TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

49

I've been reading a book called "The Boy Crisis" by Warren Farrell and John Gray. The entire book is how modern culture is failing boys and fathers, thus creating a cycle where children are overwhelming left behind. Girls are also adversely affected, but it is usually not as severe.

In one section they list 15 different areas in which fatherly involvement radically improved either boy outcomes or child outcomes. I'll list them below (paraphrased). The book has all the citations.

  1. School achievement: By third grade, boys with involved fathers scored higher on every achievement test.
  2. The 3 R's: The more involved dad is, the greater verbal intelligence as well as math and quantitative abilities.
  3. School dropouts: 71% of high school drop outs have minimal or no father involvement. Dad-deprived children are also more likely to skip school or be expelled.
  4. Employment: Boys who are dad deprived are less likely to be employed than their sisters, and are less likely to advance or succeed in their careers.
  5. Suicide: Living in a home without a dad is more highly correlated with suicide among children and teenagers than any other factor.
  6. Drugs: Father involvement is at least five times more important in preventing drug use than closeness to parent and parental rules, and is a stronger determining factor than the child's gender, ethnicity, or social class.
  7. Homelessness: Around 90% of runaway and homeless youths are from fatherless homes.
  8. Bullying: The APA found in a review of 153 studies that father absence predicts the profile of both bullies and being bullied: poor self-esteem, poor grades, and poor social skills.
  9. Victimization: Children between 10-17 living without their biological dad were more likely to be victims of child abuse, major violence, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
  10. Violent crime: Every 1% increase in fatherlessness in a neighborhood predicts a 3% increase in adolescent violence.
  11. Rape: Among rapists specifically assessed as raping out of anger and rage, 80% came from father-absent homes.
  12. Poverty and mobility: Children who were born poor and raised by married parents had an 80% chance of moving to middle class or above; conversely children who were born into the middle class and raised without a married dad were almost 4x as likely as their peers to end up considerably poorer.
  13. Health: Among blacks boys, hypertension (high blood pressure) is reduced by 46% when dads are significantly involved.
  14. Trust: The more involved the dad's are, the more easily children make friends.
  15. Empathy: The amount of time a father spends with a child is one of the strongest predictors of the child's ability to empathize in adulthood.

Stepfathers are not the answer, for they do not provide the same level of benefits. Money into social safety nets is most likely not the answer, as it's specifically the father's involvement, not the father's wallet.

Q4ALL: Knowing all of this about the importance of fathers, do you think the spike of divorces after 1970 has created a breeding ground for less healthy men? If so, do you think our current social problems are a direct product?

Q4ALL: What do you think should be done to improve the fates of these boys? Should we take marriage more seriously? Should we reduce out of wedlock babies? Should we make divorce harder to obtain?


[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence28 points29 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

All the more reason to be a good dad. I think that if there should be any policy changes then it should incentivize having families, and having programs which help.

This hits close to home for me. My wife and I are planning on having a kid within the next year or two and we're going it alone. The only aid we get is in tax breaks. Now, we both make decent money, but why is maternity leave only 3 months, and why don't I get paternity leave? Why would we have a kid just to put them in daycare and see them 2-4 hours a day? That isn't normal in any era of human history.

I get the whole libertarian and conservative arguments against government handouts, but if you're going to have handouts, and there are plenty out there for the right people, then why not focus those handouts on family formation so that the next generation of citizens can be well adjusted and more productive? Letting families fend for themselves is like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

[–]VictoriaSobocki4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I agree. Here in Denmark lots of people have kids whom they barely see because they spend 90% of their time in institutions. Is this normal/healthy? I’m not sure.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Institutions? Like what?

[–]weaver420junkie prude2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

kindergarten/preschool

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Like boarding schools?

[–]weaver420junkie prude2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, but most kids in scandinavia spend the entire parents workday, mon-fri, in kindergarten, so they only see their parents in the morning, and the afternoon before it's back to bed again. Kindergarten is by definition an institution.

[–]VictoriaSobocki0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

^ This is what I meant, thank you weaver420

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

In the UK maternity leave is a full year, it's crazy it's only 3 months in the "land of the free". We also have paternity leave but that is only 1-2 weeks.

[–]concacanca2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but many employers offer more and you can add on some annual leave. It's not enough but you can easily get the first month at home.

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No doubt! I actually knew a young woman who had her labor induced a week early so she could spend 7 extra precious days with her infant. (Her McJob job had made her start maternity leave 1 week before her due date; I guess it looks bad when the fry cook goes into labor on the job. LOL)

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure it’s just 6 weeks here under FMLA but maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And its unpaid except in California where the state allows you to collect what is basically unemployment while on maternity or paternity leave.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I’m grateful at my work they offer paid leave.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree with everything you said.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

why is maternity leave only 3 months, and why don't I get paternity leave?

Uh dude you get paternity leave as well.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

No I don't. My work does not provide it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

You in the US?

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Yup.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Congrats you get parental leave.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Checking with my boss, I've found that my work doesn't offer it. I could take off work using my PTO but unless it's a state mandated thing I don't get it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

They have to give you by law not doing so violates FMLA.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

FMLA doesn't apply to my job because my employer has fewer than 50 employees.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah.

[–]BisquitBill 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Paternity leave does not exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Even tho it does least in all western countries.

[–]frogsgoribbit7370 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The US does not have paternity leave.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes it does, its called the Family and Medical Leave Act. Its just not paid on a federal level.

[–]Balancedbetween5545 points46 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

My parents got divorced when I was about 10 years old. This was back around 2003. Divorce was just starting to become more acceptable socially and under the law (correct me if I'm wrong)

They asked me to choose if I wanted to live with my dad or my mom. This question alone was pretty damn traumatic for a kid to have to choose. My dad reluctantly suggested I should probably be with my mother at the house that she was getting from him that they'd lived in for 20 years together.

Now here is my point pertaining to the post. Because my mom was able to easily leave the marriage and not work out difficulties , granted my dad wasn't perfect - but he provided and was at all my baseball games etc. he did his best to father me but he just wasn't allowed to be around much during my developmental years.

He had visitation rights on the weekends and then had me over his place like every other weekend. I grew up in a house full of women then. My sister and my mom. I love them like nothing else but god this was terrible for me. Terrible. I wasn't socialized right. I didn't know how to make friends with guys very well. I felt a huge void of a father figure in my life and had to seek out masculine influence by joining the Army eventually. What I'm saying was this was a disaster just so my mother could get out of the marriage. I love her and don't blame her. She didn't know any better and I don't hold it against her. But she was able to get out of the marriage and never she never even got re married or did anything worth the horrible effect it had one me.

[–]concacanca26 points27 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I hear you. I was 16 when my parents divorced so just about escaped unscathed. My youngest brother though, his whole personality changed in those years. He should have gone to LSE or even Oxford but ended up a bit of a middling school. Joined the army even though it wasn't really right for him. Was on meds for depression for years.

All because my mother decided to be a massive bitch about everything.

[–]Balancedbetween5519 points20 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

It's like my mom had some fantasy that leaving my dad was going to give her freedom and independence but really it had the opposite effect. She thinks it gave her those things but the evidence is clear that it didnt. It tore the family apart and now she's in her 60's with no one to hang out with and nothing to do with her life. It also decreases the amount the family gets together. Even though that shit fucked stuff up for me, It's tragic it breaks my heart to see that she has nothing to do and no one to spend time with. I'm not laying the problems of my life at her feet , I take responsibility for my problems but to ignore that the divorce has had lasting effects on my social and love life would be wrong.

She hated that my dad was largely emotionally unavailable and she felt like she didn't know who she was outside of the marriage , well congratulations she knows now - she's a lonely women with little connection to the world , the community or anything anymore.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My mom divorced my dad because he was boring, didnt want to go clubbing with her, and procrastinated housework(he was the only one with a job and made about 90k a year, he was only interested in events that also involved children like vacations), tried to turn me into her new husband or a mini me of her or something I dont really know so I ditched her for 4-5 years to live with my grandma before going back once I was at an age that she couldnt control

Eventually she remarried, but I think her main motivation was just because she realized that im her son, not her friend, she has never really known me and never will. Her new marriage seems far from an improvement, I guess its not as boring for her, but not for good reasons

[–]concacanca8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. This sounds about right. Women aren't realising how much their husbands are doing for their emotional and mental state and have to project onto kids. I think daughters end up slightly better off but most of those I know in the situation ended up as crazy and slutty sooooo....

