The reason more women bred than men, you slack-jawed cretin, is because spreading one’s seed and knocking up women who then bear your brats has been seen as one of the most manly activities for a dude to engage in from the beginning of history. Some men took additional wives or concubines or simply had unmarital sex with more than one woman who thus produced children.
Why don’t you and athelas just write what you really mean: “Those mean feminists make everything suck for us guys! Waaah!” You’d never have to post anything else, and it would free up time for you two to go out and get lives.
So I take it when you said "Then there are many who resort to Prostitution, or who are drug addicted and in poverty,"you were using the “lots more people than I can fit in my car at one time” definition of “many”, rather than the “a significant percentage, perhaps even a majority, or the complete set” definition?
Based on my extremely limited personal experience, I readily believe that single moms who are entirely self-sufficient are in the minority, perhaps the extreme minority. But I suspect that the flying leap from there to “many” of them being drug abusers and/or prostitutes is of rectal origin.
What about comparing them to married mothers, which is the relevant standard in this discussion? And what about (and I speak to both sides here) using statistics, rather than anecdotes?
This logic seems a little off to me. A woman is single and without means, therefore she will no longer seek out men who can contribute to the household. I’m detecting a hidden subtext of “welfare checks replace dad”, but maybe the author is afraid to say this, or maybe they just meant that women are more financially independent for whatever reason.
Males have different competition strategies… some are providers, some go for sexual display, some mate indiscriminately. If, for some reason, domestic providers are at a sudden disadvantage (say because women are more financially independent), then it stands to reason that they will have to switch to a different strategy if they want to stay in the game.
An animal in this predicament would be out of luck… he couldn’t will himself to grow a shinier coat or bigger horns. Humans have many more means at their disposal, such as displaying wealth, strength, size, social status, all sorts of things. Don’t think for a minute that Stan Steadfast is going to sit back and let Dennis Rodman go home with all the women. Bees follow the honey. He can easily borrow enough money for a flashy car and flashy clothes sufficient to pursue a life of serial conquest if he likes.
What does it mean? I don’t know. Sounds like a lot of people would be into playing life the hard way for a little temporary thrill. I can’t really judge what is important for other people.
I can’t believe this statement went uncommented upon. Telling boys this:
means making them into the subservient sex? Really? I don’t think so. Boys should be just as wary of having heedless, uncommitted sex as girls should be, and more people should tell them so. I know, MOIDALIZE thinks it’s funny to even suggest such a thing, and mswas thinks it turns men into wimps, but really, it’s just good sense. Men have plenty to lose by begetting children out of wedlock. Arguably, the child support system makes men into the subservient sex much more quickly and thoroughly than an abstinence-only message ever could. I think you with the face’s idea has merit and should not be dismissed with scoffing. It directly addresses the issue in the OP: if you’re looking for love and not just for sex, don’t give it away to anyone who will have it.
So you agree with me completely and somehow I am a slack-jawed cretin? Funny how that works.
I don’t have any problem with feminists. A lot of feminist rhetoric is rank nonsense You could change the wording and replace feminists with any other group that puts ideology before reason too. I don’t have a problem with single Mothers as a group, but the idea that there are all these super Moms out there balancing work, raising a kid and having fabulous sex with supermodels is just fucking stupid.
As for those who object to my mention of prostitutes, I guess it depends on how you define, ‘many’? Also, it depends on how you define prostitute. In my world many and most are not synonyms.
You don’t see the gulf between, “If you want it then you shoulda put a ring on it.”, and “Be picky”? Really?
As for child support, you only have to pay child support if you have money. If you are deadbeat lowlife with no money you can owe tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands in back child support. My sister got knocked up by a lowlife scumbag who had like three franchises he had skipped out on and he was footloose and fancy free enough to charm my sister, hadn’t spent a day in jail for not paying his child support to my knowledge. She doesn’t even bother going after him because she knows she’ll never see a dime because she’d be at the back of the queue.
Yeah, basically. I’ve been around a lot of drug addicted single-Mothers in my time, certainly more than I could fit in a car.
Do you think that it’s unfair to say that millions of single-Mothers are drug addicted (alcoholism included)? Do you think it’s unfair to say that hundreds of thousands of single-Mothers have prostituted (strippers included) themselves?
What’s funny in all of this is that people don’t understand that traditional marriage roles were established as much to protect the women as they were the men. In fact, they protected the women moreso than the men. In a warrior culture a warrior male could knock up whoever he wants and declare any kid he wanted to to be his heir. The idea that heterosexual monogamy is a great boon to men is stupid. It benefits weaker men in that it ensures a wider supply of women so I suppose that is one benefit to men. But from a genetic standpoint it benefits men more to be as promiscuous as possible, so actually the loss of traditional marriage benefits men more than it does women because they can go out and breed as much as they want and not have to be directly involved in raising the children.
