ScienceStudy: There aren't enough good men because they were raised by women (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1ObserverBG

Feminism is a disease that afflicts everyone, including women, but its truly innocent victims are boys. Just learned about some interesting studies, posted at the NYT.

Basically they argue that single motherhood weakened mostly the male children, because the sisters in such one parent families perform better in life than the brothers. In normal families, there is no difference or brothers perform better.

In other words, the lack of father harms more the male child than the female child. Thus if you want to weaken men, push for single motherhood. Apparently, having a father is more important for boys. So the next time a woman tells you that there aren’t enough good men, you can answer her: there aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women.

Begin Citation:

In a 2016 paper, David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., and four co-authors, measured academic and economic outcomes of brothers and sisters in Florida born in the decade between 1992 and 2002. For boys and girls raised in two-parent households, there were only modest differences between the sexes in terms of success at school, and boys tended to earn more than their sisters in early adulthood.

Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower. “Relative to their sisters,” Autor and his collaborators wrote, “boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.”

When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment: Employment rates of young women are nearly invariant to family marital status, while the employment rates of young adult men from non-married families are eight to ten percentage points below those from married families at all income levels. Autor and his co-authors conclude that family structure “is more consequential for the skills development and labor market outcomes of boys than girls.”

From another perspective altogether, Allan Schore, a professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the U.C.L.A. School of Medicine, explores the slower development among boys “in right-brain attachment functions.” This “maturational delay” in brain function, Schore writes in an essay that was published earlier this year in the Infant Mental Health Journal, “All Our Sons: The Developmental Neurobiology and Neuroendocrinology of Boys at Risk,” makes boys more vulnerable over a longer period of time to stressors in the social environment and toxins in the physical environment that negatively impact right-brain development.

This vulnerability, in turn, makes boys more susceptible to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and conduct disorders as well as the epigenetic mechanisms that can account for the recent widespread increase of these disorders in U.S. culture. Schore argues that a major factor in rising dysfunction among boys and men in this country is the failure of the United States to provide longer periods of paid parental leave, with the result that many infants are placed in day care when they are six weeks old.

Starting day care at six weeks, Schore writes, is “the exact time of the initiation of the postnatal testosterone surge found only in males.” Schore notes that “research has documented that boys more so than girls raised in single-mother families show twice the rate of behavioral problems than do boys in two-parent families” and argues that a “mis-attuned insecure mother” can be “a source of considerable relational stress, especially when the immature male toddler is expressing high levels of dysregulated aggression or fear.”

When a child is 18 to 24 months old, fathers play a crucial role, Schore writes, pointing to the male infant’s attachment transactions with the father in the second year, when he is critically involved in not only androgen-controlled rough-and-tumble play but in facilitating the male (and female) toddler’s aggression regulation. This same period (18–24 months) involves the initiation of a critical period of growth in the left hemisphere, and so the “paternal attachment system” of father-son interactions would presumably forge an androgenic imprint in the toddler’s evolving left-brain circuits, including the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, allowing for his regulation of the male toddler’s testosterone-induced aggression (“terrible twos”).



[–]H42 points points [recovered]

These studies need to be required reading for every family law judge who decides which parent gets primary custody of boys.

[–]grandaddychimp 109 points110 points  (18 children)

Never going to happen. Morality and justice are irrelevant to how the state deals out its judgements.

[–]AnonymousAndLovinIt 32 points33 points  (0 children)

It's their warped sense of morality and justice that takes precedence over plain truth.

[–]Westernhagen 25 points26 points  (16 children)

Morality and justice are irrelevant to how the state deals out its judgements.

On the contrary. Family courts are now organized specifically to subvert morality and justice.

[–]TRP Legal ExpertColdIceZero 56 points57 points  (15 children)

Lawyer here.

I just attended a law conference in Missouri this last week. One of the seminars included a panel of practicing family law lawyers and judges, and they discussed the growing trend of awarding 50/50 child custody between parents in divorce proceedings.

There undeniably has been a historical trend toward awarding the mother custody of the children in divorces. But it appears as though, at least in Missouri, that the tide has already begun to shift away from the presumption that mothers should have full custody of the children by default.

Officially, in Missouri, the criteria for determining "best interests of the child" does not include the sex of the parent.

So the law in some places is moving in a more equitable direction.

Please consider visiting http://coldicezero.com to support the cause.

[–]Appleseed12333 23 points24 points  (6 children)

Devil's advocate. Just because the criteria doesn't include the sex of the parent, that doesn't mean it's not a factor. Women routinely receive less harsh punishments in criminal court, despite the fact that sex shouldn't play a role there too.

[–]TRP Legal ExpertColdIceZero 8 points9 points  (5 children)

A fair point about unofficial stances, specifically regarding women and criminal sentencing.

But there are factors at play in criminal sentencing that you aren't taking into consideration. We've established that women historically have been given preference when being awarded primary and / or sole custody of children in a divorce. And when the likelihood of divorce is arguably in the 40-percent range, that would indicate that a substantial percentage of women are divorced, and a large subset of those women have been awarded primary custody of their children. So chances are high that a woman who is convicted of a crime is single and has custody of children.

Two weeks ago, I completed a Child Welfare certification course to allow me to be appointed as counsel in matters involving child abuse & neglect. This means that I'm qualified to represent children in cases where their home life is so fucked up that the state has intervened and is now working to determine whether the children should return home or should be placed into the foster care system.

During this training, judges and lawyers already doing this work told us that the courts know how fucked up the foster care system is and that courts will bend over backwards to keep children with their families. Only as a last resort will the court order children to be separated from their homes.

And I can see that being a huge factor in cases where women are found guilty of committing a crime but aren't sentenced to prison. If a woman has sole custody of her children, then sending the mother to prison will necessitate the court to go through the fucked up, lengthy, and costly process of removing children from their homes and determining guardianship or new custody arrangements for the children.