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

That is how feminism ultimately rewards women. How many cats or dogs does she have?

[–]Balancedbetween556 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The even more tragic part is that she has zero cats or dogs. She lives in a small tiny studio apartment (it's a very nice studio apartment but it's tiny)

It makes me sick to think about how lonely and empty her life has become. When I think about my grandparents (her parents) they are still together they own a big home , they have the whole family over for get togethers...it's like what happened to the generation before me??? What happened to my parents generation that they all decided to blow up tradition? They have kids then get divorced, it's becoming the norm and it's horrible.

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is what happened. The goal of feminism was to destroy the nuclear family by incentivizing divorce by appealing to the worst parts of female nature. Sadly their strategy has worked very well.

[–]Balancedbetween552 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I wonder if it's really what they wanted like if thats what there goal is or it's the unintended consequence ?

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Either way they are happy with the result.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

pets are 1000x better than being tied down to a man you despise.

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are there any men you don't despise? I'm guessing not. Still, they are better off GTOW than being with a feminist who despises them.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

how is that related to my comment? downvote all you want, it is quite obvious you people here would rather imprison a woman in a dead-end marriage. everything befalls her and only her. and that kind of mentality i find despicable.

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I must have missed the part where I advocated for abolishing divorce. And WTF is a dead-end marriage? Is that like a dead bedroom where the guy only stays in it so he doesn't get divorce-raped?

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

has it occurred to you that her not knowing who she is outside of marriage is because she spent 20 years with your dad? women tend to enmesh their identity with their relationships. co-dependence , especially this long-lasting, is hard to overcome. isnt it better to be lonely than with the wrong person?

[–]Balancedbetween550 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She claims she is happier alone that with the wrong person , so yes it's entirely possible you're correct on that point.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Forgiving your parents is the hardest and most important thing to do in life. I'm glad you were able to.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is under rated. Your parents are human. They make mistakes. One of the biggest is creating the illusion they are infallible. Having to accept their fallibility is really difficult but forgiving them really frees you.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪18 points19 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

My parents got divorced when I was about 10 years old. This was back around 2003. Divorce was just starting to become more acceptable socially and under the law (correct me if I'm wrong)

about 2.5 decades late for "acceptance" and 3 decades for the law, if youre talking about the US

[–]Balancedbetween556 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I remember it was really frowned upon by my extended family members and the local community at church etc. It wasn't spoken about openly there was more stigma even then in 2003 than there is now I think but I see your point yes. In the US I thought no fault divorce wasn't allowed until the late 90s in some states like the one I lived in.

[–]boundarychimpsALL THE COLORS7 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

In the US I thought no fault divorce wasn't allowed until the late 90s in some states like the one I lived in.

Fun fact: some states (for example TN) still only allow no-fault divorce if both people agree on everything. If one doesn't want to divorce, or if the court needs to step in to settle something like property division, you need to have fault-based grounds.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not really an issue tho when you can just go divorce in another state

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You have to have jurisdiction. I doubt you can forum shop for divorce courts.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is why people divorce in Nevada -- a state that has a ridiculously short residency requirement.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I was thinking it would be related to residency but I never had a jx issue come up that I had to litigate when I did family law.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I live in TN people get divorced here pretty regularly.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

There's also technically speaking no such thing as no-fault divorce in the UK, although in practice the court almost never actually exercises its right to fight a divorce.

[–]concacanca0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Reasons allowed for divorce are so broad though that it may as well be no fault.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes this is true. In effect it practically is no fault. That's why I pointed it out as a technicality.

[–]concacanca0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That you did

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

In my bar state even with no fault divorce you still have to allege irreconcilable differences as grounds. But I mean you just write that in the petition you don’t have to expand or testify about it. It’s sort of meaningless in practice.

[–]reluctantly_red1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In California you just check the box on the judicial counsel form.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys use forms for everything lol

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Were you in a Southern or Midwestern state, a conservative state?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I had a conversation with a guy friend of mine (whose mother was widowed when he was 3 years old) who also grew up in an all-female household. He also had to reconnect with his masculinity years later (after he first left his parental home and then his controlling cunt of a GF) and mused about how his life would have turned out had he had a male presence in his life.

The fun part is that even though his mom was a diehard progressive and his sister is a feminist, he's every but as much as a shitlord as I am. The other fun part is that his sister probably missed out on having kids (it took her 35 years to finally decide that now is a good time to have kids, and she still didn't get pregnant) and if he gets any (he plans to), his kids will rather follow in his footsteps than in those of his female relatives.

[–]Balancedbetween555 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Funny you mention controlling GF's I had a string of controlling women in my life it's a deep pattern in me to date horrible manipulative women. I have to imagine if you don't have a strong male and a strong female influence in a household you're going to give your kids some kind of complex where they seek out destructive people to be in relationships with.

The thing I'm trying to explain to my sister now is exactly what you're talking about. I try to tell her that if she spends her 20's dating a bunch of men and gets into that habit then she'll spend her 30's doing the same thing.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry that happened to you. I was in a similar situation as a child so I truly empathize.

What do you think should be done to decrease divorce rates?

[–]Balancedbetween555 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a good question that I don't have a good answer for. Seems like making it tougher for people to get divorced so that they potentially stay in marriages that they hate isn't a great solution either. If I had to guess as to a realistic solution I would say it'll take people returning to some forth of faith and there being more of a social stigma against it instead of a difficulty under the law? I don't know honestly.

If people could articulate and educate everyone on why the institution of marriage is so important for raising well functioning kids into well functioning adults that could help. Right now it feels like marriage is seen by the young generations in a negative light, something to be avoided till a last resort.

When I got married when I was very young for instance right before I went to Iraq (cliche I know) I didn't really think twice about it or take it seriously as I should have because I knew I could easily get out of the marriage if I wanted to under the law.

What do you think a good way to get divorce rates to go down is?

[–]EminemLovesGrapesSpongebob1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If anything instead of making divorces not happen maybe make the process of a divorce, if there's a child involved, more about what's right for the child.

Of course what's "right" in the eyes of the general public always is "she gets everything, he gets nothing". Which sucks.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you think should be done to decrease divorce rates?

Not the guy you asked, but I sincerely think that people getting used to break up for frivolous reasons helps them getting used to it (and also getting used to the idea that a relationship should be a permanent high, which they only got used to because they had so many of them) - and then they also break up easily when the stakes actually are high.

Oh, and women being slut-shamed more and men being wimp-shamed more would also help.

[–]NordJitsu2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I went through a very similar situation. I feel for you. All we can do is the best with our lives and try to make it better for a future generation.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I had the same life as you, except my dad was a waste of space that we were better off without.

I was raised by my mother and two sisters. I can't see how I wasn't 'socialized right'. That's on you and probably would have happened even if your dad had stayed.

Are you sure your dad wasn't allowed to be around much? Or was it that he didn't try very hard to be around? or he was too much of an ass to have around?

Why didn't he take you when the marriage split? Maybe your mom wasn't the best choice for you to stay with - did he consider that?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here23 points24 points  (44 children) | Copy Link

A retracing of more conservative views on sex is the answer. This wave of hedonism looks like it’s coming to an end. I wish I was at my desk to give your high-effort post the attention it deserved.

I don’t think slut shaming will return in full swing, but I think we will start to encourage and value sex within a mutually respectable relationship over the more hedonistic message that sex positive feminists have pushed.

Much of the whole /#metoo movement is only further convincing me that this new wave of feminists is essentially a push back against hook up culture. I think women are realizing that it is only men who typically gain something and enjoy no-strings-attached causal sex, and so women are saying ‘this is not fair, I am losing something (chasteness? innocence? value? idk?) and he is just using me for sex’. Women are not letting men get away with making them feel used anymore because they know that it’s only beneficial to men.

