TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

142

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/02/27/of_27_deadliest_mass_shooters_26_of_them_were_fatherless_435596.html

I believe that second wave feminism ultimately did a disservice to women and a major failure of current feminists is a refusal to adequately pick up the pieces and provide a counter-narrative to past feminists like:

Linda Gordon who said, “the nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”

Robin Morgan who said “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”

Mary Jo Bane who said, “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”

Vivian Gornick who said, “being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”

Feminists today do not have a platform of advocating family. In fact, the unwillingness of feminists today to provide any counter-narrative not only causes confusion but understandably leads people to believe that such views on marriage are still widely believed among feminists. The leftist implication that that all cultures/religions/family models are inherently equal is blatantly false. Cultural values that are endemic to a particular ethos of a nation result in completely different outcomes for that nation. So to speak of them as if they are equal is ridiculous.

Contemporary feminists choose their words very careful about advocating family values to appear as inclusive as possible. I think that is ultimately a mistake. The damage of boys and girls without a father figure has statistical backing. In addition to not advocating family values, feminists tend to not disparage single-parenthood either, despite there being evidence that father figures are extraordinarily important to the healthy development of a child.

When it comes to personal values, most feminists refuse pregnancy until they are married themselves. Yet there seems to be an outright refusal to acknowledge their personal values despite them considering marriage a superior model for themselves.

Q4All: Do you believe contemporary feminists fail to provide a counter-narrative to the feminists of past (regarding marriage)?

Q4All: Are the consequences of paternal absenteeism silenced in an effort to remain inclusive?

Q4All: Do you believe a present mother and father is the superior model to build a healthy, productive child?


[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it63 points64 points  (110 children) | Copy Link

Single motherhood is more a symptom than a cause. Single motherhood is a symptom of low intelligence, low socio-economic status, low long term planning, etc. In general, the parents that give birth to out of wedlock children, or marriages that fall apart tend to be situations where one or both parents are lower in IQ, SES or long range planning. The rates of divorce and single motherhood correlate pretty strongly with education level, and education level is a good proxy for IQ and socioeconomic status.

So I don't know if single motherhood is the issue, or if fixing it will fix the problem.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM25 points26 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Single motherhood is a symptom of low intelligence, low socio-economic status, low long term planning, etc.

These items have always been present in the population. However, the sudden increase of single motherhood is a much more recent development.

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!21 points22 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

low intelligence, low socio-economic status, low long term planning, etc.

Yep. Which are also the people most likely to be redneck gun toters.

Funny that "single mothers" are not causing boys to walk in and kill masses of their classmates in other countries.

[–]AnteesAntaas14 points15 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe because they don't have guns? It's much harder to go on a mass stabbing spree than a shooting one.

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Tell that to the Muslims in Europe who plow a truck into a crowd of people. I guess we should ban automobiles too.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to the Muslims in Europe who plow a truck into a crowd of people. I guess we should ban automobiles too.

That's a tired out round about argument, and you know it.

edit.

Ooo.. a down vote!

Hey I got a down vote everyone, a DOWN VOTE.

next thing will be a shabby argument about the need to have fire arms to protect against a tyrannical government.

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I suspect it's that, honestly.

Still, I'm not in the least bit interested in letting the socialists win on that issue. Military-grade weaponry and 30-round magazines forever.

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

Where there's a will, there's a way. Obviously, the will is lacking.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community21 points22 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

That's because the US has some serious issues: hostile environments for kids (bullying and gangsterism), mental health issues (a quarter of US women are on some drug for mental health), absent fathers (some of whom had little to no choice in the matter), poverty, crime, and a very unfriendly position towards boys and men. That's excluding shit like chemical and hormonal issues (men's falling testosterone, pumping animals full of antibiotics and steriods), as well as poor education and awarenes of certain issues.

A boy being bullied, who no one cares about, whose mom has no idea what to do with him, whose father isn't around to guide him, whose society treats him like a dysfunctional girl, whose media reminds him about his moral and social degeneracy all the time, whose influences are angry youth without direction, whose role models are unhealthy, whose romantic life is a joke and whose future prospects might be zero....

This guy may get a little desperate, especially if he experiences violence and neglect.

What do you think is going to happen? He's going to give back what he's been receiving but in a concentrated form.

Fyi, there are other countries with high rates of single parenthood and high rates of violence. But those are more correlated as poverty plays a large role in this. It's not a determining factor, but South Africa has one of the largest murder rates in the world as well as many single moms, a lot of whom got pregnant while young. There are a bunch of things that add to this to make it worse, such as poor education due to kids dropping out, a history of substance abuse in communities, even political issues such as racial oppression in the past.

If you want to stop kids from hurting each other, you need to address all the issues at once. Some play a larger role, such as poverty and single motherhood. You also need to find healthier forms of expressing how they feel, such as physical activities (sport and exercise), therapy, art etc. Kids who feel like they have no voice find somewhere to shout (ever wonder why there are so many angry RPers? It's because no one else cares).

The problem is when the bad guys listen, we lose more desperate kids to drugs, gangsterism and crime. If we make no place for at risk youth, someone else will and they may not have good intentions.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

absent fathers (some of whom had little to no choice in the matter)

How did the have little choice in the decision to abandon their kids?

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

Seriously? None of your friend's fathers were kept from seeing them after divorce by their vindictive mothers? Never heard of bankrupted fathers killing themselves?

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’ll ask the question again: How did they have little choice in the decision to abandon their kids?

In case you weren’t aware, there are plenty of men fathering children outside of marriage and abandoning them, and more abandoning their kids upon divorce. There’s data to back this up.

The cases of courts ordering that men can never see their children are rare compared to men who just didn’t want to be bothered with their kids after divorce.

The vast majority of cases in America are settled wth some sort of joint custody arrangement. Are those settlements always fair to fathers? No but we cant have a real conversation about it pretending that the extreme cases are the norm.

My friends fathers? I’m 42 BTW. I’ve seen more divorces in my life than you’ve ever read about on the MGTOW sub. My own parents we’re divorced. and my opinin based on observation is backed by data.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How did the have little choice in the decision to abandon their kids?

I meant little choice in being parents, but some men also have no choice in whether they get see their kids or not.

In case you didn't notice, I said 'absent' fathers, not fathers who 'abandoned' their kids.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absent by order of the court? do you have stats on the percent of cases where this happens?

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A boy being bullied, who no one cares about, whose mom has no idea what to do with him, whose father isn't around to guide him, whose society treats him like a dysfunctional girl, whose media reminds him about his moral and social degeneracy all the time, whose influences are angry youth without direction, whose role models are unhealthy, whose romantic life is a joke and whose future prospects might be zero....

Yep. Serious problems. You forgot a very important factor though - a dad in jail/criminal dad - most likely to breed criminal sons. I keep hearing 'fatherlessness' here but no one seems to be pinging criminal fathers.

If you want to stop kids from hurting each other, you need to address all the issues at once. Some play a larger role, such as poverty and single motherhood.

And criminal dads. Sorry, but I have one of those and I know the stats. I was lucky to have a mom who made up for it.

You also need to find healthier forms of expressing how they feel, such as physical activities (sport and exercise), therapy, art etc. Kids who feel like they have no voice find somewhere to shout

Agreed 100%

(ever wonder why there are so many angry RPers? It's because no one else cares).

I'm sure there are some like this. But mostly, they seem of a certain personality type - they blame others for shit that happens to them and personal faults. Reminds me of my dad.

Their anger is all turned at women. That's some weak shit. I guess that explains why I dislike rp so much.

The problem is when the bad guys listen, we lose more desperate kids to drugs, gangsterism and crime. If we make no place for at risk youth, someone else will and they may not have good intentions.

Yup.

So man, what do we do? Give these kids rp? A place where they learn that they are no good unless they're fucking and using women right, left and center? A place where incels get tossed out for being too needy?

Or start a sub where teen boys can go and ask questions of older male mentors. Who can listen and give them real world advice and support.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do we do? We need social programmes to help change the culture and habits. You cannot do this overnight. It's like social engineering but for the benefit of the people.

For example, access to good quality education in a safe environment. This is idealistic as many poor communities cannot offer this, so the next best thing is to offer incentives to poor folk. For example, running a daycare for poor working moms to avoid children suffering any neglect or abuse.

Initiating a child policy per income bracket that would penalise parents who have more kids than they can support, such as making them do community service to pay off what those kids would cost the taxpayer. That or no child support for kid number two. The prospect of having no additional income for a second kid would slow down the single motherhood issue.

Alternatively, give men a choice in whether they want to be a dad or not. Women would be less likely to have kids out of wedlock if they know there's no money in unprotected sex with some guy who isn't committed to her. The state incentivized single parenthood when it paid people when dads were not around. This caused serious fuckery in the African American community.

Also, imprisoning men for not paying child support causes a cycle of problems as it becomes harder to get a job when you're in jail. By the way, the criminal dad thing is an issue that women do have some control over. They don't have to procreate with criminals, and yet they so often do. That's assuming the women aren't criminals themselves.

For boys, maybe appealing to their masculinity and desire to compete will help relieve some of the problems. So often boys are taught to 'use their words' when putting two boys in a ring with some gloves may solve the problems faster. We are and have always been violent beings but we don't have to ignore our instincts, feelings and aggression. Just finding healthy ways to channel it would help. Many boys today just sit around, play vidya and get fat. They can play sport, develop socially and won't feel isolated because they have team members on their side. Bullying is incredibly misdirected aggression and could, for example, be channeled into a tackle or a well timed shot at goal. Male teachers in schools can help here as they can be healthy role models for boys. Or put them through compulsory military school and watch as discipline and order slowly eat away at hopelessness and desperation.

And for the extreme cases, such as incels, recognise that prevention is better than a cure. A culture that doesn't shame men for not being succesful would be ideal, but that isn't going to happen overnight. Incels are like starving, desperate people who are angry about being have nots. Feed them until they cannot take anymore and suddenly the issue vanishes. Send them on a month long trip to a brothel resort where they can have as much sex as they like and after their balls are drained, they'll cum come to their senses. Once you remove the myths about women and sex and they realise it's something they can have, they may focus on wanting more than sex.

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

Yeah, I meant, what can we do here on reddit. But most of your ideas are sound.

Putting less men in jail would be good. Most are there for petty crimes.

More male teachers in schools would be good. And they should act as role models for boys.

Not sure about making boys duke it out. There are always going to be scrawny weaklings who can't fight.

Incels can save up and go on a 'month long' sex binge in Asia if they want. No one needs to 'send them'. If that's really what they need and yet they don't have the balls to do it, then what they lack is motivation to help themselves, not sex.

Compulsory military would be a disaster. The military is already a disaster. There's a lot of male-on-male rape and hazing and leaves people shattered.

If you want to penalize women for having babies, then all you're doing is penalizing kids. No such policies will stop the poorest and the drug-addicted and girls who've been molested from popping out babies. As soon as decent male contraception gets here, this problem should vanish overnight. I'd prefer to concentrate on that.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. It's a unique aspect of the gun control issue in the U.S. In other countries these boys are usually just stabbing people or running them over with cars instead. The availability of guns (especially semi-automatic ones) just makes mass murder all that much easier.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

There are not exactly mass stabbings in schools in the UK for example.

But yes the availability of guns in the US does make shit easier.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I saw some data the other day on how male suicide goes way down when there is stricter gun control. Can’t remember where I saw it.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah of course. If I had access to firearms I'd be dead years ago.

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

Have cars actually been used by “school-shooter“ types in Europe? I've only seen that method with terrorists and older suicidal white men, probably because most kids here don't have cars either (driving age is higher and public transport is better)... knives and guns that they stole from their parents or bought on the black market seem far more common

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Europe? I don't know. I know it's been done in Canada and Japan.

Also, I fail to see much of a difference between shooters who are literally still in school and those who are old enough to have a car. Some just happen to snap while they are still in school, and others a bit older.

I assume you know about the recent Toronto incident, and here's Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

[–]SmeggingRightGot flair? Hell yeah!-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

these boys are usually just stabbing people or running them over with cars instead.

Are they? Do you have evidence that boys are doing this? Are teenage boys running over classmates with cars and going on mass stabbing sprees of classmates?

[–]M4sterDis4ster4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I am from Europe. It happens here too, just without guns. Usually knives are used or bare knuckle fight. Violence among single parented children is very high and dangerous. Most of them finish in jail before 30 for longer period of time.

On the other hand, women raised by single moms are often future single moms as well. Seen it with my own eyes and statistics world wide can confirm that children from single parent household are doing much worse than children from both parents present.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am from Europe. It happens here too, just without guns. Usually knives are used or bare knuckle fight. Violence among single parented children is very high and dangerous. Most of them finish in jail before 30 for longer period of time.

Do you have a source for your claim that most single patented children in Europe end in jail?

[–]M4sterDis4ster1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry for late reply, here is the link on wide statistics about mental health and effects of single parent ( mostly single mom ) households.

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/23/3/469/540019

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

On the other hand, women raised by single moms are often future single moms as well. Seen it with my own eyes and statistics world wide can confirm that children from single parent household are doing much worse than children from both parents present.

Agreed. A symptom of poverty.

[–]sivariasMauve Dragovian1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You do realize that the US isn't actually leading the world in gun related homicides right?

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

gun related homicides right

We're talking about mass shooters, no gun-related homicides per se.

