A powerful societal pressure against being a slut in traditional European culture was the inability of a slut to provide for herself if she bore a bastard child . A man was not obligated to take care of a whore's child and thus women were pressured to be conservative because they risked not having a financial means to support their child if they simply whored themselves out.
Sluts have managed to circumvent this aspect of traditional society since the 20th century with the rise of modern child support and alimony laws. This lets sluts to whore themselves out and then collect a paycheck once enough of the sluts countless partners have taken paternity tests. Slutty behavior can be directly tied to the consequences of slutty behavior: if it is a financial risk, less women will be slutty.
Lets eliminate the aspect of the legal system that incentivizes slutty behavior. Get rid of alimony and child support.
view the rest of the comments →
Adminstrater ago
Everyone wants to focus on laws.
The problem is with proper moral education.
A moral society is a functional society.
Crensch ago
This is probably the stupidest thing I'll read today.
It's the law that forces men to finance sluts. It's the law that forces taxes to go to single moms. Take those away, and morality magically becomes fashionable again.
Or, you know, you could act like the virtue-signalling busybodies of the past 50 years and become repellent to the masses. Nobody wants to be told what they can't do by holier-than-thou faggots, whether on the left or the right.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Maybe men shouldn't have sex with sluts then, or with any woman that they would not want to be the mother of their potential children. It's not like you guys have great birth control options, and the law isn't exactly on your side, so why take that risk? If men are going to play a stupid game then they too deserve to win a stupid prize. The fault here is not only on women's shoulders; the men that slutty women are having sex with are also responsible for any kids that are conceived and for whatever fallout results. They should've made better life choices.
Crensch ago
Idiot.
Any woman can be tempted to ruin a man, no matter how sure the man is that she is wife material.
Get your head out of the clouds, faggot.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Men are pretty weak-minded then, if that's the case. Maybe you guys are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a pretty face and some pretty little lies.
At any rate, my point is that men need to take responsibility for their own choices. If a man chooses to sleep with a slut, or to have hookups and casual encounters with women he barely knows, or to jump in bed with a new girlfriend right away, that's his own damn fault and he has some responsibility for whatever happens.
Crensch ago
Maybe you cunts are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a false rape accusation.
And with that your entire narrative, and attack on men is destroyed.
Get back in the kitchen.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Aren't we triggered. Look, sarcasm aside, all I'm saying is that if you want women to be responsible with their sexual choices, why don't you want the same for men? Why should women be the only ones to be smart about their reproductive capacity while men should not have to take any responsibility for the consequences of spreading their seed? All you are advocating for is men being irresponsible and childish.
Crensch ago
I'm advocating for the law to not punish men for trusting women. Not having a law that punishes men is NOT a punishment for women.
All YOU are advocating is for men to be forced by threat of government.
Get back in the kitchen, cunt.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Having to financially support a child that you helped conceive via consensual sex is not being "punished" for "trusting women", any more than making abortion illegal constitutes "punishing" women.
Again, I think that abortion should be illegal unless it is the only way to save the woman's life, or if the baby is so terminally diseased that if it survives birth it will die in pain. So it's not like I only think that men should have to take responsibility for the children they conceive. I think women should too. I don't think people should be able to fuck off and either abandon their own child or outright kill it - both are equally selfish and reprehensible.
If you are going to have sex with a woman and risk making a baby, you'd better make damn sure that she is trustworthy and that you are in a position where you can afford to provide for a child if she gets pregnant. Same goes for women - if you're going to have sex with a man and risk pregnancy, you'd better make damn sure that he is trustworthy and that you are in a position to provide for a child if you get pregnant. Both men and women need to be more careful about their sexual choices. We used to have stigma and social pressure to keep people in line and it worked way better than this current climate of abortions and "financial abortions" - there were fewer out-of-wedlock kids, for starters, and fewer moms who were single because they had fucked their life up rather than because they were widows.
No. What concerns me most is not what stupid, selfish, irresponsible adults want to do to rid themselves of the need to be accountable for the results of their shitty choices. What concerns me most is that children are not butchered in the womb before birth or abandoned by their worthless fathers after birth. You are advocating for the equivalent of abortion for men and I think it's pathetic. Deadbeat dads are pathetic.