I think women have deluded themselves for too long after liberation in modeling female sexuality after very hedonistic principles of male sexuality. And the many women today who engage in it still think they can gain something (favor? attention? free dinner? exclusive commitment?) from sex, but ultimately there is nothing they really gained from it in terms of long term pleasure and fulfillment. There’s not even much to gain short-term pleasure wise as well. from what I’ve read, casual sex for women is pretty underwhelming in terms of pleasure.

Ultimately, women have to choose healthy and responsible men for there to be any meaningful shift away from the current outcome, and I think that is where we are headed.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it will come back as it has multiple times in history. The current regime will crumble. The empire will splinter and strongmen will rise to power. They will restore order and push it right into the other side of tyranny.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think slut shaming will return in full swing, but I think we will start to encourage and value sex within a mutually respectable relationship over the more hedonistic message that sex positive feminists have pushed.

I think the problem isn't just sex-positive feminism, but it goes far deeper - namely the feminist mantra that (a) women mustn't be criticized, at all, and (b) that women definitely mustn't be criticized for things men more or less get a free pass for.

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The one thing women need to do once they pull their head out of their asses and choose healthy, responsible, and sexually attractive men, is to give them respect. That's all men want, it's incredulous women haven't figured that out yet.

[–]concacanca6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure they'd argue that very few men check off those boxes and those qualities are in the eye of the beholder.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Respect is earned not automatically accorded.

[–]BisquitBill 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Respect is earned not automatically accorded.

Then I am not obligated to respect women?

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I believe Lewis Cross said that no men are not obligated to respect women or anybody, he has discussed this many times in threads and been pretty consistent on this and in fact many red men say they do not accord respect to women under any circumstances. I think there was an acknowledgement that for social glue and cohesion reasons one would be prudent to act in a manner that is civil. I am more or less paraphrasing past discussions so I cannot claim 100% accuracy.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Correct. You do not "respect" (i.e. admire, defer to) women.

You give women common courtesy and politeness.

When women say they want men to "respect" them, they demand admiration and deference. Which they're not entitled to. It has to be earned. And it has to be conferred upon the person respected, by the person doing the respecting.

I've met maybe 2 women who have earned my admiration and deference. No woman gets admiration and deference merely because vagina.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just to be clear I was not making that demand or saying it should be a condition or protesting about it, I was trying to explain what you present to Bill because he made a comment to me about respect, so maybe you two can have that dialogue.

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

100% agree, both parties have equal responsibilities.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19931 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

you dont get respect just because you have a penis. sorry. earn it.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Feminists push back against hookup culture because it takes the power out of sex for women.

If the bar is set at 'sex on the first/2nd/3rd date' thanks to tinder, how can a girl expect to hold out on a guy for weeks? He'll lose interest after days.

[–]reluctantly_red6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminists push back against hookup culture because it takes the power out of sex for women.

Yet "hookup culture" only exists because women would rather have a hot guy some of the time than an ordinary guy all the time.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I guess thats one way of looking at it.

I think hookup culture is much closer to the natural state of the way humans mate. Monogamy and marriage is how we built society and put men to work.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Considering how much of hookup culture is tied in with alcohol, and clubbing and Tinder I disagree.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Alcohol and clubbing are not really "unnatural." They're human inventions, but that does not mean they're opposed to our nature. We invented them and continue to use them for a reason.

Humans have been partying in some shape or form since forever. Alcohol and other psychoactive substances have been used by humans for so long there is even evidence to suggest we were drinking since the stone ages. It's even theorised that cavemen were getting off their nut from magic mushrooms. Cannabis has undoubtedly been used by humans since forever because it's literally a plant.

It's not like Tinder popped up one day and invented the idea of humans gathering together and becoming intoxicated. That is human nature.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

A retracing of more conservative views on sex is the answer.

Because that clearly worked so well right? Teenage girls with high pregnancy rates, back alley abortions, increase welfare spending, etc etc.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here13 points14 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I think you misunderstood what I meant by more “conservative” views on sex. It’s not meant to be a suggestion of “no sex before marriage,” but a shift towards holding sex to a higher regard as something two people who hold respect for each other do.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

a shift towards holding sex to a higher regard as something two people who hold respect for each other do.

Don't think that is a conversative view or a liberal one.

[–]deeman0104 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think he’s pertaining to the parties

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Didn't mention anything about parties.

[–]deeman0102 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't that then be a conservative view?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You’re thinking of policies, not views.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't think that is a conversative view or a liberal one.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It is a conservative view.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Reading hard yo

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is a conservative view.

[–]xiiteelee6 points7 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

You're thinking of conservative policies, not conservative views in terms of relationships and sex.

You can have sex ed and conservative views on relationships at the same time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

They are one in the same here tho. As we often not push for such things policy wise.

[–]xiiteelee3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

No they aren't.

Don't know what the second sentence is supposed to mean.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

What I am saying is our personal views on things is often reflected policy wise.

[–]xiiteelee4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Oh, yeah, well you can have conservative views on things like relationships but not on abortion.

You're thinking too much in left-right dualism.

Real life, and opinions are multi dimensional.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Real life, and opinions are multi dimensional.

I know. I am simplifying things for sake of argument.

[–]xiiteelee5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Hint: if your argument only works when you oversimplify reality it's not a good argument.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

And yet you can't refute my point......I guess its a good argument then.

[–]VictoriaSobocki0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Also the lesser mental well being of people with repressed desires.

[–]figyg0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope so. But many men and women will have been sacrificed in the mean time

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Considering Gen Z is polling as more conservative than Millennials, this sounds about right.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is something I strongly believe to be true, that fatherlessness is the cause of so many social ills. Like you I see this as the real cause of men growing up with confusion about how to be men, and women seeking male love in inappropriate ways. It's sad that we cannot stop this. What causes this, divorce or out of wedlock births?

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The out of wedlock births add fuel to a growing hostility of a fire against men, manhood and fatherhood.

I saw an image on reddit about TV reporters debating whether father's day was even necessary anymore. Hating on men is like treating people like criminals. You get worse, not better behaviour yet somehow men are supposed to fight their way through a system that treats them like second class citizens and still be successful. If women complained they couldn't do it, well neither can men.

Men and women have a place in society. We cannot treat one as inferior to the other without the resulting social ills.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We cannot treat one as inferior to the other

I do agree.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He personally noted that when he spoke out against thoughtless divorce because of the studies on children lacking their fathers, the National Organization of Women (he was on the board at the time) refused to run any articles on it because they didn't want to alienate viewers. So I think divorce heralded the push towards OOW births.

[–]yaseedog will hunt7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

does the book discuss how it isolates the impact of fathers specifically from other factors (things like poverty, education level, adverse childhood experiences etc)?

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

He does get into that in the book, yes.

[–]yaseedog will hunt2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

...care to give me the short version? if not it's fine lol, just curious

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's difficult to sum up, it's a dense book.

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy23 points24 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This is such an important topic and has been sidelined while society has been concentrating on mothers/daughters for 30 years (for good reason imo). But it is time this be addressed.

I had my 1st Redpill lesson when my mom bailed on my brother and me at the ripe old age of 14, Dad stayed behind to care for us which taught me a lot about male sacrifice. Of course I did my best to visit my anger on the world and proceeded to "lose a decade" of my life. Survived but all I have to show for it are some great/tragic stories. Of course being a child of divorce I repeated the pattern in my marriage.

My son turns 19 in 2 weeks so I think about this stuff every day, he has talked to me about suicidal thoughts before and its tough to navigate a young mans emotions. I'm not sure what the answer is but I think it is definitely multi layered.

Do your best to be involved as a male role model. Tell them you love them and more importantly, show them you love them. One thing my Dad taught me when i played football, just show up, he was drunk a lot but he was there, that meant the world to me. He was also at every court appearance and kept me out of the slammer a time or two (thanks pops!). For my son I showed up for every little league game (coached for a season), TKD tournament, and we still box together once a week. I try and lead by example for both of my kids and hope I do them justice.

I don't care if your kid likes ballet, art, EDM, piano, MMA, or playing dress up. Be excited for him and just show up.