[–]N0blesse0blige8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are downplaying the profound influence of a changed culture. People with low IQ and low impulse control need guidance and strictness in terms of social norms even more than anyone else. Those social norms are what feminism have eroded and greatly weakened. The notion that low IQ and high impulsivity is necessarily destined for failure is nonsense, but it is probably more sensitive to unfavorable circumstances, say unregulated credit card offers, or «sexually free yourself, modern women can have just as much casual sex as men.» Low IQ is currently associated with high reproductive success btw.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the obvious counter-argument I think.

In my opinion, though, I'd say it's a combination of both. Growing up in poverty and growing up raised by a single mother are both bad for the child. I'm sure if you filtered for families over a certain income level you'd still find that children do better with fathers in the picture.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The only problem is that these girls actually think they make intelligent decisions in life because it's considered in polite to call them stupid

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

Fortunately there is no such requirement on Reddit. It is impolite, stupid.

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man[M] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

No personal attacks. Consider this a warning.

[–]darkmoon093 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why can't we at least see what was posted? Sometimes the shit flinging around here is hilarious.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a debate sub.

Frivolity is not allowed.

[–]KareemAZNon-Red Pill4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I disagree, I think it's more that a guy can run away from a girl they got pregnant and the woman has to give birth to/raise the kid.

If you look at those who walk away from their families, it's mostly men walking away because they can't/don't want to cope (Reductionist, I know, but I can't be bothered to write this out in full) .

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

If these girls made good decisions then they would chose better

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

No, the cause us The Pill. The pill and other forms of birth control separated sex from copulation at a cultural level. This has lead to a culture of casual sex which leads to single motherhood. The welfare state is an attempt to bandage the sinking ship.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it12 points13 points  (45 children) | Copy Link

I've heard that theory before.

But here is my point.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20070526/CFB966.gif

Among women who dropped out of high school, 40% of their kids are raised by a single parent. ~30% for high school graduates and ~25% for some tertiary education.

Among college graduate women, only 10% of their kids are raised by a single mother. A quarter the rate of women who dropped out of high school.

So I think my point still stands. Single motherhood causes issues, but issues (low SES, low IQ, lack of ability to delay gratification, lack of long range planning, etc) cause single motherhood. Even if these women were married, they'd still be lower in human capital and their offspring would reflect that.

Birth control only works if you have the long range planning and literacy skills necessary to use it properly.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think single motherhood is squarely on the mother and not the father as well? A lot of single mothers are single because the father is in prison. Another reason is in various parts of the country its very hard to get an abortion which forces the mother to keep the baby. Yes she can give it up for adoption but still. Then there's the old the father up and leaves and forces the mother to take responsibility for the kid.

[–]AnteesAntaas9 points10 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think single motherhood is squarely on the mother and not the father as well?

Her body, her responsibility. Women are the ones who can get pregnant, so it's their responsibility to not get accidentally pregnant and end up with a fatherless child.

A lot of single mothers are single because the father is in prison.

Why did they choose to breed with criminals or would be criminals? Instead of thinking long-term, they chose tingles. it is their fault.

Then there's the old the father up and leaves and forces the mother to take responsibility for the kid.

Sure, not every single mother is responsible for her situation. But most are. Women initiate 70 % of divorces.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The mass shooters and murderers and male suicides are all the men’s fault. It was their bodies and their guns and they chose to do what they did. It is not the single mothers fault that these boys became mass shooters, it is the fault of the men themselves.

Men that women use mercilessly for money and dump afterwards are also to blame. Instead of thinking long term and picking more suitable, albeit, less hot women, they fell for physical attractiveness. All the men that whine about women treating them badly only have themselves to blame. Deal with your own issues.

[–]AnteesAntaas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know why this is a direct reply to me as nowhere did I suggest that mass shooters are not at fault.

Regardless, if you think a parent does not have any responsibility to how their offspring end up, you are delusional. If I have a son and beat him every single day, do you think I hold no responsibility if he ends up bullying other kids?

Single mothers are not responsible for their sons killing people, but they are responsible for raising them so poorly that they end up in such mindsets.

Men that women use mercilessly for money and dump afterwards are also to blame. Instead of thinking long term and picking more suitable, albeit, less hot women, they fell for physical attractiveness. All the men that whine about women treating them badly only have themselves to blame. Deal with your own issues.

Again, I don't know why this is a direct reply to me. I have never complained here or IRL about a woman using me for money. A man who spends a ton of money on a woman who is not giving anything back is obviously an idiot and responsible for his mess.

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

A man who spends a ton of money on a woman who is not giving anything back is obviously an idiot and responsible for his mess.

Good.

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

Is there anything you believe men are responsible for?

Rhetorical question.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are the ones who can get pregnant

Women can't get pregnant without a man. But I am guessing here you think men shouldn't be required to pay child support?

so it's their responsibility to not get accidentally pregnant and end up with a fatherless child.

Why doesn't the man take any responsibility in making sure he doesn't the woman pregnant? Or are men not responsible for anything here and should always go bareback?

Why did they choose to breed with criminals or would be criminals?

One no one knows who will become a criminal or not. Two what makes you think they choose to have a baby with such a person? Birth control isn't without faults.

Women initiate 70 % of divorces.

What does that have anything to do here?

[–]AnteesAntaas5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women can't get pregnant without a man. But I am guessing here you think men shouldn't be required to pay child support?

Because "her body her responsibility" logically follows "her body her choice". If she has complete autonomy over what happens to her body, then she has complete responsibility. Only a gynocentric person would even entertain this discussion.

Why doesn't the man take any responsibility in making sure he doesn't the woman pregnant? Or are men not responsible for anything here and should always go bareback?

See above.

Let's say you met someone during a night out who has HIV. He tells you he has HIV, and you choose to have sex with him anyway. You end up contracting HIV. In this scenario, who is responsible for you getting HIV?

One no one knows who will become a criminal or not.

You can't know 100 %, but you can have a screening process before deciding to open your legs. Having sex with guys you just met and/or barely even know means a lack of an adequate screening process. Chasing tingles has it's risks, and the consequences are primarily the woman's fault.

Two what makes you think they choose to have a baby with such a person? Birth control isn't without faults.

A woman is responsible for getting pregnant, that responsibility does not fall on a drug. Any woman who has sex with any man who she can't rely on understands that there is chance she can get pregnant. The biological function of sex is to breed. Using contraceptives is a gamble. When you gamble, you accept that there is chance you lose.

What does that have anything to do here?

Just pointing out that the majority of single mothers are single mothers for reasons other than the father abandoning her.

[–]rainisthelifeFacepalm 😑4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then its good that men are forced to pay child support. Any man that has sex with a woman knows that there’s a possibility that he could get her pregnant. If he doesn’t want that, he needs to keep it in his pants and stay celibate.

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

So other words women hold all the responsibility and men hold zero. So men aren't responsible at all for the baby then either.

[–]the_calibre_cat5 points6 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

its very hard to get an abortion

It's just not. Comparing the costs of an abortion, for which there is extraordinary support for, to a lifetime of solo child rearing (with her lovely husband the state) is a braindead easy decision.

Unfortunately, women are at least as driven by a drive to fulfill their genetic imperative as men are, and I suspect that considering killing their offspring does produce some psychological blowback - it is obviously not in the interest of evolutionary success to do this.

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

Comparing the costs of an abortion, for which there is extraordinary support for

?

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd say a S.C.O.T.U.S. decision constitutionally protecting abortion is pretty strong support for it. You're never going to get everyone on board, because of the nature of what you're ultimately doing with an abortion.

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

Ok I though you meant financial support

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, no. That's a bridge way too far, honestly.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (24 children) | Copy Link

It's just not.

Either you don't live in the US or you do and have no clue what the southern states are doing.

I suspect that considering killing their offspring does produce some psychological blowback

It can.

it is obviously not in the interest of evolutionary success to do this.

Evolution also changes. We are for one living longer than before. You also have economic and social impact making having a kid far more expensive than ever before and that having a kid doing more economic harm than good.

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

Evolution also changes.

Evolution is change.

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

I know? I am pointing out to calibre that its not black and white as they are making it.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Either you don't live in the US or you do and have no clue what the southern states are doing.

No, I just don't think that a generally more religious region making abortion more difficult to access in accordance with broadly held social views is the worst thing in the world. The fact that some societies do not govern themselves according to a turbo-secular, leftist socio-political regime is not offensive to me - societies are entitled to some level of regional accommodation for their traditions and chosen social identity.

You can still get abortions in the South, but tragically you might have to drive eight hours to avoid 18 years of servitude to a child. So inconvenient, Planned Parenthood should be like Starbucks, AMIRITE? It'd be a testament to the progress of our society if we had baby-killing buildings within at least a ten minute drive from anywhere!

/s, obviously.

Evolution also changes.

Evolutionary pressures and fitness selection criteria changes - but the ultimate WAY evolution is carried forward is through offspring. That doesn't change, sorry.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

No, I just don't think that a generally more religious region making abortion more difficult to access in accordance with broadly held social views is the worst thing in the world.

They don't make it more difficult they effectively ban it without banning it.

So inconvenient, Planned Parenthood should be like Starbucks, AMIRITE?

So you want some 18 years of paying welfare?

That doesn't change, sorry.

Ya it does as if people don't have babies then evolution doesn't carry forward which is also evolution.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

They don't make it more difficult they effectively ban it without banning it.

Man, you can get an abortion anywhere in the country - period. That is expressly not banned.

So inconvenient, Planned Parenthood should be like Starbucks, AMIRITE?

So you want some 18 years of paying welfare?

You say that like it's a physical law that we have to. We don't. Remove the incentives to having profligate children, and you'd see out-of-wedlock births drop drastically.

That doesn't change, sorry.

Ya it does as if people don't have babies then evolution doesn't carry forward which is also evolution.

Sure, if we don't care what words mean. As far as a scientific sense goes, that is decidedly not evolution. The people having babies are continuing the chain of genetic evolution. The people not having babies are hitting the brakes on their genetic line.

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

Man, you can get an abortion anywhere in the country - period.

Thanks for showing you don't know what your talking about.

Remove the incentives to having profligate children, and you'd see out-of-wedlock births drop drastically.

lol. Won't happen. Though I can only imagine you think all those women get kids to get welfare. Because when you get welfare you are on easy street.

The people not having babies are hitting the brakes on their genetic line.

Which is part of evolution.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Iowa just passed a law limiting abortions to before a fetal heartbeat is found. That can be 4-6 weeks post conception in some cases. Ridiculous.

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

It is and I saw that as well.

[–]AnteesAntaas-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Either you don't live in the US or you do and have no clue what the southern states are doing.

They can just drive to another state.

Evolution also changes. We are for one living longer than before. You also have economic and social impact making having a kid far more expensive than ever before and that having a kid doing more economic harm than good.

There will never be a time where humans are not biologically driven to have offspring.

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

They can just drive to another state.

Because they totally have a car and the money and time to do so.

[–]AnteesAntaas2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Don't have a day or two to spare? Don't have $1,000?

Then wtf are they doing getting pregnant? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Its like as if shit happens.

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

You missed the first part idiot.

"In various parts of the country"

How fucking dumb are you?

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

You did not understand. Pill>casual sex>single motherhood>crime suicide etc.

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then why are college educated women far less likely to be single mothers?

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Hormonal contraception doesn't create single mothers; if anything, it prevents them. What has caused this epidemic is feminism and its destruction of the family unit through the ease of women being able to get paid for getting pregnant and/or divorcing a guy. If you don't want women to be single mothers then stop paying them to do so.

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

Have you taken a look at the stats?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m curious about your flair, are you really MGTOW but in an LTR? How does that work?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I do love a good conspiracy.

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

Not a conspiracy. I support giving humans more choice over the human condition. I don't think the implications of the pill were planned. It just... happened.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

You saying its not a conspiracy doesn't mean its not. And no one can plan for implications of anything. You can only migrate them or mimizie them.

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

Yes, and thus plan for them. The implications of this were not planned. How is this a conspiracy theory? This is just a theory of the biological/societal/cultural impact of the pill based on statistics and facts.

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

Saying that it was cause by the pill is a conspiracy theory. You even admit its a theory.

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

No

a belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret planmade by powerful people

No secret plan was concocted.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

You think something happened where there's no proof of such.

[–][deleted]  (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (58 children) | Copy Link

You talk as if every single instance of single motherhood is due to some harpy wife divorcing a man or refusing to marry him and heartlessly taking his children away. That simply is not the case. What about the millions of men who shirk their responsibilities and walk out on their families? Or is that somehow feminism's fault as well?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What about the millions of men who shirk their responsibilities and walk out on their families? Or is that somehow feminism's fault as well?

No way is there millions of men doing this.

[–]aznphenix3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Why not? There's 300 million people in the United States as of several years ago. Sisterly there were 1.6 million births to unmarried mothers in 2010. Even if you talk a 10 year time span. That's well into 16 million unmarried mothers, of which a decent percentage is probably the scenario described.

[–]ConnorGracieWhy Don't You Just Date Hypothetical Girl Who Doesn't Exist4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Moral hazard from birth control has caused both men and women to be less selective, and therefore men and women are more likely to pick partners that they would not consider for long term relationships but would for sex, then they get preggo because the effectiveness rate of birth control is 50% or so.

[–]AllahHatesFagsBLACK PILL MOTHERFUCKER!5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your stats are off, bro.