I provided evidence for the commentary on welfare. The other stuff is harder to find evidence for. Regardless I don’t care if my statistic is precise, it is fair to say that men drew the short end of the stick in the breeding game. Unfortunately in searching for a cite for you this thread comes up on the first page of hits on Google so my Google Fu is failing me.
Assuming that a sexy guy can have any woman he wants why would he choose a single woman with children over a single woman without children? In my experience men see children as baggage (and rightly so IMO) and in most cases will steer clear from a single mother.
The only part of what YWTF said that includes marriage is “unless she promises to marrry you.” First of all, does it make a person “subservient” to wait until marriage to have sex? If so, please explain how? Second, if you eliminate that one clause, do you still have a problem with what YWTF said? Boys as well as girls should be taught to withhold sex until they are in a committed relationship and sure the other person loves them. Why should it only be women who hold out for love?
Are you pretending ignorance of the law? The anecdote about your sister notwithstanding, the law in all states of the US is that failure to pay child support results in loss of passport, then drivers license, then prison. The fact that this has not happened for her either indicates that she did not pursue the matter in court (which is her problem), or that he is currently on the run from a warrant. Wonder which is is?
Ah, yes, your sister “doesn’t bother going after him.” That’s not the fault of the law’s. I hope her baby daddy was really sexy!
You keep talking about the “benefit” to men as a universal and global class, but then demonstrating the benefit to individual men. You’re mistaken if you think men in a “warrior culture” passively sit around letting more dominant men have their women. The large-harem paradigm is actually more an artifact of agricultural civilization in which a very few men have virtually unlimited power.
If hypersexualized men go around impregnating everyone they can, it benefits that individual at the expense of all the other men who don’t share that strategy. Monogamy is the attempt to permit every man a reasonable chance at one mate with the benefit to everyone of reducing violent competition for women. “Traditional marriage” claims to benefit women, and to some extent it does, but one can’t help noticing it also makes it easier for the majority of men to compete sexually without taking huge risks to find a mate. In this way society as a whole advanced instead of sitting around squabbling over who gets to fuck whom.
It should also be noted that both the concept of monogamy and traditional marriage are very leaky vessels when it comes to guarantees of sexual fidelity. When thinking of social norms and sexual competition, it is less useful to think of marriage and monogamy not so much as the Berlin Wall than the Mexican-American border.
Thank you Lumpy for articulating the real fear here. My advice to everyone who is concerned that this is a real problem:
If you are a man aged over about 23, living in anything bigger than a hamlet, and are frustrated that you don’t have a girlfriend, then the problem is you. Pull yourself together.
Hundreds of thousands out of the 300 million people in the US or hundreds of thousands out of the 6 billion in the world?
That’s only fair if you’re also prepared to say that many attorneys* are drug addicts, or many police officers* are drug addicts, and we may differ wildly on this point but that’s not something I’d say.
And you know what? I AM one of those single mothers who is not entirely self sufficient at the moment, under employed and receiving (partial) welfare payments… but that has nothing to do with the fact that I’m a single mother. My situation is related to the global financial crisis that has my employers reducing their wage budgets - there are no extra shifts being handed out just now, people who leave are mostly not being replaced and the few new hires that have come on board are on casual contracts with zero guaranteed hours, not part time contracts with a minimum number of hours guaranteed (like mine). If I was childless, I’d be in exactly the same situation - collecting welfare payments while looking for another job.
*A brief Google search turns up results suggesting those are the two professions most associated with alcohol abuse.
Okay ignoring the class slur of “how much are single mothers ho-bag crack whore welfare-queens?”. I really don’t see the problem here.
For one “it will be harder for unsexy people to attract a mate” has been true since before our prehuman ancestors developed langauge to articulate how blue their balls where. For another child support, you can’t collect it from deadbeats. Meaning there is still an advantage to holding down a job. Finally attraction is both a learned skill, and something not universal across all women. There’s lesser attractive women too! Worst case scenerio you have to settle for something less then a super model. Oh noes!
Also this debate really ignores a major part of human relations. Affection. Ya’ll are treating men and women in this thread as pieces of meat. People have souls*. Couples form, even between very physically attractive and very unattractive partners because people develop affection and love for each other. When you love someone, really love them, then they are the most attractive person to you.
*by this I mean uniqueness of personality, not an ethoric ghostie thing. As in “that brotha’s got soul!”