[–]concacanca3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. This exactly.

You are a good man Salty

[–]reluctantly_red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

just show up,

This is so very important. I put over 45,000 miles on my car (and used all my vacation) last year to make sure I saw my little girls at least 7 or 8 days every month.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for sharing. You sound like a great dad.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

When did you have kids?

[–]Salty-Bastardjust an excitable boy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My son is 19 and my daughter is 22. I had my first kid in my late 20's.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

Q4ALL: Knowing all of this about the importance of fathers, do you think the spike of divorces after 1970 has created a breeding ground for less healthy men? If so, do you think our current social problems are a direct product?

it was not divorce, it was the explosion of out of wedlock births in the black community, finally spreadign to the lower class white community like 20 years later

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just to add, teen pregnancy is falling faster among blacks than whites. I live in a red state with a high minority population, and my lily white, deeply conservative county had the highest rate of teen pregnancy for a couple of years in a row.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is called social metastasis. When a pathology is allowed to spread unchecked in the most vulnerable portions of society, it will eventually take over the more well-off chunks of society.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 2 points3 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

The percentage of white children born out of wedlock now is 36%. What do you suppose we should do?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪10 points11 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

end the enforcement of child support for never wed mothers and end welfare for never wed mothers, return it to true hardship cases--widows, the abandoned wife

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That is far too reasonable to actually happen unfortunately.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

end the enforcement of child support for never wed mothers and end welfare for never wed mothers, return it to true hardship cases--widows, the abandoned wife

I find this focus on the poor woman to be distasteful.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I find that when you pay someone to be something, you get more of that something. You also have things like welfare cliffs which reinforce that welfare is about keeping people down, not raising them up.

[–]BisquitBill 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Then don't have kids.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Did you reply to the wrong person?

[–]BisquitBill 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, don't have kids and problems are solved, namely economic problems.

[–]Fabianstrategy1Asshole with asshole opinions1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Except that it then creates other economic problems. See: Japan.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you seriously suggesting the forced sterilization of single mothers? Don't you think that is a bit extreme?

[–]xiiteelee3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This comment his hilariously nonsensical in the context of his comments.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The sad part is that the leftist fixation on rewarding people for being poor has the potential to do more harm than good.

[–]BisquitBill 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

The sad part is that the leftist fixation on rewarding people for being poor has the potential to do more harm than good.

Whatever gave you the idea that this type of post has any sort of appeal to me?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh sorry, I read "I find this focus on the poor women to be distasteful" and interpreted it as a jab against Atlas' randian approach to welfare.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

That's a good way to increase crime and that poverty.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

why would that happen now that there are at least 2 tings that havent existed for all of human history

  1. cheap, safe, reliable birth control (i would permit the government to fund this)

  2. safe legal abortion

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

why would that happen now that there are at least 2 tings that havent existed for all of human history

Why? Due to the loads of single mothers in poverty now going to struggle even harder now and going to resort to illegal ways to get by. It also means far more single mothers remain in poverty at that.

reliable birth control (i would permit the government to fund this)

But not help pay for it? Its been shown that better birth control access lowers the amount of unwanted babies. Seems to me you be better off having the government even pay for abortions.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why? Due to the loads of single mothers in poverty now going to struggle even harder now and going to resort to illegal ways to get by. It also means far more single mothers remain in poverty at that.

they are in poverty now BECAUSE we subsidize them having babies

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How is removing said subsides going to lift them out of poverty?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

They won't have the out of wedlock births that have been incentivized. You do know OOW births shot up instantly after AFDC started being given to never wed mothers in 1964, yes?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, but look at what's lowering birth rates now. Birth control, education, access to abortion, etc.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is going to sound bizarre, but it seems to me that political conservatives are almost glamorizing oowb, like the Palins, good girls don’t take bc, because that’s what slutty girls do. And they don’t get abortions like those slutty girls either, they just make a little oopsy and face the consequences of sin.

Here’s another bizarre, almost incomprehensible trend. Oowb were headed on a DOWNWARD trajectory before the 1996 welfare reform act. One would have thought 1997 would have really started to show that downward trend since welfare no longer became a career choice, instead oowb started climbing back up

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No!!! they did!

You're not wrong. The prolife movement did this. I stopped being sympathetic to them over this

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

true hardship cases

Widows and white SAH suburban moms

FTFY

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Why would white suburban SAHM get welfare?

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You said child support.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

end the enforcement of child support for never wed mothers and end welfare for never wed mothers

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know. Perhaps have a greater emphasis on family and extended family closeness, so that support can be provided. Icelandic children are doing pretty well off of this model, and they've got around 70 percent out-of-wedlock births. The Swedes, Finns, and Norwegians are just behind them at around 65 percent out of wedlock.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This.

[–]says_harsh_thingsRed Pill - Chad1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

First thing i would want to follow up on with a stat like that is the average age of an unwed mother.

If its 18, youve got some work to do in high school.

If its 26, its likely hookup culture.

If its 30-35 (unlikely) its probably women choosing to get pregnant before its too late.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That 36% is simply women under 30.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The divorce rate increased in all demographics in the 70s and 80s. White people too.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I said it was not divorce but out of wedlock births

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is an unholy alliance of tradcons and radical feminists that want the same policies for exactly the opposite reasons. The tradcons think there is a litany of men who don't want to feed their families. The radical feminists think that families are the source a patriarchal power and misogyny.

[–]Eartherry4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Let's be realistic. This is an employer's market that doesn't care to help society shift anyway that doesn't result in higher profits. They won't comply with women leaving the workforce unless it's mandated, and even then, it would take an undoing of civil rights as we know it first.

With that being said, nothing men want will happen if women can support themselves.

Again, realistically, children are going to be seeing less of both parents due to both having to work. The solution? Make it easier for parents to put their kids somewhere while they're at work. Make school days longer. Give vouchers for daycare. Eliminate mandatory minimums for how young a child can stay home or leave the house alone.

None of these things are going to do anything for the quality of children's childhoods. It has nothing to with the ability to get divorced, not because of a shift in gender roles, but because the economy doesn't allow for it anymore. That's going to change one day, to something we can only try to predict, but it won't be because of anything we do. We don't change the economy, the economy changes us.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think men would flock to childcare roles as a job, and it's male influence that children are suffering from, not female influence. Elementary schools are 90% staffed by female teachers, there are plenty of women.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (50 children) | Copy Link

Q4ALL: What do you think should be done to improve the fates of these boys? Should we take marriage more seriously? Should we reduce out of wedlock babies? Should we make divorce harder to obtain?

Why not let things happens as they go? we can't have another plague, so let the world thin out itself at least. I am one of those guys that believe everyone should be free to do anything that does not affect other peoples freedom. Let women be free of a men's grasp, but let men be free from he grasp of the women too.

Let women feel the pain of creating a child alone WITHOUT THE FATHERS MONEY and LET THEM RECEIVE NO MONEY FROM DIVORCES you solve all that in the blink of an eye. women are not that stupid, or they learn to choose better and try to fix things instead of destroying the family nucleus, or they suffer the path of poverty. Without free money from state or husband they will easily see the benefits of a single father and a husband. You just need to change the law for the men's side. Let women have their rights, just expand them for the men too. you solve the problem for children by default

[–]Ubermensch-16 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Without free money from state or husband they will easily see the benefits of a single father and a husband.

The way things are going, society is likely going to see social assistance programs for single mothers long before they see the benefits of LTRs.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm worried about the next generation of men, because I want to have kids and I want any sons I have to do as well as any daughters I have. That's why I don't want to let such things go.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you believe they would be happy being married with today's women? Would they be happy to be married at all ? Would you accept your boys receiving the same rights as your girls? That are some hard questions.

My take is to teach my sons to live by themselves and use protection. They can choose what the kind of deal they want when adults. That is all we can do as parents.

Even if we discuss such laws, they are not gonna change, not in our sons timeframe at least, maybe grandsons or after. The best we can do is teach how to circumvent the inequalities in our world and to avoid danger. I am just as worried as you my friend, just as worried.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I hope they could find good women who respect them and also challenge them to be the best they can be, but they are in short supply.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know how it is where you live, but it is almost impossible today, even in the third world, in a somewhat small city, where I live there is not many good women to go about and they trend to marry really early (18-20).