This is likely a huge factor in determining sentencing for women. The court is weighing the need to punish her against the best interests of the children. I'd argue that the best interests of the children often outweigh the social desire for punishing a woman via a prison sentence.

So while I'm sure some degree of Women are WonderfulTM is at play, I'd venture to say the children aspect of the situation bears a comparatively larger influence in sentencing for women.

[–]Roaring40sUK 3 points4 points  (2 children)

The court is weighing the need to punish her against the best interests of the children. I'd argue that the best interests of the children often outweigh the social desire for punishing a woman via a prison sentence.

This makes sense, but is still fucked up. You are basically saying that the courts favour women because its the less fucked up response. But, the courts helped create the single mother epedemic in the first place. So, men have to pay for the states mistakes and women get a pass?

[–]TRP Legal ExpertColdIceZero 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Well, keep in mind that, generally, the courts are just trying to do the best they can to find the least fucked up outcome in a fucked up situation.

Let's take divorce as an example. Why have divorce laws been so heavily skewed toward helping women? Well, it wasn't that long ago that women were functionally viewed as chattel property. The tradition of asking a woman's father for permission to marry the daughter goes back to a time when a father more or less "owned" his daughter and held the rights as to whether she could or could not be married to a potential suitor. The father, as the man of the house, owned the family's assets; and if the father approved of the marriage, then the father would provide some of his family's assets (a dowry) to his daughter's husband in order for the husband to have assets upon which to build his own family with the father's daughter.

So the man of the family owned all of the family assets. The culture for a very long time was that men worked and were the breadwinners and women generally did not hold income producing jobs. Because of the social conditions, pretty much only men were hired to do work that could provide "breadwinning" income to a family. This didn't begin to seriously change until WWII.

With men winning bread away from home and women socially unable to work for a living, women's traditional role was to stay at home and raise children.

Ok, so here's the environment: men functionally own all the family assets and are regularly working away from home; women generally don't own any of the family assets and are unable to get jobs on their own to support themselves.

So what do you do in the event of divorce? At the time, it was considered equitable to take a portion of the man's assets and give them to the woman so that she will have something to be able live on. The thinking was that if the court doesn't take from the man's assets to provide for the woman, then the woman will be destitute and will have to depend on the state for support (and the state isn't interested in supporting any more people than it needs to). "So, sorry dude, the state didn't force you to marry that chick; you voluntarily chose to do that. And you're not about to financially pawn her off on us just because you can't keep your marriage together."

Is it fucked up to take half of a man's assets in divorce? Sure. Is it fucked up to leave someone in the streets, unable to economically support themselves? Yeah, that sucks, too. So which is the least fucked up in that situation? Well, the laws decided that it was less fucked up to take half of a man's assets, rather than leave divorced women in the streets, unable to get jobs or own property.


Then, naturally, the question is what to do with custody of the children in the event of divorce? Well, at the time, the "best interests of the child" were being fulfilled by their mother. Men were working outside of the home, and women stayed at home to raise the children. Women raise children. So if children need to be raised, then it's seemingly an obvious choice to whom custody of the children should be given. Remember, this is before the time of child daycare facilities in every suburb near a starbucks. This is a time when men worked harsh, factory jobs for double digit hours each day. If men were given custody of the kids, then who would supervise and raise the kids when dad is at work? Since kids need to be raised by a parent and women socially couldn't work anyway, why wouldn't courts give custody to the mother by default?


So the whole thing is fucked up. Courts are built on the concept of precedent and are super slow to change. Our laws today are designed to best handle the last generation's problems. Today, we think it's fucked up that men are divorce raped and that women aren't given the same sort of criminal sentences as men are; but that's only looking at a snapshot of time and completely ignores how we got here.

I'm not necessarily defending the way the system operates today; I'm merely adding to the conversation by shedding light on the big picture.

Please visit ColdIceZero.com to support the spread of legal education.

[–]Roaring40sUK 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With men winning bread away from home and women socially unable to work for a living, women's traditional role was to stay at home and raise children.

Hey man, thanks for your in depth reply. I get the idea of precedent, however, it seems, with regard to laws that help women or hinder men (further) the state and courts can move pretty quickly. If you look at how quickly gender laws have come into effect in canada and how things like wold whistling are now being included in sexual harrassement law.

Look at how rape definitions have changed in the last 20 years.

So, while I here what you are saying, I beleive the law can move when it suits a political agenda.


[–]Westernhagen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a woman has sole custody of her children, then sending the mother to prison will necessitate the court to go through the fucked up, lengthy, and costly process of removing children from their homes and determining guardianship or new custody arrangements for the children.

The short answer to that is give the kids to their dad and put her ass in prison where it belongs.

[–]PillTheRed 6 points7 points  (4 children)

I believe it is more the women are wonderful effect playing out than the actual laws having any teeth. If the judge believes that moms are better, or you have a female judge, it doesn't matter what the laws say. Shit, I watched RCW after RCW get ignored during my divorce.

One that stuck out, was that each person shall have a standard of living similar to before the separation. I was a full time student at that time, when we divorced, I was kicked out of my home and made homeless. Even though she was living in a house with tons of granite, high end appliances, and a hot tub in the master bath. While I lived in my car, I still paid her support. When I brought up the rcw, he just shrugged like it didn't matter. They do what they want in family courts, laws be damned.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Nebraska gave no fucks about state not federal laws during my divorce and subsequent indentured servitude to the ex. They broke laws all the time, supposed to leave me at least $950 a month, they left me $300. Not supposed to take more than 68%, they took 71%. They cleaned out my bank account on many occasions leaving me nothing to live on, and making my payments bounce, then charged more interest and punitive charges. The list of fucked up shit they did goes on. I was homeless living in my car on active duty in the military.

