Captain Capitalism found an article on eHarmony titled 15 Reasons to Date a Single Mom. The fifteen reasons boil down to various ways of stating that single moms are easy, they will mother you, and you get to have fun with kids. They also threw some whoppers in for color, like:
2. She’s already a great mom. (And weren’t you looking for someone who would be a great mother? Look no further!)
Unless she is a widow, single motherhood is an indication that she has failed profoundly as a mother. This doesn’t mean she isn’t trying desperately to overcome this, and there are some exceptions, but to claim that failing to create a stable home for her children is proof that a woman is a “great mom” is ludicrous on its face.
Here is another one I can’t imagine they typed up with a straight face (emphasis mine):
7. She’s loyal — and is fiercely protective of her little brood.
Not being married to the father of her children isn’t a marker of loyalty. Again, there can be good reasons why a woman might find herself without the father of her children in the household, but the fact that he’s not around isn’t proof of her loyalty; statistically speaking it is more likely than not an indication that she ejected the father from the home. Aside from widows, it is at the very least a red flag which needs to be thoroughly vetted.
I also enjoyed the next one, which while part of the “Single moms are easy” category, is still worth noting separately:
10. She’s no longer a party girl, but a fun night out is still very welcome.
Good news! She’s had her alpha f****, so now it is time for your beta bucks!
The good captain understandably has tired of the pleas for him and men like him to “man up” and take on a single mother. He wondered why single mothers can’t focus their romantic attention on single fathers, instead of constantly having to enlist men without children. Part of this no doubt is due to strip mining, but the captain wondered if there wasn’t an imbalance of single fathers to single mothers. Check out his full post for details, but he found data indicating that there is a 15 million single mother surplus in the US.
One question the captain had with the data he found is how increased male mortality might be factoring in. How much of that 15 million single mother surplus is due to older age brackets where women outnumber men, and how much is due to hypergamy. I did a bit of searching on my own, and found a report from fatherhood.gov. The data is from 2000, but it still gives a somewhat recent snapshot of the percent of men and women by age bracket who have ever had children.
Figure 1.
Percentage of adults ages 18 and older who have ever had a biological child: 2000
Like the captain’s numbers, this doesn’t separate out single vs married mothers and fathers, but the overall imbalance for the age brackets under 45 certainly fits with the captain’s hypothesis.
Interesting chart. The way they determine “parent” is fascinating, in that it is highly imprecise. Makes me curious to see more detailed studies on the matter.
Easy –
Preselected single dads marry nulliparous women, sometimes two or three of them in succession.
“7. She’s loyal — and is fiercely protective of her little brood.”
Years ago, Marc Rudov made the point that the number one reason NOT to get into a relationship with a single mother was that she would always put her child (and her relationship therewith) would always be more important to her. Simply put, the man would always be a distant second.
Thus, even if this supposed “loyalty” of hers is a real consideration, it should be consider a negative factor from the perspective of a man considering her romantically.
When are the gullible going to realize that men never have to be convinced to date women? If any “convincing” is needed, it’s because she’s operating at a clear deficit, for painfully obvious reasons.
As to the imbalance between single women and single men, I’m not certain how significant it might be…but, as we’ve been reminded of recently via the death of one of many children of Adrian Peterson, there is some number of men who have impregnated multiple numbers of those single mothers out there. My suspicion is that there are far fewer total “baby daddies” that there are “baby mommas” (perhaps in line with the 80:20 theorem). I don’t know how significantly such an imbalance amongst such people would impact the overall total imbalance, but I’m guessing it plays some role.
redpillsetmefree – “When are the gullible going to realize that men never have to be convinced to date women?”
Which, at least for me, begs the follow-up question: given that this all comes from eHarmony, I took the terms “date” to mean the establishment of a more regular monogamous relationship – perhaps even of a non-sexual nature (as opposed to going out multiple dates with multiple single mothers – looking for some pump-n-dump action). Am I correct in making such an assumption of what is meant by the use of the term “date”?
The term I’ve come up with for this is premarital cuckoldry.
The goal of cuckoldry is for the mom to have a child with “quality alpha genes,” while also enjoying the benefits of the loyal, beta-provider husband as dad.
In the past the wife would marry, then sneak around on her husband (sparing the husband the humiliation of knowing he was raising another man’s child). But those days are long gone.
Now the “wife” openly sleeps with the alpha and has his child (ensuring her child carries the “quality alpha genes”). Then she assumes she should be able to marry a beta-provider and expect him to fulfill the duties of father to another man’s child. The net result is the same: the beta-provider is the cuckold raising the alpha-males child.
Only know it’s all done out in the open with the approval of society and the church.
“Hey responsible guy; man up; marry that slut; raise the alpha-male’s child and become a cuckold.”
8to12 – “Hey responsible guy; man up; marry that slut; raise the alpha-male’s child and become a cuckold.”
A very sound expanded interpretation of the “man up” message, I must say.
Simply put, the man would always be a distant second.
Even back in my early days when I was drugged to the gills on blue pill, when I dated single moms, I could see this was the case. I would never be a legitimate authority figure to the kids, and the mom would never side with me if push came to shove. The evidence was hammered into me daily, which is just as well because that was probably the only reason I picked up on it.
The way these people talk about single moms, you’d think the average single mom got that way because she found starving urchins on the street and generously took them in, not by failing to keep a marriage (or extramarital relationship) together. She just stumbled over these poor unwanted kids, and look how she’s sacrificing to raise them!
Interesting that in the 18-24 age range there are twice as many mothers as fathers. Or did I read that wrong?
was reason 1 a reason TO date single mothers or NOT to date them?
I especially liked this one, because running it through the Deti Hamsterlator™, I get this: She’s ready to dismount from the carousel and settle down with a stable guy like you, but don’t think that means she’ll be willing to stay home and service you every night! She still expects to be wined and dined and taken out on the town!
Am I correct in making such an assumption of what is meant by the use of the term “date”?
Always remember…no matter what is SAID, women in general do not have to use dating sites.
This means clearly that she has struck out in every other area, because desirable women have men approaching them all the time, even in the grocery store.
So by “date” they mean, “women looking for a commitment that they haven’t been able to secure any other way.”
“because desirable women have men approaching them all the time, even in the grocery store.”
But does she consider these men desirable?
@Zippy says: “Interesting that in the 18-24 age range there are twice as many mothers as fathers. Or did I read that wrong?”
The reasons not hard to figure out. The moms are carousel riders. The dads are alpha-male plate-spinners who have sexual relationships with multiple women at the same time.
It’s the 80/20 rule. 20% of the guys are having sex with 80% of the women.
Meanwhile, the 80% of guys that she wouldn’t give a second look at prior to getting pregnant are now supposed to step in and be the father to another man’s child (another man who probably has fathered children with several women).
Of course, no one asks the obvious question: why was she risking becoming pregnant (and a mother) with a guy would never step up to his responsibility to be a father to his own children?
8to12:
Yes I understand the whys in manosphere terms. It is just a striking confirmation right from the census, so I want to be sure I am seeing what I think I am seeing.
I’d expect some “smoothing” in the ratio over time too … as beta bucks take over where alpha f**** leave off, and more men join the cumulative father pool. It is almost too perfect, which is why my first instinct is to ask if I am understanding it correctly.
I guess they can’t own up to the truth and just admit that the only advantage to a single mom is her willingness to have sex without commitment…
8to12 defined this as Premarital Cuckoldry. “Hey responsible guy; man up; marry that slut; raise the alpha-male’s child and become a cuckold.”
Absolutely spot on perfect. She wanted the best genes, and turned her nose up at anything else, and you, yeah YOU, beta-schlub, come here and pay for these kids.
But does she consider these men desirable?
Again. Remember. Women always want George Clooney or David Beckham. Anything less and they will feel like they are settling and they will treat you like that too.
Pre-emptive post:
The NAWALT chorus will fight that statement with, “That’s not true. I married my husband, and he’s not Clooney or Beckham.”
…..and the part they’re forgetting to mention? Is that they couldn’t get the nearest Alphas. Because if they could, they wouldn’t have even spoken to the man they’re with now.
Don’t forget about the mom who is “single” and doesn’t have custody of her kids.
By the way it’s not just single moms who are easy.
FH,
It’s not just single mom’s there. Lets be honest, PUA’s never had it so good. Milk for free, everywhere.
15 Reasons to Date a Single Cad
1. He won’t bring you flowers
etc etc etc you fill in the rest
One of the gals I went with in high school had a kid with a black guy. The guy she married is white. So the guy took on a kid that in no way could even be implied that was his. It honestly boggles my mind the depths some guys will sink to.
The original eharmony article should be taken with a grain of salt, because it is targeted at women, not men.
What they are trying to do is pump up the egos of single moms so they will get back into the dating scene (and hopefully fork over some money to eharmony).
Just remember single mothers have actual physical proof that another man’s dick was inside them. They can’t even try to lie out of that one.
we put our faith in women to do the right thing, and look what we got.
8-to-12,
Consider a Presidential Address from our fearless leader, President Barack Obama…
@earl says: “Just remember single mothers have actual physical proof that another man’s dick was inside them. They can’t even try to lie out of that one.”
We should be careful not to lump ALL single mothers together.
A widow with children she had while married should be treated differently than (1) the woman that had children out of wedlock and (2) a divorced mother with children.
@thegreatshebang
Why? I don’t think the eHarmony article is focused on them. Statistically they are also very uncommon. Only 8% of children in the US aren’t in their mother’s custody. This is split evenly between children in the custody of their fathers and children where neither parent has custody. One commenter once described how divorce lawyer explained that his wife would get custody unless she showed up to court with a lit crack pipe, and the data lines up with that. Women have to either outright decline custody or do something incredibly drastic (like die or go to prison) to not get custody.
Lol IBB, don’t discount that. They might not force you to marry them, but they can sure force you to support them. And, as we all know, they already do in someways. Why would they ruin that and actually place obligations on the single mom like a beta husband… I mean, ewwwww…. she like has to have sex with him and stuff???11111onee!!!!oneoneoneon!
They left out reason #16: You’re a pedo and her son or daughter is really cute.
@Zippy
I think that youngest age bracket is confirmation of Rollo’s SMV chart more than confirmation of the carousel, although the two play together. The same basic pattern shows up in the ever married data.
Of COURSE the government can force you to marry them. If they really wanted to, they could. The government can force you to join the army against your will and be killed, they can sure as Hell create a law that forces you to marry a slut and support her children. All it takes is 217 Congressmen and 60 Senators and 1 President to agree and (blamo) the F-V-C-K Y-O-U act is Federal Law the way the ACA is. What the government CAN’T do is force the slut you married to have sex with you.
8to12
Treat them all like sluts at worst out of hundreds of sluts you may need to apologize twice.
If there are lurking widows…I don’t mean you. Death is a perfectly acceptable reason to be a single mother because God made the decision and not your hypergamy.
I cant stay off the manosphere.
I have started my new blog.
Could any of you take a look.
http://the40yearoldredflag.blogspot.com/
IBB
If that bill should ever come to fruition…just put me into the FEMA camps. At least that forced labor will be more fun.
I am not certain about the accuracy of the statistics for single fathers. I suspect that not all single moms fill in a father’s name on the birth certificate.
The government can force you…to marry a slut and support her children. All it takes is 217 Congressmen and 60 Senators and 1 President to agree and (blamo) the F-V-C-K Y-O-U act is Federal Law the way the ACA is. What the government CAN’T do is force the slut you married to have sex with you.
And the above statement should be plastered all over the nation until we get the vast majority of men to swallow that red pill.
If it’s not clear enough yet to any Blue Pill/White knight readers:
She gets full benefits from a marriage, by LAW, regardless of how she behaved before the marriage, or in the marriage.
You, the hapless husband, get NO guaranteed benefits by legal contract, or social contract. You can’t even be guaranteed that the woman you will married will have sex with you. And no matter how many men she gave it away to for free, you, her husband, the one that’s paying for her, get no guarantee of regular sex.
Jen,
An excellent point! Even if she KNEW who the father is (and sometimes they don’t, sad but lol) there may be a financial incentive for her NOT to put down the name. Afterall, the birth certificate is a government record and the government would know who to go after for child support. Better to put down NO NAME, live with the father (off the books), collect government subsidy…
To extend Cautiously Pessimistic’s list:
-I would never be a legitimate authority figure to the kids
-The mom would never side with me if push came to shove
-The mom will always, always put the kids ahead of sexy time with you
-The mom will always expect you to pay for the kids as if they were yours, but they are HER kids in every other conceiveable way
-It doesn’t matter how much you sacrifice, you will still be called selfish
I hope no man in here (esp. no young man) would “date down” to this extent. Dating a single mom is an immediate way to make yourself the laughingstock of other men.
There are tons of women who will bang you, and many who will make a suitable partner for a short or long term relationship, who do not have all that baggage.
Just so I am clear with the entire manosphere, to me…
divorced mom (or !=) single mom
widowed mom (or !=) single mom
never married mom = single mom
Yes in ALL cases she may now technically be “single.” But her STATUS to me (in my mind) is dramatically different.
Widowed mom (who is single) has the higest status. There there is a HUGE DROP in status to divorced mom. Then there is an even HUGER DROP in status (all the way to the bottom) to never married mom.
Marrying a widowed mom is quite often commendable. There were even wholesome, Disney, fairy tale stories about this: (Cinderella, her widower dad married a widowed mom and took her two daughters as his own because Cindy’s dad knew how vital it was for Cindy to have a living mom, even if she is only a step-mom.)
Marrying a divorced mom? Is this commendable? Not so much. You are quite often in violation of the Bible (Luke 16:18.) For her sake (and yours) lets hope you are making this decision to marry her based on the FACT that either HE LEFT HER (because she’s real good stuff and he’s just an asshole) OR that HE ABUSED HER (or the kids.) In otherwords, in order for it to make any sense for you to marry her (with their dad still around, somewhere) all the fault in the divorce needs to be laid at her former husband’s feet. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know ANY divorces where this is the case.
Marrying a never married mom? Why would anyone ever willingly do that?
Whoever put this list together must be a suicidal masochist. This is like shooting fish in a barrel:
1. She’s no wimp. Single moms are tough and independent.
Good. That means she doesn’t need a man – or his wallet. NEXT.
2. She’s already a great mom. (And weren’t you looking for someone who would be a great mother? Look no further!)
So great a mom that she decided dad wasn’t necessary. Which of course begs the question of why she wants to date YOU (see point number 1). NEXT.
3. She’s incredibly patient, but doesn’t have a lot of tolerance for bad behavior. She’ll be good for you.
Let’s see if I understand this correctly: She’s “patient,” but couldn’t be bothered to take the time to determine whether the man whose bloodwurst she agreed to garage (without putting the car cover on it first), probably on the first date or not long thereafter, was suitable to be her lifelong helpmeet or the father of her offspring. Oh, and she doesn’t “tolerate bad behavior,” but she apparently had no problem with giving some guy a chance to “pump and dump” her, leaving a bun in the oven in the process. No, that’s not the ultimate example of bad behavior in anyone’s book, now is it?
Right, gotcha. NEXT.
4. She doesn’t play games. She doesn’t have time to just fool around. She takes her relationships seriously.
See item number 3. Apparently casual unprotected sex with a guy you didn’t demand make you his wife first and then whom you let pump and dump you paints you as someone who doesn’t “play games,” “fool around,” or treats relationships casually. OK, got it.
What universe is this we’re in now again?
5. She’ll only keep you around if the relationship is a good thing for both her and her kids. You won’t have to guess if she’s into you.
Hamsterlation: She’ll keep you around because she can tolerate you. She can tolerate you because she’ll have figured out that 1) your wallet is very deep (or deep enough FOR NOW) and always full, 2) you’re not very discriminating about whom you’ll open up that wallet for, and 3) she knows you’re desperate enough and have little enough self-esteem that you’ll open up that wallet for her and her bastard sprats every time she demands it. These sprats, of course, are very likely just a means to an end for her. She really doesn’t seriously care about their well-being. Otherwise, she would’ve married the sprats daddy (or one of them, if she’s one of those feral hoodcats who breeds with every tomcat that comes along). As it is, you’ll do – for the present, until someone better comes along with a fatter wallet and better looks and whose “more fun.”
6. Single moms are easy to pamper. (They don’t get breaks very often. Hint, hint.)
In some alternate universe created by an award-winning fiction writer this might be true. In the universe you and I live in, however, single moms are like most other women: bitchy, selfish, narcissistic, impossible to please, and with egos as big as an overinflated Goodyear blimp (or, given current demographics and health trends, egos as overinflated as their own waistlines).
All of this of course ignores the question of why any man would want to “pamper” a single mom – or why any man would think she deserves to be pampered.
7. She’s loyal — and is fiercely protective of her little brood.
She’s loyal, all right: to the woman in the mirror. Not to you, and not really to her kids (well, maybe conditionally until they turn eighteen, but after that, when she can’t use them to milk any cash and prizes anymore, not so much).
