some communities, is well over that and has been for decades).”
Why wouldn’t it be perceived as such? They aren’t giving birth to the children of Beta males. Those kids are from Alpha male seed and from thug seed. You’re witnessing an explosion of single mothers because this century is paradise for women; spread your genes mixed with Alpha genes, then have the beta males(taxpayers) support the welfare from which so many women depend on to survive.
Look at England. A friend of mine is a 22 year old thug, whose father belonged to the local Mafia. He doesn’t have a job. Never worked in his life. Dropped out of school.. when he was 7 years old. Spends his days on heavy drugs, is drunk most of the time, and he is never, never seen without a girlfriend or a FWB. The girlfriends are very attractive, from middle-class, with no addictions.
How is he so successful with women? He does have an ugly face, has a beer belly already, but his father killed several men when he was young and that adds up to his son’s success with the ladies, the dude is also 6’3” so, what’s to expect?
My friend’s sisters never held a job. They’re smoking hot..their grandfather payed for their silicone implants..to increase the chances of finding a rich boyfriend, which they did. They’re single mothers. Their children’s fathers are in jail for manslaughter and will probably never see the light of day again. I’ve met their boyfriends. Tall, good-looking players when they’re looking for sex, and average-looking rich beta males.
I grew up with this guy who has 2 sisters. The oldest sister’s oldest daughter has never met her father. He was caught by the police for beating up elderly men. He was released but a couple of years later he was convicted of murdering a young woman.
Now, the girl’s mother married a nice beta male, and had a brain hemorrhage. She had to use a wheelchair and her husband, the docile beta is the one who takes care of her(while also supporting her with his money) – but for what?
6 months later she had a heart attack. He’s still taking care of her.
Most women are going to become single mothers, it beckons. But I sure as hell won’t be paying for what the other dudes had for free, when it was std-free, young and hot, no sir. I will also not support this matriarchal society by paying taxes that will be used by single mothers to feed their thug spawns.
@Susan
Regards non-hormonal male pills, I found this link on the web – how authoritative do you want*
http://israel21c.org/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men/
The theory goes that ‘women’ (every one, everywhere – natch*) very much prize the ability to decide when the baby thing will happen. A male pill removes that power , or at least forces both sides to make the decision jointly. No more oops pregnancies, no more shotgun weddings, very much reduced single moms.
Conspiracy? who knows? Personally, I’d really like the research done properly before I unleash it on my swimmers / my boys.
But the less kids brought into the world by accident (real or otherwise) the better IMHO
*possible smirk, may contain raised eyebrows.
@Jackie
http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/living-like-tom/
He’s not there all the time, I’m hoping he’s out enjoying himself. I’m guessing that they have sun in Boise?
@Susan
“How could anyone oppose the right of anyone else to prevent pregnancy? Are feminists actively fighting against male birth control? I think it would be awesome – it will definitely go a long way toward solving this intractable problem.”
1) don’t ask me
2) maybe(?) not much for conspiracy theories myself, the chances of finding the troof seems marginal. A couple of quotes from men in the medical field do claim to have experienced feminist anger…
3) yep, I agree with you
(Sorry that I’m replying without catching up to date with later comments.)
@742
The stuff you say about alpha seed and beta funds reminds me of GBFM’s idea of “alpha f*cks with beta bucks”, they are the same.
Even though GBFM’s posts can be difficult at times to decipher, what he talks about is the truth.
@Royale
I don’t want shanty towns either – the kids deserve a proper upbringing, out of basic humanity or not wanting more chavs / chavettes.
But currently ‘single mum’ is a viable lifestyle for school girls in the UK; they’ll never get a decent job and flat themselves, so they get up the duff with some local chav scum and get a free apartment and benefits. So we have teenage fathers of loads of kids by multiple mothers here.
We are subsidising the preduction of an underclass of no-hopers.
1) I don’t wish to pay for them
2) it’s a fucking bad idea to incentivise the genesis of an Idiocracy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgfB6M1CRr4 – Harry Enfield)
Whether you believe it or not, I’m not exactly a right wing extremist, I’m more of a libertarian. Be aware that US vs UK political terminologies aren’t simple to translate. The ‘Liberal’ party here (19th-20th century) was really more what you might call libertarian nowadays. That party has transmogrified into a sort of socialist-liberal party now, but is in coalition with what is in theory a right wing (republican) party.
Hollenhund – “Single motherhood certainly has its allure among the poor.”
THANK YOU! I’m literally surrounded on two sides by mostly section 8 housing, and I can tell you these women are breeding like rabbits! Our school district is facing a real problem because of the huge influx of poor kids which increases the costs to the school without adding a dime to the taxes collected. (You can’t get school tax from unemployed people on welfare…) Not to mention the fact that most of these children are less than savory types that behave badly and cause unending problems for the kids that are decent. I personally know the middle school principal and assistant principal, the school superintendent, the district truancy officer, and the chief of police PRECISELY because some of these little hoodlums have caused our children grief. We had to take an issue all the way to the chief and superintendent before it was dealt with, but in the end the child causing the issues was expelled. But that was ONLY after the kid threatened an adult (my SO) directly while ON school property. Up until that point, I got the impression from the super that their hands were essentially tied, and the police could do nothing because no one was ACTUALLY harmed despite numerous threats of bodily harm. At one point, a 15 yo boy was tazed by the police after we called them to disperse a group of rowdy kids in front of our house calling for my SO’s son to come outside and ‘take what is coming’. If these kids will threaten the police, what chance does a normal citizen have? I’ll tell you, it is directly related to how far you are willing to go to protect your own. I now have several guns in the house, and am in the process of getting a permit to carry. Anyone that walks into my house uninvited will be facing the business end of a gun and the Castle Doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
But hey, there is NO problem at the MC/UMC level, so why are we concerned? /sarcasm of course
@Royale #694
“Even if the guy got cuckolded, he is more directly responsible for the creation of the “baby’s mama” situation than me”
I’m REALLY hoping that you’ve used the wrong word here. A cuckolded guy is someone being deceived into paying and participating in the upbringing of a child that isn’t biologically his – because the baby momma is lying to him about him being the father. THAT SHIT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME. It’s basically rape of a man. It never happened to me, but I don’t think you’d want to see my reaction to it if it did. I think that paternity testing should be compulsory – somewhat off topic.
As I said, I hope that you used the wrong word there…
But Ted, he can do that now. He can reduce the risk to very close to zero right now. And some men might actually prefer that to taking a pill every day, whether they’re getting laid or not.
« 1 … 3 4 5 6 »
{ 2 trackbacks }