[–]aznphenix2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the effectiveness rate of properly used birth control is really high for most methods. Condoms, hormonal bc, etc are all 99% effective or so with perfect use. Even with imperfect use, they still don't fall below 80% effectiveness. Are you also lumping in fertility tracking and pulling out etc with these kinds of contraception, and if so, do you have any numbers?

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

then they get preggo because the effectiveness rate of birth control is 50% or so.

Where did you get this number?

[–]M4sterDis4ster9 points10 points  (50 children) | Copy Link

Women got baby pills and right to abortion. Casual sex is everywhere, free love, care free life. Marriage unit is completely shattered, mostly as it is one way financially beneficial. Men are bombarded with "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle."

You cannot expect men have responsibilites anymore. Women changed and men changed too according to women.

Fathers leaving and being irresponsible is also a symptom of greater cause.

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick14 points15 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

lol

Maybe women decided they didn't need men when men decided that they didn't like women who didn't act like servile property.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer9 points10 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Women always made the worst servile property. There's a reason adult female slaves were around 30% cheaper.

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

The statistics on slave prices show that healthy young adult men in the prime of their working lives had the highest price, followed by females in the childbearing years.

Uh-huh.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer9 points10 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

And?

Young adult males had more value as they were stronger, could work harder in the fields, and could be expected to work at such a level for more years. Young adult women had value over and above their ability to work in the fields; they were able to have children who by law were also slaves of the owner of the mother.

Men are valued for what they do, women are valued for what they are. Women make bad servile property.

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

That's funny, I'm pretty sure giving birth is something women do, and physically stronger is what men are. But then here you are, trying to be a fuckwit edgelord with your quantification of the value of either gender in the context of slavery (and completely outside the context of my original comment, no less), which I am not going to entertain anymore because it's beneath everyone with a shred of propriety.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure giving birth is something women do

No. It's something that happens to them.

And. Your original comment was female supremacy-driven shit.

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

lol fuck off you idiot

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Men are valued for what they do, women are valued for what they are.

Pretty sure female slaves were forced to work too. Kind of the point of the whole system wasn't it?

Only a piller claims feminist influence in chattel slavery with a straight face.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

If you haven't noticed, I was attacking an argument of a person who outright argued from the position of historical ignorance and female moral superiority:

Maybe women decided they didn't need men when men decided that they didn't like women who didn't act like servile property.

Which was their response to:

Men are bombarded with "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." You cannot expect men have responsibilites anymore. Women changed and men changed too according to women. Fathers leaving and being irresponsible is also a symptom of greater cause.

OF COURSE female slaves worked. Same as, OF COURSE a family unit in European legal and cultural tradition NEVER had a pattern of power dynamic between a master and a slave. To believe in this absurd notion, that men created the institution of marriage to have a "servile property" at their disposal - is to show some bloody deep ignorance in European legal tradition of family law, and European culture.

I'd recommend you get offended over female supremacists hopping around this place like locust a little bit more than over my chosen ways of calling them out.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think she was talking about European legal tradition. she was talking about marriage in the US as recently as 3 generations ago, when women who were abused were told by the law, their churches and society it was their duty to put up with it. When men viewed marriage as acquiring a housekeeper, nanny and sex slave. Marriage was never a great deal for women (who were dependent on it for financial support) and judging by the stats about how unhappy married women and compared to single women, it’s still not great.

I still don’t understand what your analysis of slavery has to do with this point.

female supremacists hopping around this place like locust

Can you link to a few comments you feel promote female supremacy?

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Can you link to a few comments you feel promote female supremacy?

Be my guest, here's one:

marriage in the US as recently as 3 generations ago, when women who were abused were told by the law, their churches and society it was their duty to put up with it. When men viewed marriage as acquiring a housekeeper, nanny and sex slave.

This comment promotes the idea of women's moral superiority over men, who were (presumably) in charge of society, church, and the law, and didn't give a flying anything about women's suffering mere three generations ago.

Except, of course, you're lying :)

Criminal law of Texas in 1911 (which is more than three generations ago) made two marital status exceptions to the prosecution of rape: a) a wife is under 15; b) a wife is mentally incapacitated. These two cases exempted a husband from being executed for having sex with his wife (before you jump onto "She's only 14!!!" bandwagon - a groom was most likely not much older; plenty of modern youth fuck at 14, just 100 years ago the guys were obliged to provide a lifetime of sustenance for it).

Page 284 (in file), chapter eight. If my eyes are fucking with me, I'll be glad if you point out where, exactly. Rape of adult, able-minded woman is defined regardless of her marital status in relation to the rapist.

Louisiana's civil code was based on initial draft of Napoleonic code, which, again, doesn't grant the husband any privileges of beating and fucking the shit out of his wife; the only thing he WAS capable of legally forcing her to do for as long as they were married - is that she lives under the same roof with him.

I took your burden of proof. If now you try to weasel out by claiming that these laws didn't work, I'll only remind you that there were NO legal protections for husbands against anything their wives might do.

[–]ConnorGracieWhy Don't You Just Date Hypothetical Girl Who Doesn't Exist4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't value that which you don't own. People trash the commons. As it were women treat men like servile property when they nag them into submission, manshame them into sponsoring them and being there beasts of burden then ejecting them from the family while taking 90% of the kids and 50% if what he owns plus monthly installments.

[–]M4sterDis4ster2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Show me the evidence first, then we make a discussion. You just copy-pasted feminist doctrine, I believe you can do better.

[–]CursedLemonA Bigger, Bluer Dick-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Given that it was a half-facetious statement, I'm good.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman12 points13 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

When was the last time you heard a current feminist say, "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle" 1972? Or never mind a feminist, a woman say that, or wear the t-shirt?

[–]ConnorGracieWhy Don't You Just Date Hypothetical Girl Who Doesn't Exist8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not to long ago actually. The current trend is to make it impossible to interact with women any way without the threat of sexual harassment looking over head.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Guess those people must be interacting with women in a weird way then, it is not a trend normal peopleare still dating.

[–]ConnorGracieWhy Don't You Just Date Hypothetical Girl Who Doesn't Exist1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The pool of single people continues to grow.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That has nothing to do with your of claim.

[–]dicklord_airplane5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Ive heard several young women say that.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Huh. Interesting. Those exact words?

[–]dicklord_airplane3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

yes, those exact words, and many very similar sentiments. in my life, when feminist women have something to say about men or their relationship with men, it's almost always negative and critical.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I do not care that they are negative and critical I am having a hard time believing that women are walking around uttering 70's feminist cliche line.

[–]dicklord_airplane3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

clearly. your knee-jerk reaction to any information you don't like seems to be deny, deny, deny.

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

I hear lots of things I do not like every day despite that I am not hugely impacted. I have simply not heard a young woman utter that phrase recently. So there is no denial in my response.

[–]M4sterDis4ster5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not literally, but men blame is big. Men are shown as perpetrators and women get the "victim" ticket.

Now, dont focus on just one part of the comment, rather comment on other things listed as well. Main focus is : "Why are men walking on their responsibilities and what is the root effect?"

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

Saw it captioning an image on Facebook a couple hours ago.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's what really changed: When absentee fathers was largely believed to be a phenomenon unique to the black community, it was "black men are irresponsible deadbeats."

Now that the rate of absentee fathers is skyrocketing among whites, it's "not men's fault, men can't be expected to be responsible for their children because feminism."

Surely you see this too?

[–]M4sterDis4ster1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Where did I state that ? Where did I mention money except in divorce? What are you talking about ? Read again, twice.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying that is the narrative. This same 180 happens with every social problem that affected mostly minority and very poor white communities when it begins to creep into white working class. Not sure you need to take this personally.

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]M4sterDis4ster0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

I think there is compelling evidence in divorce statistics at present day compared to 60-70 years ago and fatherless children at present day compared to 60-70 years ago.

There was an obvious major and instant shift between sexes recently, which seems to me very artificial.

[–]Jammerly1Snatching TRP Bald since 20171 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

But the problem is measuring quality of marriage. Women used to have to put up with all sorts of horrific abuses in marriage. If your husband comes home drunk and takes his day out on you then what? What if he doesn’t even bother to come home? Is your marriage better than being single? Marriage has always been more of a restriction on women’s behavior than men’s behavior.

[–]M4sterDis4ster1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Give me the statistics of domestic violence, that men are horrific and women are victims. Give me the proof that marriage is restriction on women rather than men. You are again copy-pasting agenda without supstance.

Men have no marriage restrictions today, that is why there is an epidemy of single moms today on food stamps.

[–]Jammerly1Snatching TRP Bald since 20171 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When I have time I’ll write a post outlining just how shitty marriage used to be for women - but in the meantime ask your grandma. A lot of your grandfathers are shittier people than you think. They just got old. In the meantime here’s a list of things women couldn’t do in the 70s:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/05/28/10-things-that-american-women-could-not-do-before-the-1970s/

[–]M4sterDis4ster1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You have nerve to tell me that my grandfathers are shittier people than I think, while you dont know who they are, nor you know who my grandmothers are, nor your assumptions make any sense.

If you want to make an argument, then dont refute it by "they just got old".

Dont write a post, give me numbers ( statistics ) to back it up.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Post numbers?

[–]M4sterDis4ster1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]aznphenix2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious how you're painting your picture with these numbers too, if you don't mind.

[–]M4sterDis4ster1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, no problem at all.

If you will look at diagrams, they are consistent, so you can make a conclusion that they are not exclusive from each other.

When divorce is higher, there is higher crime rate and more children growing without father or mother figure.

Second thing, divorce rate skyrocketed around the 1965 when the Baby Pill was invented and put in commercial use. Baby Pill has enourmous effect on female hormones and how it often is the root of women choosing wrong partners. I was writting a month ago in full details on the effect on Baby Pills, will try to find it and link it to you, or you can just google it.

Crime rate peaks at around 1980. which would be first generation of post-pill generation teens. Already divorce was at 36% and women were in 70% of cases the ones asking for divorce.

In 1980.-1997. prisoner population skyrocketed to 1.13M from 321 000, which makes it almost 400%. Due to the population increase in U.S. divorce percentage was almost the same 36% compared to 38% , but that was few thousand more people from divorced families having their own kids and getting divorced.

I did major in statistical software analysis for mechanical engineering, so the picture to me is very clear that there were sudden artificial changes in society which led to he society we live today.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Second thing, divorce rate skyrocketed around the 1965 when the Baby Pill was invented and put in commercial use.

Wrong. The pill came on the market in 1960. No fault divorce was introduced in 1970. Divorce rates peaked over the next decade.

Crime rate peaks at around 1980.

Wrong again. Crime rates peaked in the early 90s, largely due to the crack epidemic. The response was tougher sentencing laws and the crime rate has been dropping ever since.

Baby Pill has enourmous effect on female hormones and how it often is the root of women choosing wrong partners

LOL. Where'd you learn that, church?

I did major in statistical software analysis for mechanical engineering

Sounds to me like you just took a bunch of trends and tried to attribute them all to your belief that society is falling apart because women have too much choice.

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of those men who walk away were pieces of shit to begin off with and the woman ignored the signs or were attracted to that kind if behavior .

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card14 points15 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

26 of 27 dads of mass shooters were all the stereotypical mra wet dream of devoted dads divorce raped and kept from their kids by misandrist family courts? I doubt that.

I’m willing to concede second wave feminists advocated for policies that helped women without much regard for the resulting effect on men and even on children. We can argue whether it was deliberate. But feminists didn’t force those men who unilaterally walked away from the children they fathered to make that choice.

At what point are manospherians going to start acknowledging that men need to accept some responsibility for their role in the fatherless epidemic?

[–]Unrealenting9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Right around the time women accept some responsibility.

"99% of mass shooters were raised by a single mother"

Let's blame Men!

It's like no matter how badly women fuck up it's somehow always a Man's fault. I'm sick of that shit. Take some accountability. It's BOTH genders' fault and the gazillionth exhibition of our moral and social rot.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Women are blamed all the time for fatherless kids and the many social problems that come from that epidemic. We all know that and understand that in some cases women need to accept the responsibility for the situation they put their kids in. What TRPs and MRAs need to do is accept that in some cases, it was dad who messed up/broke out. In many cases they both messed up and neither did right by the kid.

Chill the fuck out.

[–]Unrealenting4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No they aren't. There's no phrase "deadbeat mom" for a reason. If a Man fails to raise his kids he's a lazy loser, if a Woman fails to raise her kids it's because of the "tough tribulations of single motherhood". The fact that we ignore that kids raised by single mothers are more prone to violence and crime is the elephant in the room no one wants to address, instead we blame "the videogames" or "the tv" or "there was no Dad in the house". Women in all levels of society except the very top get the benefit of the doubt and a handout if they ever need help. There's a reason an overwhelming majority of suicides, homeless populations, and custody battle losses comprise almost entirely of men. There's no WICK Program for single fathers. No pregnancy time-off. We have exponentially less homeless shelters. And when we're sexually assaulted it's a joke everyone gets a good laugh at, especially in film (Prison Shower Scenes anyone?).

Women have it EASY in society compared to Men and face FAR LESS accountability and consequences for their mistakes. No one says "grow a set of ovaries and be a woman" when a girl cries over losing something important to them. When Men show weakness we're laughed at and told to shut the fuck up.

We are NOT treated equal by any stretch of the imagination in society. Men fight TOOTH and NAIL for whatever little tiny bit of shit they get in this world and no one could care any less if they fail.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There's no phrase "deadbeat mom" for a reason.