8. She can articulate what she wants and needs from a relationship.
And that’s a plus for a man how? “I want a walking wallet (the fatter the better), a provider for my bastard offspring who will disrespect you at every turn, with my blessing and approval; and an occasional dick when I’m feeling horny” (but you need to stay the f*** away from me when I’m not)” isn’t exactly what any man is itching to hear from a prospective LTR/wife. That assumes, of course, that she is also being honest (*SMIRK* yeah, right!) and will actually come out and SAY, in PFE, what she really wants rather than what she thinks the beta schmu, er, you want to hear.
9. Single moms are both practical and fun. There’s no room for diva behavior.
Again, what planet is the author of this nonsense living on? Maybe they need to take a drive down through, say, South Central LA or the run-down suburbs of a medium-sized town in Appalachia to see how “practical” some of these trollops are (unless by “practical” you mean how skilled they are to get the most return out of professional gold digging).
No room for diva behavior? Just get these women in a room alone with other women, without a man within earshot, and you’ll see “diva” (read: arrogant, entitled, and bitchy) taken to whole new levels.
10. She’s no longer a party girl, but a fun night out is still very welcome.
Hamsterlation: She’d much rather still be riding the carousel, and probably still will even if she traps you, but she knows that she can’t be obvious about it while she’s trying to find a beta schm, er, single mature man like you to wife her up, open up his wallet, and agree to support her bastard offspring (who will never cease to remind him that “you ain’t my daddy!”). She’ll bolt back for the carousel as soon as she gets the opportunity (or can pull the wool over your eyes), but she’ll play “tamed filly” for as long as she can stand it if it keeps you and your wallet around.
11. She’s selfless. Single moms put others’ needs before their own.
So THAT’S why she denied her child(ren) a father? Now it all makes sense…
12. Moms make the best lasagna and give the best back rubs.
1. I f***ing HATE lasagna (and even if I loved it, I’m more than capable of making it
myself).
2. My mom would give me a back rub if I asked her to give me one, but MY WIFE would sooner be nailed naked to a cross and doused with sulfuric acid.
3. You said “moms”, NOT “single moms.” Freudian slip there? (HINT: once you’re stupid enough to tie the knot with her, the only backrubs that’ll be given will be to HER, by YOU. Don’t even think of asking her to return the favor unless you want to wind up in the ER.)
13. You’ll get to take part in adventures to amusement parks, the zoo and the park. Bonus: You’ll have an excuse to play with toys.
You’ll get to take part in adventures to amusement parks, the zoo and the park: Sure – all on your dime, with her ungrateful, screaming, out-of-control brats in tow, making a trip to the gas chamber at Auschwitz seem like a dream vacation by comparison.
You’ll have an excuse to play with toys I have my own “man cave” stocked with all the “toys” I can ever hope to use. I have ZE-RO desire to play with anyone else’s toys, of any age.
14. She’s adaptable. She knows that life doesn’t always go as planned and has learned how to make the best of it.
Cockroaches are adaptable too. Does that mean I want to shackle myself to one for the rest of my life?
She knows that life doesn’t always go as planned and has learned how to make the best of it.
I learned that obvious and unavoidable lesson before I ever graduated high school – and didn’t have to let some other irresponsible asshole spermiate another life into me (and shackle me to a two-decade-long responsibility I wasn’t prepared for) in order for the lesson to sink in.
Question: the fact that some irresponsible little slut COULDN’T/WOULDN’T learn that very simple and obvious lesson, and that I have a multi-year head start on her (and thus fewer headaches to deal with or toxic messes to mop up) obligates me to teach her this lesson (or endure her learning it) HOW?
15. Single moms can do it all, but are super-appreciative of a helping hand. Woo her with kindness and acts of service.
COGNITIVE DISCONNECT ALERT:
See list item number 1. Why would a woman who is “tough and independent” and can “do it all,” and is evidently proud of it, even think about asking for a helping hand, especially from (*SHUDDER*) a man? Concede that kind of defeat? Perish the thought!
Let’s flip the sexes here for a sec: I can “do it all” (well, OK, let’s just assume this to be true for the sake of the example at hand; it’s no more ridiculous when stated this way, is it?), but would appreciate a helping hand. Would sluttymomma be gracious enough to extend it, or would she say “hey, asshole, you made your bed hard, now LAY IN IT!”?
I think we all know the answer. What’s sauce for the gander…
I once again have to ask: do real people out there really PAY for this “service” from this ridiculous site? If so, humanity is in much worse shape than I imagined.
It does play a role.
A certain NFL football player by the name of Antonio Cromartie, has 12 children with 8 different women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Cromartie
(shakes head in disbelief)
I firmly believe the majority of single mothers just couldn’t hold things together with the father of their children. Either they chose poorly at first, or just refused to be a wife, I don’t know. I place my (soon to be) ex-wife in this camp. I was hardly the textbook example of a husband. I did everything possible to make things work. She refused. I’m amazed at the number of marriage books I’ve collected over the years. She hasn’t read a single one as far as I know. Her entire strategy seemed to be based around “I’ll love you and treat you like a husband when I decide you’ve earned it.”
I’m currently dating a woman who is a single mother. In her case, her ex-husband was the bad stock. She, like me, did everything she could to make it work. He refused and walked away.
In this case, it’s working out well for both of us, and looks like a bright future. But that’s a single instance. I would NEVER suggest to another man to go and focus on single mothers as his primary dating strategy. If he comes across that rare good one, then go for it. But you’re not likely to see that kind of advice show up on my blog.
“that single moms are easy, they will mother you, and you get to have fun with kids”
is just precious LOL
As a single father, I despise single mothers. Their every utterance and facial expression offends me to the core.
The reasons are myriad, some subtle and some not, but I think I can sum it up.
As a man, unable to hide in emotion, it’s a hard thing to accept that your kids are screwed. One can’t do the job of two. It’s a matter of time, space, matter, energy, physics, and chemistry. There is no such thing as a good single parent. There is only lowering the standard of ‘good’ until one passes.
But single mothers, not only do they reject this truth, they even hold themselves up as holy for their failure, and demand the worship of their children for their “sacrifice”.
They get away with it, too.
Rigorist,
I regret to say that “years ago” I used to post on a blog with a bunch of unmarried moms and divorced moms. This type of conversation would come up (their lack of ability to do the job of two) and the overwhelming belief among the women there (hamstering around) was ALL of that (ALL of what could be for their children) could be accomplished with more money.
MONEY = time, space, matter, energy, physics, and chemistry
They didn’t need husbands. They just needed checks. Or bigger checks. Or bank accounts. Or bigger bank accounts. Or a politician in government to get them a bigger check or bank account. A single mom can do it all and raise near perfect children if she had enough money. And they they would got and cite examples of single moms in Hollywood and how their children turned out because of the money. So any and ALL criticism that they felt society director towards them (and their failings as parents) was really just a criticism of them lacking the sufficent resources to hire-enough-people\buy-enough-things\pay-for-enough-tutoring to make their children “whole.”
Let’s not forget that *at least* 10 percent of those men who have “ever had a biological child” are actually victims of paternity fraud.
The National Organization for Women opposes mandatory paternity testing at birth.
Dalrock, please write an article on this scourge.
@8to12
“premarital cuckoldry” is a very apt term. eHarmony is engaged in cuckold-seeking behavior; it’s like rent-seeking for sluts and other tingle-driven malinvestors.
I’ve already man-ed “up”. Now get a ladder, if you can lift it, and get on the pedestal, climb up to my level.
Shopping the bargain basement and manning up are mutually exclusive.
Excepting widowhood, a single mother has proven that her internal plumbing works and her mind doesn’t.
For women who fail to use protection, men’s only defense is abstinence.
There is something worse, many of these “single mothers” may be shacking-up with the father. Who needs marriage? Or is it even relevant with no-fault divorce?
“because desirable women have men approaching them all the time, even in the grocery store.”
I don’t know if that’s nearly as true as women would want men to believe. Most people meet through social circles, I’ve sat at a bar and watched how many times a beautiful woman got approached just to see how it went in four hours and it was three times in a crowded bar with a high male to female ratio. And farther down the scale it didn’t happen at all.
That’s not to say they don’t get approached, but as the pick up artists have noted, just approaching women puts you ahead of the majority of men. most men don’t do it and it doesn’t happen as much as you would be led to believe.
@Cail Corishev
10. She’s no longer a party girl, but a fun night out is still very welcome.
Dude, slightly incorrect translation. Here:
BEGIN TRANSLATION
Full-price leftovers taste better, enjoy.
END TRANSLATION
Dalrock:
Yes, I see where my confirmation bias was in play — that is, the same data may just be a result of the fact that younger women (highest smv) are having children by older men (highest smv). So as you said, more a confirmation of the smv distribution than the carousel.
Innocent–
This is an amazing point! In the New York Times article “two America’s seperated by I do “. In the comments it seems that many women believe that what a man brings is money and the government can just legislate that they get the same resources. However, anyone who knows a lot about the work of a father, knows that money is only a small part of the equation.
For instance, I can tell my son something 100x, his father overhears it comes in and says “you’re listening to your mother now.” And my son just listens.
Another example, my husband reads from “aesop’s fables” everynight.
He takes my son on neighborhood nature walks.
I commented on the brookings institute that the true benefits of two-parent families was not money–but the love, affection and attention that the children received. I guess if all you have is a hammer…
I am glad to read that there is general agreement that widows are a different category than never-married single moms. I work with a widowed mom. She cared for her husband while he was dying from cancer. She has done a great job of raising her girls. I suspect we all can think of examples of widows who successfully raised non-feral children.
Never-married single moms are a self- selecting category. They tend to be from the lower end of the IQ Bell curve according to Charles Murray and do not consider the long-term consequences of their actions. (His data in “The Bell Curve” is from the 1990’s.)
15 Reasons to Pay Full Price for a Used Car
by eUsedLemonsAreUs Staff
@Eric
I’m currently dating a woman who is a single mother. In her case, her ex-husband was the bad stock. She, like me, did everything she could to make it work. He refused and walked away.
Dude. Not to be a downer…..but of course she’s going to say that he was the bad one. Of course she’s going to be amenable while you’re dating her. What else would you expect her to say? And if you marry her, guess what she’ll turn into?
“I’ll love you and treat you like a husband when I decide you’ve earned it.” <==THAT.
That is the default position for all females.
Also, you are swimming in the Deep Blue Pill sea. Wanna know how we know? It's because of statements like these:
I was hardly the textbook example of a husband.
I’m amazed at the number of marriage books I’ve collected over the years.
She hasn’t read a single one as far as I know.
And the biggest tell of all:
I did everything possible to make things work.
The more you were bowing and scraping, the more hoops she was making you jump through, and losing more respect for you with each new hoop.
I suggest you join the Manosphere, red pill up, and realize that you don’t have to jump through hoops. You are the man. You’re in charge.
And if you don’t, she will sh*t-test you until you’re drinking her toilet water and liking it.
#1 Reason to Date a Single Mom:
Easy pathway to child abuse accusations. Go straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect 200.
The other interesting thing about the New York Times article is that it plainly talks about the fact that the married couple’s family is more functional because the father is able to champion the children through spending time with his children.
While the children with no father are left in the cold. 99 per cent of the comments either say that the single mother is a hero and the married mother is selfish or the absent father is the problem and if anyone points out that their was anything the single Moyer did differently the other commenters will go crazy “how dare you”
Don’t marry a widow. I have two living in my house. You will never be #1 in her book which means her default setting will be disrespect and sub par performance.
@Jen
Widows with children are also quite rare. According to the Census data I crunched here, only 1% of children are being raised by widows. This figure probably slightly understates the percentage of widows with children, because if a widow remarries and answers that the children live with her and their “father” (the new stepfather), she isn’t classified as a widow. But this kind of self selected misreporting seems unlikely.
In addition to the different traits of women who find themselves widowed and women who are otherwise single mothers, I would argue that the thought process of how she gets there matters a great deal. Women who didn’t marry or divorced because they thought they could do better tend to be obsessed with finding a new man. The irresponsibility of the choices which lead them to become a single mother tend to also creep into everything they do. Where it is fairly natural and easy for uncles and grandfathers to assist a widow, the out of control single mother by choice is something else entirely. The other thing I would add is that in the past widows had the advantage of the other 90% of families being in tact and reasonably functional. With only one boy or girl on the block (and in the classroom) without a dad he/she would tend to benefit from the self control and discipline that their peers possessed. When many other kids are fatherless the impulsive crowd tends to pull them in. To the extent that widows are able to keep themselves associated with others of similar values after loosing their husband, this should help. However, the dysfunction is getting harder and harder to keep at bay.
That’s not to say they don’t get approached, but as the pick up artists have noted, just approaching women puts you ahead of the majority of men. most men don’t do it and it doesn’t happen as much as you would be led to believe.
Untrue.
When is the last time you saw a desirable woman without a boyfriend? Especially for any significant amount of time?
I know a dude I’ll call “Red” who for all his live-long life had been a player. Until 15 years ago, when he married a high school friend. She was a single mom of two boys.
Fast-forward to today. Red’s ready to bail the marriage due, in large part, to his wife’s second son who moved into the house after a stint in jail. This guy is disrespectful among other things, and while this guy doesn’t pay any bills, is content to live off of government dole, his mom overlooks and makes excuses for everything he does. Red is ready to fly the coop with the one and only son he fathered with his wife. Sad.
A young (and foolish) female friend of mine suggested I give a single mom at my church “a chance” and date her. She is cute but she has THREE kids. I said “hell no!”
I don’t want to end up like Red.
Oddly appropriate (even if it is fake): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1-DdaelZ8s
It amazes me that the eHarmony staff can believe that this article can convince a man to date a single mom.
If you want to convince somebody to do a thing, you must tell him that this thing will give benefits for him. But this article only has benefits for the single mom. It’s another evidence of the eternal solipsism of the female mind. Let’s see.
1. She’s no wimp. Single moms are tough and independent.
She won’t submit to you. She is going to do whatever she wants to do and you better agree. BENEFIT FOR THE SINGLE MOM
2. She’s already a great mom. (And weren’t you looking for someone who would be a great mother? Look no further!)
You were looking for a good mom for your kids. You’ve found a mom for someone else’s kids.BENEFIT FOR THE SINGLE MOM
3. She’s incredibly patient, but doesn’t have a lot of tolerance for bad behavior. She’ll be good for you.
So it’s not only that she won’t submit. You are going to do whatever she wants you to do. BENEFIT FOR THE SINGLE MOM. She is going to be your superior.
4. She doesn’t play games. She doesn’t have time to just fool around. She takes her relationships seriously.
So, after having had her fun with the bad boys, you are the only one she is not going to have fun with. You will have to bear all the responsibilities. BENEFIT FOR THE SINGLE MOM
5. She’ll only keep you around if the relationship is a good thing for both her and her kids. You won’t have to guess if she’s into you.
This is ludicrous. So a benefit of dating a single mom is that she is going to dump you if you are not useful for her and her kids.
6. Single moms are easy to pamper. (They don’t get breaks very often. Hint, hint.)
How pampering a single mom is a benefit for you? What about “single moms want to pamper YOU”
SERIOUSLY, WHAT SOLIPSISTIC BITCH HAS WRITTEN THIS?
7. She’s loyal — and is fiercely protective of her little brood.
Being protective of her little brood is not a benefit for a man.
8. She can articulate what she wants and needs from a relationship.
So she is going to bitch about what she wants and needs. How this is a benefit for the man? How about “She will want to know your wants and needs”?
9. Single moms are both practical and fun. There’s no room for diva behavior.
This is the first benefit in the list. Maybe it’s not true. But it’s a benefit for the man.
10. She’s no longer a party girl, but a fun night out is still very welcome.
Wining and dining her is a benefit for the single mom.
11. She’s selfless. Single moms put others’ needs before their own.
Lie, as it is proved by her becoming a single mom. But at least it’s a benefit.
12. Moms make the best lasagna and give the best back rubs.
Solipsism. Solipsism. What straight male cares about a back rub. This is a thing that women like.
13. You’ll get to take part in adventures to amusement parks, the zoo and the park. Bonus: You’ll have an excuse to play with toys.
How paying for her and her kids to go to the places their kids wants is a benefit for you?
14. She’s adaptable. She knows that life doesn’t always go as planned and has learned how to make the best of it.
15. Single moms can do it all, but are super-appreciative of a helping hand. Woo her with kindness and acts of service.
So, this is a reason for me to date a single mom? That I have to woo her and help her? What about me?
What delusional c_nt has written this list?
I think the “father deficit” just proves that women have no problem with being homewreckers. They don’t care if a child has to live in a broken home just so long as they can get their “sexy man meat”.
Whereas men are the kinder and more loving gender. Men would rather remain single inn the hopes that the two parents may some day reconcile.
One of the biggest reasons I left the church was these homewrecker women. I knew two girls who turned down decent childless men, but they both were willing to go out with single dads.