Crensch ago
Stupid whore. If a man has to financially support a child, that child is HIS, not hers. Period. She gets NO say in the child's upbringing, and the child lives with him.
Also, THE GOVERNMENT FORCING THIS is fucking wrong, and you're a sick fuck for wanting it.
Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million woman die.
Also, I'm NOT ARGUING FOR ABORTION HERE. You really are fucking stupid.
So you're pro-abortion? You think the government will just leave well enough alone? That it won't legalize for a gimp leg? Or for it being white (in the U.K., for instance)?
You want the GOVERNMENT to step in and force this. Stupid, stupid, stupid cunt. Massively stupid cunt.
Now you're just rambling like a whore to try and obfuscate the shame you should be feeling for having been so dishonest. Some part of you knows you should admit you're wrong, but you're too cowardly for that.
You're arguing something that literally nobody else was addressing here, and you're too stupid to understand that.
THE LAW was the only thing I was arguing against. Re-read my words, if you have the reading comprehension ability to do so.
Nobody gives a fuck what you think. This doesn't address a goddamn thing I've said. It's an argument against words I didn't speak, and a position I don't hold.
It's an admission that you haven't thought any of this through, and you're responding like a stupid woman would respond when she's trying to act like she knows something. Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.
You're really, REALLY fucking stupid.
Show me where I advocated for this. Here, I'll quote my own words for you:
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
I think I would rather wait until after you've calmed down to talk to you. You're very emotional right now and obviously not up to the challenge of having a rational discussion. Perhaps by morning you will better have your feelings and your temper under control. Maybe give this a read. What I'm getting from your rather ridiculous screed is that you want there to be no laws whatsoever to protect children and ensure that their parents don't just fuck off and abandon them; you are pissed at women because they are able to take everything and leave a man with nothing; and you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing. Whatever, bitch. It doesn't matter what you want to happen; that isn't how things work in society. Thank God for that because your version sounds even more shitty than the way it is now. At least now kids have at least a bit of protection, and deadbeat sacks of shit don't all just get to run away and abandon their kids.
Crensch ago
Let's play a little game:
I'm going to quote my original comment, then I'm going to pick apart your first response, and we'll see who's being reasonable here.
That's what I wrote. Now we'll analyze your response:
Who said that men should?
What does it matter if they have sex with a potential mother if there are cash and prizes enticing the woman to screw him over?
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
Women can write a man's name on a birth certificate and get money.
Women can falsely accuse of rape.
Women can take a man to court for watching her kids once and have a reasonable odds of getting child support
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
They don't even have to play. They just have to be around, or have a name.
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
Who said it was? Who said they weren't?
Who is going to hold them accountable? The government?
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
Again. Other than literally not having a name that can be written on a birth certificate, what choice? Even avoiding women entirely is near impossible with hiring quotas for businesses.
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
You addressed exactly zero of my arguments. You made an emotional, anti-man diatribe that you thought would be received by a roomful of white knights nodding in agreement because they want what's between your legs.
Your mental faculties are woefully underdeveloped, and it's very obvious that your white knights don't care; the only value you have rests between your legs, and it's the only reason men accept you. If you were a man, you'd be the village idiot.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
You were talking about the law and how it "forces men to finance sluts". No man will ever have to pay child support to a slut if he did not have sex with her and help get her pregnant in the first place. The law is what it is right now, and so men need to be really careful about the choices they make so they won't find themselves in this situation. Your comment is like feminists screeching about rape culture - sure, it'd be nice if women didn't have to worry about their safety while drunk in public, but that's not the culture we have so women need to stay sober and be careful not to get themselves into a compromising position.
Because the majority of women are not going to be "enticed" to fuck a man over just because the law would probably side with them. Not every woman is a golddigging reprehensible whore.
Not sure what it's like in the US or wherever you live, but in Canada if you are a single father you can apply for the same government benefits - they are handed out based on income level and not gender.
If the man is actually the biological father of the child then maybe he should have to help pay for it. Why the fuck shouldn't he look after his own kid? and if he isn't the bio dad he generally will not be made to pay child support.
Yes they can and it's fucking horrific that it's as common as it is. What does this have to do with child support and alimony?