If my future sons are born here, I would probably just teach then how to live alone, teach them the males lf marriage and hope for the best. I have to find a wife for myself first, which is a hard task on itself. You should be more worried to find a partner for yourself first bro, nothing against thinking of the children, but first we have to make them. And survive the marriage or whatever with the mother.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this3 points4 points  (41 children) | Copy Link

they learn to choose better and try to fix things instead of destroying the family nucleus, or they suffer the path of poverty.

Thank God. Now I abuse my wife all I want without fear of her leaving me.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar21 points22 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

Yes. The only thing stopping millions of men from beating their wives into submission is child support. How can we not think of the women and children who are literally standing at the edge fighting off barbaric beasts who rape everything in sight?

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this3 points4 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

I was being sarcastic to point out that there are reasons why we have the current system in place. Yes, there are those who abuse it and we should try and fix that, but getting rid of the system altogether is a swing in the opposite direction that would hurt just as many people.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar13 points14 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

Either women are dependent on men and marriages are forever under penalty of law or you can have independence and marriage is just a cohabitation agreement. You can't have both. Women live in a false bubble right now where their every whim is placated but this can't last. It costs too much financially and socially. We either make the transition to true equality or we are going to reset back to the default.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this2 points3 points  (27 children) | Copy Link

And so what do we do about the children?

[–]BewareTheOldMan2 points3 points  (25 children) | Copy Link

"...what do we do about the children [of divorce]?"

Always be an active, involved, concerned, loving, and Red-Pilled Parent.

It's the least you can do to mitigate/minimize the damage and possible fallout associated with divorce.

ALWAYS do things right, do not falter, do not wince or slack in your duties as a parent. Do all these things despite being divorced from the other parent...whether the other parent is cooperative or not. Somebody has to be the responsible adult. It's the best way to ensure better childhood outcomes.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying what do we do in the case where there is no government support or alimony, since that's apparently that is the way it has to be because "women have had it good for too long".

[–]BewareTheOldMan1 point2 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Another commenter already mentioned it somewhere else in this thread, but the base answer is the mother and child fend for themselves, attach herself to the child's father as long as he's willing to support his offspring, or seek assistance from extended family.

They do this in other countries. As a matter of fact in many countries it's extended families that pick up the slack as government offers zero assistance.

It's clear that offering a safety net when women produce children with deadbeat men is problematic and encourages Single Motherhood.

Remove the safety net and the problem fixes itself as women will make the absolute best choice for men they select as father to her children.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this2 points3 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Remove the safety net and the problem fixes itself as women will make the absolute best choice for men they select as father to her children.

Or they are forced to stay with abusive men.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

thanks, this works well with our master plan of increasing childfree, never-married women. thanks, ally!

[–]Fabianstrategy1Asshole with asshole opinions0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, they'll end up in jail. That's the current solution anyway.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

How is women being dependent on men, ‘true equality’?

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You misread my reply. I am saying that women cannot be independent while depending on men. You cannot be equal without independence.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Still makes no sense. Our world and culture’s history has never had as many women independent of men, as it does now.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But it is a false independence. They are in actuality dependent on the State to transfer massive amounts of resources to them maintain a false sense of independence. Women are just as capable as men and should be truly independent. Worse is that we are on a timer during this transfer from dependent women to independent women. The current status quo cannot be maintained due to its enormous financial and social strain.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you believe that every woman is a single mother or living in poverty, then what you’re saying would make sense. However, actual reality varies very greatly from the boogeyman that RP obsesses about in their echo chambers. The actual percentage of single mothers (who by the way, not all of them depend on the state for welfare) is about 30%. Which means that there are some 70% of other women who are not dependent on the government. And if they are over 22, chances are that they’re are the ones paying their own bills and taking care of themselves. Do you know what percentage of women were independent 100-200yrs ago? Less than 5%.

Besides, women are not the only gender that depend on the government for welfare, there are many men that collect food stamps and other benefits and therefore take advantage of the tax payed by other men and women. If you want to make the argument that women aren’t really independent, by virtue of the fact that they’re still receiving govt benefits, then men really aren’t independent either. Statistics show that the percentage of women receiving benefits is about 25%, while that of men is about 19%. Which is not a huge difference and does not significantly support the argument that women are more dependent on the govt and so aren’t really independent like men are.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You mean you prefer abuse to poverty? Wow... okaaaaaaaaaay.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Homelessness allows way worse things to happen to children than a known quantity like an abusive husband.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to today's mens life.

[–]RockinSocksII25F poiple INTP - Not single, Eastuss needs to know this2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men have to watch their kids get assaulted because they're homeless?

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are the majority of the homeless population, I'm guessing that's what he was getting at.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There’s no benefit of a single father. Single fathers are just as much failures as single mothers. No one wants to deal with your baggage and bastard children.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Let women feel the pain of creating a child alone WITHOUT THE FATHERS MONEY and LET THEM RECEIVE NO MONEY FROM DIVORCES

We've already had it that way. Didn't work.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not that i am aware of. Alimony for where I live is actually older than divorce.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m just curious. Two questions

  1. In the book do they make a big distinction between married, divorced, out of wedlock etc

  2. I thought parental involvement was increasing, especially for dads. Is this inaccurate?

I have noticed some really healthy, non traditional parents who seem to be doing a great job. I have a friend whose daughter never married her “baby daddy”, but they have been solid for a decade and have 2 kids. I wonder if people like this end up in the unwed statistics. She is late 30’s he is mid 30’s and they had #2 very intentionally, (don’t know about #1, none of my business). They both strike me as incredible parents.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

1) He does. Involvement is the criteria he uses, so quality / quantity of time.

2) It's growing in some way, but it also needs to be quality dad time that isn't constrained by mom.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic8 points9 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Do you think the spike of divorces after 1970 has created a breeding ground for less healthy men? If so, do you think our current social problems are a direct product?

Just because parents are divorced doesn't mean that a father can't play an important part in his children's lives. My parents were divorced when I was young and I still saw my father every weekend, and was able to call him up anytime I wanted to. Men not spending time in their children's lives is usually a choice of the father, not a result of divorce filings.

What do you think should be done to improve the fates of these boys?

Educate men more on the importance of spending time with their children, even if they go through a divorce.

[–]bluepy677 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This. My parents divorced, yet my father was very involved. When my mom decided to move to the other coast, Dad paid for me to fly back and forth so I could still see him--at great expense to him (flying wasn't cheap in the 70's like it is now.)

I also question the dismissal of step-fathers. Sure, there are low quality step fathers out there, but mine was golden. He died a few years ago, and I miss him so much. He was every bit as much my "father" as my dad from birth.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The author (and I) agrees that stepdads are better than no dad, but there are risks to stepfathers and they do not generally provide the same benefits as biodads.

That being said, I have a great relationship with my stepdad so please do not think my goal is to knock stepparents.

[–]FuckYourselfUCunt2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Visiting my father on a weekly basis as though he's an uncle or something was nothing like having a father. Visitation is bullshit.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I’m not sure why you think that. I spent about half of my time with my father if you consider that much of the weekday time with my mother was when I was in school, while on the weekend I was just with my father with no school. I’m not sure how this put me in some kind of “crisis.” I had plenty of father/son bonding time even if I didn’t see him on weekdays, and I could call him anytime I wanted when I couldn’t see him. My mother did the best she could to make sure I could see my father despite the divorce.

[–]FuckYourselfUCunt0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything bad to say about my mum, it wasn’t her fault. I’m not blaming her for the situation at all, I just personally feel that despite visitation, I never felt like I had a real dad, just this guy I had to go see weekly, like any other relative. I also fit the bill for problems caused in men who grow up in a single parent household. I’m still completely lost about the whole situation, it’s quite uncomfortable to think about it.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I guess visiting isn’t the same as living with your father, but I guess my point is that I don’t think it put my life into some kind of “crisis,” and I don’t think that divorce necessarily has to harm boys and young men in a substantial way. I think things could be worse if parents didn’t get along and stayed together and subjected their kids to that.