I did nothing wrong, was a great father and both my kids live near me now, but they punished me for being male. They rewarded her despite her being abusive to the kids, marrying a loser who molested my daughters, and doing everything wrong. All of my evidence was thrown out, they didn't care.

I will never marry again. You can bet your ass on that.

[–]BasedBrexitBroker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At least the kids weren't warped to hate you

[–]SiulaGrande 4 points5 points  (1 child)

you got a small typo on your website. you say "Your donations are sincerely appreciate." instead of sincerely appreciated. not trying to grammar nazi you, just figured youd appreciate knowing. keep up the good work

[–]TRP Legal ExpertColdIceZero 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Noted and edited. I appreciate the feedback.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I live in Missouri. When my ex and I divorced, I won primary custody of our son (10 yo). She gets him every other weekend and one night a week.

[–]yomo86 25 points26 points  (6 children)

Well the the system is quite fair on paper. The most fit parent gets the kids. Now a full time working father who can cut back on late hours and can afford a maid for the daily house work while the little devils are in school seems to be the most apt. But this is not how judges interpret things. Deadbeat moms are better fit parents by default.

[–]Westernhagen 13 points14 points  (5 children)

The most fit parent gets the kids.

Who gets to define "fitness" is the problem.

[–]Appleseed12333 7 points8 points  (4 children)

It's simple, who ever has the tits.

[–]blue_27 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It's hard to argue against tits.

[–]shardikprime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you one usually must acquit

[–]_the_shape_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That statement would piss off so many divorced men with man-boobs in more ways than one

[–]do_0b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They should have worn those bras with the cups in them to get that extra lift.

[–]askmrcia 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yea its crazy how you got banned for that. Its like do these subs not want different opinions or do they want everyone to post the same shit.

I got banned from the "sex" sub reddit because a guy was asking if he should continue dating some girl who refused to go down on him despite her mentioning that she used to do it several times with her ex.

In a nutshell I said he should start looking to date other women and I got banned from that sub.

Crazy you got banned from all of reddit.

[–]break_main 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is only a couple of studies. These results shouldn't be required reading unless they are backed up by repeated studies.

Edit: If you downvoted, please explain why you believe every study you read.

[–]waldo888 64 points65 points  (2 children)

It's funny that somehow men are to be blamed for boys lack of interest....school has become catered to women. You sit on your ass; you do what they say and you learn at a snail's pace. Boys are leaving school, and giving up on higher education because its pathetic. It's boring and behind the times. It involves servitude and guess what women are better suited for it.

[–]UberWagen 31 points32 points  (1 child)

I've always said this. Boys are meant to be hands on and busy. You can't expect them to sit still and listen to a wymens all day.

[–]NietzscheExplosion 36 points37 points  (6 children)

I'm right in that 18-24 months with my son. It fun as hell to fight with him(I even call him "rough n tumbles") and so tough to reign him in. I cannot imagine one woman who would play like that with their kids.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (4 children)

I used to beg my mom just to play catch with me.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 23 points24 points  (2 children)

I used to beg my mom just to stop hitting me. lmao life.

[–]twatbutters -1 points0 points  (1 child)

There's disciplining your child (e.g. spanking) to get an unruly little shit to learn a lesson, and then there's abuse (repeated physical abuse, not teaching your kid vital life lessons, emotional abuse, single motherhood etc.). Parents who engage in the former generally raise well adjusted children. The latter raise homosexuals, liberals, male feminists, etc.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

why the fuck do you think you have the audacity to tell me this? I'm fully aware of the differences. You have no idea what kind of a sadistic bitch my mother was.

[–]widec 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And I used to beg my dad to play catch with me. He would rather just watch television. I'm interested to see comparisons between single parent households and households with 'absent' parents.

[–]youkickmyd0g 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sigh....... sigh.... longing sigh.

My cousin and brother and I would rough house like mad... we even had wrestling names at family gatherings and would do tournaments. Yea, I'm completely normal.... hahaha. I live in a domesticated city though, I openly joke that I'm a free man not owned by a woman. Beta tech money, tons of infants walking around with white knighthood on 11. I am actually completely normal, their girls DO want to mate with me; but they want me to feel fucked up. Keep letting your boy boy, man.

Edit: my cousin is still the wrestling master of our younger second cousins these days... I let it go somewhere, I'm programmed to think it's creepy to touch kids. That's pretty fucking abnormal. He's pretty much father of the century, former Marine. I think that's old programming in me, it's not creepy to wrestle with kids who are in the family. I'm also not a skinny weenie without body awareness anymore, since starting to lift + train off the computer. Maybe next Christmas I'll get in the ring haha...

[–]anythinginc 22 points23 points  (2 children)

I know The Atlantic doesn't get a lot of love sometimes, but this is a good article (written by a woman) that is parallel to OP.


  • Children are much more likely to grow up in poverty in households headed by single mothers.

  • In past times of economic hardship, birth rates plummeted because women didn’t want to marry and have babies with men who didn’t have jobs. Women also faced a huge amount of stigma if they decided to have children out of wedlock. But now, people are having children despite the economic obstacles. In some cases, as the sociologist Andrew Cherlin lays out in his book, Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America, more adults are having children within unstable relationships. “A substantial number go on to have children with a second partner, or even a third, creating complex and unstable family lives that are not good for children,” he writes.

  • They found that manufacturing declines significantly affected the supply of what they termed “marriageable” men—men who are not drinking or using drugs excessively and who have a job.

  • This made the men less appealing to the women, the authors suggest—so there were fewer marriages. They find that trade shocks reduced the share of young women who were married, and reduced the number of births per woman....These patterns seem to hinge on whether men are making more money than women, the authors found. When it was women’s jobs that were affected, such as when predominantly female sectors like the leather-goods industry saw competition from Chinese imports, marriage rates and in-wedlock births increased.

Things, as they say, are rough all over.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

• Children are much more likely to grow up in poverty in households headed by single mothers.