Really? Do you have a news story or something to demonstrate when this has actually happened?
That mostly doesn't happen though, now does it?
Your original post pretty strongly implied it!
The government also holds women accountable for abandoning or neglecting their kids too.
Not having sex with a woman that you don't know and trust, for starters. Don't have hookups. Don't mess around with a slut.
Dude nobody is getting sued for child support by a coworker who writes their name randomly on the birth certificate. That isn't happening.
Oh for fuck's sake, have you been reading what you've been writing about women in general and me in particular? Fuck yourself.
Crensch ago
Emphasis, mine.
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
Admit you're wrong before we go any further. You're deliberately trying to ram this through, you dishonest cunt.
I'll happily respond to the rest after you admit that you're full of shit on this one point.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
There are men who wind up paying child support for kids that aren't biologically theirs - I should have written my sentence more carefully. But it's a pretty small percentage of men - "Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million man pay." Whatever. Right? You don't give a fuck when we're talking about women being fucked over by a man, and you want society to return to the way it was when women had no legal rights to their own kids because you seem to think that's better, so why the hell should I care? You don't seem to give a shit about the opposite sex yet you berate me for allegedly not doing so myself. Your way is not substantially better for anyone except men. You don't seem to give a shit about anything else, including the kids.
Listen. Questions aside, I think we actually agree more than disagree. I think it's reprehensible to force a man to pay child support for a child that is not his if that isn't what he wants to do. If you're not the father there should be no strings attached. And if a man is biologically the father, making him pay more than he can afford is wrong. It should be a reasonable amount that still leaves him enough of his income to be financially solvent instead of making him work like a slave while the ex remarries. And fuck, if she gets with someone else then the child support should end because it's no longer needed...if she's going to find another "provider" to replace her kid's dad he should be off the hook. I think the way it's handled right now is in need of a serious overhaul.
The rise in all of these new "identities" is a result of Marxism - a political system which, by the way, was invented by a man and which predates women's voting rights by quite a few decades, and which historically was always put into power at the hands of men. These things are being pushed for by the Jews and by cultural Marxists and not just by women in general. For what it's worth I find the whole thing as horrific as you do. The whole "protect the kids" thing is a fucking lie that is being used by certain people in the government to justify slowly sexualizing children. If you look back at the last couple hundred years, you can see the way laws which were brought in to protect children in European countries actually did a lot of good in the long run. There are no more workhouses full of hollow-eyed kids anymore; most children are now literate, fed, and relatively healthy, and don't have to work all day long to keep from starving. There are other factors behind that besides just the legal system - the economy and the way society has changed through the development of technology has drastically changed the way we live and has made this possible. But the legal system has helped too.
Oh I fucking hate it when they do that! Who the hell do they think is going to protect the kids - some unarmed retard who screams "stop! don't!" when someone is hurting people? It's never really about the kids when they say that; it's just an appeal to emotion so we won't object so strenuously when they steal our guns and violate our right to bear arms. It's bullshit. They don't care about kids.
There is a very long and very detailed history of the ways in which different societies used underage boys and girls as sexual entertainment - kids being available in brothels, kids being sold and used as prostitutes, kids being sold as sex slaves. Apparently in the Weimar Republic, before Hitler rose to power, prostitution was so bad and so degenerate that you could have any age you wanted, or a mother with her child. It was fucked up and one of the things that propelled Hitler's rise - he wanted to clean up the streets and restore traditional morality. The Romans had their catamites; Muslim countries have a longstanding tradition of ladyboy whores. As tragic as it is to see transgendered kids becoming more common, as much as I long to strangle the parents of that poor little drag queen boy in Quebec, I wish we could say that this is something new. It's not. And as shitty as that is, as much abuse as kids sometimes endure in the foster care system, there are times and places where it has been worse and still is. We desperately need to make some changes though.
Wait, are we talking about the guys that have to be forced by law to provide for their family...? The ones that get a woman pregnant and then split? The ones who knocked up a slut? Doesn't sound all that responsible.
Women also work. Women also make money. Her money, her family. This shit goes both ways. Women who are receiving child support are often working moms, not stay-home moms. She isn't living on his dime; she's making her own money.