Because women as a group aren’t abandoning the their kids and leaving them with the father. It happens but it happens far more often the other way around.

The fact that we ignore that kids raised by single mothers are more prone to violence and crime is the elephant in the room no one wants to address,

Please do a google search on children of single mothers and crime, violence, etc. once you’re done reading through the 80,000 hits, come back and tell me how “we ignore that kids raised by single mothers are more prone to violence and crime.”

There's a reason an overwhelming majority of suicides, homeless populations, and custody battle losses comprise almost entirely of men.

Not one you’re willing to hear, because the truth is the bad guys don’t all have vaginas. The (mostly male) corporate execs outsourcing jobs and the (mostly male) politicians greenlighting it, and the (mostly male) family court judges surely share some blame, wouldn’t you say?

There's no WICK Program for single fathers

Single fathers that meet the income requirements are eligible for WIC.

We have exponentially less homeless shelters

Because there traditionally hasn’t been near the demand (the cost money to operate, in case you thought they were paid for with gumdrops and lollipops). But as the homesless rate among men skyrockets we’re seeing more shelters for men open. and if that pisses you off so much, get off your ass and start raising funds for more men’s shelters.

No pregnancy time-off.

Fathers are permitted to take time off without pay through the family and medical leave act. Which is the same thing most moms use to take time off. More companies in the last 10 years have been creating their own leave polices for parents so it’s a step in the right direction. But you know what would help a lot? A government policy mandating it. Like they have in those icky “socialist” countries.

And when we're sexually assaulted it's a joke everyone gets a good laugh

This needs to stop. Next time your with your bros and someone makes a joke along he lines of “i wish she’d rape me!” you gonna speak up?

Women have it EASY in society compared to Men and face FAR LESS accountability and consequences for their mistakes.

Specifics?

When Men show weakness we're laughed at and told to shut the fuck up

See above. Because a lot of this masculinity policing comes from men.

Men fight TOOTH and NAIL for whatever little tiny bit of shit they get in this world and no one could care any less if they fail.

Least of all the 1% of penises who run everything. Meanwhile the vast majority of people running shelters, men’s health clinics, soup kitchens, and anything that essentially helps men deal with the problems you outlined above are women. Chew on that for a bit.

You know what would be great? If for once one of you guys would convey that you understand how economic and political systems work to disenfranchise people (who are increasingly white males - who never gave a shit when everyone else beside white males were disenfranchised) instead of pretending there’s some secret feminist totalitarian world order that controls your every move.

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

Only 17.8% of Men win custodial battles. And, while there was a higher percentage of custodial mothers living below poverty, mothers were also less likely to be employed than custodial fathers and more likely to receive public assistance.

Im obviously talking about prevalence in media and news. Of the last 27 school shooters, 26 were raised by single moms. The fact that you probably didn't know that proves my point.

So Men's Rights don't matter just because the legacy effects of male majorities in politics mean most people in political power are men? Such compassion. Much logic.

Only if you get custody of the children, which happens only 17.8% of the time. Which is why it stands for "Women, Infants, and Children".

An overwhelming majority of homeless people are men yet you think there isn't a demand for men's homeless shelters? Lol, ok bud.

Maternity leave is often paid at a reduce amount, Paternity leave is not. Way to gloss over that fact.

Making a joke about sexual assault in response to the fact that male sexual assault is often a punch-line to a joke without addressing the tragedy that befalls males as victims of sexual aggression all while implying men don't speak up about sexual assault. God you're an idiot. Do you go around sardonically telling women who were raped to simply tell her bros not to joke about rape? Yeah, I didn't think so, you sexist piece of shit.

For example, Women can ruin a guy's life by falsely claiming sexual assault or domestic violence with 0 consequences 99% of the time. A man goes to a judge and claims he was sexually assaulted or the victim of domestic violence and there's a very tiny likelihood there will be any consequences for the woman, even though, for instance, men are victims of domestic violence at roughly the same rate as women.

It also comes from Women. They rarely want an emotional guy who is "too nice". We're also far less likely to be promoted than women if we're compassionate and agreeable. So just because we're men and people in politics are men 50% of the time our individual plight doesn't matter? Like are you seriously saying men's issues don't matter just because they were born with a penis and justifying it by essentially saying "well you shouldn't have been born the same gender as policy makers, so shut the fuck up so we can joke about it"? Way to prove my point.

Source on Women running the majority of Men's shelters, Men's soup kitchens, and Men's clinics?

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok did you even read my comment? You keep repeating stuff I've already corrected you on once.

Which is why it stands for "Women, Infants, and Children".

WIC has nothing to with custody settlements. It’s a program for poor pregnant and breastfeeding women and children of poor parents (yes children of single dads are eligible). It's called WIC because one of the things it does is provide nutrition supplements for women who are pregnant and nursing – which men don’t do because as it turns out they don’t have uteruses. If that pisses you off, take it up with Mother Nature.

But look it up if you don’t believe me: https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/women-infants-and-children-wic

Maternity leave is often paid at a reduce amount, Paternity leave is not. Way to gloss over that fact.

Wrong. I already said this once but me say it for you in simpler terms:

There is no federally mandated maternity or paternity leave in the US. The federal government passed the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows ANYONE OF ANY GENDER to take time off for medical and caregiver needs (including birth and caring for a newborn) without losing their job. It DOES NOT force an employer to pay you for that time.

There are currently 4 states that have developed their own policies that go further than FMLA, such as mandating that employers pay for a certain amount of that leave.

But in the other 46 states, if you are getting paid for maternity or paternity leave, THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR EMPLOYER IS VOLUNTARILY PAYING IT OR THEY ARE LETTING YOU CASH IN SHORT TERM DISABILITY. Because there is no federal law specifically mandating maternity or paternity leave, companies are free to write their own policies. And there is most certainly not equity between women and men in these policies, though that is changing as more people are demanding companies step up. Point is in the absence of a law, it’s up to the company whether or not they offer more than FMLA.

Also note that companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from FMLA. They are not required to offer anything to mothers or fathers. And part time employees are exempt from FMLA.

But look it up if you don’t believe me: https://budgeting.thenest.com/can-man-fmla-birth-child-23733.html

Once again, it’s not feminists making these decisions, its corporations. And when Obama toyed with creating a better federal policy that mandates pay for parents and gives equal time to men, I don’t remember the MRA getting behind it.

An overwhelming majority of homeless people are men yet you think there isn't a demand for men's homeless shelters? Lol, ok bud.

Can you do me favor? Take breath and actually read before you respond in anger. I said very specifically "there traditionally hasn’t been near the demand (the cost money to operate, in case you thought they were paid for with gumdrops and lollipops). But as the homeless rate among men skyrockets we’re seeing more shelters for men open.” Didn’t I? Didn’t read that part?

God you're an idiot.

You really don’t need to be throwing stones, kid. You don’t even understand the topics you’re trying to argue.

Only 17.8% of Men win custodial battles.

Win custody battles? Or have custody (meaning there wasn't necessarily a "battle" for custody?)

Cause, you know:

In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed — on their own — that mom become the custodial parent.

In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.

In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.

In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.

Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.

And there's been a rapid increase in shared custody - 27% of all divorce settlements by some estimates And yes it should be a lot higher.

The fact that you probably didn't know that proves my point.

Uh....I've been posting in this thread titled "of 27 mass shooters, 26 of them were fatherless" for 2 weeks. What makes you think I didn't know that...?

So Men's Rights don't matter just because the legacy effects of male majorities in politics mean most people in political power are men?

Not what I said. But you need to acknowledge the fact that there are many entities making economic and policy decisions that harm men, and men need to own their part in exploiting other men. You want it to be solely the fault of the evil wimminz but that's not reality.

Do you go around sardonically telling women who were raped to simply tell her bros not to joke about rape?

I sure as shit would in the exact same scenario I posed to you.

Women can ruin a guy's life by falsely claiming sexual assault or domestic violence with 0 consequences 99% of the time. A man goes to a judge and claims he was sexually assaulted or the victim of domestic violence and there's a very tiny likelihood there will be any consequences for the woman,

I never defended this. Did I?

even though, for instance, men are victims of domestic violence at roughly the same rate as women

Nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner

Like are you seriously saying men's issues don't matter just because they were born with a penis and justifying it by essentially saying "well you shouldn't have been born the same gender as policy makers, so shut the fuck up so we can joke about it"

You done strawmanning and attributing statements to me that I never made?

Source on Women running the majority of Men's shelters, Men's soup kitchens, and Men's clinics?

75% of employees at nonprofits are female.

82%of social workers are female

Yeah, I didn't think so, you sexist piece of shit.

LOL

[–]Unrealenting0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm stating that Men aren't treated fairly, not sure why you're pulling stats that prove my point or justify their suffering by saying it's other Men's fault they're in that position, as if that's an excuse for inequity. I'm not "blaming wimminz", that's your knee jerk assumption.

Women are treated better and given the benefit of the doubt in all levels of society, especially at the lower socioeconomic levels and in public institutions. Doesn't matter how or why, it's a fact. Full stop.

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

there are several rule-breaking insults in this comment so it has been removed. reapproving only if you edit them out.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

So, I am going to pull an Atlas and say your title is unrelated to your content.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How is a title about data showing correlation with father absenteeism and violence unrelated to the claim feminists ignore such data?

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

Where is the data then?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal

Drawing on data from socially deprived areas of south London, she compared a group of "good boys", who had no criminal convictions and had caused teachers no trouble, with a group of "bad boys" at a secure unit for unmanageable adolescents, many of them persisitent offenders convicted of sexual assault, theft and stealing vehicles.

All 68 boys, aged between 12 and 16, were from working class backgrounds, had lower than average intellectual ability, had similar problems with their peers and with hyperactivity, had equally large families, and in both groups 40% suffered from dyslexia.

But there was one "very striking" difference between the two groups: 55% of the "good boys" lived with their biological fathers, compared with only 4% of the "bad boys".

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No the data about the mass shooters.

[–]SmurfESmurferson32 points33 points  (54 children) | Copy Link

Modern child support laws (which came around in the 90s, as the government reformed welfare) did more to incentivize single motherhood than anything feminism pushed.

Those laws were passed by men.

[–][deleted]  (17 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]SmurfESmurferson10 points11 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Elected officials have power.

Point me to where I said all men have power.

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]SmurfESmurferson13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not insinuating anything like that.

I'm explicitly saying that men had a hand in the creation of these laws; hanging it all on feminists isn't fair.

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

Those men were feminists and were elected by feminists you turnip. How do I know? - They didn't repeal the 19th.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–]DrippyskippyMonk5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm explicitly saying that men had a hand in the creation of these laws; hanging it all on feminists isn't fair.

How far would you like to travel to place blame? One could make the argument there are more women than men in the U.S and therefore have a larger hand in picking candidates for office. Men may have made those laws under certain influences, but those men were predominately put there by women.

[–]kandyapplezslow down lil baby you going pacino4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

they dont "just happen" to be men

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You mean the grand conspiracy of men to oppress women?

[–]kandyapplezslow down lil baby you going pacino0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

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

yeah. I'll start oppressing you in a moment, /u/kandyapplez

in the mean time, can you fix me a drink?

[–]kandyapplezslow down lil baby you going pacino0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

what?

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

bring me a cutty and water and make a glass of whatever you like.

we're going to watch Thor: Ragnarok Bluray.

[–]newaccount8-180 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And women have the vote, and often vote with bloc-like patterns. That the elected officials are men is irrelevant if they share the ideals of the women who voted them in.

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Voters have power, most are women.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Then men should vote. Or is that not their fault either?

[–]ffbtawPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't help when men are disproportionally imprisoned and disenfranchised by a justice system that blatantly favors women.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Over 100 million people who were eligible to vote in 2016 didn’t.

And they were not all women.

[–]insoucianc6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And Women took advantage of it at the expense of everyone but herself.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Those laws were passed by men.

...for women. Powerful men listen to what women say they want. They give far less of a shit about low-tier men.

[–]SmurfESmurferson3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What is this incel overload? What thread was I linked to?

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure you know what thread you're in. This thread isn't about incels.

[–]bakedpotato4864 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Laws passed by men politicians that are placating the majority female voter base for their vote on an election weekday that is not a national holiday.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those laws were passed by men.

Always kill a traitor before an enemy, Jim Jam.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

those laws were passed by men

Cucks

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

We did a thread about the incentivization of single motherhood already. This is not that thread.

[–]SmurfESmurferson20 points21 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

I'm pointing out that feminism isn't the boogie man that you're painting it to be. Feminism didn't change the laws to incentivize single motherhood - men in government positions did.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]SmurfESmurferson17 points18 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men drafted the laws, voted on them, and signed them into law.

Also, you know that online slandering wasn't really a thing in the 90s, before the advent of social media as we know it? Hell people didn't even text then.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]SmurfESmurferson17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, the laws I'm referring to (child support) were created to shift the burden of welfare from the state onto the father, and force him to participate in raising his own child.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You think everything was invented in the 90s.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Those men did it for feminist votes

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card6 points7 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe because men with power don’t care about men who don’t have power and in fact would rather see men without power suffer if it means more money and power for them?

Ie men who throw other men under the bus are absolved because feminism?

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Doubtful, that ascribes far too much malice for what is more than likely just ignorance. Men just don't care about other men, not unlike society at large.