THE ARTICLE on E-Harmony was originally written by “Miss Single Mama”. I know this – because I was one of the first people to email her a manosphere / red pill perspective before I knew the red pill existed. Back then she has nil subscribers and responded via email then removed and blocked my comments which consisted of nothing but truth. No name calling. No bad words. No insults. Just truth.
http://mssinglemama.com/
From what I can see she is everything real mean (red pill men) reject and run from. Single mom, Tattoos, Knocked up by the bad boy and lo and behold – SHE FOUND A SUCKER to marry her. And until red pill truths about whats going on in our society are revealed to males en masse as common knowledge men like him will continue to agree to say “I do” for what amounts to a regular supply of Gucci (no copyright intended).
By the time he reads this comment he will have already succumbed by paying for the DNA of another man. Even worse if the man was an Alpha Male (irresponsible, badboy, jerk, a–hole etc.) whom he would have been passed over for during the peak of her youth beauty and fertility.
Sorry Dalrock. I’m just giving credit where credit is due. This list did NOT originally come from E-Harmony. It came from a Single Mother ( http://mssinglemama.com/ ) creating a blog whose entire purpose is to justify HER CHOICE (according to her) of becoming a single mother. The entire blog is self justification in an attempt to present being a single mother by choice as a positive thing other women in the same situation should feel good about. Self justification rooted in denial.
In the past, single mothers by choice who pushed out the losers/jerk/badboy/chronic gambler/drunkards DNA over the good guy/educated/hard working/responsible family man were few and far between. Why? Because they suffered repercussions in the form of SOCIAL SHAMING which was HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. This was removed and now you see the explosion of
Single mothers like never before. How do you correct this under the current social climate of soft tyranny? The numbers of children without fathers by selfish “proud single mamas” will never be pushed back AS LONG AS THEY CAN READILY FIND A BETA MALE SUCKER TO MARRY THEM AFTER THE FACT.
Seeing “Miss Proud Single Mama” her accomplish her goal getting married (in a backyard behind a manufactured house nonetheless) is further indication, in my opinion, the Manosphere is not mainstream enough and still has a LONG LONG way to go.
Widows might be OK as long as they didn’t *decide* to become widows, if you know what I mean.
My wife recently read several romance novels where an Amish widow finds a new man after the tragic death of her first husband. Mmmmm…Amish divorce porn.
“The numbers of children without fathers by selfish “proud single mamas” will never be pushed back AS LONG AS THEY CAN READILY FIND A BETA MALE SUCKER TO MARRY THEM AFTER THE FACT.”
Which it is why it is important to have as many men know about this strategy by women of getting knocked up by the alpha and finding a golden parachute beta as Plan B. If the beta male is still dumb enough to marry the broad after knowing this planned strategy…that’s on him and his pride.
@ RobJ
Widows, all widows are exempt. 100% exempt. They didn’t do anything to become widows. It was a choice outside of their control. Therefore if there is physical chemistry and you have feelings for the fact she is a single mother is not nearly of the same significance.
I wonder if E Harmony will do a post on the top 10 reasons to date a broken poor loser weirdo creepy male?
@ earl
“Which it is why it is important to have as many men know about this strategy by women of getting knocked up by the alpha and finding a golden parachute beta as Plan B. If the beta male is still dumb enough to marry the broad after knowing this planned strategy…that’s on him and his pride.”
-Yes that’s 100% Correct. But when the “proud single mama” has a blog broadcasting everything (take a look) and yet she still finds a sucker to marry her? To me that suggests the “Manosphere” and everything on Dalrock “insider information”. It should be mainstream information for the betterment of society.
Other single mothers see her actions as positive reinforcement. This is no good. “Proud single mamas by choice” are trash. They deprive their children of the normal stability and happiness of a father figure and nuclear family by rejecting the good men in pursue of virtue of their own selfishness
They should NOT be rewarded for this.
.
I’ve known 2 strong Christian women with young children whose husbands cheated on them and then abandoned them for the other woman. So I don’t throw all divorced women into the same category.
One of my “booty calls” is a single never married mom.She is University educated and has a good job.This is not the norm.I read the 15 pros to a single mom…..they are bullshit! I see none of them in my booty call.The only thing that single mothers do is try to “rope” a sucker in.My booty call had a 12 year old son.I have met the kid once.In fact,I avoid the kid.The reason being as I know what she is up to.She want a “father figure” for her son.I understand this very well,but,I am smart enough not to get involved with her in a relationship.I feel sorry for the kid as he has no father figure to spend time with him…..Oh Well! Not my problem! She is constantly trying to get me over to her house. NO DEAL! “You want to see me it is at my house or office”.I have explained this to her more than once that it is not fair to the kid to get attached to me and then I disappear.She always says that she understands this but,it always trying to get me together with her son.
The “norm” that I see around town are single mothers,never married and they all seem to have the same occupation.They are “artists”……..”they draw welfare”. They get the mothers welfare cheque and then money from the father.They don’t work.After the kid reaches a certain age they apply for “disability pension”….and they get it! So now even after the kid is 18 or has moved out of the house you go from having a “welfare mama” to having a “disability mama”……What a Choice!
will i bang a single mom- SURE, done so plenty of times. will i commit to one- NO. not just no, but HELL NO.
Update on CAF:
On-topic: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833358
Slightly off-topic: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833427
@danny504
“”will i bang a single mom- SURE, done so plenty of times. will i commit to one- NO. not just no, but HELL NO””
Same here! Single never married with kids make excellent “booty calls’.You already know that they are not virgins…..and single men are not breaking down their doors to date them.I find them to be quite easy and willing to “hookup” regularly.I do find that they seem to have an attitude about men though….”All men are the same”…”all men are assholes”..etc…etc. this is because men in general avoid them…except for sex! For the most part, they very lonely women. I learned a VERY valuable lessen from a mentor of mine when I was 23 about women with kids.It goes like this:….”NEVER,EVER get involved with a woman with kids….unless,the father is dead”!!!!…..and I never have and I NEVER will.I have watched other men do it…only to their detriment and downfall! Shalom!
Here’s one way they’re helping with the shortage…
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21215002-federal-judge-rules-key-provisions-of-controversial-texas-abortion-law-unconstitutional?lite
Pingback: Is there a shortage of single fathers?
Most interesting but the essay raises more questions than it answers: what is the cause of the fact that there is an excess over single fathers of single mothers to the extent of fifteen millions. Women may be the rock-stars in the dating world but seemingly not when they are single mothers.
I am also puzzled and not entirely convinced by figure 1. Previously we were told that out of every 1000 live births that just 2 were to women over the age of forty five, but above it transpires that 12% of women give birth for the first time after that age. Can’t be right, can it?
It is the same group of bad boys knocking up his harem of sluts. this guy here is 1 to 14
Any one of those women would be a great catch for a good churchian just ask focus on the family. Those women are heroic and biblical.
Feminism and liberalism has affected the black people in a bad way due to the “ism’s” being masked falsely as racism. Some guys get it and with out ever having heard of the manosphere have come to the same conclusions and truths as the manosphere. Truth is truth.
Just like every other area of life, the means determines the end for single mothers. A faithful widow is not likely to be too liberal to others with her affections, and clearly was relatively wise in her choice of husband, while I would think that a divorcee was less using her brain before she tied the knot. A never-married mother, unless she was a rape victim, would make me wonder if there were any connections between brain and the rest of her body.
About 35 years ago, I was seeing a divorced mother of two, and I found out that she had a reputation for being too friendly to too many people. I’m thankful now that I finished that relationship when I think of something that happened more recently..
A male friend who is divorced married a divorcee and things seemed to be going swimmingly until she started subjecting him to domestic violence, such as stamping on his bare feet with her stiletto heels, pushing him downstairs into a cellar of their home and locking him in the cellar, and in one case ‘glassing’ him. She had threatened him with accusations of violence against her if he defended himself and the police refused to take his accusations seriously until the hospital reported the glassing as non-accidental and not self-inflicted. We really do not know what we are taking on unless we are very careful before we get married.
As 8to12 wrote, “The reasons are not hard to figure out.” However, I disagree with 8to12’s choice of reasons. I believe 8to12 has jumped to a false conclusion. The graph in Figure 1 is misleading because the bars do not represent equal spans of years and the graph-maker’s choice of age 24 as the end of the span represented by the first bar.
Most births are within marriage and females these days generally don’t start marrying until they’re close to age 24 (the median age being around 26) and females prefer to marry a man that’s a bit older than themselves (on average she marries a man just over 2 years older than herself). Dalrock referenced these statistics in his earlier article, Which sex is driving delayed marriage in the US? Fornicating females also tend to prefer soliciting sperm from a man older than themselves.
So, supposing that most females don’t begin baby-making in earnest until close to age 22 and do so with a man just a bit over two years older than themselves, the startling difference in the two groups shown in the graph is explained. The difference would appear even if all the females in the population were pure, chaste, and monogamous. Neither “carousel riding” nor the “80/20 rule” explains anything about the graph; you’ll notice that the graph says nothing about the number of sex partners the men or females have had.
I expect that if the bars represented roughly equal spans of adult ages, with the first bar surpassing the median ages of first marriage of men and females by at least a few years, no startling-at-first-glance difference in the bars for men and females would appear.
As 8to12 wrote, “The reasons are not hard to figure out.” However, I disagree with 8to12’s choice of reasons. I believe 8to12 has jumped to a false conclusion. The graph in Figure 1 is misleading. The first tip off that the graph is not entirely on the up and up is that the bars do not represent equal spans of years. No “carousel riding” need be postulated to explain the differences seen in the graph of Figure 1. What you’re seeing is a fluke due to the chosen range represented by the first bar ending at age 24.
Most births are within marriage and females these days generally don’t start marrying until they’re close to age 24 (the median age being around 26) and females prefer to marry a man that’s a bit older than themselves (on average she marries a man just over 2 years older than herself). Dalrock referenced these statistics in his earlier article, Which sex is driving delayed marriage in the US? Fornicating females also tend to prefer soliciting sperm from a man older than themselves.
So, supposing that most females don’t begin baby-making in earnest until close to age 22 and do so with a man just a bit over two years older than themselves, the startling difference in the two groups shown in the graph is explained. The difference would appear even if all the females in the population were pure, chaste, and monogamous. Neither “carousel riding” nor the “80/20 rule” explains anything about the graph; you’ll notice that the graph says nothing about the number of sex partners the men or females have had.
I expect that if the bars represented roughly equal spans of adult ages, with the first bar surpassing the median ages of first marriage of men and females by at least a few years, no startling-at-first-glance difference in the bars for men and females would appear.
I’m currently dating a woman who is a single mother. In her case, her ex-husband was the bad stock. She, like me, did everything she could to make it work. He refused and walked away.
1. As redpillsetmefree already pointed out, consider the source.
2. “So… are you bad at managing relationships or just a bad judge of character?”
There is a single mother that is best friends with my cousin. I had the chance to bang her before she became a mother 10 years ago but didn’t due to my old inept beta ways, but the point is that she really is exhibit A. She got knocked up by a pretty nice guy, and they stayed together for a few years until she got bored and decided she wanted something ‘better’; apparently she started complaining about his penis size too. It was suddenly too small for her. So she left him, took her son with her, but didn’t cut him out entirely, just so she could have a ‘good time’.
Now she is a stripper that makes plenty of money and fucks plenty of men, including a very rich 70 year old man. She is in her late 20’s now but still looks very young. She is a complete train wreck and horrible slut of a woman. Her son doesn’t stand a chance really. I feel sorry for him. And i feel sorry for whoever foots the bill later when her stripping ‘career’ goes down the drain.
Maybe there needs to be a “man up and marry the wench” instruction book along the lines of “Taming of the Shrew.”
IOW, let’s say a real man who actually believes in marriage decides to take the challenge and marry one of these single mothers. How would he tame her?
(I’m not saying any man should do this, but it would make for an entertaining book or movie.)
As for marrying a widow, i’d be careful about that. It depends on whether the man was an alpha or not. Marrying a 45 year old widow that was married to an alpha for 15 years might be a problem.
IOW, let’s say a real man who actually believes in marriage decides to take the challenge and marry one of these single mothers.
I’ve seen quite a few marriages where men married single mothers. A few of them worked out quite well, including my own parents (father/stepmother). The most successful ones almost always include a significant age difference between the husband and wife.
Marrying a 45 year old widow that was married to an alpha for 15 years might be a problem.
No one marries 45 year old women. Didn’t you know that?
Micha Elyi:
Yeah, that’s why my first comment was more or less “am I seeing what I think I am seeing?” The answer is no, I was not — my knee jerk confirmation bias (of which I was mildly aware, but was trying to figure out where it was coming from) was similar to the “it takes two” fallacy, when you think about it, because I was assuming “it takes two of the same age”. What the graph mainly shows is that women become mothers at an earlier age than men become fathers … which is no surprise, but also isn’t especially “red pill” (or is only very mildly red pill, however you want to look at it).
On the other hand by age 44 there are still 12% more mothers than fathers. It would be interesting to break that down if the detail were available; it could at least constitute confirmation of a trend.
What Danny said.
I would think that if one wanted to take on a single mother in terms of LTR or marriage, (never married single mom) the only sensible strategy would be either just cohabit and remove her legal sledge hammer from her hands, or wait until her kids are over 18 and moving out before tying the knot or living together, or just date endlessly and maintain separate households. The last probably being the wisest if you feel compelled to take one on.
Same thing would apply to a divorced mom to a large degree unless you can seriously get to the reason the divorce happened and either it turns out to be true that her ex husband went off the rails and left her high and dry or she has matured and accepts responsibility for her part in the matter and can articulate that unprompted. Still, you take a big risk tying the knot. Understanding that all ex-husbands are a-holes and 95% of reasons for divorce are his fault.
For you young guys, you should stay away from all these chicks even widows. Want to live with a ghost in your house that you’re always being compared to? Not really. You’ll understandably always be second choice, I mean, given a magic wand I’m sure she would wish her first husband was alive. Not to mention that a sort of idealization of him will occur in her eyes and any kid’s eyes even if he was just a regular guy like you.
Of the choices, a single, never married, no kids lady is your best bet, but if older than 30-something you really need to find out why that is. The next best in my opinion would be a divorced lady, no kids. Again, not for you younger guys, but for older farts like me, these types of chicks start to fill up the dating pool the older you get.
After that, divorced with kids, and if you’re really desperate, single never married woman, but honestly I’d rather be alone than take that chance on the last one. YMMV.
Forgot to add, as you can see from the rather grim statistics and choices, your best bet is to marry young with no baggage and stay together. Period.
Being a retread out on the scene or a participant with handicapping baggage isn’t a lot of fun, if you are in the market for another LTR or marriage.
So pick wisely, pick young and stay on that horse if at all possible.
If you’re just out having fun, then do whatever. Just don’t get anyone pregnant.
Single motherhood is a C-A-N-C-E-R on any society that is trying to provide a stable, loving, family unit producing well-adjusted children……..and later, adults.
Lionizing single motherhood is THE failing of this generation. No one can go it alone, and expect to get well-adjusted children. The sum of the parts (male + female) is greater than the parts alone.
What each brings to the table is a complement to child rearing. Unfortunately, the contributions of men have been minimalized, trivialized, and even demonized.
When I found myself single (widowed) in my early 30’s with a child……..it was awful pickings in the dating market.
Those women who had no prior children were ‘looking for it all’ from a man with no baggage (read children).
Similarly, the women interested in me had usually (if not always ) 2 children…..and I was NOT interested in raising someone elses children. Particularly if this was a ‘choice’ of theirs to diminish the male role voluntarily. (read: GIRRRLLLL POWER!!!)
How many women would HONESTLY ‘woman-up’ and date a single father? Apparently, not many.
@ Michael
Agreed……..the manosphere has a LONG, LONG…….LOOONNNNGGG way to go!
It can definitely be disheartening to see these wrongs (and so many wrongs) so clearly, while others are oblivious to there very existence.
Men get a daily dose of ‘shaming’ or ‘man-up’ rhetoric if they dare turn on a radio, iPod, computer, TV, or open their eyes in the morning.
I hope the current paradigm falls flat on its ass…….and these women have to shoulder the consequences of their TERRIBLE decision making.
s/b ‘their’very existence.
I hate when I do that.
“I wonder if E Harmony will do a post on the top 10 reasons to date a broken poor loser weirdo creepy male?”
Hahaha!
Pingback: 12 things never to say to a single mom on a first date - Wealthy Single Mommy
Centuries ago, Bachofen explained that matriarchy is hedonism…
http://lutheransurrealism.blogspot.com/2010/08/bachofen-and-matriarchy-redux.html?m=1
Lololzzz
Pingback: Interesting Take on Single Moms | 1st Feline Battalion
@8to12
One further aspect of premarital cuckoldry: as a darwinian breeding experiment, it is simply impossible for women to breed their desired care-giving/investing behavior into the so-called beta males by not breeding with them. This should be easily self-evident.