From that link: "Several studies have indicated that once economic factors are taken into account, children from single-mother families fare better than children from single-father families." Ruh roh.
No argument here. Kids need both parents. I'm not arguing in favour of single parenthood; I just don't see how a man taking the kids and leaving the woman with nothing is substantially different or better than a woman taking the kids and leaving a man with nothing. It's the same thing in the end: a broken home and broken kids.
No argument there either. Of course this is true. Kids need their dads.
Single dads bad too, at least according to that one link you sent me! Single parenthood is not ideal for anyone, not for the kids and not for the parents. I'm not defending single parenthood. I'm simply trying to defend the idea that if a man has a kid who is biologically his, he needs to look after his kid, and having a legal system to make him do so is not a bad thing. I keep talking about abortion because I want you to understand that I think the same needs to be true of women: if we have a kid, we need to look after that kid, and having the legal system there to keep women from having abortions or otherwise fucking off and abandoning their kid is not a bad thing. The legal system as it stands right now is NOT handling this issue properly - I agree with you on that! - however I don't think the solution is to scrap it entirely and let this become essentially a free-for-all.
Crensch ago
Part 2. And the absolute destruction of your illusion that single moms should ever have custody. Ever.
They are trafficked for organs and human consumption, too. Rituals that terrify them to insanity before killing them just for the adrenochrome.
Yes.
The ones that get a woman pregnant and then split?
At least 70% of divorces initiated by the woman. Your argument doesn't bear out in reality very well.
Tell me how, exactly, one ensures he is not knocking up a slut. Tell me how, exactly, one ensures that what appears to be wife material actually is.
Marriages fail at an astounding rate for a reason, and arguing that it's a guy not being responsible is really disingenuous.
Take away hiring quotas and they won't. Almost invariably, they won't. The wage gap is a lie, but it shouldn't be. Women as a group do less work, take more breaks, and take more time off than men.
Every problem you have with my arguments is solved because my arguments are less governmental power in our lives.
Oh dear, did I get one of those feminist articles by accident? "Once economic factors are taken into account" sounds suspiciously like fudging the numbers to me.
I have a mess of redpill information that I need to go through; I'll work my way through some of it tonight and hopefully find the studies I'm looking for.
Single mother kids commit more crime, have more mental illness, make less money as adults, are less reliable as adults, and have a high recidivism rate when they reproduce.
Single father kids come out only a little worse than 2-parent family kids. In fact, one of the other links specifically states this.
Again, one of my links addresses this. Single-father-raised kids are better by far than single-mother-raised kids.
It's more true of dads, and that's simply a fact.
Did you really read what you quoted there? I'll repost it:
Stabilizing, protecting from negative role models and violence. That's a study, not some feminist article.
False equivalence. Hugely false.
Yes, not great, but infinitely better than single moms. Period.
Oh, I remember why I chose that link - and it was for the feminist admission of the percentage of single-parent families. Had I known it had something stupid like:
"Yet single mothers have been reported to have warmer and more structured relationships with their children than do single fathers."
... I wouldn't have linked it.
What horseshit. More structured than a father? Warmer? You mean the cool "friend" mom that ruins their kids because she acts like a cool friend instead of a mother?
Yeah, my bad for presenting that piece of shit.
First comment:
Fifth comment:
source
Oh, joy. There was a silver lining in presenting that piece of shit.
With that, your argument that single mothers should ever have custody is shot to hell.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Usually when a man splits because she got pregnant, they aren't married. These are two different issues. I'm not saying that women don't ever take off because that happens too. I'm also not saying that women are innocent - there is a world of difference between divorcing your husband because he is abusing you/the kids or can't keep his dick in his pants, and divorcing him because you "aren't happy anymore". Getting out of a dangerous situation is reasonable. Bailing because you're bored and unwilling to put in the effort to make things good is bullshit.