Women, though, now that's a different story. Women actually mean something.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

"Society at large" is a meaning less term. We're talking about who controls society, which is still predominantly men. And men at the top could make things better for other men, but they aren't interested in doing that. Men need to own that.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

They could, but they won't, because "team man" is not and will never be a thing. In any case, "who controls society" is less "men" and more "feminists," which squarely undermines the ridiculous notion that there exists a thing remotely resembling "the Patriarchy."

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

Who are these feminists who control society? Name them. Trump? Pence? Ryan? The 80% of congress that is male? The 94% of CEOs who are male?

That’s one raging group of die hard bra burning feminsists right there.

Name on thing trump has done since he was in office to appeal to feminists.

Name one law Congress has passed this sessiom appeal to feminists.

And yes I know most voters are women. If that pisses men off, they should vote more.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Who are these feminists who control society? Name them. Trump? Pence? Ryan? The 80% of congress that is male? The 94% of CEOs who are male?

With the exception of Trump and Pence, who are temporarily in power and are arguably more feminist than they are Men's Rights Activist, yeah, pretty much. I guarantee you, most of Congress supports various women's programs, women's scholarships, women's this and women's that because it's the current year and apparently "social, political, and economic equality" means "lots of free stuff and special programs specially made for women only." Ryan, that "budget hawk," put up so much of a fight that Planned Parenthood retained it's funding and Betsy DeVos is such a school choice crusader that... Title I.X. is still basically law. C.E.O.'s are without question on board, with rare exception.

Name on thing trump has done since he was in office to appeal to feminists.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/08/trump-ivanka-women-entrepreneurs-fund-240318

Name one law Congress has passed this sessiom appeal to feminists.

You got me! No special favors for women this session! Clearly, the patriarchy is alive and well. :(

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never claimed it is some boggie man. And I do agree with you about welfare.

[–]poppy_bluAARP sent me a birthday card0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What changed in the 90s? Was it was child support laws or just the enforcement of said laws? In the 80s it was common knowledge that men who didn't want to pay child support didn't and no one was making them.

[–]ophello0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely. This is likely the reason for the situation we're in -- not feminism.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL15 points16 points  (102 children) | Copy Link

Do you believe contemporary feminists fail to provide a counter-narrative to the feminists of past (regarding marriage)?

But why should they have to do that? whats in it for them? They already have their narrative, why are they required to offer an alternative take?

If feminist believe in X, what good is it for them to outline a frame work for believing in A, which could be diametrically opposed to their belief in X?

If current feminist are happy with the status quo of their ideology, then fucking let it be. No one has to do shit, and outsiders (who have no interest in joining the ranks) demanding they balance the books of their ideology is grossly disingenuous.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 6 points7 points  (74 children) | Copy Link

My argument was never that anyone should do anything. My claim was that not doing something proves to be a disservice.

and outsiders (who have no interest in joining the ranks) demanding they balance the books of their ideology is grossly disingenuous.

That's not true. That's the same bullshit leftist spew when they lambaste calls for a reform movement within any religion or culture, especially Islam.

We should always be interested in a betterment of society and culture in the pursuit of truth. A refusal to acknowledge inferior models is truly disingenuous, especially when they negatively affect everyone within a culture.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

When did you turn into a trad con yammering about the betterment of society and culture? I thought you were just some bored rich dude.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You really got your claws out today goat lol markets are closed.. time to yammer about whatever I like =P

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I am not being newly salty I have always thought your arguments were incredibly loosely formed, but I assumed inccorrectly that you simply enjoyed provoking and ducking. I did not realize you were on a mission to fix society.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can rest easy knowing its all a selfish plot to increase discretionary spending so people buy more shit from the corporations I own stock in.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, that I can believe.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL13 points14 points  (66 children) | Copy Link

especially when they negatively affect everyone within a culture.

I dunno, I feel like feminist would strongly contest that opinion.

Before this gets muddied by spiraling rhetoric, my contention is that feminism seems to bear the brunt of ideological cross examination, and I don't understand why. Let the silly fat girls and old white women believe what they want; outside the shift allegiances in academic enclaves, I don't think feminism (as a postmodern device) affects a lot of people one way or the other, at least not enough to demand all of this.

Calling feminism to task for the current model/consequence of single motherhood seems...narrow. There are so many other confounding factors (socioeconomic pressure, globalization, late stage capitalism, poverty, racism, and a litany of post modern complaints), it seems silly and punitive to lay These Problems at the feet of feminism.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 5 points6 points  (65 children) | Copy Link

I dunno, I feel like feminist would strongly contest that opinion.

Well that's my point. However, the data speaks for itself. Absentee fathers are strongly correlated with violence and poor academic skills in children. And the data for causation is there as well.

Calling feminism to task for the current model/consequence of single motherhood seems...narrow

Most of those other problems you've listed are perpetuated by broken families. Feminists have a lot of control over the narrative in media. So why shouldn't we care about this? It's not narrow if single motherhood perpetuates poverty. If marriage is the healthiest model for child-rearing, and feminists claim that they are for the betterment of men and women and boys and girls, then we should care about their intellectual dishonesty.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (45 children) | Copy Link

I don't think any modern feminists are arguing to destroy the family unit. That talk all happened decades ago and no one pays ANY mind to it anymore.

But you know what actually does affect the number of kids raised without a father? Fathers leaving. Crazy huh.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Remember kids women are never responsible.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol listen to yourself dude.

Some theoretical discussions that a couple of old feminists had 50 years ago are somehow to blame for men abandoning their children and therefore also to blame for boys shooting up schools.

The men in this picture are totally without any responsibility, right? It's all those darn dead feminists' fault!

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

Remember kids its always the fathers fault!

Its like as if in the actual real world things aren't black and white. Go look up the stat on how many fathers are in prison. I think you may be for a shock.

[–]darkmoon095 points6 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

Women are the ones who open their legs to the deadbeats, so...

[–]MrsEdith8 points9 points  (38 children) | Copy Link

Men are the deadbeats, so...

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

Women are wonderful......

[–]MrsEdith3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The vast majority of us are, yes.

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

Man didn't that go over your head.

[–]darkmoon092 points3 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

Women choose to mate with said deadbeats, so...

[–]MrsEdith7 points8 points  (31 children) | Copy Link

Men choose to mate with women who choose to mate with deadbeats, so...

[–]darkmoon093 points4 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Men are trying to get laid with whoever is interested, that's why the onus is on women to better vett potential partners. There's a reason we say women are the gatekeepers to sex. The deadbeats wouldn't be getting laid and knocking women up if women weren't agreeing to have sex with them in the first place.

[–]AnteesAntaas2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Only women can get pregnant. Their body, their responsibility.

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

Hahaha

[–]newaccount8-180 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have literally all of the reproductive rights in the modern world, so...

[–]AnteesAntaas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women initiate 70 % of divorces. Of those 30 % that are initiated by men, 50% plus of the fathers remain in the child's life. Men abandoning their family is real, but it is not the primary reason a lot of children end up fatherless. A lot of men want to be in their children's lives but the mothers don't let them.

The culture of casual sex is the primary reason behind fatherless homes, as women have random sex with men they barely know. Tingles rule women's sex lives, not logical long-term thinking. That is women's fault as they are the ones who can get pregnant, and they are the ones who should be more careful.

[–]newaccount8-180 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course they're not, now they have enough power to just do it.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL10 points11 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Fatherless households raise fucked up boys. ok. But I don't think that's the fault of feminism (to the exclusion of everything else).

I can't reconcile the idea of 2nd gen feminist calling for the destruction of the nuclear family filtering down to the average woman as a justification for her single motherhood. It's not like Mary Jo or Nakisha came across Heroes of Their Own Lives and decided to throw off the shackles of matrimony. Yeah, 'yo go gurl'ism weakly filtered into the mainstream, but I can't say I know any average (and I want to stress, average as fuck) women who based major life decisions on it (like keeping a baby despite their shitty romantic or marital situation)

That sort of mental math is usually weighted heavily by hormones, family, and judeochristian hang ups.

All of this to say, feminist won't believe feminism is contributing to the problems of single motherhood. They will contest the reasons behind the stats, lay blame at the feet of the patriarchy/boogie man dujour, and frankly I think they are within their right to do so.

I think there are too many factors to signal out a (relatively) nascent ideology as the progenitor of The Problem, and feminism can/will capitalize on that grey area.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't lay the blame completely on feminism. However, I would argue that feminism avoids tackling the issue entirely. If my OP came across as blaming feminism for single-motherhood then I apologize, because I was not.

They do however have the opportunity to mitigate singe motherhood. And their refusal to acknowledge the importance of father figures is telling of their ideology.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL6 points7 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

They do however have the opportunity to mitigate singe motherhood.

Do they? Its pretty anathema to their raison d etre.

And their refusal to acknowledge the importance of father figures is telling of their ideology.

I've seen it play out where you go gurlism stepped into the picture after the father turned out to be a "no good sperm donor". Its less a refusal to acknowledge the necessity of good dads and more like, "don't worry about that no good sonofabitch, you got this".

But I can only speak from watching my lower SES thot cousin and her baby daddy drama play out. She won't describe herself as a feminist, but she is a single mom attached to the ideals of you go gurlism because her baby daddy is a constant source of disappointment. Yah its her fault she picked him, but stressing the importance of matrimony for stable kids to a lower class black single mom well... it doesn't mean much. At least you go gurl feminism offers a whiff of "self sufficiency".

I see a majority a single mom feminism as the result of marital/relationship breakdown, not the cause.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I see a majority a single mom feminism as the result of marital/relationship breakdown, not the cause.

This is my observation as well. Lots of the poor single moms my volunteer work has brought me into contact with wanted to be loving wives, but we’re tricked by men who lied about love and commitment so they could get unprotected sex. Often times the guy will get cold feet and bail after the option for abortion has passed. These are men who don’t show up to the birth, who don’t help at all, who need to be dragged to court for child support so their children can have food and clothes.

Man, I’ll never forget this one woman. Her child’s father did as I described, told her he was gonna propose, be there as a dad, give her the world. After she really started showing he panicked and ghosted her. She wants this guy to be a father to their child, but it is like pulling teeth. He has made promises that have been broken over and over again. She is very much a “you go gurl, don’t need no man” type now, but she didn’t start that way.

[–]newaccount8-181 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Irrelevant as in the modern era women have literally all of the reproductive choices, including adoption. Or they could just not be feeble-minded idiots and stop bc just because a guy said some nice stuff.

[–]darkmoon091 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

....of course, it's always men's fault, right? As for unplanned pregnancies, if only abortion was legal..oh wait...

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Often times the guy will get cold feet and bail after the option for abortion has passed.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

... i mean she just told you that these guys bail after legal abortion dead lines

[–]askmrcia0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Lots of the poor single moms my volunteer work has brought me into contact with wanted to be loving wives, but we’re tricked by men who lied about love and commitment so they could get unprotected sex.

Lol bs. Cmon. This is nothing but those women refusing to take any accountability for their poor choices of men.

Oh and I come from a single mother. Hell my entire family is filled with them. Nearly all of them chose the worse men to open their legs too.

She wants this guy to be a father to their child, but it is like pulling teeth.

Every single woman says this and alot of them date, sleep with or marry the complete opposite.

I just love how you think these women claim that the guys who left them were A List Actors who can trick women into getting them to fall for them. Wake up

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It was not bs, it was my job for years.

[–]MrsEdith7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists fight for access to cheap/free birth control and to protect abortion. Those alone prevent a shit ton of single mothers.

[–]tongue_kiss1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep in mind, feminists "have control of media narrative" because it causes drama with conservatives...which draws viewers and makes money for media outlets.

[–]darkmoon090 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Fatherless households raise fucked up boys. ok. But I don't think that's the fault of feminism

LMAO! Boy that's rich. I guess feminism isn't at fault for anything.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Your words, not mine.

[–]darkmoon096 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Anyone with a shred of intelligence, common sense, and who's not in denial can see as clear as day the link between feminism and the decline of the family unit/increase in fatherless homes, etc.

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not a legit argument, anyone with any common sense or intelligence can see a link between banana pudding enthusiast and the decimation of the Cavendish banana.

No, no appeals to populism.

[–]darkmoon092 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not a legit argument, anyone with any common sense or intelligence can see a link between banana pudding enthusiast and the decimation of the Cavendish banana.

Lol what? That's such a weak retort. You know damn well I'm making a solid point but you have to bring up weird things about bannas and pudding just to appear clever. There's been academic research into the cause and effect of feminism looking into these things, and one of the trends that has been repeatedly noticed is the decline of the nuclear family parallel to the rise of feminism and women's lib.

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

My argument was never that anyone should do anything.

...

We should always be interested in a betterment of society and culture in the pursuit of truth.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The top quote was talking about my OP in the context of the above comment "why should they (feminists) have to do that"

The bottom one is speaking in the present tense about societal values and the pursuit of truth, not a specific ideology.

[–]darkmoon095 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because women are being pumped n dumped and left as poor single mothers, and frustrated young men are shooting up schools and plowing vans into public gatherings.

Feminists may not feel like they need to explian anything, but it would probably behoove them do some explaining on their part

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But what would they say? To be taken to task they'd have to believe in all the casual links ya'll have established, and I have feeling they don't.

What's it to them, and what's it to you, that they admit ownership of a problem that's mutlifaceted?