Eager cuckolds are right in there with fried ice, horny eunuchs, and all the other nutty impossible shit women want.
hey dalrockasz! this is the #1 SITE ESPOUSING CHRISTIAN CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLESZ!!! ye give many grace & exalt faith deep in der souls. 🙂
lzolzozolzolzo
I also enjoyed the next one, which while part of the “Single moms are easy” category, is still worth noting separately:
10. She’s no longer a party girl, but a fun night out is still very welcome.
Good news! She’s had her alpha f****, so now it is time for your beta bucks!
lzozozozoz
lzozozozoz
@Opus
I haven’t researched the issue but I don’t have any reason to doubt the Census on this. One thing to keep in mind is this isn’t a series of pictures of the same group of folks as they got older. The 25 to 44 folks are an entirely different generation than the 45 and over folks. It is entirely possible that the differences between those groups can be explained (at least partially) by different fertility patterns when the older group was younger.
If you put 100 men and 100 women on a desert island, all 18 years old, is it that hard to believe that, by age 44, 62 of the men would have impregnated 74 of the women? I find that ratio completely plausible. In fact, taken entirely out of the context of civilization, I suspect it would be even more imbalanced.
My ex’s interest in dating is directly related to my child support payment. She gets $1000/month for my two kids and had one pump and dump in two years. In six months, the gravy train ends and it’s then that I think she suddenly feels the need for something other than BOB (battery operated boyfriend).
The article? Clearly for women.
“Play with toys”
“(Her intolerance of ‘bad’ behavior) will be good for you.”
She’ll still view you as a child and not an equal.
My experience with single moms (extensive) is that the children are pawns. They are first and foremost when mom needs cover. They are pushed back when mom sees something to gain by doing so.
“Woo her with acts of service.”
Translation: she’s tired of paying guys for plumbing. Fix her drain and she may give you one of those oft-heralded back rubs.
I will date single moms, but Only if better options aren’t immediately available and I will never marry one.
I think that imnody and others hit the nail on the head. This article does not give one legitimate reason to date a single mother over a single woman.
In fact there are no advantages to dating a single never married or divorced mother that i can think of. If my son did this, when he grows up, I would be heartbroken.
A widow does have advantages. George Washington married a widow because she had two great children and he wanted to be a father–but was unable to have biological children and her previous husband left his family lots property.
Are all divorces “frivorces”? I am wondering, for example, if a woman who divorces an abusive husband – and is just relieved to be rid of him and is not obsessed with remarrying – would be in a different category than a woman who divorced her husband for trivial reasons. Are divorced men also considered risky as potential spouses? Is remarriage generally just a bad idea?
Just asking – because that seems to be the logical conclusion of part of this discussion – beyond the Single Mom/Sperm Drone issue.
I haven’t met a lot of widows of marriageable age. Rare as they are, I don’t suppose most people have. But my impression is that their expectations don’t seem to be as sky-high as those of other women. They seem more likely to be looking for a good man over an exciting one. Not that they aren’t subject to hypergamy and tingles and all that, but they’ve had a dose of harsh reality that most girls luckily don’t get.
I would have a concern that a real widow could also be an alpha widow, if she’s idolized the dead guy the way America did with JFK to the point where no other man can measure up. That seems fairly easy to spot early on, though.
Jen, this has been addressed a million times before here and elsewhere. Women who divorce abusive husbands are in the minority. Most divorces have nothing to do with spousal abuse. If a woman divorces an abusive husband, it’s an indication that he picked the wrong man. Do we have the right to judge her for that? I guess it depends on your point of view. But she is not a delicate wall flower in need of our protection. She made her choice.
Cail Corishev:
It sounds truthy enough, but it isn’t the scenario that the data represents.
Cail– that is true I have never met of a young widow
The Rigorist says:
October 28, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Excellent observation.
Effectively zero percent of women and a very small portion of men can truly appreciate that there are exceedingly few marriages where the children (or even the spouses) will be better off post-divorce by any reasonable, objective measure, and it is incredibly hard to face on a daily basis, as some of us here do. I am able (just barely) to provide my sons a rough facsimile of the material comforts to which they were accustomed in my married household, but there will be no help from me for college, no help for a down payment for a house, no extended family vacations on my nickel – none of it. If I were able to just hold on to my own earnings (as opposed to the 35% haircut I’m taking at their mother’s expense), I could do much better.
What I can never do is truly fix their permanently injured view of humanity, of honor, or promises made and not kept. I will do my best to help them through, but the damage is done.
From Schedules of Mating:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/23/schedules-of-mating/
@8to12, also:
I was a widower at age 42. I had 4 kids at home ranging from 16 to 3. Single women, even single mothers, do not want anything to do with a man that has full time custody and responsibility for thier children. I would have a couple of dates with a woman, she would know that I had kids, and then she would ask how often I “had” them. Once I said their mother was dead and I had them full time, I never saw or heard from them again.
Secondly, I have six sisters, the majority of whom ended up single mothers (one widow and the others through the normal process of divorce). We are all older now and the kids are grown, mostly with kids of their own. Even they will say how shocked they were at how well my kids turned out. I will say this is only in comparison to how their kids turned out. My long life experience and observation has taught me one thing that was common knowledge through most of history, but which has been forgotten; Men should raise children and not women. This is true for any child over the age of no more than 5. They are just not emotionally or tempormentally suited to the task. Consistancy and discipline with a set of standards and virtues is what is necessary, and which few to no women have.
Jen,
Short answer: no.
Long answer: most divorces are frivorces, but not all.
Mike,
Mike I am real sorry to hear that. I am 42 now. There is NO WAY that I am ready at this stage in life for God to take my wife from me. If my wife passed and left me a widower at that age, a part of me would have died with her.
The children of single moms I know seem to blame the father for deserting them and have anger issues involving them. They never seem to give equal blame to their mother for making a poor choice on who she picked to be their father. There’s a double standard there and I think it just reflects society’s tendency to absolve women from responsibility while holding men to higher standards at the same time.
Zippy, yeah, the age ranges cloud the issue. I should have just looked at the 45+ groups, which would indicate that about 2% of men father children with more than one woman. The guys who have huge broods with a dozen women would skew the ratio, but I don’t suppose there are enough of them to factor in much. So beyond that 2%, the rest of the difference at the lower ages probably does indicate women procreating younger than men.
It could also be a combination of the two: younger women are more likely to get knocked up by a guy who’s spreading it around, but then they get older and have more kids with their previously-childless provider beta, raising the percentage of fathers without increasing the percentage of mothers. I can think of a few examples like that.
Johnycomelately – ”I wonder if E Harmony will do a post on the top 10 reasons to date a broken poor loser weirdo creepy male?”
Obvious, but quite funny.
Owing to some earlier comments, perhaps they might actually seriously consider something more rational for single mothers, like “Ten Reasons to NOT Automatically Reject a Guy Who Takes the Time and Initiative to Approach You in the Grocery Store”.
I’m thinking something that will remind these women that they are NOT the great prize they often seem to think they are, and that they should appreciate any guy who would even consider them.
But, I suppose I’m being unrealistic. Such women do not want to hear such unpleasant truths; and, hey, there still seem to be plenty of guys willing to chase after even rather questionable single mothers.
Maybe if the main-stream media will do more attack pieces on the “Manoshphere” more guys will end up gaining some awareness, and single mothers will have to start recognizing that men who will consider relationships with them are a “prize” that they ought to show great regard and great respect for. [hey, I can dream…]
Cail Corishev:
Not to be pedantic, but it only shows that as a floor, not a ceiling. If two women each have two children by each of two men, we have exactly equal numbers of fathers and mothers but both fathers have had children by more than one woman.
I know of a divorced mother who made it sound like her ex husband was evil incarnate and that she was a “victim” of that marriage.
Then I got to know her.
Consider the source.
@Jen
There are a couple of factors to consider in the “abusive” case.
The first is the definition of abuse is so incredibly out of control the term has very little meaning. There is such a thing as real abuse, but there is very little effort at keeping this term honest.
The second factor is the fact that women are attracted to abusive men (and while we are here lets throw cheaters into the mix as well). It isn’t a simple case of truly risk averse women losing the luck of the draw. The way to think of this is on a sliding scale. The less abusive and likely to cheat the man, the more beta/boring he will be. So the women who marry abusive/cheating men have almost certainly passed over more loyal and stable (boring) men in favor of the more exciting alpha bad boy. That women would balance this trade off is understandable (attraction vs risk of abuse/deadbeat/cheating). But while women have demanded sole rights to decide not just when/who they marry (which they pretty much always have had), they also now demand the right to unilaterally end such a marriage should it not work out as hoped. Not working out as hoped can come in the form of he turned out too predictable/boring (beta), or too violent or a cad (alpha). She balanced this risk, and it doesn’t make logical sense only to hold her accountable if the risk fell one direction and not the other. The only kind thing we can do for young women here is be painfully honest about the reality here, as denial only leads to more misery.
The third factor here is the corrupting influence of the opportunity to not only steal the most valuable assets of the marriage (the children), but to be compensated financially for stealing this asset. Even if the man himself is a real problem, the woman profiting from not honoring her marriage vow is corrupting in and of itself.
Zippy says: “It sounds truthy enough, but it isn’t the scenario that the data represents.”
CC has some summary numbers on his site that clear things up a little.
Total # of single dads: 70.1 million
Total # of single moms: 85.4 million
That’s 1.2 single moms per single dad. That’s a pretty significant difference. The only 3 scenarios I could come up for the difference are:
1) A group of men are having children with multiple women (like Andrew Cromartie)
2) The dads are dying off for some reason (dead dads wouldn’t show up in the numbers)
3) The dads are marrying someone other than the mom (so they are now married dads and don’t show up in the numbers)
I’m pretty sure we can discount #2. I haven’t seen an epidemic of men dying due to impregnating a woman.
#3 probably accounts for some of the difference. A man that has fathered a child out of wedlock or is divorced with kids might still look like a pretty good catch to some women (if the kids live with the mom). While a woman that has a child out of wedlock or is divorced with kids has probably seriously hurt her chances of marrying/remarrying.
As for #1, it’s a simple matter for a man to get multiple women pregnant at the same time. It’s impossible for a woman to carry the child of multiple men at the same time (unless it’s the one in a zillion twins by different dads scenario).
My gut tells me #1 is the main contributor, but given the 50% divorce rate #3 could be playing a significant role. I’d have to find the stats on remarriage rates for men and women after divorce.
One other point: women do not have the bone in their heads to comprehend any of the issues under discussion.
I’m not bragging, but I first heard of the free singles site POF (plenty o’fish) 6-7 years ago. After looking at a bunch of profiles I went “ewwww!” and noticed the link to the forums there before getting to the Close button. There was already a thread which had been there 2-3 yrs and had run to over 100 pages on “Why Don’t Men Want to Date Single Moms?”. One guy after another would try to ‘splain it to ’em, and it would always come back to “Why can’t we just have what we want?”. There is simply no there there for the information to land on. Empath would say they’re particularly empathological on this topic.
In their minds they are more valuable and deserving (and thus entitled to be even pickier and more demanding for “the real deal”) by virtue [sic] of now having the responsibility for their unique awesome special snowflake kid(s), whereas from the guys’ perspective the presence of a kid immediately drops her at least 2-3 pts on the infamous and widely employed 1-10 scale, and having two or more kids drops her even more. In market terminology you end up with a huge spread between the bid and ask, with few if any takers crossing the gulf from either side.
Women basically get one reproductive life; having a second one is somewhat extraordinary and largely a matter of luck IME because women aren’t cognitively equipped to navigate these waters. You can’t reform biology.
But ultimately I think men do much better navigation-wise in the chaos left in the wake of the feminist/sexual revolution. Women crash on the rocks one after the other (just listen to ’em!) and try to drag as many down with them as possible, whereas men have to be intentionally duped and deceived to get onboard that Titanic.
Didn’t I see a stat that said in 87% of divorces the wife DOES NOT allege abuse by the husband?
If I’m remembering that correctly, then 13% is the high water mark for abuse. How much of that is real abuse and how much is abuse by the expanded PC definition (he put me on a budget; he asked me to make a sandwich; he yelled at me to stop hitting him) is anybody’s guess.
“Women crash on the rocks one after the other (just listen to ‘em!) and try to drag as many down with them as possible, whereas men have to be intentionally duped and deceived to get onboard that Titanic.”
If there is any sympathy for the guys that got duped and deceived…is when they let their stories by made known about what single mothers are ACTUALLY like so that other men don’t get on the Titanic. Those men deserve respect.
The white knights that want to give virtues to single mothers…just ignore them and let the blind lead the blind.
@Dalrock
The other thing to keep in mind is that this is occurring within a time where birth control use is by far the norm, and abortion lacks any serious stigma. Even under such anti-child conditions, we can see the pattern.
You could make the case that those two things create the environment, and so women find it compelling to play fast and loose with regards to the risk and rewards. (I certainly think so.), but that only reinforces the idea that it is women’s desires driving us off the cliff.
Case in point:
While I have heard of a woman refusing cash payments for dissolving their marriage, I have never heard one condemn another for not doing so. Conversely, when men decide to divorce, the conditions are so excruciating to them that they are willing to trade away their children, livelihood, friends, and family to do so. Of course what some of those men find “excruciating” may be due to their own sickness (accute caddishness, boredom, etc.), but it still remains they are willing to pay heavily to make it stop. These women just keep doing what they want, and everyone keeps rewarding them for doing so.
@8to12
I don’t think we can rule out mortality so easily. The data in Fig 1 shows there is an imbalance below 45 but for men 45 and older it is rough parity. However, parity in the percent of men and women who are over 45 who are parents would only mean parity in numbers if the overall numbers of men and women over 45 were equal. However, we know it isn’t, because men die younger than women. So mortality plays a role in the overall numbers, but if we are looking at the dating market for single parents with kids under 18 and articles like the eHarmony one, looking at the under 45 crowd shows the “shortage” that the captain hypothesized. In summary, there is evidence for both mortality being a factor in the numbers the captain found, and evidence backing up the captain’s hypothesis.
Here’s another story that might attract some attention. Alcohol is not a “direct” association with rape.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/29/2844951/link-alcohol-sexual-assault/
Just remove rapists from situations where you get drunk and you’ll be fine. Never mind that drinking copious amounts of alcohol is also proven to lower inhibitions. I shudder to think logically that rapists might just be created when they drink a lot of alcohol and then regret hooking up with somebody because they lost their self-control.
Guess which gender I might just be hinting at with that last sentence.
It would be nice if someone could come up with a statistic that proves that the men being chosen are actually “better genetic stock”. I can think of plenty of antidotes that “prove” it both ways. Isn’t it entirely possible that instead of 80% of men being of inferior genetics, that it’s actually 80% of women that are defective? Or perhaps a combination of the two?
Given a state of nature that is brutal dog east dog, I still find it highly implausible that these men would be better suited to survive. Just based upon my own observations.
I’ve known one young (30-32 yo) widow w/kid. On the one hand I would say true loss deepens people, and that would be something to look for to see if it was there. But, on the other hand, aren’t women supposed to nag/make new fathers give up dangerous activities like mountain climbing and motorcycle riding?
Giving widows an automatic “out” makes all sorts of highly undesirable outcomes for men more plausible and likely, not less.
Joan Rivers is technically a widow because her ex offed himself. Baggage is baggage and you have to play TSA inspector and go through and x-ray it all to make sure you’re not getting on a plane with a hidden bomb.
Depending on the circles you travel in, young widows aren’t all that rare. I live with one, regularly check up on some others. They are a bad marriage prospect. Lots of built in landmines as puzzled travler laid out. The honest widows I know do not date becuse they would trade their new man’s life for her dead husbands in a second
George Washington married. Maratha for her dead husband’s money. That he actually grew to care for her is secondary. It was a common way for poor men of good breeding to move up in the world.
From time to time, I wonder if we don’t have a confirmation bias. The manosphere is a gathering of people with the same ideas so it is easy to dismiss discordant voices.
Could it be that we are seeing reality with distorted glasses?
Then something happens in my life that reminds me of the truth of the red pill.
Last Saturday (remember that this is Central America), I was introduced to some friends who, when they knew I was single, they told me that they were going to find me a woman (they were under the influence of several beers). They told me they knew a woman (let’s call her Ms. X) who was the right match for me. They told me Ms. X was very beautiful, very affectionate, with a big heart, very hard-working, with a good career (odontologist) and had a lucrative business. I was thinking: “What’s the catch?”.
I went to the restroom and, when I came back, they told me: “Would you mind about dating a single mother?”. I wanted to be polite so I replied: “Well, yes, I would mind a little bit because I have no kids”. Then they were trying to tell me something and they didn’t know how to express it. I said it: “Do you mean she felt in love with an asshole?”. There was an unanimous agreement: “Exactly! This is exactly what it is! These are the right words!”, they told me.
So I guess they wanted me to be the “beta bucks” side of the equation. I didn’t tell anything (it was not cautious to say about the red pill) but I discarded this woman in my head.