Sounds like the patriarchy needs to pay more child support /S

[–]getRedPill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But now, people are having children despite the economic obstacles.

That's because there's no responsibility no more. With subsidies, welfare states have incentivized irresponsible acts and not caring for economic or relationship stability. The results are AWALT unleashed, broken families, single mothers.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 20 points21 points  (22 children)

there aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women

And the reason they were raised by women is that the state enables women to evict men from children's lives on a whim (no-fault divorce, false-DV charges, children always go to the mother preferentially).

There is a cycle of increased female control over the family, primary school, secondary school and now colleges that are alienating men and thus fathers, and leaving every generation of boys lacking the skills to deal with life and especially the skills on how to deal with women.

They thus grow up feeling that men and women are equal, which is code for "men are wrong", and they do their best to fix that by being white knights and betas, and thus the cycle continues...

and argues that a “mis-attuned insecure mother” can be “a source of considerable relational stress, especially when the immature male toddler is expressing high levels of dysregulated aggression or fear.”

Well, this is just hamstering to try to instil the idea that boys will be fine if only their single mother is secure. This is of course bullshit, what is needed is a father.

The only solution to this is increased parental rights for the father. But of course this won't happen, it's just going to be used as further evidence that "boys and men are wrong unless they serve women correctly and in the manner that women prefer".

[–]wanderer779 9 points10 points  (19 children)

It's funny how in all this the pain the boys/men are experiencing isn't even considered. They know there is a problem but they also know that no one gives a fuck. The best they could do was, "if we don't get men to earn more money then women aren't going to have anyone to marry".

Who even gives a fuck at this point? Just let it burn.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 8 points9 points  (18 children)

The best they could do was, "if we don't get men to earn more money then women aren't going to have anyone to marry".

Yeah.. as if men's only validity is to serve women through marriage. As if it's MEN who are at fault for female hypergamy.

We prop up women's earnings, and then women complain there aren't enough men who earn more than they do.

Do they never think "let's empower men to own their family rather than giving women the power to eviscerate it and then men will want to be good providers again" ?? No, of course not..... that doesn't follow the narrative that "men and women are equal and men are wrong".

who even gives a fuck at this point? Just let it burn.

Sadly this is the common response, and perhaps the only rational one.

[–]stonepimpletilists points points [recovered]

for OP

Most Red Pill marriages are "non-traditional", economically speaking. That is, both spouses usually provide income to the common household. But the Red Pill also recognizes that if marital power is realized in terms of economic power, as feminism accepts, then the current trend of wives outearning husbands will inevitably lead to an undermining of the successful male-female dynamic required for a stable and successful marriage, under the current beta-building feminist ideology.

The Red Pill answers that issue by abandoning economic input as the factor by which dominance in the relationship is established.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 3 points4 points  (16 children)

Love the last line.

that is, both spouses usually provide income to the common household

Not while she's raising kids.

But this is where it's going.... men being kept around only long enough to support her while the kids are young, then kicked out as no longer providing as much support as his alimony and CS payments would.

There's also the modern "open hypergamy" approach of her cheating while he financially contributes. Men are increasingly expected to accept this, and in some cases have zero choice if they wish to keep their children. As this becomes more acceptable, she won't even need the divorce to reclaim her sexual freedom.

[–]stonepimpletilists points points [recovered]

Well, there's solutions to this as well.

It's a harsh line to take, and I cannot articulate it well enough for a post, but I think back to my grandfathers generation, you probably have the same...

Back when they used to have 6 brothers, 3 died before they were 5, of some disease you never hear about anymore, or workplace accident at 17. Or the guy who leaves his wife and starts a new family somewhere else.

Clearly, the only real way ahead here is to accept that you may lose them in the childhood years, and possibly weaonized against them. For any other situation with less emotionally charged subjects, men fully accept removing her ability to weaponize things.

E.G. Weaponized sex? Go have sex with someone else, she gets first crack at it, not sole custody.

Constantly shit test you? Remove commitment, affection, or attention. You weren't put on this earth to be a punching bag.

With everything else we do, once you are fully able to Fight Club, AKA "Blow up your condo", all of a sudden, people in your life start 'acting right' and fighting to keep their place in your life. Why would this be any different?

Only reason, because suggesting a guy take that same 'emotional distance' with his kids that he takes with his 'cold bitch wife' is a sacred cow men refuse to take. I refuse to play, so I cannot speak from experience, which I try to do whenever possible.

But I see guys like /u/ex_addict_bro live this, and is succeeding well, it's becoming clear, your best and sometimes only tool is to be able to burn it to the ground and start over.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Back when they used to have 6 brothers, 3 died before they were 5, of some disease you never hear about anymore, or workplace accident at 17. Or the guy who leaves his wife and starts a new family somewhere else.

Yeah, and this always gets forgotten by the feminists who seem to think women didn't work because of "patriarchal oppression" rather than the fact that it took 20 years to raise enough kids that a few would survive.

E.G. Weaponized sex? Go have sex with someone else, she gets first crack at it, not sole custody.

Right. "Always be prepared to walk away... from ANYONE". Certainly the thing that makes the difference with the female sex drive is you having other options. Every exclusive relationship I've had has slid halfway to a dead bedroom before I ended it. This has happened exactly never with any FWB.

With kids... lacking the realistic option to smack them when they're out of line, most men feel impotent to control their children's behaviour. This is just weak.

Perhaps letting them know you're prepared to ditch them would help as you say. Certainly you have to remain emotionally aloof - never let them get to you. But it's a hell of an investment to be prepared to walk away from. Kids need to be told, but they also need security. Up to a point. I dunno.

I refuse to play, so I cannot speak from experience, which I try to do whenever possible.

Same. Having kids looks like a shitty life for a guy. I've seen lots try it. They always say how it was "the best thing they ever did", followed by a variation on "I'm so tired and less happy and jealous of people who don't have kids".