Don't have sex with a woman you don't know...no hookups, no booty calls. None of that degenerate shit. Take the time to get to know a woman as a friend for a while before you start having sex or dating. Get to know her hobbies, her tastes in music and food, her friends, her political and social views, her stance on religion, how she feels about things like marriage, kids, abortion, traditional values. Don't just listen to what she says - observe what she does. Listen to how she talks about her exes and pay attention to what her friends are like (if they're vapid whores then she probably is too). Is she a feminist? How does she feel about patriarchy and men and women's rights? These are important things to learn. Just take some time on it. That way you will have an idea what sort of person she is and whether you even actually want to be with her romantically, or whether your initial feelings were just because she's hot and you want to get in her pants. You'd be surprised how much easier it is to get to know someone when there is no pressure to play the role of boyfriend/girlfriend. My husband and I were good friends for a year before he asked me out, and by the time he did we were both very sure that we wanted to be together. We knew we were a good match. People rush into relationships these days and prioritize sex and chemistry over friendship and knowing one another - I think that's why so many marriages are so fucked. People treat relationships like fast food...instant gratification! don't wait! scratch that itch! It's fucked up.
There is no guarantee that no man will ever find himself at the mercy of a dishonest bitch if he takes his time to get to know her first. Sadly, shitty people tend to hide their shittiness sometimes until the other person is entangled with them and the relationship is committed. This is how abusers operate too...they rein it in until the other person is "trapped" before letting loose. But I do think that if you don't sleep around, and if you take the time to get to know someone well before things ever turn romantic or sexual, it can greatly reduce your chances of getting fucked over. Notice how the divorce rate was a lot lower when this kind of approach was very common, as was the rate of single motherhood and teenage pregnancy.
Women don't only get hired because of quotas. Amazingly, some women get hired because they are actually the most qualified person for the job!
The wage gap isn't a lie, per se; people misunderstand why it exists. It isn't because of discrimination. It's because women take more time off than men and choose to go into less lucrative fields than men; women are in general less interested in putting in the 80+ hour work week required to reach the loftiest position in a company; and women are less inclined to negotiate for a raise. There is a small gap but the lie is that it's because of institutionalized sexism.
I looked but couldn't find that. I can definitely see how having a father in their life would keep them out of trouble. I'm a good mom, but I can never be a good dad. My husband is a good dad though, and the kids really need his influence and strength. There's a kid who lives up the street from us...her parents are deadbeats and her grandma is raising her. For a while, grandma's former husband was living with them, and as much as he was kind of a bastard, he protected this kid wonderfully. Now he's moved out and there is a steady stream of riffraff blowing through that house, and the kid is no longer safe. So yes, dads to keep kids out of trouble far more effectively than single moms.
I wasn't saying it because I think fathers and mothers are equivalent. We aren't. I see every day how that plays out in my own family; the more redpilled we become the greater differences I see in our respective roles of mother and father, of wife and husband, of woman and man. No, I was saying that because kids also really do need the influence of a good mother in their lives too, and even though single fathers do a better job at keeping their kids out of crime, it is still better for kids to be raised with both a mom and a dad together under one roof. Single parenthood is, in general, bad for kids. Hence "single fathers bad too".
You realize that this means that 71.33% of boys raised by single mothers do not fall into delinquency, yes? And that 81.81 of girls raised by single moms don't fall into delinquency either.
"With that, your argument that single mothers should ever have custody is shot to hell." Well no. Not really. It looks to me like the majority of single moms manage to keep their kids out of crime, if I'm reading these numbers right.
I don't think single parenthood is ideal for anyone, regardless of whether the kids are male or female. But I don't agree that no woman should ever be given custody of her own kids; it would appear that the majority of them are able to do a good enough job. I would love to see these statistics broken down by race - I wonder if kids raised by a single white mom fare better than kids raised by a single black mom, for example, and if it's possible that one race has dragged down the average more than the other.
Crensch ago
All right, are we talking about niggers, now?
The former happens far less than they want you to believe, and the latter happens far more than they want you to believe.
As for keeping his dick in his pants, women cheat many times more often than the men do.
Should've picked husband material, amirite?
Don't marry a man that will end up beating you, or cheating on you. Totally doable with roughly the same ideas, right?
You mean when women still hadn't voted in free cash and prizes for reining it in, then trapping a man? Good times.
Very, very few. Everyone knows it, too.
It is a lie. It's presented as unequal pay for equal work.
Women almost invariably do not work as hard as their male counterparts, which is why they SHOULD be paid less for the hours they put in.
Jesus tittyfucking christ, woman.