[–]FuckYourselfUCunt0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think that removes a lot of the responsibility of commitment, friction isn’t a reason to abandon a marriage, it’s reason to get both your shit together and realise that you’ve brought someone into the world and while it may be better to be apart than subject your child to a hostile environment, it’s demonstrably better to work your problems out, compromise, and stay together in an actual partnership for your children. I feel like divorce is too socially acceptable now, there should be major social shame policing it.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t know. If you’re not in love anymore, that’s a lot of time to spend with somebody you don’t love if you can’t divorce until the kids turn 18. Even if you allow each other to have extramarital affairs, that causes its own tension and potientially causes separation anyway if one parent falls in love with someone else. It’s just a crappy situation in general for somebody.

[–]FuckYourselfUCunt0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This whole fairytale idea of being "in love" and expecting that you'll find that perfect person contributes to the situation imo. Then people get the tingles from an affair and think that means they've found the real match for them, it's just chasing the dopamine rush. Commitment has meaning, it doesn't mean only when you're enjoying yourself, it's work. Raising a kid sure isn't a walk in the park, you don't abandon them when the going gets tough, so why abandon the person you've took a vow with for the same reason?

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because parents are divorced doesn't mean that a father can't play an important part in his children's lives.

Exactly

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Just because parents are divorced doesn't mean that a father can't play an important part in his children's lives. My parents were divorced when I was young and I still saw my father every weekend, and was able to call him up anytime I wanted to. Men not spending time in their children's lives is usually a choice of the father, not a result of divorce filings.

This is true to a degree, but most men feel as if their families don't want them around anymore, and eventually give ground because the moms are able to make more aggressive cases.

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is not how divorce has to be. There’s nothing inherent in the concept of divorce to make parents act like this.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree. Do you think anything should be done to encourage father involvement?

[–]wtknightHardcore Romantic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. My parents divorced pretty amicably, so there was no hostility and no real barriers for my father to be involved in my life, which he was. I don’t think that every divorce can happen amicably, though.

If there’s another male relative on the mother’s side who lives close by that can guide boys and young men, then I think the absence of a father has less of an impact. Sometimes stepfathers can help, but they are often poor substitutes because each different family is almost like a different culture with different rules. Both myself and the other people I knew with stepfathers often didn’t get along with them, although I realize that this is not always the case. I think there’s some truth to the idea that men consciously or unconsciously don’t want to raise other men’s children.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My parents were on the verge of divorce at one point. They were very young when they married (about 21 I think) and had us soon after. On top of many other things, my dad getting a vasectomy despite knowing that my mom wanted another baby proved to be the tipping point. They separated for a while (couple of months, I think), and my brother, sister, and I mainly lived with our mom. I was oblivious to all of it. He wasn't around much anyway because of work, so it seemed like business as usual to me. I didn't find out about the separation until maybe five years ago. My brother on the other hand was absolutely devastated at the time. He cried a lot, even more so if dad couldn't make it to the daycare to feed him applesauce once a day. My mom loves us to death, and she mainly got back with my dad because she realized just how much my dad's absence from the home was affecting my brother. They ended up going to marriage counseling, and I guess it worked since they're going strong at 20+ years now and are really happy together. Whenever I see them lately I can't help but think how lucky we are that my mom decided to stay with him. Personally I don't get along with my dad that well, but my brother adores him and that's enough for me. I know that "stay together for the kids' sake" marriages don't always end so well, though.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for sharing.

[–]concacanca2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Stepfathers are not the answer, for they do not provide the same level of benefits. Money into social safety nets is most likely not the answer, as it's specifically the father's involvement, not the father's wallet.

Does this get backed up in the book? Would love some data points on that.

Q4ALL: Knowing all of this about the importance of fathers, do you think the spike of divorces after 1970 has created a breeding ground for less healthy men? If so, do you think our current social problems are a direct product?

Yes and yes. It's not just fathers, there are a whole host of things at play here including PC culture, female led education for the benefit of women, lack of socially acceptable role models for men - and for men willing to fill those roles.

It's clear to me that men love their mothers but do not respect them as they so their fathers. The fear of a fathers disapproval is a powerful motivator for a young man, as is competition to win his acclaim.

Q4ALL: What do you think should be done to improve the fates of these boys? Should we take marriage more seriously? Should we reduce out of wedlock babies? Should we make divorce harder to obtain?

Definitely need to reign in on out of wedlock motherhood. I guess the book doesn't really cover upper class women going it alone, how are their sons doing?

It's fascist but I'm actually fairly pro child licences.

I don't think restrictions on divorce are necessarily a good idea - giving fathers a higher baseline of access to their kids, with resulting lower child support payments, might be though.

Good post!

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Thanks! It's been on my mind for awhile and Smoogs' post finally got me off my ass.

Does this get backed up in the book? Would love some data points on that.

Yes!

1) Children living with married bio dad do significantly better academically than those living with a stepdad.

2) Children between the ages of 10-17 with their bio parents together, adoptive parents together, or single parents are significantly less likely to experience sexual abuse or domestic violence than families with a stepparent.

3) Adolescents raised in stepfamilies face even higher incarceration rates than those raised in single-mom families.

He specifically addresses in the book that fathers engage children differently, which is what accounts for the difference in respect toward the parents.

I guess the book doesn't really cover upper class women going it alone, how are their sons doing?

Their sons don't do as well and are more likely to "fail to launch" and become basement dwellers or depreciate in socioeconomic status.

I don't think restrictions on divorce are necessarily a good idea - giving fathers a higher baseline of access to their kids, with resulting lower child support payments, might be though.

Most men post-divorce admit to wanting to see their kids more but feeling unwanted by them or that they cannot reach their kids with just words.

[–]concacanca0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Nice. Some backup to the single mothers questions.

Thanks! It's been on my mind for awhile and Smoogs' post finally got me off my ass.

Does this get backed up in the book? Would love some data points on that.

Yes!

1) Children living with married bio dad do significantly better academically than those living with a stepdad.

2) Children between the ages of 10-17 with their bio parents together, adoptive parents together, or single parents are significantly less likely to experience sexual abuse or domestic violence than families with a stepparent.

3) Adolescents raised in stepfamilies face even higher incarceration rates than those raised in single-mom families.

I guess the book doesn't really cover upper class women going it alone, how are their sons doing?

Their sons don't do as well and are more likely to "fail to launch" and become basement dwellers or depreciate in socioeconomic status.

This is another point that blues sometimes bring up that no one ever contests. Saving this haha.

I don't think restrictions on divorce are necessarily a good idea - giving fathers a higher baseline of access to their kids, with resulting lower child support payments, might be though.

Most men post-divorce admit to wanting to see their kids more but feeling unwanted by them or that they cannot reach their kids with just words.

Yeah exactly. Extra mandated time is a good thing. Needs to be more of a public perception shift that kids spending time with their father is good for them (though obviously not in all cases, I'm pretty sure a judge could catch that though).

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Extra mandated time is a good thing. Needs to be more of a public perception shift that kids spending time with their father is good for them (though obviously not in all cases, I'm pretty sure a judge could catch that though).

Agreed.

[–]LowCredditRead the sidecar1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am for limiting divorce until the children are 18 with exceptions for extreme physical violence and sexual abuse.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you.

Your red pill buddies on a separate post were arguing dead bedroom was grounds for divorce and that parenthood was not as important as getting sex from your wife. One compared sex to oxygen and said he would die without it. Interesting that more blues were saying that dad should just suck up and stick around at least for a few years.

[–]Fabianstrategy1Asshole with asshole opinions0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's fascist but I'm actually fairly pro child licences.

I'm very libertarian but this is the one area I agree with. If parents had to meet a set criteria of responsibility and intelligence this would solve 90% of social issues. The problem arises that it is hard to then field an army for cannon fodder, which has been the paradigm for all of human history.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a problem of fatherlessness. It's a problem of poverty and low socioeconomic neighbourhoods. Most problem couples are going to split up. If the parents were forced to stay together, the outcome would be even worse for the kids.