If I'm making that kind of sacrifice, I want the world to appreciate and support me - not hate and exploit me. This is not the case, so I also refuse to play.

[–]wanderer779 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

It is not that bad. If you can handle women without kids you can probably handle them with kids. It definitely changes the game and you are definitely giving her leverage.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 4 points5 points  (6 children)

It definitely changes the game and you are definitely giving her leverage.

Leverage? She has COMPLETE CONTROL over your whole life and finances. You have to remain appealing as an alpha AND as a beta, and maintain this balance for TWENTY YEARS.

It's fucked up that men even have to worry about this shit. We should be supported by the system, not betrayed by it.

[–]wanderer779 0 points1 point  (5 children)

This is an oversimplification. It all depends on the state laws and your personal situation.

I only say this so that guys are married and/or have kids don't think there is no hope for them. There have been stories of guys getting out of a marriage and having a good life afterwards

With that said I think everyone should know the risks you are taking before getting married and having children. The law is very biased against you.

[–]Endorsed Contributorex_addict_bro 3 points4 points  (3 children)

But I see guys like /u/ex_addict_bro live this, and is succeeding well


I'm divorced. Today I took my 3 sons to the trampoline park. I had hell of a cardio training. I wrestled with my boys, I was teasing them, I was negging them, all this kind of shit. They had their fun.

Few days ago I bought a LEGO Mindstorms set. I did some robotics in the past but doing those stuff on Raspberry meant my boys would need to learn Linux shell + Python programming, so I decided we'll get something with a lower entry point. My older son has an iPad (also this year's present from dad), my younger has an iPod (smaller hands!), they installed some apps to control the LEGO EV3 brick with those, the weekend is coming, so I guess we're going to try to assemble some droids as soon as we get to my flat on our bikes (also presents from dad).

I pay pretty big child support money. And, what's more important, I AM NOT GOING TO LET SOME MINOR TEMPORARY INCONVENIENCES TO DICTATE HOW AM I GOING TO LIVE MY LIFE or what kind of things am I going to get for my kids. Also, I got my shit in order and I'm actually in the middle of starting a side business, so... to quote some hiphop artists... "bling-bling, money ain't a thing". Shit, while we're at hiphop, I decided to make my ex wife special, she has a custom ringtone on my phone. That song by Big Sean, you know which one.

The life I am living now is INCOMPARABLE in its quality to the life I was living when I was married. I'm not sure what were the reasons behind it and how things would come out if I owned my shit better. This does not matter now. And please, take note, that I am not bragging about girls 10 yrs my junior that I fucked during past 12 months. And, for the record, I'm not bragging about those few girls 10 yrs my senior that I also fucked in the past.

When you start living it, it is relatively easy. TRP gives you ALL THE TOOLS you need to live a very fulfilling life as a man.

All those guys whining about "oh I'm over 35" or "oh I'm divorced with kids" or "whenever girls hear I have a daughter they run from me"... they're doing exactly that. Whining.

All those whiny guys currently married w/ children... yep, they're whining too.

I'm not whining.


[–]stonepimpletilists points points [recovered]

And your MAP shows that 99% of guys in here have 0 excuses.

I guarantee it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorex_addict_bro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, when we'll finally work out our own 12-step recovery program at BPA (Blue Pill Anonymous - aka MRP), one of first steps should be "stop thinking in terms of the victim mentality" and "no excuses".

I've read a few books by Steven Chandler in the past. If anyone who needs help reads this thread, go get some Chandler audios or free ebooks floating around. Just e-mail this guy and ask for a specific thing, I bet he'll just give it to you. One of his audios "Owner vs victim" was about this mentality, this mindset. Another audio was about our personalities and how malleable they are, how easy it is in fact to change one's personality. And Byron Katie "The work" also. To get rid of painful thoughts. Note, those aren't RP material, but I recommend it, especially for beginners.

So, what am I, if I am not my name, not my personality, not my bank account? In "The 9 laws" Throne wrote something along the lines (or at least that's what I understood) - we're a kind of lens, transforming the common fabric of reality. That's what I am doing now. Input reality comes in, output reality comes out. The action is important. It is the only way to communicate with the outside world.

OK, enough voodoo for today, thanks.

[–]Darkistco points points [recovered]

it's like the ONLY solution to prevent hypergamy would be be over 200lb shredded, get a girl 3-4 smv lower than you then move to the middle of nowhere effectively homesteading so she has no contact with anyone else and she takes care of kids, even then it's not 100% garunteed you won't be cucked because she wanted something "new"

this is why whites are being outbred, wonder when our system will fail then we realize wow where are all the white people, when blacks and mexicans have 10 kids each

[–]anythinginc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

primary school, secondary school

Agreed, you can't talk about ADD/ADHD without talking about the shift in schools from nearly 2 hours of recess a day to a thirty minute break from sitting and behaving in a desk for seven hours.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 84 points85 points  (5 children)

There aren't enough good men because they were raised ONLY by women

Both are important. I don't want to lose sight of that. We haven't fucked up western civilization just because men are absent. No. The entire family is absent these days. Day care. Ever lengthening school. Paid activities. Camps. Everything. Parents stopped being parents and are outsourcing the responsibility.

[–]KumonRoguing 26 points27 points  (2 children)

The strength of a country starts with the family unit. If divorce and single mothers are high, problems will follow.

[–]CaptainSweno 19 points20 points  (1 child)

the problems are already here. Our country is losing a war it isn't even aware it's fighting yet.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Could not agree with this more. It's like people don't even think about why they have kids, they just do it as a form of status of achievement and then the work stops there!

[–]Phroneo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah anytime the idea of giving parents now parental leave is made big business cries poor.

[–]throwawaynoobye 12 points13 points  (0 children)

this is nothing new to anyone who has been researching this topic for some time. women simply can't raise good men...or good women, either, so in that regard i disagree with you.