Pingback: Father and motherhood | Stepping Toes
Rabbits have 20X as many offspring as humans. Thus rabbits are genetically superior to humans.
Most women prefer cats to dogs. Thus cats are genetically superior to dogs.
Animals prefer to drink antifreeze instead of plain water. Thus it’s a genetic a advantage to drink antifreeze.
I’m thinking something that will remind these women that they are NOT the great prize they often seem to think they are, and that they should appreciate any guy who would even consider them.
But, I suppose I’m being unrealistic. Such women do not want to hear such unpleasant truths; and, hey, there still seem to be plenty of guys willing to chase after even rather questionable single mothers.
Yes, exactly. We need to remember that outfits like eHarmony are in business to feed the female hamster. It is NOT men who are beating down their door to sign up for membership (read: the opportunity to hook up, via random lottery draw, with some desperate slut who has been conditioned to think of herself as a royal jewel waiting to be plucked and polished), but WOMEN. It is WOMEN who are their primary customers, so it is WOMEN’s wants and concerns that they must cater to if they hope to turn a profit.
It is a given that speaking truth to estrogen is futile at best and counterproductive at worst. Telling the babymommas among the eHarmonettes that they are “soiled doves” or “used goods” that can be sold only at some sort of elaborately marketed discount is just not going to fly. They’d pitch their eHarmony memberships in droves, fleeing for a competitor (think Match.com) who would be more than happy to let their sluttiness market itself to a lower-market crowd.
OT, but tangentially related: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Valentines1.shtml
From age 40 and on, there are more women than men (about 500,000 to 1,000,000 more at various age ranges, in the US).
LF&M – I think you raise a good point about whether or not the best male genetic stock is being chosen. I agree that women are probably generally hard-wired to select the best male genetic stock. However, we live in an uber-civilized society where the traditional male roles of provider and protector have been usurped. The culture promotes promiscuity without consequences. So, are the women as selective as they would be under harsher conditions? If alcohol/drugs are added to the mix, are some of the women selective at all for a ONS? I suspect not.
Pingback: The Single Father Shortage
@ IBB: “Mike I am real sorry to hear that. I am 42 now. There is NO WAY that I am ready at this stage in life for God to take my wife from me. If my wife passed and left me a widower at that age, a part of me would have died with her.”
I’m also 42. The beloved woman I married died three years ago, replaced by one who cheated and frivorced me. I wish she had literally died, as what she did made it less likely I’ll trust again. AWALT, at least in my own mind.
Liberty, Family, and Masculinity says: “It would be nice if someone could come up with a statistic that proves that the men being chosen are actually “better genetic stock”. ”
It would be more accurate to say they are perceived to be better genetic stock by whatever is hardwired in women’s brains.
For most of human history (up until the industrial revolution actually) being big, strong, and aggressive (in other words, physically powerful and not afraid to use that power) was the key to not just surviving but flourishing.
Today, mental ability is much more key than physical ability.
But, women are still hardwired subconsciously to look for pre-industrial revolution survival traits. So while at a logical level women may realize that the nerd that excels at science may be better genetic stock for the modern age than the jock that skips all his classes, at the emotional level they are drawn to the jock. And women mate at the emotional level, not the logical one.
Edited to add…and I had it coming, blue pill, white knighting, beta herb that I was…..
Who is John Galt,
Ouch, I am really sorry about that.
The best male genetic stock is not what is chosen it is the best gina tingle genetic stock that is chosen. Women fuck up everthing they involve themselves in, do you really think that thug ass crack dealer is the best genetic choice. Everything from Christian morality, harassment laws, and even if a rape occurred is determined by gina tingle. So now we can add eugenics to the wonders of gina tingle and hypergamy. ( women shouldn’t vote or drive) Without the boring beta chumps keeping the lights on a lot of these “alpha” types would not survive. Being alpha in a civilized society is easy As Dalrock stated earlier on the sliding scale a defective man to most women is a turn on. It is purely about the law. With out laws of misandry and with real accountability for women the beta chump boring responsible guy gets real sexy for a larger percentage of women.
@ Mikediver & John Galt
Roger that, I too am a widower.
My experience was two-fold:
1) Women had little to no use for a man with a child of their own full-time (while concurrently asking for the same from any prospective male re: her own children)
2) The dating pool would be better described as a cesspool; complete with frivocees, Rx medications, substance abuse, etc. (PUKE!).
Date a single mother? Give me a REAL reason why I should; where I, as a MAN benefit!
@Dalrock
Thanks for the “PingBack” link to “wealthy single mommys”………I have to look at this site. But,I know for a fact that these idiot women are very delusional.The only way that a single mommy would be deemed “wealthy” is from alimony & child support(which eventually runs out)….What is their other source of income?…WELFARE?……How many people do you see that are WEALTHY via the Gov’t Dole?….Not too many!…..If they are WEALTHY…why do they rent?…why don’t they OWN????……I know a few single wealthy mommys……my oldest sister is a good example.She is not wealthy via her astute business acumen or her financial prowess, I assure you…..daddy cuts her a cheque once a month($7000cdn)….and mother sliding her cash on the side($5000cdn)…(of which my father recently found out about thru me…and he is not happy)…..but,this is not the NORM….I assure you! An apartment complex that our family owns has some single mothers in it.They are the WORST tenants….the kids are the worst little terrorists I have seen! They are always late with the rent(blame it on the ex-husband’s late financial support).They have substance abuse problems….they date any LOSER that will give them the time of day….and they think they are “SOMEBODYS”……they are NOBODYS! They exist at the court ordered “ex-husband payments” or the government “Save A HO Welfare Program”!…….there is no “in between”!!!
As far as superior genetics: Martin Jonassen never had any problems getting a date from a pile of women willingly throwing themselves at him, as I recall:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/jonassen-guilty-of-kidnapping-daughter/article_89004bf4-4e58-5d36-8884-2dea6271a747.html
Neither did Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin. Cluster B craziness apparently will substitute just fine for alpha. The darker the triad the better for most modern women (and even the early 20th century ones as Rasputin demonstrates).
All this talk of widows … I can’t stop myself …
A man walked out in to the street and caught a taxi just going by.
He got in and the cabbie said, “Perfect timing. You’re just like “Brian!”
Passenger: “Who?”
Cabbie: “Brian Sullivan. He’s a guy who did everything right all the time. Like my coming along when you needed a cab, things happened like that to Brian Sullivan, every single time.”
Passenger: “There are always a few clouds over everybody.”
Cabbie: “Not Brian Sullivan. He was a terrific athlete. He could have won the Grand Slam at tennis. He could golf with the pros. He sang like an opera baritone and danced like a Broadway star and you should have heard him play the piano. He was an amazing guy.”
Passenger: “Sounds like he was someone really special.”
Cabbie: “There’s more. He had a memory like a computer. He remembered everybody’s birthday. He knew all about wine, which foods to order and which fork to eat them with. He could fix anything. Not like me. I change a fuse, and the whole street blacks out. But Brian Sullivan, he could do everything right.”
Passenger: “Wow. Some guy then.”
Cabbie: “He always knew the quickest way to go in traffic and avoid traffic jams. Not like me, I always seem to get stuck in them. But Brian, he never made a mistake, and he really knew how to treat a woman and make her feel good. He would never answer her back even if she was in the wrong; and his clothing was always immaculate, shoes highly polished too. He was the perfect man! He never made a mistake. No one could ever measure up to Brian Sullivan.”
Passenger: “An amazing fellow. How did you meet him?”
Cabbie: “Well, I never actually met Brian. He died. I’m married to his fuckin’ widow.”
God is laughing
You have that damn right. In todays land of the laws of misandry the worst men get the regular pussy. A civilized sane society checks that madness. It is kind off the definition of a civilized society, it puts checks on that kind of thing. (see marks tenants in his above comments)
Jen,
Problem is, not enough people are honest about this to even have this very basic level of discussion for fear of being “labeled” for even mentioning this. We are too afraid of being called racist or bigot or insensitive to call out bad behavior.
@Rigorist LOL!
@Rigorist
Great!….Thanks!…..one for you!
“”One evening last week, my wife and I were getting into bed.
Well, the passion starts to heat up, and she eventually says ‘I don’t feel like it, I just
want you to hold me.’ I said ‘WHAT????!!! What was that?!
So she says the words that every husband on the planet dreads hearing…’You’re just not in
touch with my emotional needs as a woman enough for me to satisfy your physical needs as a
man.’
She then responded to my puzzled look by saying, “Can’t you just love me for who I am and not
what I do for you in the bedroom?” Realizing that nothing was going to happen that night I
went to sleep.
The very next day I opted to take the day off from work to spend time with her. We went out
to a nice lunch and then went shopping at a big, unnamed department store. I walked around
with her while she tried on several different very expensive outfits. She couldn’t decide
which one to take so I told her we’ll just buy them all. She wanted new shoes to compliment
her new clothes, so I said lets get a pair for each outfit. We went on to the jewelry
department where she picked out a pair of diamond earrings.
Let me tell you…she was so excited. She must have thought I was one wave short of a
shipwreck. I started to think she was testing me because she asked for a tennis bracelet when
she doesn’t even know how to play tennis. I think I threw her for a loop when I said, “
That’s fine, honey.”
Smiling with excited anticipation she finally said, ‘I think this is all dear, let’s go to
the cashier’. I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, ‘No honey, I don’t feel like
it.’
Her face just went completely blank as her jaw dropped with a baffled ‘WHAT???!!!’ I then
said, ‘Really honey! I just want you to HOLD this stuff for awhile. You’re just not in touch
with my financial needs as a man enough for me to satisfy your shopping needs as a woman.’
And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, ‘Why can’t you just
love me for who I am and not for the things I buy you?’””
Errr. She sounds absolutely great – if you are looking for a mom !
If you actually pulled that shit off that was cool as hell.
An episode of Property Brothers on HGTV:
Wife (responding to price of one property): I should have married rich.
Husband: I should have married nice.
Almost as good as Mark’s story.
My dad was a 40 year old widower with a house full of kids (5, including a brand new baby) and he didn’t have that much trouble finding women willing to marry him.
Wife (responding to price of one property): I should have married rich.
Husband: I should have married nice.
DOUBLE PLATINUM!
I’ve known 2 strong Christian women with young children whose husbands cheated on them and then abandoned them for the other woman. So I don’t throw all divorced women into the same category.
No not all of them. I can recall one guy who left his wife for another woman. Two more guys who cheated on their wives and but did not file (the wives did). And I can recall double digit situations where the wife either cheated, cheated and filed, or was unhappy and filed. I have lost count of the broken homes caused by female initiated divorce that I have witnessed. And I have yet to come across the woman who admitted any wrong doing on her part in these cases. I have met several men who at least admitted they were wrong.
Good point by Jen and others; it is plausible that the disparity in % of men vs. women as parents is simply due to men becoming fathers a bit later, and possibly also because many mothers don’t even bother to let the fathers know they’re a daddy. When my niece became pregnant with her first child, it was noted that she wasn’t even sure who the father was. Sigh.
Which speaks to that eHarmony list. My niece a huge prize because she’s learned maturity and toughness? Sorry. She’s got two kids by two different dads, and her mother has four kids by four different dads. Another woman I used to work with milked her ex-husband for a ton of “stuff” and then divorced him, quickly to shack up with another guy–and yes, he would be in the “hapless beta” category. I’m not a huge fan of the “alphabet” theory, but in that case, it is true.
In other words, if I were on the market, I’d be very careful of single mothers, and would make sure that they had repented of what made them single before pursuing a relationship. At least I hope I would. And shame on Neil Clark Warren–theoretically an evangelical Christian–for allowing this drivel on his business. He should know better.
Too many men here still talk of being in the market or actually finding a wife. There is no wife to be found and that is by law. Single mothers even with out laws of misandry are not wives any way. Single moms are booty calls. They are women you have regular sex with when the clubs/ bars close or at the end of the evening shift on the way home from work. You don’t fix her car, you don’t fix her house, or put in a garbage disposal. If need be tell her you are married or have her just think she is the other woman. Let her beta orbiters or what’s left of her family do the beta chores for her. The only thing you buy for her is …say you like to drink Johnny Walker Red so you buy a bottle and have it at her house so she can have a glass of scotch ready when you pull up to the house. That’s about it for single moms and any woman over 40 childless or not.
And shame on Neil Clark Warren–theoretically an evangelical Christian–for allowing this drivel on his business. He should know better.
I never cease to be amazed at how, despite decades of in-your-face evidence to the contrary, people still think that the self-conferred label of “Christian” (“evangelical” or otherwise) by a business owner connotes anything remotely resembling honesty, integrity, values, Biblical precepts,piety, or anything else that distinguishes them from other business owners who make no such claims. I personally have yet to encounter a self-proclaimed “evangelical Christian” business owner who lets their (supposedly) Christian life get in the way of their business “ethics” (and for God’s sake, DO NOT EVER select a business out of a “Christian” Yellow Pages directory – EVER. The few times I’ve done so have been the most messy and costly commercial experiences of my adult life).
Neil Clark Warren fits this description to a tee. If he genuinely was “evangelical Christian,” he’d never have even considered the idea of an abomination like a dating site and would be best known for encouraging singles to look to their churches and parents for biblical relationship and marriage guidance rather than from a crass, standards-free, for-profit enterprise that operates on transparently fraudulent psychometrics.
Elspeth,
Well, did/does he have money?
TFH,
Wow. 400? Just wow. That is way too much. When I was chasing more than ten years ago, relationships.com had a 6 or 7 point questionaire:
Age? My preferance was my age and up to 6 years older
Education? My preferance was Bachelor’s Degree or higher
Who pays on date, Dutch vs Traditional/Gentleman pays? My preferance was “didn’t matter”
Religion? My preferance was Protestant non-demoninational
Marital status was single, widow, or divorced? My preferance was “didn’t matter”
Annual Income? My preferance was “didn’t matter”
Smokes? My preferance was non-smoker
That was it. I know some of the above questions are/were more geared for women selecting men than the other way around, but that was all I needed. I didn’t need 400 points, all comprehensive, that is just needless. I can fill in those 400 points over a $2.50 cup of coffee on Date-Zero which is what people should be doing at eHarmony anyways.
I could see a man trying to mangina-ly answer 400 points according to what he thinks she wants to hear, which is just painful. Why do that? Just be yourself. Forget trying to win friends and influence people. I was honest with mine. Even if what I said in my introduction form letter was hurtful, I just said it. I wasn’t looking for the highest hit rate. I was just looking for one right person. I still had like a 80% hit rate so I think being honest trumps being mangina any day of the week.
@Feeriker 12:48 As someone else has put it, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
@GIL and Rigorist “God promised man that He would put faithful women in every corner of the world for man to marry, and then He laughed and made the world round.”
TFH,
I think the problem you are going to run into here with the GOP is not so much that they aren’t willing to purge feminism. I think it is instead that the GOP doesn’t really understand what it means to be Republican and why some parts of their platform are so important. They forgot their roots (or maybe they just never understood them?)
That is why I love Ann Coulter as much as I do. She expresses her thoughts on what the GOP should be (and why it should be that way) very clearly. She can communicate in the manner of a Romney or a Reagan. Anyone at any education level can clearly understand her (even if they don’t agree with her.) Now what she says, that may offend a lot of people, but that is only because the truth so often hurts. Here is Ann truthfully speaking why Rick Santorum was not allowed to be the GOP nominee for President.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-29.html
Rick Santorum never got this because he doesn’t understand the GOP platform. Ann gets it. That is because she can get down to the root Now to stay on topic about single moms, here is one where she describes why being a single mom is essencially child abuse.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-06.html
We need politicians in the GOP who understand these figures and understand why it is important not to empower certain behavior.
And truthfully, there really isn’t room in the GOP for Feminism. But far too many GOP candidates (particularly the ones that are not that bright) can’t understand this, can’t get this because it requires a lot of critical thinking skills to step back in the logic tree to get to the root. And without that level of critical thinking which leads to perfect understanding (an understanding Senator McCain never had) you’ll never understand the GOP platform the way the Democrat Party has absolutely mastered theirs.
So yeah, you are going to continue to be disappointed TFH.
TFH,
She’s not saying that.
She’s saying that because government is so willing to make single mom’s financially whole, a woman’s interest in mate (if she doesn’t think it is important that their father be her husband) is now less provider and more what makes the gina tingle. She isn’t saying that this is what she wants, but she can see it with other women.