Fatherlessness is:

  • a grossly misleading term

Parents who stay together are more likely to:

  • be college educated

  • be comfortable financially

  • have close ties with family and friends

  • live in more affluent areas

  • have happier kids

Single mothers with problem kids are -

  • living in deprived areas
  • or living in affluent areas, but their marriage failed due to fights and issues - unhappy household that wasn't going to be any better had the father stayed
  • living alone but the father (a criminal or addict) keeps coming in and out of the kids' lives, and exerting a negative influence on them. That effect isn't measured by the study

If fathers were forced to stay in homes, we'd have a lot more:

  • domestic violence
  • unhappy men
  • kids being beaten
  • kids being sexually abused
  • kids growing up with an addict or criminal in the house
  • kids growing up watching mom and dad tear each other apart verbally every day
  • welcome back to the homes of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. This was the reality for kids then

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Involved dads aren't always married dads. Sometimes married dads have better stats that divorced or unmarried dads, but a dad who is there for their kids is the most important thing.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Involved dads aren't always married dads. Sometimes married dads have better stats that divorced or unmarried dads, but a dad who is there for their kids is the most important thing.

Agree. Two parents are better than one, if everything is good between the parents.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Truth.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

What do you think should be done then?

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you think should be done then?

I didn't offer solutions. Just trying to show the picture as it is.

But what could be done is build better men, for our own sakes.

Better mental and physical challenges at school that are built from the ground up, specifically for boys and designed to limit boredom. Boys are bored as shit at school.

Better pathways from school to work for boys - the ones who don't want to go to college. Don't leave them hanging in the street. We still have the mindset that a man without a job isn't a man, so we have to make sure men have jobs.

Alongside all that, do the same for girls. Because girls leaving school and bumming around in shitty casual jobs before getting knocked up is a big part of the problem. They get with shitty guys and then these women and these guys create problem kids. And the cycle continues on and on and on.

And better funding for marriage/live-in relationship counselling - to fix problems before they get too deep.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with a lot of what you said here. Thank you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No. The problem is one of moral degeneracy, low intelligence, and self absorption.

If you were correct, then the trillions of dollars thrown at the problem would have solved it by now. If you were correct, just giving people more of MY money (tax dollars I pay) would have lifted these idiocrats out of their mire.

You can't just say "Here, here's some money. Now go be like us college educated employed upper middle class people. Go to college, get a job working in an office, and get married to somebody. Have kids and stay married. OK all done! Good luck! Just go be like us!"

Doesn't work that way.

If you were correct, then the millions of working class to lower middle class people who populated this country, fought their way across a continent to build it and populate it, and sustained it, couldn't have done any of it. They had NOTHING. They had no money. They had no offices. They had no BMWs or air conditioning. They had no college educations or fancy titles. They had only their moral convictions, their industriousness, resolve, and a deeply held belief that what they were doing was good and right for themselves and their kids.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No. The problem is one of moral degeneracy, low intelligence, and self absorption.

Low intelligence is one factor. The other two things describe everyone.

You can't just say "Here, here's some money. Now go be like us college educated employed upper middle class people. Go to college, get a job working in an office, and get married to somebody. Have kids and stay married. OK all done! Good luck! Just go be like us!"

Doesn't work that way.

No everyone needs to or should go to college. Not all jobs are for the college-educated.

If you were correct, then the millions of working class to lower middle class people who populated this country, fought their way across a continent to build it and populate it, and sustained it, couldn't have done any of it. They had NOTHING. They had no money. They had no offices. They had no BMWs or air conditioning. They had no college educations or fancy titles. They had only their moral convictions, their industriousness, resolve, and a deeply held belief that what they were doing was good and right for themselves and their kids.

They were morally degenerate. They killed and raped the natives with impunity. Slaughtering men, women and children.

When street gangs today have the same mentality, we look down on them.

They had only their moral convictions, their industriousness, resolve, and a deeply held belief that what they were doing was good and right for themselves and their kids.

The strong beat out the weak. Attack or be attacked. Which is the law of the street gangs today.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I’ll give you the flip side of this. My parents were old school. They viewed divorce as a failure and believed you stayed together for the kids. Trying to make a terrible marriage work tore them apart and they became angry, resentful and emotionally abusive towards each other. It was like growing up in a war zone. I would have been far better off if they’d divorced sooner. When they finally did, our lives were far better, but the scars still haven’t gone away even today.

Not every marriage needs to last forever. Children are not better off in a horrible situation.

I believe 110% that children need their fathers. But the answer is not to force people to get or stay married when the relationship is toxic. The answer is make 50/50 shared custody mandatory, to require divorcing parents to put their children ahead of themselves, and to start valuing fathers again in our society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

to require divorcing parents to put their children ahead of themselves

Internally inconsistent.

If you're divorcing you're putting yourselves ahead of your kids. Those who really gave a shit about their kids pick people they can make a marriage work with, and then make it work.

Your parents fucked up long before you were born by marrying each other when they had fundamental incompatibilities or just unable or unwilling to make the necessary compromises. They had a terrible marriage because they either (1) were terrible people; or (2) didn't value themselves, their lives together, or their children, highly enough to make the adjustments necessary to make it work.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Internally inconsistent.

Nope. Parents who recognize their kids are in a horrible environment and actually care about the well being of their children will split up and commit to co parenting.

Yeah my parents were young when they married and admit to wasnt a good match at all. Since time travel didn’t exist at the time, they tried to make it work because they believed it was better to have two parents who don’t want to be together than one but it wasn’t. I give them credit for trying and I know they did their best.

I mean, how are your kids faring growing up in such a miserable environment? Probably not good either.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely. This author was a huge part of the 2nd wave feminist movement (was elected to the board of the National Organization for Women), he knows how important it is for people to have the right to divorce. But overwhelmingly he also saw that dads needed to be present. I am (like I believe he is) unsure of how to proceed to help the next generation and keep people free from hateful marriages.

[–]Uncommon_Sense_12345 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Marriage provides a stable environment for kids. Marriage should be encouraged by:

Offering tax breaks and incentives for low income parents who marry by removing the welfare state that replaces the father by supporting single mothers with kids. The free medical care should go first to the low income married couple then the single mothers.

No fault divorce should be replaced so that the person requesting a divorce bears the penalty. There was a covenant marriage movement in some states that reduced the ease of divorce by applying more stringent requirements for divorce and a longer timeframe but people are still divorcing under this and complaining about the delays.

Adultery laws should be put back on the books to include heavy fines or physical punishment.

The dating culture of the 50s gave way to girls loosing their virginity because men and women were allowed to go out without chaperones. Reducing the access to easy sex by both genders will reduce opportunities for promescuious behavior and make marriage the acceptable place for conception.

Remove single teen moms from school so their bad behavior will not influence other girls. This will also reintroduce the culture of shame.

The next step would be to force single women to either have abortions or place the child up for adoption. This will send a clear message that children will be raised in two parent homes.

All of this will never happen. Because there never was a golden age of marriage where the couples were happy for the most part.

There never was a marriage system where the man could be guaranteed a willing partner who desired him. Because marriage was not about the individual or couples happiness.

We have inherited a form of marriage that put the welfare of children as heirs to the society over the happiness of the couple. The attempt to find happiness in marriage by applying today's romantic love ideals will fail. Because marriage was a contract in which families were united, land access increased, and served more of a society business purpose.

Today's marriage is about romantic love and romantic love was never the intended purpose.

So marriage as we practice it for love will only be successful by very few.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

The next step would be to force single women to either have abortions or place the child up for adoption.

this would be completely unconstitutional in the US. just remove the financial incentives for single motherhood

[–]hammerhauntsbread pill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

this would be completely unconstitutional in the US.

what else is new

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

just remove the financial incentives for single motherhood

just remove the incentives for guys to put bareback sperm into single women.

No point trying to fix it after the horse has bolted. You're only hurting kids that way.

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That would require castrating them. Because clearly the threat of CS or being jailed for not paying CS isn’t stopping men form barebacking rando vag.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That would require castrating them. Because clearly the threat of CS or being jailed for not paying CS isn’t stopping men form barebacking rando vag.