Re-write that like so:
"You realize that this means that 28.77% of boys raised by single mothers fall into delinquency, yes?"
That is the DEFINITION of societal cancer.
I'll let you do the math there. Nearly 20% females and 30% males. Un. Fucking. Real.
If the numbers above look good to you, I posit that you lack the requisite discernment to be taken seriously.
That's like saying a majority of Muslims are peaceful. Or the majority of niggers in middle-upper class are good people, when they still have much higher rates of violent crime than poor whites.
You might be onto something, except for the fact that even if niggers showed a bigger difference there, it would still suggest that a similar effect happens to whites.
If it was only whites in this country, and, say, 10% of children raised by single moms were degenerates, and 1% for single dads, you'd still have societal cancer there, despite the crime rate being so low that as we are now, we'd think it a paradise.
At some point that crimerate would normalize, and we'd see the damage caused by single moms to 1 out of every 10 kids. Unacceptable. If the father is around, he should get them, period.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Proof...? Source?
Nobody is guaranteed anything, but I firmly believe that your odds of success are greatest when you take it slow, get to know the person as a friend for a while before dating, and don't have sex until you two know and love each other and are committed to the relationship. Whether you're a man or woman, your odds of success are highest when you take your time.
Women had been voting for decades already by then, and yet somehow society was still good. Amazing! It's almost as if the current mess is a result of more than just the female vote!
This is a logical fallacy. "Everyone knows it" is as irrelevant as it is untrue. Do you have any proof that women are only really hired because of quotas and not because they are the best person for the job?
The majority of single moms manage to keep their kids out of trouble. If you are a single mom your odds of success are better than your odds of failure. If you had a 71% chance of winning the lottery you would buy a lottery ticket, wouldn't you? I don't think it's ideal for kids to be raised by a single parent. But I also don't think that painting all single mothers with the same brush is reasonable. Why are you so keen on ignoring the fact that the majority of single mothers raise their kids well?
If you are happy to dismiss the majority of single moms - who manage to keep their kids out of trouble - because it gets in the way of your scorn, then perhaps you are the one not to be taken seriously. You are dismissing facts and reality because you'd rather stick with your own opinions and I can't respect that at all.
Single parenthood is not good for kids; being raised in a two-parent heterosexual home is ideal. But we aren't talking about that. You said that no woman should ever get custody of the kids, but the only way you can hold that position is if you ignore the 71% whose kids stay out of trouble. Why should those moms not be permitted to care for their kids when the evidence demonstrates that they are doing a good job a
What if he's not? What if he doesn't want them? What if he is abusive or an addict? Who should get the kids then?
Crensch ago
Let's take this a step further.
You're a young mom, and you want what's best for your kid. You and your husband divorce.
Would you fight for custody of your kid knowing those statistics?
If you would, I posit that you don't actually care about your kid.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
What I would do would depend entirely on why we divorced.
Crensch ago
Stats don't care about your reasons.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
And they don't care about your feelings. You can call single moms as many names as you want; you can shout to the heavens that none of them should ever be given custody; that does not change the fact that, in spite of the disadvantages and pitfalls of broken homes in general, a full 71% of kids raised by single moms do not fall into crime. They have a 71% success rate in spite of all your words and opinions. Sorry but I'm gonna have to go with the numbers on this one.
Crensch ago
You're arguing for literally the worst possible outcome inside a home.
Yeah. Let's.
Single dad: .5 something delinquency in males, ZERO in females
Single mom: ~29% males, ~18% females
Numbers. Feelings. You don't give a shit about the kids or society as a whole.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
I'm done talking to you about this now. You are so obsessed with your ideas that you won't see reality. You won't face the fact that fatherlessness is as much the fault of deadbeat men fucking off as it is the fault of women who push good men away. You really don't seem to understand how families work and what kids need. Many of your arguments are based on a faulty premise. You struggle to get your arguments up off the first tier of the debate pyramid. This discussion is going nowhere. And because I can see that reality does not mirror your ideas or values, no matter what you think or say, I see no point in continuing. You have your views; reality, history, and statistics tell another story. I prefer to side with reality when confronted by a person who wants me to reject it and accept their opinions instead.
Good luck in your life.
Crensch ago
I knew I'd find this at some point.