GBFM’s eharmony profilrx profilez!!
lozozozoz DA GBFM’S ONLINE EHARMONY DATINGZ PROFILEZ LZOzozlzozlzozlzoz
lzozlzzzzo da GBFM dont no online datetz as A) i have not eneouch cockeasz to handaled all da psuusysys pusysys pusysysy dat come my way in real life in da coffee shopd shich i call starfuckszx as da GBFM is da fuckstatr in da coffe shop lzlzozo beoyenend faacebook and buttcobook and assbook lzlzozl and 2) der is too much risk dat her picturez was taken when she was hotter, younger tighter thirty pounds lighter dureing the commencnemnt of her massive cock carosuslel crusade and bountiful buttcocking battlez zzoozoz so da GBFM letsz da betasz pay da oldsnatch.com datng feez to look @ a chix pre-bernankifed photoso zlzozlzoozozoz
but here woudld be my profielz if da GBFM did onlinez date: lzozoz
GBFM SEEKSZ TIGTHT PUSYSYSYIZYOSUSOUSSIUOJZOZzlzlzlzlzoz
TITLE: LOTSAS COCKAS 4U 2 serve ur ginatinglelzlzol but not buttztingzlzlzolzoz
“my name is da gbfm of worldwide fame and renown. i don’t buttcockz cause my cockas too big and ur anus (not da planet uranus lzozzlz) is likely too small, unless u have been buttcocked many timez, in which case you have been bernnakififed and deosuled & ur anus IS likely big as da planet URANUS lzozozo and i don’t no waannna gina cock you no more as u are proabably as a big a pain in da ass as da pain in uranus ass from all da buttccokingz during your cock carsoule crusisidng days of whorey glory zlzlzoozo.
my ideaz of an idealsz date is to talk about da GREAT BOOKZ FOR MENZ which menasz dat u shut up and da GBFM doesz all da talkingz cause we know womenz never read homer’s iliad nor odyssey notr bible on their own (Except dey be fmeinists frankfurt schools deocntsructing da great books instead of respecting da GBFM’s frankfurter in der mouth lzoozlzoz), but womenz only readz vampire gina-tingly butt-tingly crap like twilight and julia prostsititute roberts book eat, prey, butthext”
even dough my last seneveenteen girlz complained dat da GBFM is soooo complicated, my ruels rulez arez simple:
bring da movbiez = lostas cokas 4u
bring no movies = no cockasz 4u
P.S. and please pelasez please i beg of you do not waste da GBFM’s precious itme. time. pleasez post up-tod-ate picture of you TODAY! do NOT post pictures of you when you were younger hotter tighter and fifty pounds lighter back in da day when you were givingz it up for free 2 all da buttccokerz in your bernkifiing dorm of student debt and anal debaucheyr lzlzoz as da debt was augmented in sectrieve meethingsz of da fed and da nauth violted in sectrely taped buttcheidnt sessionz zlzl, and pretending dat because you were once hot da GBFM now owes u moneysz to get down on what you gave away for free before u contrtced dat STD. lzozolzolzoo
i like to travel, and we can travel togethers. i will travel form da bedroom to da couch to play grand theft autoz, while youwill travel from da bed to da kitchen to make da GBFM a morning omelelete with lotssa cheddar cheese but not form between your kness zlzlozlzlo
if u are thirty and have had ur fun and r looking to “get serious,” then please get serious! da gbfm ain’t no backcup beta nor da last branch you can grab as you fall from da tree of your sexual peak in your early twentietsz which you wasted on lsostas cockas riding da cock carousleuesz. and now u see da GBFM’s massive lotsas cockas and mistake it for a thick tree branch u can grab on just beofree you hit da ground of eterna spinterhood zlozlzolzolzo causez da gbfm don’t give no cockasz to dose dat have “had their fun,” bt only does fresh young hot tight tights who r having funz zlozozoz
when you comtact me please include:
how many pounds u have gained since your profile picture was taken (rounded to nearest tens of poundsz lzozlzl).
\how many timez you have been bernnakified via:
how many cockasz u have taken in da buttholzizo since your profile picture was taken.
how many pounds u have *REALLY* gained since your profile picture was taken.
how many cockasz u have taken in da ginazizo since your profile picture was taken.
how many cockasz u have taken in da mouthollzizo since your profile picture was takenz.
i know dat you wills undertted your bernifiaction numbers by a factor of 5 or more in da same way da fed undesrsrtated inflationz, so i have my eocnomistsz grad stdudnets muiltiply your ansers by 5 lzoozozoz so if you sayou have been bernankkekified 10 timesz we will know it was at least fifty and proebeleeby more zlzoozozoz u do da mathz lzozoz
da gbfm looks forwards to meetingz youz and may r luvz last 4eever or at leats until da gbfm has cumed zlzlzloz sploododeged zlzlzlozo whichever cumsz firts zlzlzolzozozlzoz
RELIGION: Chruchcianz, as I beelieve dat JEuss will frogive forgive you and ur hot sister for our threesomsznz lzlzlzlzlzo & u will be made whoel and good as new and can still mary a beta providerz and prey to jesus 2 heal heal ur sore buttholiolozlz and bring a good man ur wya zlzozlolzo
“God promised man that He would put faithful women in every corner of the world for man to marry, and then He laughed and made the world round.”
C’mon now, Fred, you can’t post that without attribution – ’cause I’m gonna steal it otherwise!
innocentbystanderboston says:
October 29, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Elspeth,
My dad was a 40 year old widower with a house full of kids (5, including a brand new baby) and he didn’t have that much trouble finding women willing to marry him.
Well, did/does he have money ?
Not necessarily, but she may have been one of a number of desperate women where there were few men. Or he could have been the only normal family man out of a community of thugs/druggos/prison inmates. I have seen it enough times. Conversely, men who cannot get a better woman will usually “settle” for a single mom, particularly if he wants children and she is young enough. Bad or poor decisions are usually made in desperation, and usually not by choice.
Been reading wealthy single mommy: Make sure you read “I had a moment and felt like a single mom loser in the dating pecking order” if you want to feel like you entered the twilight zone of logic.
In this she explains that she turned down a “rich banker” only to find t that HE was never interested in HER–which just proves that he is a childish, selfish frat boy.
She then says he said he wants at least a 7 (she assumes she must be just a hair under this a 6) and says its unfair “did he even factor my parenting skills into that?”
Women are choosing the best genetic material to reproduce with but, sadly, that best is based on a situation that no longer exists.
It makes sense to me that anyone not capable of a committed relationship with another adult does not meet the threshold for parenthood.
That is a companion article to the one from AARP that said middle aged men need to date at their age, and listed all the reasons like,
she has stood up for herself
she has power
She has figuured out relationships
she is HILL AIR EE OUS….that pic of her in tie dye beside the VW bus, I could NOT stop laughing
If alcohol/drugs are added to the mix, are some of the women selective at all for a ONS?
Like those blind folks trying to nantle that elephant and identify it, the woman approaching the elephant from the front would choose quickly…..poorly
Women are choosing the best genetic material to reproduce with but, sadly, that best is based on a situation that no longer exists.
No shit. Also it is not necessarily based on even what was described by Ton. It is now purely based on the emotional triggers. This aggressive strong man theory is just men trying to apply logic to the hypergamy quest for toasted ice. In a civilized society the shit women tingle for is possible. All of those soldiers overseas being cuckolded and frivorced and treated as crimminals in family court will be loved (same men same worthless cunts) when headless bodies are seen on the side of the road in front of the school with no police in sight. Without misandry a good honest law abiding man doesn’t have to emasculate himself to stay out of jail. That alone makes him sexy at some point. With out misandry hard stable men are much more attractive because rebellious women are left to there own means. Nothing brings on the gina tingle like having to pay your own way without it.
“She’s saying that because government is so willing to make single mom’s financially whole, a woman’s interest in mate (if she doesn’t think it is important that their father be her husband) is now less provider and more what makes the gina tingle.”
Exactly.
The Government now steps in and provides the resources for poor women. UMC women are the majority in most colleges and in many occupations (many of these occupations are in the public sector with government-controlled wages). So, the male provider role has been usurped. In our society, the male protector role is diminished. We already had the debate as to whether fathers are important or not (the public denigration of Dan Quayle because of his “Murphy Brown” comments?). The fathers lost that debate (most were too busy working to engage in the debate).
The GOP was the original party of big government and screwing with conventional soical conditions. Supporting feminism is in the gop DNA.
Just browse through Friedrich Engels’ “The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State”. Monogamous marriage is an evil patriarchal invention to control women. Communism (redistribution of other people’s money) sets women (and men) free to form alternate forms of families….
Here is a prized single mothers “random” list about herself that any prospective dad should be aware of:
15 random things about me!
Fall is my favorite season. The cool breeze and beautiful colors remind me of the simple things.
I love my job as a marketing professional and am passionate about what I do.
I have had 6 cats in my life so far; right now I own a black fat male named Meko.
I am frugal! I love saving money and I am on the constant quest to find a great deal or bargain.
I love all music, except for Jazz and Metal. If I find a song I love I will listen to it constantly on repeat.
The majority of my diet consists of chocolate or chocolate flavored items (don’t tell my kids)!
I hate crowds. I can’t stand it when people get in my personal comfort space. Arms length please!
Motherhood made me mature instantly.
I have a hot bath whenever I get the time!
My children make me smile more than anything else.
I love the show The Office.
I am open to falling in love again.
I worry too much about what others may be thinking of me.
Everything I do takes time and effort. I am slowly learning to be ok with that.
I can eat a family-sized bag of chips in one sitting, especially salt and vinegar, dill pickle, sour cream… ok pretty much any flavor.
You better be aware of these things before you date her lol! Remember boys, do your homework. This single mother is a prize and you better know what makes her tick to wow her. She is open to falling in love again so work hard on those auditions! Motherhood made her mature instantly and after all isn’t that what every man wants – a mature single mother? Remember guys she is frugel and loves saving money (because she doesn’t have any!) so be prepared to pay for the pleasure of her company!
LOL
LOL
I like the, I love to save money line.
Jen said :
Monogamous marriage is an evil patriarchal invention to control women.
You know what ? Monogamy is going to come back in fashion with the CDC just declaring that the war against antibiotic resistant bugs is essentially lost. Hello untreatable Gonorrhea and Syphilis. Bet those evil bugs were all male !
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/10/30 | Free Northerner
Update from CAF:
Sexual past
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833593
Options for singles who want to have children?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=833520
Oh, and then there’s this:
Meet the Woman Who Tells Your Exes They May Have an STD
http://kplu.org/post/meet-woman-who-tells-your-exes-they-may-have-std
I was asked about my widowed father:
Well, did/does he have money?
No. I mean, he was doing quite well for where we were from, better than most men around there. We had a house that our family fit in and we didn’t go without what we needed, but we didn’t have a lot of money. My father was very good at managing and investing what he made.
And still, he didn’t have any trouble dating. Even when he told all the well-meaning match makers that he was not interested in a woman his age, he still had plenty of company until he remarried.
I guess he had game, LOL. Just kdding.Maybe times were just different. This was a long time ago.
Is it the best genetic material they are choosing…or are they choosing to take advantage of a corrupt system that rewards them for being promiscuous?
If you are a provider, it is impossible to also be a brute. Not because they are naturally mutually exclusive, but because they are legally mutually exclusive. If you have assets, you can’t afford to lose everything by getting in a fight and going to jail. You can’t afford to have someone sue you for all your assets If you have nothing to lose, you can afford to get in a fight and go to jail and nobody will sue you because you have nothing. Genetics have nothing to do with it. Genetically superior men are prohibited from signaling their fitness through aggression and physical dominance unless they are physically strong enough to take on the whole government.
lol its called balls and when you have them you take risks which makes chicks damp in the pants. If your stuff means that much to perhaps you should reevaluate what you value. Your junk or your pride, honor etc etc
Ton says: “The GOP was the original party of big government and screwing with conventional soical conditions. Supporting feminism is in the gop DNA.”
The original charter of the Republican party (the one Lincoln ran under) contained this simple statement declaring the party was formed for the purpose of “abolishing slavery and restricting the role of government in economic and social life.”
I don’t disagree that today’s GOP is little different from the Democrats. While Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was the first big-government president, he was (imho) an aberration among Republicans. It really wasn’t until after WWII that the jumped onto the big government bandwagon (long after the Democrats starting with Wilson and then FDR) had embraced big government.
The historical point is moot, as neither party today believes in small government (much less reducing the size of our current government).
Hey Ton.
I think you’re right but I also think Liberty, Family, and Masculinity is right. Having married a man who was something of a brute in his day, I have seen him evolve a bit with the increase in responsibility. Yes, you have to be willing to take risks. I have no doubt that if need be, my husband would do what is required to protect me or our children without hesitation. I feel very safe with him. But the realties of being a family man mean that you have to weigh more carefully your decisions when situations arise.
Switching gears: Seeing your comment reminded me of an experience my daughter shared yesterday that you might find funny. She’s working the Christmas season as a cashier part time. Monday evening a man came through her line with a strong Southern accent (Tennessee she suspected), and when he finished their transaction he said to her, “Thank you darlin’, it’s been a pleasure.”
She said she never realized before then how much she liked that whole good ol’ boy thing. LOL.
@Cail Corishev
I predict and assert, that:
1. If you place 100 women and 1 man on a desert island, then it is probable that within the year each woman will reproduce.
2. If you place 100 men and just 1 woman on a desert island, the woman will reproduce with just one man (the AMOG) and no more than one.
No sane man with options considers the possibility of marrying a single mother – for to do so is a priori cuckolding; if he has no options he would perhaps be better to remain single.
Michael says: Here is a prized single mothers “random” list about herself that any prospective dad should be aware of:
15 random things about me!
Fall is my favorite season. The cool breeze and beautiful colors remind me of the simple things.
Or maybe it’s because it’s the time the kids go back to school.
I love my job as a marketing professional and am passionate about what I do.
Is this marketing as in working for a Madison Ave. advertising firm, or marketing as in being a Mary Kay consultant?
I have had 6 cats in my life so far; right now I own a black fat male named Meko.
Doesn’t have enough sense not to put this in her profile.
I am frugal! I love saving money and I am on the constant quest to find a great deal or bargain.
She’s broke. So much for the Madison Ave. marketing job.
I love all music, except for Jazz and Metal.
She loves all music, except for the kinds men listen to.
If I find a song I love I will listen to it constantly on repeat.
If variety is the spice of life, what is repeating the same thing over and over again?
The majority of my diet consists of chocolate or chocolate flavored items (don’t tell my kids)!
Eats a lot of candy.
I hate crowds. I can’t stand it when people get in my personal comfort space. Arms length please!
Don’t touch me. Yea, that’s going to attract a lot of male interest.
Motherhood made me mature instantly.
If she had become a mother while married, then the instant maturity certainly would have prevented her from divorcing her husband. So, either this is a lie or she was an unwed mother.
I have a hot bath whenever I get the time!
She likes to do things for herself.
My children make me smile more than anything else.
Any future husband will always play second fiddle to her children.
I love the show The Office.
Can’t think of any negatives. How though, is this supposed to make her more attractive to a man?
I am open to falling in love again.
Open to? As in “you’ll have to really work hard to win me over.”
I worry too much about what others may be thinking of me.
A sign of being self-centered. Which is why everything in her profile is about her.
Everything I do takes time and effort. I am slowly learning to be ok with that.
Her body is breaking down due to age of lack of exercise.
I can eat a family-sized bag of chips in one sitting, especially salt and vinegar, dill pickle, sour cream… ok pretty much any flavor.
She’s fat. Considering there’s not even the obligatory “enjoy long walks on the beach” statement, she’s probably obese.
The one thing missing: the benefit a man would get from dating her. For someone in marketing she has missed most important part of marketing: make the customer desire the product.
Just as people have made careers out of helping people write their resumes, someone could make some decent money helping people rewrite their dating profiles. Some part of me feels sorry for her. This is as an anti-lure to any guy with anything at all going for himself. The only guys she is going to attract with this are the exact type of guys she probably rejects as being beneath her in real life.
“No sane man with options considers the possibility of marrying a single mother – for to do so is a priori cuckolding; if he has no options he would perhaps be better to remain single.”
This is interesting. When I was dating, post my divorce (my mid-thirties) the mantra in the dating world was “you will probably have to date to a single mom. Every one is on their second round now.”
This amounts to a “you really don’t have options” message. Hear it enough, and you just accept it.
To further explore my previous post. The underlying (and sometimes overt) message was. “If you find a girl in her 20’s you are a creep. If you find a girl your age with no kids/virgin/never married, there is probably something wrong with her.”
@Opus,
If you put 100 men and 1 woman on an island…
The men will start physically fighting with each other over the woman.
The men will split into groups and form tribes that will fight at the tribal level (urged on by the alphas that lost the individual physical fights).
At least one tribe will decide the woman isn’t worth it, and start to build boats to get off the island.
The woman will eventually be killed, because at least one losing tribe will decide either (1) if they can’t have the woman, then nobody can (take revenge on the winner) or (2) the only way to end the tribal warfare is to eliminate what they have been fighting over–the woman.
The end result will be no women, no children, and fewer men than they started with.
I’m going to make a blanket generalization…but single mothers by choice would be the type that would scream BPD. As hectic of a life they have…they would have a higher chance of being crazy or being put on crazy pills.
Hence why the option for men to remain single is better than trying to forge something with a single mother.