[–]darkmoon093 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

To be taken to task they'd have to believe in all the casual links ya'll have established, and I have feeling they don't.

Of course they don't, because they're incapable of ever seeing themselves in the wrong even when they are.

What's it to them, and what's it to you, that they admit ownership of a problem that's mutlifaceted?

Not saying they have to take complete ownership, but just acknowledge the critical role they've played in creating the situation.

[–]CallandoroReddish Purps1 point2 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

So no ideology can ever be criticized?

[–]philomexaIF THE POISON WON'T TAKE YOU MY DOGS WILL5 points6 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Did I say that?

[–]CallandoroReddish Purps4 points5 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

You said that if proponents of an ideology are happy with their ideology, then it’s “disingenuous” for outsiders to criticize that ideology 🤔

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

It makes sense to criticize it from its own premises. It's disingenuous to criticize it for not being something it never claimed or aimed to be.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 5 points6 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

It's disingenuous to criticize it for not being something it never claimed or aimed to be.

That's not analogous to this case. At one time, feminism was vehemently anti-marriage and claimed to be. Now it is radio silence on the issue as well as father absenteeism. I think criticizing feminists on it's failure to provide a counter-narrative to the movement's previous rhetoric is a fair.

[–]SmurfESmurferson9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism has also been wildly pro-choice (first wave), and advised career women to act like men (second wave).

It's a constantly evolving movement, it makes no sense to ask feminists to address the positions feminists of yesteryear held.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't. The movement has moved onto other matters because their goals w/r/t marriage were largely achieved. Feminism was never about preserving families or marriage, so why would they need to provide such a narrative? Why would you expect them to?

Edit: Also, yes, it's not analogous because I didn't make an analogy.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

their goals w/r/t marriage were largely achieved.

The goals according to the feminists I quoted was largely achieved?

Feminism was never about preserving families or marriage, so why would they need to provide such a narrative?

Feminism was once about destroying families or marriage though. That is my point. Which by the way, I don't think they largely achieved.

Why would you expect them to?

One reason I think they should provide a counter-narrative because without one, average people still believe that feminism represents the feminists quoted above. It's in my OP.

Edit: analogous meaning comparable in certain respects.

analogous: similar or comparable to something else

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

I apparently completely misunderstood both you and /u/Callandro. I thought your point was that feminism wasn't advocating FOR the preservation of the nuclear family and marriage, and that they should provide a "counter narrative" that advocates for such things. That's what I found bizarre. I assumed that because of this sentence in your OP:

Feminists today do not have a platform of advocating family.

Anyway, no, obviously the complete destruction of the family unit and marriage as an institution has not occurred. But women are no longer bound to it and have other options, which is what I meant by "their goals were largely achieved." Women have largely been liberated from those expectations, even if the institution itself still persists.

One reason I think they should provide a counter-narrative because without one, average people still believe that feminism represents the feminists quoted above.

Who cares? Why are you so concerned with what average people think about feminism? You're not a feminist so why is outside perception of the movement of any concern to you?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Who cares?

Lots of people care about the destruction of familial values. Women don't seem to enjoy being single moms. And the economy isn't better off with them running around.

Also, feminists have a lot of control over the narrative in media. So why shouldn't we care? If marriage is the healthiest model for child-rearing, and feminists claim that they are for the betterment of men and women and boys and girls, then we should care about their intellectual dishonesty.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

feminism beleives all men are violence and patriarchy is violence, all feminism believes patriarchy is the source of all evils agaisnt women and men. that young men "need fatherS" in order to NOT murder peopel doesnt make the case any better. men are viewed not as solutions but the source of all ills

the counter narrative is "destroy masculinity" ALL the way, not half assedly, not that we need men in homes with women keeping boys from being "school shooters", men are the chief source of violence agaisnt women, to feminism, they are ALL danger to women to feminism

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

that young men "need fatherS" in order to NOT murder peopel doesnt make the case any better

It's not only to not murder. It's also associated with higher-achieving, more productive men.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism isnt concerned with that.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My claim was never about what they were concerned with. My argument is that they are doing a disservice to women by their past blunders and their current inaction.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Where does this straw-feminism even exist? Not even the butch-lesbian head of my local gender studies department is that radical

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

/u/Atlas_B_Shruggin and /u/BiggerDthanYou clashing over feminism.

One poster asserts feminism hates men, while the other poster asserts feminism aims to fix men by making them think, act and live like women.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

he is not anglo US and anything he has to say about "feminism" is not discussing the same thing im discussing

[–]CallandoroReddish Purps3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

This is just more of the feminist motte and Bailey tactic

It did claim to be about that

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

When did feminism ever claim to be about advocating family?

[–]CallandoroReddish Purps0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you read op? They took a position on the issue

That’s like saying

A: I believe slavery is a good system

B: no way , that’s so abusive of the poor slaves

A: welp, I never claimed it was good for the slaves. Critique defeated

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

OK, I apparently misconstrued OP's stance, and yours by extension.

[–]SmurfESmurferson14 points15 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Is there a list of the father status for each of these shooters? I want to see how they're defining "fatherless" Just off the top of my head:

Adam Lanza's dad is alive (and was involved with him and his brother), but divorced from the mother and lived a few miles away.

The Virginia Tech shooter's father is still married to his mother.

The Pulse nightclub shooter's father was involved in his upbringing (I seem to remember a story about him beating the then-teenaged shooter on 9/11).

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman14 points15 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Does fatherless just mean divorced parents? Does it mean father not involved? Does it mean bad parenting? Who knows this is classic Smoogology.

[–]SmurfESmurferson11 points12 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I honestly don't know what it means. I just listed three shooters who had involved bio-fathers, so I think this is just Fake News

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I cannot understand why the anti feminist crowd always quotes the same elderly radical 1960's feminists to make a broad based conclusion.

[–]SmurfESmurferson4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Because they were annoying harpies, but that was second wave feminism in a nutshell.

Frankly, we could use some of that seriousness injected back into this new fourth wave we're seeing.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Robin Morgan was kind of a crazy bitch but I assume lots of people were in the 1960's early 70's.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

But what if card-carrying feminists actually do have mental and/or psychological issues of a sort as a rule?

I am under the impression that in our society, feminism appeals most to women who have at least one of the following traits:

  • narcissism
  • (unresolved) trauma
  • hypersensitivity (generation special snowflake ahoy)
  • psychopathy / sociopathy (this is admittedly the smallest group. But as cases like matress girl, Zoe Quinn or Amanda Marcotte show, this group can also stir some serous shit and gain some influence due to the gullibility of feminists when it comes to their in-group as well as the unwillingness to ostracize their own)

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, at least you mentioned a current feminist.

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

When it comes to (inintentionally) exposing someone's sociopathic tendencies, the absence of the internet can be considered a blessing.

[–]SkookumTreeWe are DONE with "cope"0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. And the willingness to question the very foundations of society.

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||23 points24 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I was raised by a single mother and it's the worst thing in the world. I have a lot of fucked up issues. Thank god I found an amazing husband who is in a ddlg bdsm relationship type with me. He is the thing that "healed me" no amount of therapy would have done it-and I've been in therapy since I was 6.

My mother made me her partner. Meaning I had to listen to all her problems, our house problems, money problems etc from an early age. She always told me we have to be a team. Children should be children and protected. All the single mothers I know are DISGUSTING. They resent their children and say "you're a bad person just like your father" a lot of times. My mother used to call me by my fathers name and tell me I am a loser just like him like a million times a day.

There is nothing worse than a single mother. And no, it's not just my situation. I stopped talking to my best friend of a decade a few months ago because she is a single mother and some guy came to her house to fuck her and he was holding the baby while fucking her because the baby started crying. This is vile and disgusting and that child will have issues that will follow him his entire life and affect all relationships.

Edit: My mother also resented me because she couldnt get a bf to commit because she had a child. I remember especially this one time when I was 8 and it was easter and she wanted to leave me alone at home to go with her bf and I started crying because I was scared to be left alone and she stayed and treated me like shit and was mad at me for not letting her go. I was left alone a lot as a child and even during night. I used to stay on a chair looking through the window thing at the door waiting for her to come home for hours. Even to this day I am terrified of dark and I cant sleep alone.

[–]M4sterDis4ster12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This sounds like a horror story. Your mother sounds more like a loser, rather than your dad.

Indeed, having sex while holding a baby is just plain wrong. I think most of the single moms had mental problems even before they became mothers, it just becomes more visible when you have a child you have to take care off and you see that child as a burden.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

My mother made me her partner. Meaning I had to listen to all her problems, our house problems, money problems etc from an early age. She always told me we have to be a team.

I know how you feel, I feel like my personality, interests and even language was chosen for me since birth. Its essentially like not having parents at all in the sense of communication or knowing each other because after a while I just gave up, my mom has an idea of me in her head that has never gone away and its someone I have never been, they are just biological origins to me

I remember going over my friends house and just being like "OH this is how people are supposed to act with each other"

I had wonderful grandparents tho, I ran away from home and lived with my grandma from like 4th grade until high school, until her dementia got too bad and had to live in a nursing home and I regularly went to see my grandad every other weekend so I dont consider my childhood bad at all, in all honesty I wasnt a pleasant child to be around so me and my mother were just a terrible mix

[–]officerkondoMarried Redder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

even language was chosen for me since birth

This is the case for every person who has ever lived. I didn't choose to be a native speaker of English, but that's what happened.

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

My mom wanted me to talk like a poet from the victorian era or some shit, as long as it went a long well with her while she pretended to be princess diana combined with cruella deville

I did enjoy pointing out everytime she fake laughed to people

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry dude. Thanks for sharing this with us.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

The guy in this story doesn't sound like a winner. What was your Dad like? Do you think he would have been a good influence if he was present?

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

My dad is very weak and spineless. This is where my EXTREME hate for "betas,cucks", weak men comes from. Neither of them was good but my dad was worse because he was physically violent. He was a doormat, everyone walked all over him and at home he would pour out all that frustration on me. My mother also told me he was jealous of the attention she was giving me when I was a baby and that he was like a jealous horny teenager.

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Are a man or woman ??

[–]PuleaSpataru69|||0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I;m a woman. Why?

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It would've been weird to be a gay guy depending on another guy for safety and emotional comfort .

[–]CuddleLumpkin10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I love how men abandoning their families is somehow women’s and feminists’ fault. Never underestimate a man’s ability to blame a woman for his mistakes. I think that’s a Rihanna quote. “Some people say that there’s a woman to blame but I know it’s my own damn fault.” Take a page out of Jimmy Buffett’s book.

[–]AnteesAntaas0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I love how men abandoning their families is somehow women’s and feminists’ fault.

Only a minority of single mother households are caused by men abandoning their families. It is women who initiate 70 % of divorces. More often, it is women getting knocked up by men who have made no commitment to them. It is women who are supposed to do a ton of screening before having sex, instead they choose tingles.

[–]CuddleLumpkin3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Divorce =/= absent father, so pick another excuse.

But please, continue on elaborating on exactly what I said, that men abandoning their children is somehow women’s fault (she should have chosen someone better to sleep with!)

[–]AnteesAntaas1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Divorce =/= absent father, so pick another excuse.

Lot's of women shut the husband out after the divorce, educate yourself.

But please, continue on elaborating on exactly what I said, that men abandoning their children is somehow women’s fault (she should have chosen someone better to sleep with!)

Men are responsible for leaving, and women are responsible for picking a bad man to breed with.

[–]CuddleLumpkin2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most men don’t seek custody after divorce, and most divorced couples with children set up their own childcare agreements without court intervention. If my children were being kept from me, I’d walk through fire and spend every last penny I had to ensure I am a part of their lives.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

You know if the fathers didn't leave those boys wouldn't have been fatherless, right?

It seems like a bit of a stretch to blame women theorising among themselves for fathers abandoning their kids and those kids going on to shoot up a school.

Q4All: Do you believe contemporary feminists fail to provide a counter-narrative to the feminists of past (regarding marriage)?

I don't think it's their job to.

Q4All: Are the consequences of paternal absenteeism silenced in an effort to remain inclusive?

No

Q4All: Do you believe a present mother and father is the superior model to build a healthy, productive child?

Yes

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist4 points5 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

You think those fathers all just left because they wanted to? Don't you think a lot of them were forcefully kicked out of the picture? The mother is the one who has the power to kick the father out of the child's life if she wants to.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Most of them, yeah.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Is there any data on this? Otherwise it is just a matter of perspective.

I have the opposite perspective from yours (shaped by personal experience). I know that my GF's dad wanted to be in the picture more, but her mom wouldn't allow it. Also, one of my guy friends is currently staying in a bad marriage because his wife says if he leaves she will make sure he never sees his daughter again. This shit happens all the time.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure it does happen, but I think most absentee dad cases are men who simply walked out. "Daddy went for cigarettes and never came home" is a trope for a reason.

My husband was raised this way - his parents were married and had 5 children together, and then dad decided it was all too much work and took off with a younger childless woman. They tried to involve him in the family for years but he didn't want a bar of it.

I think the most common case of single motherhood though is low class casual couples accidentally getting pregnant. Dad wants nothing to do with family life and mum decides to keep the baby on her own. That kids grows up with no father figure and a low rent mother, so has issues.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

And I think the opposite.

Guess without reliable data we're at a stalemate.

I think the most common case of single motherhood though is low class casual couples accidentally getting pregnant. Dad wants nothing to do with family life and mum decides to keep the baby on her own.