Every. Single. Ounce. Of. Your. Position. Is. Wrong.
Crensch ago
I'll take that as the cowardly woman's way of admitting she would force 29% of kids into being fucked up, useless sacks of shit because mommy.
Top kek.
Crensch ago
Read that line above again. Read it.
Absolutely irrelevant.
Stupid comparison. What about a 29% chance of Allahu Akbaring? Would you take that lottery ticket then?
"Not all Muslims", amirite?
Why do you hate healthy societies so much that you defend single mothers as a viable choice over almost literally any male relative?
If you are happy to dismiss the fact that ~25% of kids are FUCKED when raised by single moms - because it gets in the way of your feefees, then you're definitely the one not to be taken seriously.
One out of 4. 1/4. 25% FUCKED because you don't care.
Women should not vote.
You took the time to calculate the percentage of kids single moms raise well - do that for the fathers with the same stats I gave you.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
Literally any male relative or couple that are together.
Hell, the streets might be better for the kids at that rate.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Your words don't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. Your scorn, your insults, none of that matters. What matters to me is the numbers. And the numbers indicate that most single moms do not raise criminals. Yes, being raised by a mom and dad is ideal and kids do the best that way; and yes, single fathers do a better job at keeping their kids out of trouble. But I am not going to throw the 71% of single moms who raise good kids under the bus because of the 28% who do not.
Why do you hate women so much that you think that a distant male relative would be better at raising a woman's kids than she is? At any rate, this is not a legitimate argument; it's just another fallacy to add to the list.
LOL yeah because 71% of homeless kids are leading such healthy lives and turn into such well-adjusted adults. Fucking hell you're retarded. Don't let facts stand in the way of your ideas!
Crensch ago
What would it take? Is there any point you'd draw the line? Is 1/3 not enough? Is 1/4? What about 1/2? More?
Where would you draw that line to decide that single moms are bad?
How can you not look at that line and think it a decent litmus test for how much one cares about kids?
Crensch ago
This is just too insane. Too utterly fucking insane.
With the number YOU are using, 29%. That's astronomical. That's insane.
Almost infinitely better. Less than a percent delinquency if memory serves.
They shouldn't be allowed to try anymore. Kudos to the ones who did, but giving a kid 2/3 chance to not be fucked up is apparently acceptable to you.
And you accuse me of not caring about the children.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Yep. But the overwhelming majority - 71% - should not have their rights to their own children stripped away because of these women. Furthermore, given that the problem is fatherlessness, why do you still continue to ignore the fact that at least some of the responsibility for these 29% of kids lies squarely at the feet of fathers who are clearly not doing their job? Until you address that, the discussion can't continue.
So I guess the whole "the needs of the kids matters less than the needs of adults and society in general" isn't really what you think, eh, given that you are advocating stripping adult mothers (you know, members of society?) of their right to raise their own kids because "think of the children!" You are talking out of both sides of your mouth now - you've contradicted yourself here.
Crensch ago
And why do you ignore the fact that 70% of divorces are initiated by women? So *at best ~10%.
And honestly, hand the kids off to a fucking family friend or neighbor if they'll take 'em.
29% fucked because you have feelings for single mothers.
"and society in general"
The woman has no NEED to raise her kid, it's a privilege if she has it. The CHILD has a NEED to be raised by someone that doesn't have a 29% chance of fucking them up.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
I didn't. We already talked about that, remember? I even said that divorcing a man because of unhappiness is bullshit. Go back and look.
You are dodging and weaving like you're George Foreman. You still have yet to address fatherlessness. You acknowledge that lack of a father in their lives messes up these kids but you still absolutely refuse to talk about the fathers who are absent. So I will ask it one last time: do you think that fathers have any responsibility for the damage done to their kids when they are not involved in their lives? You blame single mothers for the damage but the problem is fatherlessness - where the fuck are these fathers? Why don't you want to talk about the ones who fuck off because the don't want to be a father?