[–]1Original_Dankster 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Thus if you want to weaken men, push for single motherhood.

This is not an accident. It is intentional. Weak men are easier to control.

[–]shadowq8 4 points5 points  (1 child)

And faggot men buy more fashion.

[–]HydraDoad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

....you don't think........NO, IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN......crab people...d-d-do you??!

[–]Luce_Bree points points [recovered]

And this is one of the main reasons I do not talk to my mother.

Thanks to choices that she made, I have been playing catch-up my entire fucking life. It's amazing I didn't turn out to be a criminal. But the road hasn't been easy by any means.

[–]wanderer779 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Hilarious to watch them trying to address these problems while being so careful to not say anything that's critical of any sacred cows.

[–]kidwithambition 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I can astest that boys raised by single mothers are worse off than their 'nuclear family' raised counterparts.

I must say the study does not apply to me. I am successful in life and my younger sister is a drunk partying slut.

I feel if I had a father figure I would be in a much better position than I am in now, there is no question about that.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 8 points9 points  (0 children)

[–]AnonymousAndLovinIt 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Curious; how do daughters raised by only their father fare in comparison to those raised in normal families?

[–]markthema3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Custody going to the woman by default makes this hard to study. I must admit I'm curious as well though.

[–]twatbutters 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Completely anecdotal, since I've seen three different families where this was the case (two of them involved the mother passing away, the third involved the woman leaving the husband).

The daughters raised by single fathers wind up not being sluts like you'd see with single mothers, but they seem to be cold/stonehearted. Boys raised by just fathers seem to become troublemakers/vagrants. A woman's place in raising kids is absolutely essential, as is a father's.

[–]AnonymousAndLovinIt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an interesting situation. Although these are simply anecdotes, they do make some sense. A father (a good one that is a bastion of morals and values and also a guardian) would seem more important than a mother (a single mother is simply a struggling child with no boundaries, despite being the same gender).

[–]1OneRedSock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A woman's place in raising kids is absolutely essential, as is a father's.

I fear that all too many Men's Rights and RP men forget this important point.

The masculine and feminine compliment each other, and are not meant to be in constant conflict. RP is about learning how to make yourself stronger in the absence of women, but also how to handle women when you're around them. This is becoming a man. And it's certainly not about scorning women who have been raised in a backwards culture that perpetuates feels over reals, and confuses the importance of the two genders.

The feminine has as much importance for a healthy society as the masculine does, but both operate in different realms. Even if you look at homosexual couples (regardless of your belief in that), you'll always notice a clearly more masculine one and a more feminine one. I previously became confused by this, as these people are typically always against the traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity; and yet they clearly display these two complementing dynamics in their relationships. It's because these two complimenting dynamics are a timeless necessity.

[–]WolfofAnarchy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Fuck, I love you all. Without this sub, I'd be desperately beta and lost.

[–]nitegod -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Too bad you're still too beta to get a real woman.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 23 points24 points  (20 children)


Schore argues that a major factor in rising dysfunction among boys and men in this country is the failure of the United States to provide longer periods of paid parental leave, with the result that many infants are placed in day care when they are six weeks old.


Rather blatant Mind Control manipulation don't you think?

The purpose of the "study" was to push a political agenda. So in order to recruit the support of males the victims are made out as males.

Women will always favor more government assistance.

This so called "study" is designed to push males emotionally to a result that is desired.

Emotional manipulation at it's most obvious.


It's true that single mothers (and absent fathers) is a major problem, but infant care has nothing to do with the lack of fathers.


Masculinity doesn't come into play until after infancy. (boys of 5 years old)


Until a boy reaches an age where he can transfer his attention from mother to father (at least 5 years old) he is just fine being a "mama's boy".

Masculinity can be learned at 15, 20, 25, 30... it's the Red Pill so any time.


[–]youkickmyd0g 34 points35 points  (7 children)

"Women raise good infants. Men raise good adults." -somewhere on TRP. A practical rosetta stone.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 17 points18 points  (6 children)


That's what I was getting at.

Infants are raised by women.

Daughters are raised by women.

Only young men need fathers the most.

However, daughters are less slutty if they have fathers and tend to pick higher SMV males to seduce into commitment.

Daughters without fathers end up being slutty and picking losers.


[–]youkickmyd0g 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Right? It's a powerful statement... can shake all of this out of it by socratic method if you have RP awareness. I forgot to acknowledge your post, but indeed, was paraphrasing with regurgitation that was induced into my mind and remained consistent while reading.

I recently took Jordan Peterson's assessment that socialization is complete if ever by age 4, based on his work I'll run with it. That rings very true to me. Have not considered relations to many RP ideas yet. Post-modernism is a word new to my vocabulary, but the idea is internalized. It's related because they would reject this. When you say masculinity can be learned at any age, INDEED... although social masculine behavior may be an entirely different question, and what he's referring to. I was raised with co-dependency nurtured, I hope I can fully unlearn it... thinking about life before 4, I might've been decent... but I'm still reflecting as these are both fresh insights.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (1 child)


Stop with the use of the "codependency" concept.

As an infant you are dependent on your parents.

That's healthy and just fine.

Masculinity means you "Kill the Beta" which is your dependency. ("Fly the Chicken Coop")

You can Red Pill at any time after adolescence.

For me I remember making my "shift" from mother to father at about the age of 10 to 12. After that point I identified with my father and not my mother.

My younger brother remained attached to my mother and when my father died of cancer he never really knew him. (he was about 12 when my father died) As a result he tends to allow women to boss him around and even seems to enjoy being dominated.

My older brother "should" have bonded with my dad, but there was something that never quite clicked. In some ways my older brother had it the hardest because he grew up without a deep attachment to anyone. (lacking a dependency phase)


  • Infancy through Adolescence - Blue Pill is okay, dependency is okay.

  • Adolescence and Beyond - Red Pill breaks dependency, "Kills the Beta", sides with father figure as role model.


[–]youkickmyd0g 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in my early 30's and I'm just making the shift you mention, in that about 2 years ago I started to identify with my dad and think my mom is incredibly damaged. My brother was an infant until he died just before 30 as basically an 'herbivore' male, never left the nest... he was making progress in his last year.

Codependency concept is what J Peterson and others talk about, I use it in that sense... why should I stop? It's been pivotal in finding useful resources to help cope and elevate, therapeutic literally. The work I'm following agrees with you about dependent behaviors being healthy and treatable, indeed; codependency as I say it is deep rooted and specific. It also addresses it, importantly, as passing on dependency that still exists... meaning it's not 'bad', but can be understood and fixed in the person passing it on.

I feel you sense a victim angle, I assure you that's not the case. If you want me to elaborate more on it I can but I think you're off base to write it off.

[–]Darkistco points points [recovered]

I have many examples even in my own family of alpha men and absent/loser drug addict fathers or plain pussys/beta

definitely can attest to the sluts without a dad, pretty sure my slutty looking cousin got pregnant at.. 16, might have been 15 idk freshman year, her father was absent or think she barely saw him

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)


and her dad my uncle definitely didn't bend over backwards for the kids, so he raised them right and she turned out good


That was once recognized as an important thing to do... to give children the proper structure (Frame) to grow up in.

These days the government is doing everything to push transgender fantasies.

Things are more difficult today.


[–]Westernhagen 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Masculinity doesn't come into play until after infancy. (boys of 5 years old)

Anyone who has raised both boys and girls knows this is not true. Boys exhibit recognizably male characteristics (and girls exhibit recognizably female characteristics) even before their first birthday.

[–]do_0b 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People all across reddit were just triggered and are now trying to figure out why.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (3 children)


That wasn't the question though.

The issue was whether parental leave was important to boys making their way towards masculinity later in life.

It makes no difference whether an infant is raised by a mother or a father and generally women are good with babies.

We don't need men raising infants.

What we need is fathers to be there for boys when they become teenagers.

The paternity leave argument is garbage.


[–]Westernhagen 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It makes no difference whether an infant is raised by a mother or a father and generally women are good with babies.

I disagree with both statements.

Fathers need to be there for boys throughout their lives from birth to age 18.

But yes the argument "male dysfunction is due to lack of parental leave" is garbage.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -1 points0 points  (1 child)


Fathers need to be there for boys throughout their lives from birth to age 18.


The father should be delegating the infant care task to the mother.

A father can be present, but clearly playing the Captain role.

This whole "gender reversal" idea needs to be cut off at the root... no gender bending with the infant care role.


[–]Westernhagen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is much more to parenting, even of infants, than "infant care". If your idea of "fatherhood" of infants is "I stand there delegating feeding, bathing, clothing, and diaper-changing tasks to the mother, and she does them" then you are profoundly misguided. Even before your son can walk, it is possible and vitally necessary to play with him and interact with him. After he is walking and talking, from age 1 to 12, you have a lot of positive fatherhood work that you need to do - and no, this is not just "feed and bathe" care tasks that should be delegated to mom.

You don't have any kids, or you would know this.

[–]Sumsar01 3 points4 points  (5 children)

This has nothing to do with masculinity. Before proclaiming something propaganda maybe try to understand it first? It's about behavioral development in children and the role of a father in this.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -1 points0 points  (4 children)


My point is that what matters to boys doesn't come about until much later and long after infancy.

As infants it doesn't matter who is giving care and women are actually very good with babies.

Women aren't very good as the child gets older though because women are themselves children.

Fathers are most important during adolescence.


The whole parental leave issue is utter nonsense.

Complete emotional programming and manipulation, just junk.

Men don't need to be around infants.


[–]Westernhagen 1 point2 points  (2 children)

My point is that what matters to boys doesn't come about until much later and long after infancy.

You obviously have never raised a son.

"What matters to boys" - what a father provides - starts at birth. The father is not irrelevant between birth and puberty, the father is essential. If the father does not guide his son properly during that period, then his fathering job will be much more difficult - well nigh impossible - during adolescence. People have "difficult teens" because they failed as parents from age 0 to 12.

So yes, men DO need to be around infants.

[–]NeoreactionSafe -1 points0 points  (1 child)


The mother is given her guidance by the Alpha father figure.


  • Men love women, women love children, children love puppies.


If the father is not Alpha and instead beta (thus "looking up" at his wife) then the infant will pick up on that.

A beta male who does infant care will create a boy who sees his father as playing the nurturing (feminine) role.

That's bad for boys... really bad.

The Alpha father figure teaches by example.

The infant sees a mother who looks up to her Alpha.


The father should permit dependency to the mother until adolescence.

A father figure should not get into infant care.


[–]Westernhagen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If a man feeds, clothes, or bathes his son, then his son will look down on him as beta? That's inane. Moreover, as I said elsewhere, there is a lot more to being a father than doing these basic care tasks, even when the kid is not even one year old yet.

The infant sees a mother who looks up to her Alpha.

If she looks up to her Alpha, she's going to do that whether or not he periodically does "infant care" tasks.

The father should permit dependency to the mother until adolescence.

Absolutely incorrect. If you do that, you have failed as a father, and abdicated your responsibility.

[–]Sumsar01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, the rough and tumble phase are pretty important for the child's confidence and independence. As you say one might be able to build alpha traits later in life. But why repair when you can just start with making a good foundation from the start.

But honestly, it doesn't really matter to me. As far as I know, i live in the country with the longest parental leave in the world and you can look at any medical data about the topic or ask any expert and they will agree that it is important for a young child to be near, at least, it's mom.

Side note: if you read the article the rough and tumble phase if after parental leave have ended in any country in the world.

[–]yummyluckycharms 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong - but ask yourself this -why would the matriarchy care?

The matriarchy is only interested in the top 20% of males, of which there are still plenty around. The other 80% are essentially bee drones - meant to provide sustenance to the hive via taxes and labour, or to die in wars to protect the matriarchy

Having a large population of healthy males that will be clamouring for equal rights and opportunities is a direct threat to them

[–]bullseyed723 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well yeah. Monkey see, monkey do. Without a man, boys learn female mannerisms. You may not even notice consciously, but something will seem off.

Source: my dad was killed so I grew up with only a mom.

[–]DaleCarnegiee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What is the difference between being raised by bluepilled father who was raised by single mother and just a single mother?

[–]krotch_vilense 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My 3 year old son tells me he loves me now without me initiating it. I'm glad I'm not on night crew anymore so I can bond with him and my younger son. My father worked graveyard shift my entire life. This hits home more than I'd like it to. It means a lot to be there for your boys, don't neglect them for anything. Move to a day shift if you can, put down that videogame controller, shut off your damn cell phone and take interest in their lives even if they just keep repeating 'dada, look!' at something you couldn't care less about. The fact that you take interest in what they say and how attentive you are, speaks volumes to them. You should be the model of a man as a father they should look up to, be a good one. I wish I could remember mine.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Another reason there "aren't enough good Men" is because we've greatly incentivized hypergamous behavior:

  • Social media is a validation engine, telling her she can do better
  • Birth control means she can not get pregnant in a fling with a high status man
  • If she does get pregnant then paychecks for life
  • Society doesn't enforce a 1:1 (ish) ratio via marriage lauding and slut shaming

Add in disincentives for men:

  • Marriage is slavery
  • Why become marriage material for gangbanged girls?
  • Hot chicks in porn and VR
  • Why get married if there's a no fault path to lose your children, paychecks, the family home and risk suicide?

And consider we removed disincentives:

  • Daughters no longer know their dads and thus don't face scrutiny
  • Adultery(extra marital sex where one or more are married, but not to each other) no longer faces stoning
  • Women are no longer "property" and thus aren't degraded by losing virginity
  • STDs are at least understood and can be somewhat controlled
  • Morality is now just "consent between adults"
  • "You go girl!" (I'm jealous) for sex today versus "you slut, stay away from me and my man" in the past

I'm sure there's more, but it's not just women being women. It's women playing the game intelligently.

[–]Johnnyvile 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had come across this once, http://www.gillistriplett.com/rel101/articles/harmful.html. It shows reasons why single mothers are not good for boys. They either feminist them, put the burden of being the man of the house on them at a young age, cast their anger of men at their sons, or otherwise give them bad advice in how to be a man or date women. Also the erratic emotional outbursts at problems in life do not teach boys how to act like a man. Men are, and should be, more logical rather than emotional when faced with an issue. No one likes a guy that throws an emotional bitch fit but society will help women when they respond this way.

[–]jaanv 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Good post and article! Thanks, OP! I was wondering if anyone​ could link here a study about children being raised by same sex parents, especially by lesbians. What are the biggest differences in rheir adulthood compared to traditional families? Crime rates, employment, having a traditional family or marrying same sex partner etc. Or is there insufficient amount of information as these lesbian and gay parents families are too new thing yet?

[–]anythinginc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The stuff I've seen is that they do just as well (statistically average obviously). It is theorized that one of the most important aspects is being able to model a healthy, stable, long-term relationship, which same sex couples can do, but a single parent struggles with.

[–]Returnofthemack3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol I love how the NYT 'picks' in the comments section are all man hating drivel. Unbelievable. You'd think they'd try to find well-written, moderate posters, but they just recommend the man=hating ones

[–]ziggmuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In 50 years we'll all be chicks - Adam Carolla

By the way this happened in less than 20 years.

[–]ransay3277 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In other news, water is wet.

[–]OldGuyRedux 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would tend to agree with this - although the Boomer Fathers (or theirs) had good intention. They saw firsthand the Great Depression, WW2 and Korea, and redpilled then advanced to conquer their economic status. Result: many workaholics who left the (male) childrearing to the wife. Guess what happened? The 60s rebellions, and the cuckpoliticos of today. What saved me was my Dad's redpill advice on women (when I had him one-one, in the car usually...) and a bunch of old Midwest farmers who also saw nature firsthand.

Come the 80s-90s - not even the woman was there to raise the kids and be respectful of her redpilled man. Worse... and now women marry men just so they have a ticket to NoFault Divorce Rape (beware boys!)

Keep reading TRP and other sites men... even if just 10% sinks in you're better off than the cucks

[–]estusdew 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stefan Molyneux has some great videos about the tragedy of single mothers, being raised that way is not something I would wish on anyone.

[–]pennynotrcutt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about boys raised in environments where the Father wasn't around (work, bar, school, etc.)?

[–]HAMMURABl 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There is a selection bias here though.

Single women are typically low iq. Now add that boys iq has higher variability than a girls iq, it should be no surprise that boys born from single moms perform significantly worse.

[–]Gawernator 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No study is perfect but where's your source for low IQ women being the majority of single moms? The studies in the article are well researched

[–]HAMMURABl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my personal empirics are always right. just googled it:


by the way, my aunt is single mom but also a doctor with her own clinic. i know statistics.

[–]Mind_ripper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because women dont know what it takes to be a MAN

[–]xXSoroxXx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there anything that can be done to help relieve the effects of being raised by a single mother?

[–]The_M0rning_Star 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea...it's almost like they had no male role model living with them as children to pattern themselves off of. Shocking.

There's a reason it takes two people to make a baby...it takes two to raise one. Generally speaking, females perform much worse in relationships without male role models, men perform much worse in social situations. Without the mother, the opposite is true. You need both.

[–]getRedPill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminism is a disease that afflicts everyone, including women, but its truly innocent victims are boys.

Feminism afflicts boys, girls, families, marriage and benefit not women, but state and politicians in power.