That scenario is almost completely the mother's fault. She's the only one who could decide whether to keep the baby or not. Wasn't your original comment above about how most of this issue was men's fault, not women's?

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

Yeah see I don't buy into the abortion as a get out free card, so I'm biased there. I couldn't have an abortion and I know lots of women are the same. It's not birth control.

If a man doesn't want a child he shouldn't rely on her birth control. He should wear a condom. He knows what the outcome of unprotected sex is, if he leaves his pregnant partner alone then yeah, he plays a pretty big hand in producing a fatherless child.

Edit: I also think there's a substantial number of low class unmarried couples who get pregnant, promise to raise the baby together, and then dad walks out when he realises how hard it is.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It's not a get out free card, but it was her decision nonetheless. Look how you worded it.

Dad wants nothing to do with family life and mum decides to keep the baby on her own.

Totally her decision, for better or for worse. Nowhere did I say everything was going to be peachy for her. Far from it, in fact. But she is the one who made the decision to bring the child of a single mother into the world. She is the only one who could have prevented it after the "oops" that they were both responsible for.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, what I'm saying though is that for some women it is tantamount to murder and therefore not an option.

Dad not being there is dad's fault. It certainly isn't "feminism"s fault.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist4 points5 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Not to the vast majority of women today. Most have no moral objection to abortion, so that's a dead-end argument there. I know that choosing to have an abortion is a tough decision, but do you know what people would say if it were men who get abortions instead of women? 'Tough shit. Some choices in life are hard. Nut up and live with your decision'. That's what.

The part that they both played an equal part in was making the baby. What happened after that was her decision and hers alone.

Dad not being there is dad's fault. It certainly isn't "feminism"s fault.

According to you. Let's not pretend that whole conversation we had above never happened. I disagree. In the majority of cases the man had no choice whether to be there in the first place. That's my opinion on this.

[–]officerkondoMarried Redder Shade of Purple Man1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

You know if the fathers didn't leave those boys wouldn't have been fatherless, right?

You know the first step to being a good mother is to pick a good father, right?

Of course, many single mothers aren't in the current station because some guy pumped and dumped them. Many initiated divorces and then got primary custody.

[–]allweknowisD3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

So in summary: even though the father is absent in this discussion, it’s still somehow all the women’s fault. Gotcha

[–]officerkondoMarried Redder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes. You seem upset by this, but you will have to take it up with Darwin.

Evolution tells every woman, "Here's a few hundred eggs. These are all you're ever going to get, and having offspring is highly intensive in terms of time, energy, and resources. So, choose wisely and don't fuck it up." In other words, women are the gatekeepers of reproduction. Any woman who exhibits poor judgment in whom she chooses to let squirt seed into her has overcome over 100 million years of evolution. Quite a feat.

[–]allweknowisD0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes because how we live nowadays is entirely based upon evolution theory. We still need strong men to go and hunt wild animals for us to eat, because there isn’t supermarkets around the corner...

I just find it hilarious in this sub and TRP that men abandoning their children is never an issue. But god forbid a mother trying to raise that child as best as she can without being to blame for everything. Talk about talking responsibility, I thought that’s something TRP taught men?

[–]officerkondoMarried Redder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes because how we live nowadays is entirely based upon evolution theory

Still pretty much so, yeah.

We still need strong men to go and hunt wild animals for us to eat, because there isn’t supermarkets around the corner...

What do you think this is a retort to? The availability of supermarkets does not change the fact that raising a child is incredibly time, resource, and energy intensive.

I just find it hilarious in this sub and TRP that men abandoning their children is never an issue.

I never said that.

But god forbid a mother trying to raise that child as best as she can without being to blame for everything.

Her best is not good enough. A woman with one leg can swim "as best she can", but she will never be as good a swimmer as a woman with both legs.

Talk about talking responsibility, I thought that’s something TRP taught men?

Yes, responsibility for themselves. That means any man who nuts into a woman without a condom or a vasectomy is an idiot. However, he would have never had that opportunity if a woman didn't open her legs first.

Who are you going to blame for your fat ass, McDonald's for making the cheeseburgers, or yourself for eating three of them at a sitting?

[–]allweknowisD0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

You’re using evo to try and determine that it’s why women should be blamed as though we still live by evo. We don’t. We evolved past it.

Then why do you prefer to blame the mother for trying her best yet do not condone the father that left her to raise his child on her own?

Your analogy makes no sense. It takes one person to get fat; it takes two to create a child therefore it’s both parents responsibility. But clearly, men can abandon children without fault. And you all wonder why child support laws are in place smh

[–]officerkondoMarried Redder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

We evolved past it.

Please explain how you know this.

Then why do you prefer to blame the mother for trying her best yet do not condone the father that left her to raise his child on her own?

It is not a preference. I am referring to the but-for cause. But-for causes are a pretty big deal.

It takes one person to get fat; it takes two to create a child therefore it’s both parents responsibility.

What part of, "do you blame McDonald's or yourself" don't you get?

But clearly, men can abandon children without fault. And you all wonder why child support laws are in place smh

Can men abandon without fault, or are their child support laws?

[–]allweknowisD0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Look at the world around you: we don’t live by basic evolution that TRP cling so closely too. The weak, skinny man has as much ability to survive in this world as a strong “alpha”, yet evolution says that this isn’t able.

The part where it doesn’t make sense. It’s not comparable.

In my country I know more men that don’t pay child support than men that do. It’s a very Americanised version of the world when people talk about fathers being drained of money to support their child.

But again, I see no one in this thread discussing the fault of the father leaving. Nothing but demonising single mothers because apparently women can predict the future and tell if a man will abandon their child.

[–]officerkondoMarried Redder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Look at the world around you

This is not an argument, let alone a response to, "how do you know?"

The weak, skinny man has as much ability to survive in this world as a strong “alpha”, yet evolution says that this isn’t able

This is not my argument, and yours is based on a very poor understanding of natural selection. Your brain has been shaped by several hundred million years of evolution. Civilization does not change that. For example, the fact that civilization exists has not changed your fight-or-flight response even though most of us will never encounter a wild bear chasing us down a city street. Similarly, civilization has not changed the fact that eggs are rare. In fact, many social conventions are based upon this very fact.

In my country I know more men that don’t pay child support than men that do.

Why do you know so many deadbeat men? Choose better company.

Nothing but demonising single mothers because apparently women can predict the future and tell if a man will abandon their child.

Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

If a 10-year-old child drives a car and crashes it into a tree, do you blame the child, or do you blame the adult who gave him the keys and said, "go have fun, kid"?

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

Wonder why this doesn't hold everywhere, like in the Mosou tribe. If single motherhood is so bad, they should be a chaotic society full of crime and violence,and they're not.

[–]killallthenarcs2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of those shooters are over 35 years old. Are we seriously blaming "didn't have no daddy baaawwwwwww" for the actions of grownass middle-aged adults?

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

Do you believe contemporary feminists fail to provide a counter-narrative to the feminists of past (regarding marriage)?

I will answer this later, at the moment I do not have time too.

Are the consequences of paternal absenteeism silenced in an effort to remain inclusive?

I do not think any of that is silenced.

Do you believe a present mother and father is the superior model to build a healthy, productive child?

Yes, at the very least a figure that can stand in as a father or a mother is important.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I will answer this later, at the moment I do not have time too.

Take your time. Please make your comment in reply to this one so I get notified.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I decided to just write a post on it tomorrow.

[–]paccount112You're delusions are making me red1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Here's the question then,

Is it a correlation? Are there are so many fatherless children that they skew the results; or is a causation, and the minority of people who are prone to mass violence wouldn't otherwise have done so with a dad around?

Or a third option. Is it that without dads, this would be much higher, and fathers are a pacifying effect on society?

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Causation according to the data I've read.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal

Drawing on data from socially deprived areas of south London, she compared a group of "good boys", who had no criminal convictions and had caused teachers no trouble, with a group of "bad boys" at a secure unit for unmanageable adolescents, many of them persisitent offenders convicted of sexual assault, theft and stealing vehicles.

All 68 boys, aged between 12 and 16, were from working class backgrounds, had lower than average intellectual ability, had similar problems with their peers and with hyperactivity, had equally large families, and in both groups 40% suffered from dyslexia.

But there was one "very striking" difference between the two groups: 55% of the "good boys" lived with their biological fathers, compared with only 4% of the "bad boys".

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.11 points12 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Man I wish I could “prove” causation with just epi data.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It is not necessarily proving anything. However, you can't deny the evidence that suggests there is some causation.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not denying it.

[–]paccount112You're delusions are making me red3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Man I wish you would elevate the understanding of us regular folk instead of snarky indignation.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How is that “snarky”?? I meant that genuinely. Epi generally is used in health based research but it essentially is used to narrow down causation, ie take a data set, use controls and what are the statistical outcomes? So for my work, epi data would be taking a population x of people with some health condition, how many of them are taking drug x versus those who are not? You are trying to identify risk factors.

I mean that’s simplifying things and I’m not a statistician. Maybe in social research they call it something else but it appears to have a similar methodology.

[–]paccount112You're delusions are making me red0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

thanks

[–]M4sterDis4ster3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On the note, I have read somewhere that 80% of prison population convicted for heavy crimes like murder, rape are men without father figure.

Also ; more prone to depression, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, low self-esteem, aggression etc.

Interesting article ; https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Psychological-Effects-On-Men-Growing-Up-Without-A-Father

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 1 point2 points  (96 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.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

hey quick question how the fuck is men abandoning their families the fault of women or feminists

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Robin Morgan who said “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”

It's funny how MGTOW, with a completely opposing ideology, is also based on this belief.

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

Shiiiuieeet you just blew my mind

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

No, its not really based on that belief.

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

Not really. They do not want to destroy it just not participate in it themselves.

[–]wekacuckstupid buggy bot0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

(a) they're single mothers

(b) kids became mass shooters

Theory: maybe the mom's batshit

[–]bluepy670 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This. Is it the lack of a dad, or the presence of a horrible mother? It seems like a lot of serial killers have domineering mothers, and the dad leaves. In those cases, is it the dad's absence or the mother's presence that plays the bigger role?

[–]statsfoddernot blue, not red.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did I get in b4 "not real feminism" ??

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment[M] -2 points-1 points  (85 children) | Copy Link

By the way /u/Mr_Smoogs, I marked you down as a good contributor in the mod notes. As of yet that doesn't really come with any tangible perks, but I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your high quality posts that we can rely on almost daily and the way you engage other users in those threads. Have a gold star! 🌟

Edit: I was trying to be nice and bring positivity to the community rather than simply be mean to people all the time. I'll be leaving this up for transparencies sake but I regret my actions, as I now realize people just want me to be mean all the time. Sorry for any jimmies I may have rustled.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What are you doing

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Giving someone a complement for making the sub better?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

why are you doing this publically

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Makes me really wonder what happens privately now.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

High level power brokering I'm sure.

Seriously though it's internet modding, they probably have a private sub or chat where they discuss users and current threads casually, that's how we do it on TiA.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because I publically tell people when they step out of line or break the rules all the goddamn time. I honestly didn't think people would care this much if I did the reverse...

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

WTF are you doing?

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Giving someone a complement for making the sub better?

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman10 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It is very weird. No mod has ever done what you just did.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes they did. /u/alreadyredschool gave me a gold flair for a time for example.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well I am a weird one...

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay well that can be my excuse the next time I am cautioned, "oh I am weird so that makes it okay".

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, being weird isn't against the rules. You wouldn't get a caution just for that.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know it looks to me like if the wrong person is weird they will get one.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you have an example of someone getting a warning just for being weird?

[–]SmurfESmurferson9 points10 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I have to agree with u/songofmelancholy - this should probably have been a private message, not a public declaration of favoritism.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

How is it favoritism? How has OP benifited at all from my comment?

[–]SmurfESmurferson11 points12 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's perceived by numerous people as a mod openly selecting favorites, and engaging in favoritism. Goat gives a good breakdown of what your comment has people thinking.

Unfortunately, true or not, you just poisoned your ability to be neutral in the minds of PPD regulars.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, true or not, you just poisoned your ability to be neutral in the minds of PPD regulars.

All of the mods have had their ability to be neutral in the minds of PPD regulars posioned. I just wanted to join the club...

[–]SmurfESmurferson6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Did you talk to any of the other mods before making the decision to begin publicly spotlighting users you like?

This sort of stuff would get you stripped of your mod status in other groups I follow (and one that I do mod).

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you talk to any of the other mods before making the decision to begin publicly spotlighting users you like?

The mods here have done this before. We have a section in the side bar that highlights high quality threads called the depth hub. There used to be a comment/thread of the week here a while ago. The mods even made a special gold flair for good contributors at one point. It's really not out of line with previous mod policies.

This sort of stuff would get you stripped of your mod status in other groups I follow (and one that I do mod).

Well it's a good thing this isn't other subs!

[–]SmurfESmurferson4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I took a quick look at Depth Hub (I'm on mobile, so can't see it on the app), and it looks like you're spotlighting content, not individual users.

But, if it's kosher with the other mods, then so be it.

[–]sivariasMauve Dragovian1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes! Those people have clearly failed at their (volunteer) jobs! I want to be just like them!