A big eye-opener for me was reading about a study that found that abuse generally tracks with the woman. In other words, if a woman is being abused in a relationship, there’s a good chance that she was abused in past relationships and will be in subsequent ones; but it’s fairly likely that the man who is abusing her had no such issues in his other relationships.
Now, some of that would obviously be due to a woman learning that abuse charges are an effective weapon and using it over and over. But it seems to occur even when the abuse is real physical, documented abuse. Some women repeatedly seek out violent men and also draw violence out of any normally non-violent men they settle down with. That’s not to excuse true abusers, but it means the situation is more murky than people realize.
Secret women’s business – I just want to clarify that I was attempting to state the thesis of Engels’ work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”. It is not my personal belief that monogamous marriage is an evil male invention to control women. Those antibiotic-resistant STDs that you mention are just part of the anarchy that has been unleashed with the new promiscuity.
More or less. If the women ran the gamut of attractiveness from 1 to 10, I don’t know if he’d ever get to the ugliest ones. The hotties would be vying for his affections so much he might never get to the 5’s. But maybe being the only man and having zero competition would change that dynamic.
“Single women, even single mothers, do not want anything to do with a man that has full time custody and responsibility for their children.”
That’s interesting. I wonder why that is.
@Earl
I have met women who are 38 and find out they have a six year old daughter and have never been married. That one really boggles my mind.
You want to get even more nuts? I ran across a dating profile on OKCupid where the woman proclaimed she was 7 months pregnant. Lol whut? Yeah.
I was thinking about Elspeth’s father and single mothers vs single fathers.
I realized that if I didn’t have a man and a 5-year-old I would probably rather marry a widower because I love caring for children so much.
“I have met women who are 38 and find out they have a six year old daughter and have never been married. That one really boggles my mind.”
Baby rabies.
I love the show The Office.
Can’t think of any negatives. How though, is this supposed to make her more attractive to a man?
She watches network TV sitcoms. BIG turn-off for any man with standards, a meaningful life, goals, and constructive things to do with his time that don’t allow time for watching boob tube vapidity that panders to the lowest common denominator.
The one thing missing: the benefit a man would get from dating her. For someone in marketing she has missed most important part of marketing: make the customer desire the product.
Yep. So obvious that it stands out like a stripper in St. Peter’s Square. This tells us that one of two things are true, perhaps even both:
1. It’s all about HER, and any man desperate to want to date her had better realize that. (She’ll probably only date desperate men anyway, because any man with confidence and standards would dominate her and reminder her of what her REAL SMV is rather than the one she has deluded herself into thinking she has.)
2. Her assertion that she that she has a career in “marketing” is either a lie or she’s an affirmative action hire with absolutely no professional marketing experience or qualifications.
Cail Corishev: “The way these people talk about single moms, you’d think the average single mom got that way because she found starving urchins on the street and generously took them in, not by failing to keep a marriage (or extramarital relationship) together. She just stumbled over these poor unwanted kids, and look how she’s sacrificing to raise them!”
It’s true, the eHarmony article fails in that it assumes that single mothers are victims of circumstance and in their current situation through no fault of their own. Only by making such an assumption can several of the points of the list start to make at least a reasonable amount of sense.
Meanwhile, most of the commenters here (but to his credit, not Dalrock) make the opposite assumption, that the hypothetical single mother is in her current situation precisely because she either let her tingles lead her to have children with the wrong man, or frivorced a good but boring man. That assumption might statistically be more like to be true than the former, but it’s still far from a safe assumption.
So I’m just going to have to call NASMALT on both eHarmony and most of the commenters here. I’m with Dalrock on this one: Don’t automatically assume bad character because of single motherhood, but vet thoroughly.
hey dalrockas!! thanksx gods there are hot hot HOTTIE swimsuit modelsz to save modern man from nature! lzozozo
zlzoozozoz
@ 89to12 and Ferriker
Very good observations. Have you ever noticed how these types of lists are all over online dating profiles? I love it when they say they “know themselves”. I love that assertion. I really “know myself” now! I can’t for the life of me understand why they think prospective dates are supposed to be attracted to this.
Take a look at this. It’s all too typical From the same women who made the “list”:
“I am a recently divorced woman and I feel as though a huge and heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Of corse there have been many changes and challenges but I am getting by. I believe my kids will be healthier and far happier with us living apart, but trying our best to parent together. I strongly suggest any woman who is in an unhappy marriage to evaluate what they want in life, as life is short and time is precious.. for you and your children.”
There are widows, and there are widows:
http://oxygen.com/snapped/
‘Snapped’ is a “true crime series about female killers…”
Black Knight said Meanwhile, most of the commenters here (but to his credit, not Dalrock) make the opposite assumption, that the hypothetical single mother is in her current situation precisely because she either let her tingles lead her to have children with the wrong man, or frivorced a good but boring man. That assumption might statistically be more like to be true than the former, but it’s still far from a safe assumption.
No, you have that exactly backwards; our assumptions are perfectly safe. In fact, you even admit (“that assumption might statistically be more like[ly] to be true than the former…”) that our assumptions about the average babymomma’s character are by default the safest bet, that the vast majority of single mothers indeed DID get into their predicament by following Gina Tingles/Thug Awe Ueber Alles, sacrificing any thought of the bigger/longer-term picture on the altar of their immediate and selfish gratification wants.
I don’t think that you’ll find any man here arguing that this applies to ABSOLUTELY ALL single mothers, but that’s not the point, because it DOES apply to the VAST MAJORITY of them. To use an un-PC metaphor to illustrate the point, if I venture over onto “the wrong side of the tracks,” I know that not ALL of the denizens of said part of town are going to assault and mug me on sight. However, it’s very likely, even probable, that the majority of them would/will do so if given the chance (i.e., if I travel there unaccompanied after dark, wearing flashy clothes and driving an expensive car). Therefore, my default assumptions, along with the behavior I adopt in order to support them, is to expect the worst, which is very simply what common(?) sense dictates one do.
“That assumption might statistically be more like to be true than the former, but it’s still far from a safe assumption.”
I’d like to know what the safe assumption is.
Because everytime I’ve assumed that with a single mother…it’s kept me safe.
Or am I to assume the widow of my dreams wouldn’t have the cognitive ability to tell me she is a widow and I would overlook a potential good woman.
@ Michael
I see the dating website profiles are as vapid and self-serving (if not self-delusional) as always.
ONLINE DATING IS FOR SCHMUCKS!!!!!! The WHOLE thing is designed to pander to women.
Women generally DO NOT have to pay to play onine. Women sit back and wait for men to beat a path to their (online) door, at the men’s expense.
I mean why would online dating be any different than offline dating?
To hell with that!!
She has a website rationalizing her conscious to all those who would listen:
“The most difficult part of the aftermath of divorce has been the effect and confusion it has caused for my children. My son will ask me why Daddy doesn’t live with us anymore, or why can’t we all go out to the movies together. I have tried my best to be honest with him (my daughter is too young to understand).”
Reading this was hard. It’s hard because these women, and millions like her know what they are doing to their children. Yet they place their own feelings and importance above that of their children and Husband. Things didn’t used to be like this. And society was better off has a result.
This is why I despise single mothers and and self initiated divorcee single mothers by choice. They CHOOSE to blow up their families then worst of all – rationalize it away as a positive life enhancing experience. Yet men are supposed to believe they are good for anything other than sex. And that’s assuming you would even want them for sex. I personally would not and almost every I I’ve seen who marries a single mother is, usually, at least by my standards, a poor loser.
Our society has enabled women to blow up their families by granting women power over men via the state. Women have no place has primary head of the household. The problems in our society are a result of the state giving women this power and options to exercise this power whenever they decide to the detriment of their families.
There is a total absence of shaming and social stigma that existed in 1955 when only 1 out of 20 women were single mothers..
It will continue to get worse until something is done about it.
Have you ever noticed how these types of lists are all over online dating profiles? I love it when they say they “know themselves”. I love that assertion. I really “know myself” now! I can’t for the life of me understand why they think prospective dates are supposed to be attracted to this.
“Knowing” oneself and being honest with others about who one really is are, of course, two completely different things. I have no doubt that everyone who creates a dating profile “knows” themselves (or is at least comfortable with who they’ve deluded themselves into thinking they are). The question is, is such knowledge of themselves being translated into an honest and accurate portrayal of the self that is being marketed to others?
That question is, of course, a largely rhetorical one. Given the results produced by most “dating sites,” results that range from slapstick comedy to grotesque and life-destroying tragedy, I think it’s perfectly safe to say that “false advertising” of the sort that would bring civil penalties in any other less regulated market is at rampant and epidemic levels.
“I am a recently divorced woman and I feel as though a huge and heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Of corse there have been many changes and challenges but I am getting by. I believe my kids will be healthier and far happier with us living apart, but trying our best to parent together. I strongly suggest any woman who is in an unhappy marriage to evaluate what they want in life, as life is short and time is precious.. for you and your children.”
Hamsterlation (with apologies in advance to deti, our resident hamsterlation expert):
“Having just nuked my marriage because I was both unhaaaaaaappy and having realized that I exercised all the judgment of a subway tunnel rat when selecting my ex-husband, I am now free of accountability for my behavior or its consequences. My kids are of course devastated by the breakup of our home, but hey, they’ll get used to living without their dad. They’re just too young right now to realize what complete beta schlub he is and I feel I’m being a responsible parent by saving them from the humiliation of having to have him as their male role model. They’ll get over him and move on, just like I already am. After all, they say kids are like rubber in that they bounce back quickly. That’s why I’m out trolling on a fourth-rate dating site for a new man to daddy them up, preferably one with a heavy wallet, a full bank account, a high tolerance for diva behavior, a thick skin for when the kids remind him that their not his and that they don’t have to pay any attention to anything he says, and a dedication to making ME haaaaaaappy. So come on, and man up and date me!”
I have a close friend who is older than I, an experienced playa. He told me the story of the time he dated a widow, for about six months, during the 1990s. He described her as extremely clingy and needy.
When he broke up with her, she got desperate and crazy. He had predicted this and was simply ignoring her. Toward the end, she hinted that if he came back, she would allow him to have sexual intercourse with her 11 year old daughter.
When he told me this story, I had to ask him if he thought that perhaps the widow had murdered her husband. He told me that the husband had apparently been killed in an accident while doing his military service.
I suppose that “murderess” isn’t an apt title, but I have a hard time thinking, in hindsight, that it’s objectively better than “attempted pimp of a preteen child”.
Of course, Not All Widows Are Like That.
“I believe my kids will be healthier and far happier with us living apart, but trying our best to parent together. ”
Bulls&%t.
My view of single moms or widows or frivorcees or I dont care, is slightly different. My step-daughter is by far still today the best thing that ever happened to me in my life. I would have given my life to save hers when she was little, and I still would.
Having said that, I can also say I never encountered another man who would say his step-kid(s) were anything but the worst thing that ever happened to him. I counseled over 1,600 men, and all who had step-kids admitted it was the biggest disaster of their lives.
Or, maybe it is more correct to say long series of disasters.
So, though it sort of grosses me out when men say they don’t want to raise another man’s kids, (because I love kids) THEY ARE CORRECT.
And, I found this to be true even when their mom was otherwise perfect. So, if someone asks, I don’t care much what status Mom had, single; widow; divorced; or ? I have to tell them the odds are slim to none that step-kids will be a good deal for them.
Ras Al Guhl writes:
The only “close to 10” I ever dated was a woman who literally picked me up in college. I was waiting for a bus and she stopped her car and offered me a ride. I’d call her a 10, but she was a little bit too tall for most dudes (6 feet). She could have been a supermodel. She looked that good (and still does). When she dropped me home, she asked me out, and of course I agreed, but I never would have asked her out. I wasn’t alone…
When I went out with her, it was very interesting. I assumed I’d have to fight off the attentions of nearly everyone, but in fact, people were afraid to approach. Dudes would stare at her from afar, but when she got closer to them, they’d clam up, blush, and look away.
When I walked into the room with her, people would avoid me too *until she left*, and then both dudes and chicks would want to know who I was, and would think I was someone important. Bear in mind that this was long before I found the manosphere, so it was incredibly interesting to me. Dalrock, Heartiste and other blogs have covered this in detail. I think they’d call it preselection on steroids. What they don’t usually talk about is the fact that *dudes who date super-hot chicks are admired by other dudes* too. This gives me insights into why guys who are very successful pick hot women to date. It’s not just because they’re hot. It’s a signal to other men.
The above-average-but-not-perfect girls get hit on the most, followed by the plain janes, fatties and old bitches. I think the near-perfect women probably get hit on the least, as they’re seen to be unattainable.
Best, Boxer
earl: Because everytime I’ve assumed that with a single mother…it’s kept me safe.
A statement that would be equally true if you substituted “single mother” with any kind of woman. There’s no safety like that gained from MGTOWing.
But I shall answer your question. A “safe assumption” is an assumption that is near-guaranteed to be true, or close enough to the truth to make little difference for any practical purpose. It’s just an expression, it has absolutely nothing to do with safety.
Glad to have cleared that up.
Yea, you do that.
Still don’t get the whole thing about saving any single mom, including widows. I suggest they either spend their time with their children or find another single father who likewise lost his spouse.
Casey,
You are doing it wrong.
I liked it when I did it. I actually think online dating is designed to pander to men.
And why? Because with Online dating you take out the entire embarassment factor in approaching women who are not approachable. All the risk of pursuing the “taken” is gone. If she puts her profile online (which is the only way you’ll find it) she is essencially saying to the whole world “…yes guys, I am ready for a relationship. Come and get me.” So for guys who are not that confident and are terrified of approaching a woman who is truly unapproachable (the married woman, the engaged woman, the woman with a steady boyfriend), he needn’t worry about that. 🙂
I never paid one red cent at relationships.com or love@aol.com, never. Free for all regardless of gender. Now if the site wasn’t free for me, I wouldn’t use it. If the site says its “free” and still requires a credit card number, I wouldn’t use it.
Don’t pay. Why on earth would you ever pay anything? Any woman who only puts her profile online with a site that is free for her but requires money from men is not a woman you should be pursuing. Use free sites. Facebook is still free right?
What cost to you? It didn’t cost me anything (other than time) to send my form letter email to a profile I found on a free site. Got a nice 80% hit rate.
Lets say you get a response that says yes, she’d like to meet. Great, date zero. She may not look exactly like her image and may not be everything she is saying she is. Date zero is for coffee. You are out $2.50. You meet for coffee, you buy her a cup of coffee, you chat in a public place for 90 to 120 minutes (get to know each other) and if you don’t like her (for whatever reason) you tell her it was nice to meet her and she’ll get the message. If you want to see her again you ask for her number and if she doesn’t give it to you, then you get YOUR message (she isn’t interested.) If (hopefully) she is “all that” to you and you are “all that” to her, you get a phone number and now its on, a regular relationship.
The online aspect of dating is just a quick and effecient way for people who are looking to find each other. You save time, time we don’t have on this planet. You put all the people pursuing (and wanting to BE pursued) in the same pool where they belong.
Black Knight said A statement that would be equally true if you substituted “single mother” with any kind of woman.
You’re ignoring the (obvious) reality that there are different levels of risk involved. Again, an illustration would be useful here.
Let’s say I volunteer at the local animal shelter and I’m given the responsibility for in-processing of stray dogs found on the streets. The dogs gathered are a mixture of abandoned pets who are used to and who enjoy human contact, and feral mongrels who have had little or no interaction with humans and are naturally wary or even hostile.
Which of these two types of dogs is more likely to be aggressive and cause me bodily harm if I don’t take the proper precautions when handling them?
Once again, it’s just an exercise in simple common(?) sense. Sure, some of us might not WANT to think of single mothers as being especially high risk due their environment and history. There might be some residual white knight within us (not speaking for myself here) that desperately WANTS to see them as victims who are just like any other woman, except that they “got a bad break.” But the reality of their situation dictates otherwise and if we don’t acknowledge that reality and take precautions accordingly, we stand a very good chance of getting hurt. There are just too many men who are survivors of such relationships with these women, men with painfully instructive testimonies of what befell them, to ignore this fact.
@IBB
I’m sure you were waking up everyday to an inbox full of women your EQUAL? Correct? I sure wasn’t. And my income alone affords me a women higher than my equal. Never mind everything else. Instead I, like most guys I found out about receive emails from women WAY BELOW our market value because online dating is an artificial market. A skewed market. A phoney market. A boiler room.
Men far outnumber women (supply vs. demand). Add to the fact most guys are just looking for sex and even average to below a average women are getting full email boxes from men well above their market value. Even “cute” girls are getting 60+ emails DAILY.
This makes the girls egos BALLOON out of control. “This is what I’m really worth in the real market!” she says to herself.
So if you get a cute girl whose interested she must REALLY see something she likes. Consider yourself lucky.
Sure you are pointing out the silver lining but you fail to see the economic realities.
And you, feeriker, are ignoring the rest of the post you quoted. Look again. The expression “safe assumption” has to do with probability of being right, it has nothing to do with safety in the sense of risk minimization. It’s not difficult to understand. You’re talking about something else entirely beyond the point I was making.