Yep. I was using irony. To show the stupidity of the idea that 'taking away incentives' for single mothers being the answer.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just remove the incentives for women to let guys put bareback sperm into them.

No man is barebacking a woman unless that woman is letting him bareback her.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No man is barebacking a woman unless that woman is letting him bareback her.

That's right. And no woman is barebacking a man unless he lets her.

Let's stop the incentives for men to bareback. Make them have to pay 90% of their wage if they create a child that they don't want to take physical care of.

Anyone can see I'm being ironic. It's as stupid as saying that we should remove 'incentives' for single motherhood.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This post gets everything wrong; clearly the largest issues boys face is women writing Huffington post articles and celebrities tweeting about feminism. /s

The issues that boys- and by extension men face are extremely complicated and play into a lot of factors. Doing just one thing will not fix it.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, fine. What variables do you think could use some improvement?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't you know TRP ways will fix everything!

[–]Willow-girlSuffering from bovarian oppression0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the U.S., change the social policies that incentivize poor women not to marry their baby daddies. These policies also put everything -- the lease, utilities, SNAP card, etc. -- in the woman's name, making it hard for a guy to feel like the man of the house.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Knowing all of this about the importance of fathers, do you think the spike of divorces after 1970 has created a breeding ground for less healthy men?

yes

If so, do you think our current social problems are a direct product?

yes

What do you think should be done to improve the fates of these boys?

If their parents are divorced, give primary residential custody to their fathers. Primary residential custody of minor children should default to father. The mother must overcome a rebuttable presumption that the children should remain with father. In custody disputes, judges must make written orders with specific findings of fact to support their decisions and said findings must be based on admissible facts and sworn testimony.

Complete and total nationwide divorce overhaul. No more "no fault" divorce. Want a divorce? You must prove fault, or agree to a fault based finding/order. No more alimony, ever, under any circumstances. Child support is case by case, outlaw child support as percentage of payer's income. Total payee accountability for how child support is spent - payees must establish they are spending the money on the child

Strengthen the ability of married fathers to run their families. No more Duluth Wheel bullshit. No more VAWA. No more "must arrest". Police stay out of "domestic disputes".

Should we take marriage more seriously?

Of course

Should we reduce out of wedlock babies?

A single mom not married to the father of her child should be required to obtain an abortion or give the child up for adoption. Under my regime, single mothers would have their live children taken and put up for adoption or otherwise made wards of the state. No more AFDC, WIC, TANF. No more benefits for single mothers.

Should we make divorce harder to obtain?

Yes. See above.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I am at the cusp of having a child. For factors outside this discussion, I want a daughter; but my wife wants a son.

If I have a son then I have a task before me.

I will never buy him an X-box or whatever. If he wants it, then he can get a job and earn it.

However, I will buy him kits or sets that explore chemisty, photography, or whatever.

I will buy him a chess set and a go board.

But the best wisdom that I and my own step father can pass on to him are military virtues and martial arts, and perhaps a bit of chivalry.

As an aside, if I have a son I would want to name hime Rico,but I think my wife protests.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Rico Suave

Johnny Rico

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

After Johnny Rico as my wife is Filipina.

[–]BirdManBrrrr0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

However, I will buy him kits or sets that explore chemisty, photography, or whatever.

Legos for days; he'll be a little engineer in no time.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

When reading these numbers, at times I wonder how much better things would have actually turned out if all these men were still in the picture - because somehow I doubt that those guys who bailed would have been a much better influence.

(though of course this reflects badly on those women who choose to have kids with these guys)

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

These numbers don't just reflect dads who bailed or divorced, but also dads who do not spend a significant amount of time with their kids.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course, that's why I said "those who bailed"; those couples who broke up for other reasons are not taken into account here.

Because in that regard I am serious - how likely is it that lower class guys, possibly petty criminals who didn't want to have anything to do with the baby mamma or the kid, would have left a positive impact on its life?

[–]Raii-v2The Best Pill is Gold0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My parents were never married but my dad remained a force in my life. Showing up to all my major kid shit, forcing me to take up sports (alternative ones specifically) and just being present for my weekend visits.

When I got to high school, my mom forced me to go live with him, his “wife, and my little brother. My “stepmom” if you will made my life hell with petty shit. But in hindsight it was my time living with them that I could see an example of manhood in action. How he never let her or anyone else walk over him, how he would check me (in a way my mother never could)

Eventually I negotiated alternate weeks at each house until college where I left and started to find my way on my own. But those years were so important. He never showed me how to rack up one night lays, but he did (embarrassingly to us) show us how to talk to strangers and attractive women in seemingly any situation.

Definitely a man among men. And I dedicate my life to outperforming him. (Male pride and whatnot)

[–]Offhisgame0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Correlation isnt causation. Great example of that

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

So you think there's a different cause? Would you like to add your two cents?

[–]Offhisgame0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think a lack of a mom would do the similar things. Go figure

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It does different things. This book specifically addresses the effects fathers have on children, be they single fathers, present but unmarried, stepdads, or married bio-dads.

[–]jerryskids_Purple Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

People immersed in a system become sold on it, even if evolutionarily, in terms of the best outcomes for the offspring, it isn't the best answer.

To be truly fulfilled means being in a fulfilling long-term relationship, raising a family that is biologically your own, with children who by your contributions go on to live great lives and start their own families. At least in older age, and for the majority.

Many people today because of how they have been conditioned do not act in alignment with this.. but you reap what you sow. There are people in their 20s that are conditioning themselves to be set up for relational failure.. men and women. They don't even realize it. It's in part a product of what each gender has been sold by their societies.

[–]thejarjarbinks690 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

No one care about boys and men, move along.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well you're just sunshine-y.

[–]thejarjarbinks690 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's the truth, the moment you talk about men's rights you're an alt-right nazi misogynist racist piece of shit.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do so anyways.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women have become men

Men have become women.

Women want masculine men.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

School dropouts: 71% of high school drop outs have minimal or no father involvement. Dad-deprived children are also more likely to skip school or be expelled.

This is a melanin centric problem

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's just compare apples to apples here...and control for socioeconomic status.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

40% of white kids are born OOW

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is that the only response you have, or would you like to make a comment on anything else?

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Q4ALL: What do you think should be done to improve the fates of these boys? Should we take marriage more seriously? Should we reduce out of wedlock babies? Should we make divorce harder to obtain?

Lower income taxes. EVERYTHING else will happen like magic.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

How did you come to this conclusion? The presence of fathers is the primary factor, not the size of their wallet.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The presence of fathers tends to correlate with relative size of women's wallet. The size of women's wallet tends to correlate with how much of men's tax money gets pumped into their well-being.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

So less tax money into women will decrease their wallets. So men will then be less present, because the smaller wallets correlate with less presence of fathers.

This helps... how?

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Correlation is negative. When a woman is dependent on a man directly, she tends to directly observe and appreciate his input and sacrifices. I don't know what kind of witchcraft is at play here, but I am absolutely certain that when income tax was instituted, the politicians knew exactly which sex will carry this burden.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I see what you mean now! Next time please say they're inversely correlated.

I and the author agree, he discusses how women have stopped appreciating men in the book.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry, it's late night here in Eastern Europe and I've just finished my workout, didn't proofread the comment before sending.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No worries, I appreciate you clarifying.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then women should stop being pumped and dumped by chads having oopsie babies that they keep.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The solution is for men to stop abandoning their children and/or bastards.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They are more often pushed aside by their mothers than abandoning their children. Most men in men's groups regret that they don't see their kids much.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men in men’s groups virtue signal about being upstanding fathers that are heartbroken about not being able to see their kids. What a shocker. These men certainly didn’t do anything wrong to lead to the demise of their marriages, it’s all the woman’s fault.

The reality is that most of these men never actually bothered to fight for custody or fight for their kids. They would rather have the mother deal with the majority of the childcare, so they don’t have to be burdened with it, and then go on to bitch about having to pay money to feed and clothe their children.

A man that wants to be there for his children, especially for his male children, will be there for his children. Everything else is just excuses by lazy men that blame everyone else for their own problems.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of them don't blame her, they just don't want to lose what time they do with the kids by pissing her off.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter