Women & Respect

[Speaker to Animals]

And, no, I didn't even respond to her story. So I don't know what you think you are accusing me of. I think men actually abandoning their families is horrible. It's just as horrible as women deliberately alienating their children from their children's fathers.

It's all evil. But currently the state will hunt down Dad and lock him in a cage like an animal for doing it. With women, it becomes a weapon to facilitate doing exactly the same thing. Think about that. Man disappears and abandons kids; state goes after him and puts him in jail to force him to take care of his children, and society despises him for abandoning his children. But if a woman decides she wants to alienate her children from their father for profit, the state is willing to lock the man in a cage to make that happen. Same outcome. Something is totally fucked up there.


And I can tell you from experience, if some single mother tells you the father abandoned her children, you probably should take that with a grain of salt. The statistics are quite clear that women are the predominant destroyers of marriage and they are the ones who alienate the children from the fathers. They then make up stories to rationalize their shitty behavior to the rest of society.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I've seen it happen. I've also seen men destroy their kids lives.

I agree that the system is slanted toward women, and maybe that's for the best, as they tend to be better child raisers. I'm not happy with what seems to be a total loss of parental rights for men though, and on that we agree.

But at this point, you've made hundreds of posts about it - nobody here is confused about your stance. Very few have even argued it. And now that you've run out of enemies to debate, you're lashing out at anyone who bothers to respond.

Like I said, you need to reassess.

[Speaker to Animals]

I've seen it happen. I've also seen men destroy their kids lives.

I agree that the system is slanted toward women, and maybe that's for the best, as they tend to be better child raisers. I'm not happy with what seems to be a total loss of parental rights for men though, and on that we agree.

But at this point, you've made hundreds of posts about it - nobody here is confused about your stance. Very few have even argued it. And now that you've run out of enemies to debate, you're lashing out at anyone who bothers to respond.

Like I said, you need to reassess.

See, that's where you went into irrational territory. Women are not better child raisers. In fact, they are the predominant abusers of children. The vast majority of children killed by one parent were killed by their mothers, and sixty percent of the victims were boys. Further, you need only look at the fact that women are by and large more than happy to alienate their children from fathers (which is in fact a form of child abuse) to see they are not necessarily the better parent at all.

What we do know from real research is that children need both a mother and a father. If mom wants to blow the marriage to go ride the cock carousel, then mom should be willing to part with the kids half the time. Mom should fund her own lifestyle change as well. Nor should mom get to run to the state to fund that decision.

The problem lies in trying to paint one sex as inherently better than the other at parenting. That's total hogwash. It always has been. Both parents are needed. This is how our species evolved to work. Children need moms and dads, both.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Clearly. But you can't force parents to stay together. And what happens when the family is mixed or mom just got knocked up? What kind of rabbit hole are you turning to now? You've ignored 80% of my post for it, so it better be good...

[Speaker to Animals]

Clearly. But you can't force parents to stay together. And what happens when the family is mixed or mom just got knocked up? What kind of rabbit hole are you turning to now? You've ignored 80% of my post for it, so it better be good...

If the family truly cannot be saved, then the default arrangement should be joint physical custody. Children need access to both parents as often as possible.

The only way to reduce divorces and single motherhood in general is to stop subsidizing it. If you want more of something, then you subsidize it, and currently we are subsidizing the living shit out of single motherhood. The money spigot needs to be turned off completely.

Single mothers should be given free day care for their children while they work. If they cannot feed their children, then we should provide food directly to the children. If they cannot find jobs, then we should provide them with vocational services and job placement. That's really all they actually need from the state.

What they do not need are the EBT cards, child support, alimony, welfare, rent subsidies, and so on. Just stop it for the love of God. Stop it before it becomes utterly impossible to reverse this trend. We already can't afford this shit, and children are badly suffering because of it.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Clearly. But you can't force parents to stay together. And what happens when the family is mixed or mom just got knocked up? What kind of rabbit hole are you turning to now? You've ignored 80% of my post for it, so it better be good...

If the family truly cannot be saved, then the default arrangement should be joint physical custody. Children need access to both parents as often as possible.

. That is the default arrangement.

The only way to reduce divorces and single motherhood in general is to stop subsidizing it. If you want more of something, then you subsidize it, and currently we are subsidizing the living shit out of single motherhood. The money spigot needs to be turned off completely.

Single mothers should be given free day care for their children while they work. If they cannot feed their children, then we should provide food directly to the children. If they cannot find jobs, then we should provide them with vocational services and job placement. That's really all they actually need from the state.

What they do not need are the EBT cards, child support, alimony, welfare, rent subsidies, and so on. Just stop it for the love of God. Stop it before it becomes utterly impossible to reverse this trend. We already can't afford this shit, and children are badly suffering because of it.

We can't afford to give them a couple hundred a month, but we can afford government-run daycares, and government job training?? Come on man.

Also, any government training would be rendered worthless by skill inflation - just like grade school. And imagine allowing a government worker full control over your infants for 9 hours a day - I think not.

You're off the rails, man.

[Speaker to Animals]

Clearly. But you can't force parents to stay together. And what happens when the family is mixed or mom just got knocked up? What kind of rabbit hole are you turning to now? You've ignored 80% of my post for it, so it better be good...

If the family truly cannot be saved, then the default arrangement should be joint physical custody. Children need access to both parents as often as possible.

. That is the default arrangement.

The only way to reduce divorces and single motherhood in general is to stop subsidizing it. If you want more of something, then you subsidize it, and currently we are subsidizing the living shit out of single motherhood. The money spigot needs to be turned off completely.

Single mothers should be given free day care for their children while they work. If they cannot feed their children, then we should provide food directly to the children. If they cannot find jobs, then we should provide them with vocational services and job placement. That's really all they actually need from the state.

What they do not need are the EBT cards, child support, alimony, welfare, rent subsidies, and so on. Just stop it for the love of God. Stop it before it becomes utterly impossible to reverse this trend. We already can't afford this shit, and children are badly suffering because of it.

We can't afford to give them a couple hundred a month, but we can afford government-run daycares, and government job training?? Come on man.

Also, any government training would be rendered worthless by skill inflation - just like grade school. And imagine allowing a government worker full control over your infants for 9 hours a day - I think not.

You're off the rails, man.

[1] This most certainly is not the default arrangement. Over 80% of contested custody results in the women receiving full custody. The statistics directly contradict the claim that this is an unbiased system created for the benefit of children. It is, in fact, an unconstitutional and prejudicial system created for the sole benefit of women at the expense of children and fathers. Strange how liberals have no trouble screaming racism when confronted with disproportionate conviction and sentencing for black people (and it is racist), but somehow when confronted with the far more obviously discriminatory outcomes of the family court system, they drag their feet. Makes me think they don't operate on principles at all.

[2] You grossly underestimate the amount of money that a single mother can soak up. You have to consider all of it. This includes the food assistance, rent subsidies, direct grants, medicaid, city and state welfare programs, and plenty of other incentives, among which we ought never forget alimony and child support. I learned never to underestimate the many ways single mothers can game the system to extract money and resources from society and men.

[3] To build off of [2], you also ought not neglect to consider the myriad of costs imposed upon society by single motherhood. This includes increased policing, the financial impact of the crime and other problems created by their offspring, the impact of increased drug abuse, child abuse, and other individual harms. You have to consider the costs on school systems to deal with the children of single mothers, who require more psychological and disciplinary services as a result of fatherlessness. You have to consider the poor life outcomes that are more likely with the children of single mothers as well.

[4] Lastly, I never said we should abandon single mothers to the street, and I didn't suggest we should pay for day care as some kind of cost reduction program. I suggested we transition to such a system because it does NOT incentivize more single motherhood. If we abolished EBT cards for them, child support, alimony, welfare checks, rent subsidies, and whatever else so that we can replace those things with day care, vocational training, and job placement, then I think we will see a reversal in the trendline that now shows single motherhood soon to overtake the normal, healthy human family consisting of the mother and father and their children. It's almost as if you presume women are these objects that shit happens to. Like single motherhood and the cancer that it spreads "just happened" to these women. They have agency just like you do! They choose this shit by and large. Stop incentivizing it! For the love of God just stop incentivizing this. These women are not disabled. Throwing money at them like this is exactly like throwing money at a guy who is homeless because he blows all his money gambling or abusing drugs.

[Speaker to Animals]

This guy explains [1] pretty damned well:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/1 ... tastrophe/

[DrYouth]

This is the trade off.

If we universally grant single mothers support as single mothers, more will choose this route.
And some will choose it when it is less than necessary.
Some will alienate fathers who they need not alienate, and take advantage of the system.
I know this happens, I see it all the time... but I also see the converse, where men with means pay for expensive lawyers while single mothers without these means have to make do with a poorly resourced public system.

By avoiding one evil, we increase the likelihood of another.
As societies we are constantly faced with dilemmas like this.
Drawing attentions to the trade offs is of course very important, because many consider such state actions as purely a beneficial without inherent drawbacks.
That being said, withholding benefits to single mothers or forcing them to remain in relationships may not be a reasonable course of action to avoid these problems.
Solving social dilemmas like these are notoriously difficult... but it's worth considering the possibilities.

[Speaker to Animals]

This is the trade off.

If we universally grant single mothers support as single mothers, more will choose this route.
And some will choose it when it is less than necessary.
Some will alienate fathers who they need not alienate, and take advantage of the system.
I know this happens, I see it all the time... but I also see the converse, where men with means pay for expensive lawyers while single mothers without these means have to make do with a poorly resourced public system.

By avoiding one evil, we increase the likelihood of another.
As societies we are constantly faced with dilemmas like this.
Drawing attentions to the trade offs is of course very important, because many consider such state actions as purely a beneficial without inherent drawbacks.
That being said, withholding benefits to single mothers or forcing them to remain in relationships may not be a reasonable course of action to avoid these problems.
Solving social dilemmas like these are notoriously difficult... but it's worth considering the possibilities.

End the transfer of money and end straight-out giving money to single parents in general. If somebody can't feed their kids, then we should feed them directly. If a single parent can't work full-time because they have to take care of children, then give them day care.

What we should not ever do is reward people for poor decisions.

I do not argue throwing single mothers out on the street. I argue that we ought to help them in such a way that empowers them to work without in any way incentivizing having babies one cannot afford.

If you want to solve the problems of single mothers, then all they really need are: subsidized day care, vocational training, job placement. That's it. If they have jobs, they can work and pay for their own shit without taking it from others. If they have day care, they have no excuse to not work.

We are not talking about disabled people here. We are talking about women who choose to have babies, often because they don't want to work in the first place. The more you reward that, the more of this cancer will spread across society, bringing with it more crime, drug abuse, poverty, and dysfunction.

We are literally subsidizing the destruction of our society with this. All we have to do is change the way we help single mothers to turn this around. Stop throwing money at them and give them the specific services required so that they get jobs and support themselves; which really is just day care and education/training.

No more alimony, child support, welfare, rent subsidies, EBT cards, and whatever else they use to get free money. Please, let's stop incentivizing this cancerous behavior.