I am surprised that I continue to be surprised at the depths of ignorance you display about human nature in general. Kids don't only need dads; they also need moms. Why do you think children fare best when raised with both a mom and a dad? It's not just because of the dad. It's also because of the mom. Do you know what my role as mother does for my children? I am the pattern for my daughter regarding how to behave properly as a woman - what female nature is, how to sharpen its strengths and gifts and how to be aware of and restrain the weaknesses. I am showing her how to be a wife, a mother, a sister, a friend, a woman. I'm here to guide her and be a good example for her and to make sure she doesn't wind up one of those bitchy "mean girl" types. I set the example for her where men are concerned: how to interact with them respectfully, how to treat your husband right. And I am a pattern for my son as well...the way I treat him and his father is an example to him of what it means to be loved by a woman, what to expect from the opposite sex, what marriage should look like, what respect looks like. Good or bad, I am his first and foundational pattern for the way he will one day interact with girls and women once he is old enough to begin dating. My goal is to be the kind of woman my daughter can emulate and the kind of wife my son will one day want to find. I can't be everything to them that my husband can be because I'm not a man, but he can't be what I can be either because he's not a woman. They need his strength, his discipline, his ferocious power - he is not a man to be fucked with, and they know it, and that's good for them. I can't be that. But he can't be a womanly influence either. They need both. They need both. My kids would not be better off with just their dad raising them, just like they wouldn't be better off with just me raising them.
And this isn't because I'm some kind of freakin' unicorn; this is well-established stuff. Kids need both. I don't know why you seem to think mothers are trivial and that we have no rights to the little people we spent nine months growing and then many more months breastfeeding, but you are quite simply wrong. Thank God the law doesn't agree with you.
Crensch ago
But not here, apparently: "What I would do would depend entirely on why we divorced."
Because men have a better record when raising children. Period.
I said might.
And at 25% fail rate with mothers, something so severe is on the table.
And fucking hell, you're using 71%, so you think a 29% fail rate is acceptable. ~1/3. One. Fucking. Third.
... and you still try to slip moral grandstanding into your words.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Statistically I have a greater chance of falling into the 71% success rate than into the 28% failure rate. I do not share your opinion that a 28% failure rate means no woman is fit to raise her own child; you may write me off but that doesn't mean I would. Furthermore, you still have yet to address what role fathers play in these delinquent kids - after all, the problem here is FATHERLESSNESS. So where the fuck are the fathers? Why aren't they doing their part to ensure their kids don't fall into crime? Maybe they are the ones at fault here after all instead of mothers.
Yes, well, your meaning was pretty obvious. Don't pretend you weren't making an implication.
How many more fucking times do I have to say that I don't think single parenthood is good for kids before you get it through your thick skull? I have explained this a number of times and you refuse to listen to what I'm saying; all you can do is repeatedly have knee-jerk reactions to the strawmen you keep setting up. Fuck, it's like trying to have a discussion with the stupid fembot basic bitches over on Reddit...people like you are why I left that site. You can't be objective. You can't read what's written. You just have a meltdown.
Crensch ago
THE DIFFERENCE WITH A MAN AND WOMAN AND JUST A MAN IS NEGLIGIBLE, YOU STUPID CUNT.
And single moms fuck up at a rate of 1 in 3.
Admit that single fathers are FAR, FAR, FAR superior to single mothers.
Statistically a nigger has a greater chance of not killing you if you walk down their street at night.
Wanna go take a walk?
Let's play a game:
You have to write a law about single parents. This law either states that the father gets custody, or the mother. In all cases. No exceptions.
Which do you choose?
If you had an ounce of sense, you'd go with the fathers, since the difference between them and a 2-parent home is INSIGNIFICANT.
Often removed from homes and their children by the courts because feefees. And the PROBLEM is SINGLE MOMS. Hand the kids off to a male relative or friend.
I usually don't make mistakes with my words. At 1/3 fail rate, even options like that need to be considered.
I'm telling you what's best for the kids, society, men, AND women, by pointing out that single moms are a CANCER on society, and you want to lump single dads in with it because feelings. The stats don't lie.
If you want those kids to have the best chance, the father needs custody. If you don't have a father, a grandparent, or other family member. I'm probably not kidding about handing them off to a family friend.
29%
Tell me where you'd draw the line before you'd kick single moms to the curb.
39%?
49%?
Let's just go with an overarching "this is how it's going to be". Single moms, or some home with a man in it.
59%?
Tell me where you'd draw that line.