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman11 points12 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

So the mods take notes on who is a good contributor or not and share them? Which does not influence at all how you moderate various commentary of course. This is some total bullshit. Normally I am one to defend the mods because I suspected you get eight million PMs a day from disgruntled PPD members and it doesn't sound fun at all but you are either acting alone, being super weird, or things are not as I guess which is always possible.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪9 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Unbelievable

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman5 points6 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Except apparently it just happened and nobody sees the problem except a few.

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

I agree with you

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I noticed, and I sprayed upvotes your direction.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ha.Ha. Harsh flair, Bro.

[–]drok007 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

My flair was permabanned while king dipshit was in charge, i have been granted access again since the new leadership with stipulations.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Be civil.

[–]BeyondTheLight5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair why would most of the people care that much anyway. It is PPD and a weird subreddit at that. Oh no the mods banned me. Now I have to be social with my friends/family and be productive in general. Terrible!

I bet that this is the sentiment of most people here.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Yes of course the mod notes effect how the mods deal with users. It's no secret that users who should have been banned a long ago get more leeway when they have a long history of good contributions. For what it's worth, Mr_Smoogs was the first person I had the pleasure of removing comments for rule breaking. It's not like I'm giving him a free pass...

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman9 points10 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

When did mods start publically praising participants? Is this the new era? I think it is odd and inappropriate, it is not the "who" it is that it is being done.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

When did mods start publically praising participants? Is this the new era? I think it is odd and inappropriate, it is not the "who" it is that it is being done.

Actually I was hoping more mods would catch on! We spend all day bringing people down and telling users to knock shit off. I also want to be able to also acknowledge good posts and comments. As in, high quality, not just stuff I agree with.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Well, I am often in the minority so I understand my opinion may not be the popular one here but I think it is a problematic approach however, I also know that most people consider arguing fervently with a mod a good way to end up on the bad list. However, if this is how it is going to be I think you in particular need to be more transparent about who the good kids are. Now that I know Smoog can do whatever the fuck he wants I can keep that in mind. I would like to know where the potholes are.

[–][deleted]  (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]SmurfESmurferson6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Have you guys not heard the phrase "perception is reality"?

LKF altered the public perception of her ability to be fair and impartial. It honestly doesn't matter that no special powers, benefits, perks, etc. were bestowed. She's openly talking about keeping mod notes and all that, which is making people wonder what the mods are doing behind closed doors.

Goat's comments are an accurate picture of what a lot of people are thinking right now.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, it is only a few people besides me who think what happened was inapporpriate or that it has implications for future interactions, as I indicated earlier, I fully understand my stance may be in the minority. I am not silly enough to think I can persuade.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, I am often in the minority so I understand my opinion may not be the popular one here but I think it is a problematic approach however,

I mean I can definitely see why you feel this way. It's something that you don't see very often, and I can see how that startled people. But I promise, you all are putting waaaay more weight into this than I am.

I also know that most people consider arguing fervently with a mod a good way to end up on the bad list.

If you have serious concerns about the modding you can always go to modmail where the other mods will weigh in. I promise I'm not holding it against you lol.

However, if this is how it is going to be I think you in particular need to be more transparent about who the good kids are. Now that I know Smoog can do whatever the fuck he wants I can keep that in mind. I would like to know where the potholes are.

First, Smoog can't do whatever the fuck he wants. If he breaks a rule the comment would be removed same as any others, if he keeps breaking rules he'll get temp banned. If at any point the mods feel his behavior isn't worth dealing with, we can and will permaban him.

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

I don't contact the mods very often. I see no reason to contact them about this since it is happening out in the open and people will draw their own conclusions.

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

So the mods take notes on who is a good contributor or not and share them?

Just about every single active sub does this, you know that right?

/r/toolbox - this is the software they use, it creates user notes like RES creates flairs, but it's stored within the sub's wiki so it can be viewed by all mods.

It's useful for keeping track of who has been warned by other mods for example.

Again every sub does this, it's not an evil PPD conspiracy.

I have beef with a couple of the new mods but still, this is not something to jump down their throats about, this normal modding shit.

As for "favouritism" as I said in another comment already the old mod team gave people (including myself) gold flairs as rewards, this is no different.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

in what universe is that okay to show favoritism publicly as a mod? how about you publish your full list of 'favs' on the sub for all to see?

I don't understand.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Why would it not be okay to acknowledge good contributors? These posts give people an idea of what good threads look like. PPD already has a list of favs started, it's called the depth hub and it's in the side bar. I don't understand how this is any different.

[–]sivariasMauve Dragovian5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

"This is a prime example of a good quality post that we want here on PPD"

possibly add "Have a gold star :goldstar:"

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, if I could do it all over again lol...

[–]sivariasMauve Dragovian3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Editing is a thing, no one quoted you.

The others would probably back off a wee bit

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

As good of an idea as that is, I'm kinda really into transparency... Which I guess is how I ended up in this mess in the first place...

[–]sivariasMauve Dragovian3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Then still edit it.

Edit: Guys I fucked up here, I was trying to be nice and bring positivity to the community rather than simply be mean to people all the time. I'll be leaving this up for transparencies sake but I regret my actions, as I now realize the harm that it has caused.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm stealing 90% of this.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pardon me. Just an idea, but isn't what is and isn't a good thread subjective? I can see why some of the posters are upset with this.

In your defense, though, this is how pretty much all subs are run. The mods decide what kind of sub they want, and it becomes that. Some of them become echo chambers (lucky that is not the case at PPD since it's supposed to be a debate sub).

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

I am lmao at everyone getting so butthurt over such an innocent comment 😂

Everyone replying to this angrily is eligible for a free Xanax bar from the Calm the Fuck Down Foundation.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 5 points6 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Woot. Thanks! These salty people aren't taking my gold star 🌟

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Dude the most interesting part of your thread is not your use of elderly mostly forgotten or dead feminists from the 1960's and 1970's who nobody today even remembers but that one of our mods either lost their mind or inadvertently answered a lot of questions about how things work here.

[–]tallwheelManosphere Unificationist4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They created the groundwork for modern feminist (and even widespread) thought. They are remembered through their ideas, even if you don't know their names.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

You just want my gold star

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Nah I want a gold goat .

[–]theambivalentrooster3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

And I want a gold rooster.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Gold bunny pls

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately I only have golden calves available.

[–]hellothisispotato0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Gold potato

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

<3

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

She said clearly it doesn't come with perks. She's showing appreciation. It's personal, from her. She didn't have to distinguish the comment to do it, but the worries about that are disproportionate.

Feel free to contact us if you have questions about how things work here or even PM me. You don't have to speculate.

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

Edit: I was trying to be nice and bring positivity to the community rather than simply be mean to people all the time. I'll be leaving this up for transparencies sake but I regret my actions, as I now realize people just want me to be mean all the time. Sorry for any jimmies I may have rustled.

Your edit is trash. No one wants you to be mean. What a gross interpretation of everyone's complaints. Don't show favoritism as a MOD. it shows moderation bias and hurts people's trust in the moderation team to be impartial, which everyone now knows it not to be, as evident by your attempts to justify your comment.

Don't be sorry. Be better.

[–]theambivalentrooster1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't be sorry. Be better.

Calm down, Kratos.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your edit is trash. No one wants you to be mean. What a gross interpretation of everyone's complaints. Don't show favoritism as a MOD. it shows moderation bias and hurts people's trust in the moderation team to be impartial, which everyone now knows it not to be, as evident by your attempts to justify your comment.

Don't be sorry. Be better.

🙄

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Your edit is a defensive non apology, if you want to offer an apology, say " I am sorry I have learned from this" not hey assholes you got your jimmies rustled so I am going to offer this up because somebody complained. You might not have liked my complaint done here publicly, you and others may think I am wrong or over reacting but I was not passive aggressive I spoke plainly. If you are not sorry, that is fine as well, I am cool with that.

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

Oh get over yourself, she has nothing to apologise for.

[–]BeyondTheLight0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Right lol. If only people were just as full of fervour in regards to political policies in real life that are being downed everyones throats, but nah muh internet reddit policies.

[–]MercedesBenzoAMGbringing percocets molly percocet back to ppd1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You know I made a comment about this in another thread yesterday, the conspiracy one... indeed if there are any real conspiracies going on it isn't anything to do with feminists or any other niche interest group, it's the government and lobbyists funding this bullshit identity politics to distract from real world issues.

Investment banks are still selling CDO's, the same shit that crashed the world economy in 2008, and I'm sure the people doing those deals love that they have the public arguing over "sexist air conditioning" and "manspreading" instead of looking at what they're up to.

On a related note, it would be smart to invest in cryptocurrency before the next major recession ;)

[–]BeyondTheLight4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

it's the government and lobbyists funding this bullshit identity politics to distract from real world issues.

Bingo.

Investment banks are still selling CDO's, the same shit that crashed the world economy in 2008, and I'm sure the people doing those deals love that they have the public arguing over "sexist air conditioning" and "manspreading" instead of looking at what they're up to.

Exactly. We are due for another correction. I know plenty of smart people saying the same thing and the current housing market is also a decent indicator of things. This recession will be much harder than the one in 2008. It will hurt so much that smug UMC people with their meager 500k houses ,that they already can barely pay off, will feel it really hard.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFM1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with all your three questions. However, I find it hard to ascribe this development to feminism. I see it much more as a result of the general breakdown of a common set of norms and morals in society, and the expansion of welfare-ism.

The social strata where the breakdown of the family is most acutely felt is not the upper classes where you tend to find feminists - and which interests feminists. Feminists don't give a shit about the lower classes, they're busy setting quotas for corporate boards and teaching university classes.

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

Obligatory Ann Coulter beat down

https://youtu.be/LOMzXQ66lGg

[–]xtfftc4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think there's some points to consider.

Raising kids with their fathers gone is nothing new. The nuclear family existed only for a very brief period. What is arguably different nowadays is that parents - usually mothers - raise them pretty much on their own, instead of having an extended family helping. I would argue that this is a greater problem than just the absence of the father. It often results in one of two things: the kid not getting enough attention since the mother is too busy, or the kid becoming the mother's sole focus since it's everything she has. Both can be harmful.

It makes perfect sense for the feminist movement to try to remove the stigma from single mothers. Whether it's feminists who should be responsible for pushing towards a more collective parenting is difficult for me to say. But I don't think that fighting the stigma is the problem; I think we can see it as the first step towards a meaningful change.

To answer at least one of your questions directly: I do think that both biological parents raising the child in a loving family is obviously the superior model. However, as second-best I'd put a loving family that does not necessarily include the biological parents.

The real question for me would be: which is better, a single loving parent, or a dysfunctional couple. Coming back to the title, it's perfectly possible that many of those 26 deadliest mass shooters would have turned out that bad either way because there were major problems that lead to the father leaving.

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

As a guy pretty steeped in RP thought, I've never heard it put that way. That was actually pretty insightful.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]M4sterDis4ster0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I would also like to add that Baby Pill changes hormonal level of a woman, meaning that women on Baby Pill usually choose wrong partners, because different hormonal levels makes her unable to recognize compatible immonological system.

When people say we had "chemistry", it happened on subconscious level with both parties recogniing compatible immune system. Women are actually evolutionary designed for that.

Many women reported that after marrying and getting of the Baby Pill to get pregnant, made her resent her new husband.

I would say that Baby Pill is also cause of high divorce rate and possibly r/DeadBedroom.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]M4sterDis4ster0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not aware who that is, I got that information from a friend who just finished PhD in medicine. Many other medicine students confirmed it, that use of it as only as contraception is really bad in the long term. She told me to never date women who are on birth control pill for my own sake.

[–]carefreevermillionLook at me. I'm the Chad now.3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It seems fairly obvious that the nuclear family is superior. I'd have to look up the studies but kids with lesbian parents are worse off (higher rates of mental disorders, more likely to be raped, etc etc) than kids with straight parents. I am not surprised at all as a result that single mom households cannot keep up with the nuclear family. If two women can't keep up, how could just one?

[–]CuddleLumpkin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The superior child rearing model is several close people (typically aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents) pitching in to raise a kid. Humans evolved to live in such societies. Post-partum depression is largely the result of isolating a new mother with just her children for most of the day.

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank God someone decided to finally post this. Half the people blame guns and half blame psychological issues, but the elephant in the room that nobody seems to recognize is that the vast majority of mass shooters are the children raised in single-parent female-run households.

The fact is a boy cannot become a man from the parentage of a single woman. It's just not possible. These boys are stunted socially and have no sense of healthy masculinity, which puts them at the bottom of the social ladder to be made fun of by everyone. The resentment builds, causing further stress and social isolation until one day they decide: fuck it, they're all gonna die for what they did to me.

The Sandy Hook shooter shot his mom in the face, multiple times. Think about that for a second. He shot her once, killing her, then continued to fire at her dead body. You can only imagine what was, or wasn't, left of her head by the end. You don't do that unless you absolutely hate her.

Q4All: Do you believe a present mother and father is the superior model to build a healthy, productive child?

Fucking obviously.

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

Q4All: Do you believe a present mother and father is the superior model to build a healthy, productive child?

uh... YES... a mother and a father are required to raise a child and much preferable than the current feminist model in place, which is a constant barrage of messages informing the male of his inferiority and the female of her superiority.

[–]ByronicAsian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What counts as fatherless?

I had a bio-dad that spoiled me up the ass until my mother left him when I was 12 and then I had a super strict distant step-dad from 16 onwards?

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

we should outlaw the fatherless

don't have a daddy? off to jail with ya

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

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