And as for the Feminist Hater, no, I’m not going to vet anyone, I’m not in the market for a single mother to “save”. I already have a wife, and she does not (currently) have any children, neither fathered by me or any other man.
Damn it guys, it’s as if NAWALT is some kind of berserk button for the Manosphere commentariat. Heck, NAWALT is the reason why men like Dalrock are married and happy about their current state. NAWALT, if true, doesn’t invalidate the Manosphere, for the facts still remain that 1) A significant number of all women (particularly those poisoned by contemporary Western culture) are indeed like that, and 2) The prevailing social order empowers them to screw over men, particularly those men who adhere to the prevailing idea of how to be a “good man”.
Michael,
No, incorrect.
My inbox was never really full. I would send out 10 form emails. And then I wait. A day or two later I get one response, then another, then another (over a period of a couple of weeks.) It took them time to weed through their inbox and get to me before they responded. And only 80% did.
And of those that responded, some were my equal, some were more, some were less. Of course I didn’t know that until we at least met for coffee.
Okay, good for you.
Why is this a problem Mike? It wasn’t for me.
It’s coffee. So you waste $2.50 and 60 minutes killing time with a funny-fattie you wouldn’t dream of putting your d-ck into, big deal. Maybe she’s fat, but she also works HR and can get you a job at her firm? Yeah you date her, but you gained something else.
So?
They aren’t going on 60 dates. And those 60 emails, those same 60 guys sent the same 60 emails to 60 different women. That is what I did. Make a form letter and send it, effiency.
So she gets 60 emails. She responds to certain percentage and (of that percentage) she’s only going to “date” the ones that are interested in actually dating and not just f-cking. And the guys who just want to hop into bed, no WAY are they going to actually DATE her, there will be no dates. It will just be “..okay, you are pretty, I would very much like to put my penis inside you, here’s my number, give me a call when you want to HOOK UP.” Are you competing with these guys Mike? Because I sure wasn’t.
Dalrock, could you please fix the html of the above post. I forget to properly format the close bracke on one blockquote.
Eharmony is the “Christian site” that decided to make a homosexual site after losing in court. The hypocrisy is absurd. Even worldly sites such as match stick to their principles.
@ Dalrock:
This link, http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/october/secret-womens-porn-problem.html?start=4, is to an article about women’s use of pornography. I do not remember reading your take on this subject. Your take might make for an interesting post.
The republican party was a spin off of the whigs to keep the wealth transfer and economic protectionism alive. The took tariff money paid to the federal from Southern agricultural exports and spent it up north on various projects. The railroads being the main benefit at the time, but there was also much in the way of protecting yankee intercoastal shipping and fledgling industry. linclon may he rot hell, was willing to sign a constitutional amendment protecting slavery. What he would not bend on was the tariff. The republican party got a lot of help organizing from the failed marxists of the 1848 uprising in germany. In 1860 your republicans destroyed the idea of limited government; destroyed the idea of states rights, destroyed the idea of a balance of power between the state and federal powers, destroyed the idea of nullification & destroyed the idea that states have the right to determine what is and is not constitutional for themselves. That is the very core of big government. From that moment onward all power would continue to be centralized in the hands of the feds.
Learn more history and not the bullshit they teach in schools.
Alphas don’t lose fights; that’s what makes us alphas. Betas don’t challenge alphas, that’s what makes them betas.
lol’ ing at the idea income gives you access to.women. it does if your in the super high income like many multiple millions,.never seen it work otherwise. That’s pure beta provider thinking.
LOL Elspeth, I should have patented “darlin”, it’s that powerful with a drawl and a smile, particularly with UMC women.
Ton,
I stopped reading right there.
Let me give you a hint at how wrong you are about our nation’s greatest President. There will not be a President FDR, a President Eisenhower, a President Kennedy, a President Reagan, a President Bush (41 or 43), or a President Obama memorial at the reflecting pool in Washington DC the way there IS for Lincoln. None of those men could ever hold a candle to the man who said one thing…
….but DID another.
Our Greatest President was willing to allow thousands and thousands to continue to DIE if it meant prolonging slavery one day longer. Peace is only good if it is a Peace that worth having. We didn’t have that kind of Peace in the South for a couple hundred years. The South needed to change, state’s rights be dam-ed. And if blood needed to be spilled for this change to happen, then spill it.
Lincoln would not have allowed anyone in his country to die simply because the state of California has illegal immigrant sanctuary cities while the states of Texas and Arizona are ready and willing to put landmines on the Mexican border. Nor would Lincoln have been all that upset if the state of Utah made Mormonism the state religion while the state of Colorado (just one state over) made Pot Smoking it’s religion. Those are state’s rights issues and Lincoln did believe in Federalism.
You want to be upset about a state’s rights issue? Be upset about our national drinking age of 21. That is as wrong as Nixon’s 55 mph federal speed limit mandate was in 1973 to deal with OPEC. Be upset about the Affordable Care Act. The ACA is pure generational theft (steal from the young and poor and redistribute to the old and wealthy) on the same level of Social Security and Medicare. And now there is no state in these United States you can live in to hide from it. But Ton, do not curse Lincoln, shame on you.
Spoken like an indoctrinated slave
No Ton.
Spoken like a person who has moral agency.
@Ashley lakes
Wealthy single mommy linked to my blog recently, randomly. It was a great article. She explained that when she started to make more money than her husband, she began to hate him and despise him and all of a sudden found him “effeminate.” She said half the time she thinks everyone should go back to traditional gender roles – with her class preferences assumed – where the man makes the money running a hedge fund and the woman manages the domestic staff.
It was refreshingly honest.
Her other idea is that of a temporary 10 year marriage contract, and she made a commercial about herself being a rich single mommy looking for an even richer single man.
It’s very close to unintentional comedy.
@vascularity777,
The story you referenced discusses women watching video porn, which (imho) is (1) not a significant problem for women and (2) a sideshow to women’s real porn problem.
If you want really find out what women’s porn is like, go to amazon and search on literotica.
What you’ll get back is a slew of hard-core pornographic literature aimed at (1) women or (2) gay men. This is all in the “50 Shades of Gray” style (dominant-male/submissive-female), Titles like Gangbangs Galore, Roughing up the Suspect, Pulling Over a Slut, and Breeding the Billionaire’s Brood are typical of the genre.
If you read the reviews, a common criticism is that they women in the stories aren’t submissive enough. Consider this snippet from a review:
I believe that 50 Shades of Gray was just the visible tip of a huge iceberg of women’s pornography that we’ve all missed, because we are geared to only define pornography as visual media. I originally became aware of this, because I read a story several months back that claimed that literotica is now one of the highest selling book categories on amazon.com. I don’t have actual numbers, but given the sales numbers of “50 Shades” I wouldn’t be surprised.
Most straight men prefer visual pornography. The amount of straight men’s erotic literature is so insignificant in comparison that it could be classified as a fetish.
The inverse is true for women. Most women’s pornography consists of literature. Women’s visual pornography is so small in comparison that it could be classified as a fetish.
If you really want to understand women’s porn, you need to go to the written word. Fair warning though, this stuff is as hard-core as the most extreme, hard-core men’s video porn. Just as what is seen can’t be unseen, what is read can’t be unread.
I do think there is something we can learn about how the female mind works by studying this type of literature (just as you can learn something about trains by studying train wrecks).
Messed up my formatting. Forgot to close the bold tag after amazon.com. C’est la vie.
Ton
Making new friends huh? No worries we have our own Civil war coming up real soon.
Slavery is moral, it’s in the Bible. Plus your view is all wrong. Slavery was winding down in the South, the mechanization of farming was in full swing in the South (more so then the north), every other nation ended it without a war, lincoln promised the South they could KEEP slavery, you are an indoctrinated fool.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&hl=en-US&q=Lincoln.was+willing+to.protect.slavery+in+the+constitution
That maybe be GreyGhost, but I’ll sit it out if possible. The next one will be pure genocide…. much like the 1st but there aren’t enough Southrn folk left to fight for.
Ton
I’m a black man of southern black parents (Arkansas, Louisiana) grew up in California due to fathers military service. When I was in the Marines stationed in Southern Cal. I will say I was in a cesspool of racism that will get you killed. White libs are the most racist people in the country and look down their nose at southerners as racist hicks. I knew how it was in southern Cal and when I got orders to Texas I was nervous (silly I know) Conservative southern whites are cool. Best people in the country. And the black people here that haven’t bought into the urban liberal African American culture bullshit are just as cool. I remember in the late 80’s going to gun shows. I loved shooting and was good at and liked the gun shows I had never been to one or even heard of one until I came to Texas. I remember being in the Arlington Convention Center with a few hundred people and being black man in the building. I was at home a gun guy in a room full of gun people and every body was friendly beyond anything I ever experienced. (fuck California) I got orders back to the fleet and spent the nex10 years getting back to Texas. I relocated a woman and had all three of my kids with Texas birth certificates. There is something special about Texas and Texans and I’m one of them. In my heart Texas is something my old ass would fight for.
@ IBB
“It took them time to weed through their inbox and get to me before they responded. And only 80% did.”
LOL! I don’t want to say what I think your full of sir….
The above mentioned single mother blogger writes back to me in part (try not to fall out of your chairs guys):
“My market value has sky-rocketed since my divorce because I am financially independent, am taking on new challenges and am an even better mother than I was before.”
🙂
http://www.domesticallychallenged.net/2013/08/accepting-change/#comment-40
If male porn is sexually explicit, female porn is emotionally explicit, and this runs practically 24/7/365 on every channel. Oprah is a professional groupie/whore who does emotional suck-offs of any and all celebrities. Pure female porn.
Women’s dating site profiles are easy to understand once you realize vast numbers sound as though they are looking for parental approval, not a man/mate. Two entirely different traits.
Today’s woman judges her own value on how worthless she is to men, how little she does for them, and thus essentially on how much she costs one.
Whoring and gubmint are the only two businesses where the customer is always wrong.
Hmmm…
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/30/taxpayers-funding-lesbian-haunted-house-in-toronto
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/10/20131030-174547.html
@redpillsetmefree RE: @Eric I’m currently dating a woman who is a single mother. In her case, her ex-husband was the bad stock. She, like me, did everything she could to make it work. He refused and walked away.
Eric, I’ve already written that you seem like a man of high intellect, and you’re a nice guy. redpillsetmefree has stated in fewer words the reasons that it is STILL REQUIRED that you read “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi. In your profession, reading and comprehending a lot of text has been normal for you. As someone that’s been to law school, you already understand that reading one book is pretty simple and fast. Law school is over… no sleep deprivation or other tests… just one book Eric.
Strangers are sending me messages every day thanking me for introducing them to that 300-page masterpiece. Actually, depending on the font size (if you choose Kindle) it’s more like 500 pages. Regardless, anyone that’s been to law school and done the reading that I understand, you can handle speed-reading through “The Rational Male” — AND… it’s enlightening, it’s actually INTERESTING …If nothing else read the chapter “The Desire Dynamic” and you’re already ahead of most nice guys. But, don’t take my word for it.
If dates and the other stuff that’s happening in life are making the $9 book an expense you cannot justify, let me know. If so, I’ll buy Rollo’s book for you.
@redpillsetmefree RE: @Eric you’ve written “I’m currently dating a woman who is a single mother. In her case, her ex-husband was the bad stock. She, like me, did everything she could to make it work. He refused and walked away.”
Eric, I’ve already written that you seem like a man of high intellect, and you’re a nice guy. redpillsetmefree has stated in fewer words the reasons that it is STILL REQUIRED that you read “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi. In your profession, reading and comprehending a lot of text has been normal for you. As someone that’s been to law school, you already understand that reading one book is pretty simple and fast. Law school is over… no sleep deprivation or other tests… just one book Eric.
Strangers are sending me messages every day thanking me for introducing them to that 300-page masterpiece. Actually, depending on the font size (if you choose Kindle) it’s more like 500 pages. Regardless, anyone that’s been to law school and done the reading that I understand, you can handle speed-reading through “The Rational Male” — AND… it’s enlightening, it’s actually INTERESTING …If nothing else read the chapter “The Desire Dynamic” and you’re already ahead of most nice guys. But, don’t take my word for it.
If dates and life are making the $9 book an expense you cannot justify, let me know. If so, I’ll buy Rollo’s book for you. It’s urgent.
@ Michael,
Kate does not realise that the same angry man she is addressing (you) is the same angry man that is available to her in the SMP – the same one who she thinks she can impress with her ‘financial independence’ and ‘superior mothering skills’. She doesn’t realise that neither of these are of importance to a new man (yes to the mothering skills, sure, but he only cares about this if she is mothering HIS children, no?).
You are right – she has been fed a lie, and no-one has been kind enough to point this out to her (not even her parents who have a stable marriage) and now it is too late.
The only thing she can do to recitfy the problem is to remarry her husband.
But of course she won’t…
As to the ‘shortage’ of single dads out there, let me add my own little anecdote.
A long time ago, there was a survey on a Catholic website about whether single people should consider dating divorced people and single parents. I (single at the time) replied ‘no’.
Now, don’t get me wrong – as a woman, I would be happy to be ‘mum’ to another woman’s kids, so I would have been open to date a single dad. But the problem is, it would NOT be my first choice. For starters, if the real mother is alive, you have divided loyalties from the child, and it is not fair on the child.
You wouldn’t believe the comeback people like me got after the survey was published. We the singles who opted not to date people with children or a past marriage were basically shamed like you wouldn’t believe. And this on CATHOLIC site!
I am less averse to parenting someone else’s child than a man would be. I know that. But even I scoffed at the idea of going for this as a FIRST option.
Let alone a man?
Hm.
In the end, I am pleased I married another single person (almost 3 months ago now!), and together we start life together. I always wanted someone who was on the same page as me. No previous marriage, no kids. And by the grace of God, we stay together until death.
Yes, life can be strange. It could also have been possible that I could have met a single dad or even a divorced man. It may have worked out great too. Several members of my extended family have had a good result from this kind of scenario.
But I have to say, I do prefer what God gave me.
Someone to start life with who has as little ‘baggage’ as me.
No-one should be shamed into anything they wouldn’t choose for themselves. If someone wants a divorced person, or a single parent, great! But if they don’t like this idea, there are good reasons for this. Leave them alone.
The Captain is right. No amount of shaming will change his mind on this issue. Good for him. If he DOES change his mind because he met an extraordinary single mother, it would be HIS decision and no-one else’s. That is how it should be.
And this is one reason I regret to see all that bashing of Mark Minter. The man made a decision that was good for him and no-one else. No-one FORCED him to take on a single mother. Good for him (and his wife – ?Kate) and I hope it works out well for him too.
It is good my friend you have found such a home in Texas. Oddly enough, my one black friend says more or less the same thing about leaving Detroit and coming here.
Oh ps, men are pissed at Mark Minter because his rage was Their rage, with better wording. They believed in him like a prophet and feel betrayed by his marriage.
They believed in [Minter] like a prophet
That about says it all doesn’t it?
I was wondering as well about the reaction to Spearhead’s founder marrying a self-proclaimed feminist. Didn’t shock me one bit, but I think these conversations and rhetoric fail to acknowledge that even the most strident manosphere denizen is just one woman away from a NAWALT trip to the altar.
Men and women need and want each other. That’s not going to change.
Spearhead’s founder marrying a self-proclaimed feminist
Is that true? I didn’t know W.F.Price had remarried.
even the most strident manosphere denizen is just one woman away from a NAWALT trip to the altar.
Right. Of course, the true desire of MGTOW men is not living a life without women. It’s finding a woman who is worth the trouble. Going Their Own Way is only the reaction when you don’t find such a woman.
Well whats his name from the Spearhead never railed against women in general like Minter did so I don’t see the same kind of reaction that Minter pulled. Different following of sorts. Plus whats his name is a feminist so it makes sense he’d marry one
Most men are spinless fools and will marry if they get a stinky pinky. It is what it is
Elspeth – Excellent point. Just as the most strident feminist is one man away from the alter…think Gloria Steinem, for example, who married later in life. She, too, received criticism for marrying. Crab Pot Theory….
8to12
If you really want to understand women’s porn, you need to go to the written word.
Emotional porn is the milder form of it. B&N has an entire section. Within emotional porn there are subcategories, to be sure, but there’s always some explicit sexual text within emo-porn.
Women’s porn is widely accepted because of the notion that women are more moral than men, and because emotional porn is somehow seen as less bad than visual porn. Maybe it’s all the words.
50 shades is indeed the tip of the iceberg. Never mind Amazon, there are plenty of websites for women that feature porn. Go to any fan fiction site ( fanfic) and in time you will find emo-porn, with some explicit porn thrown in for good measure.
It should be no surprise that women, who tend to be more verbal from infancy, prefer their porn in the textual form. What is a surprise to many men, and I believe 8to12 is an example, is just how explicit that porn can get.
Guess what? Women are just as dirty and rauchy as men – PUA’s prove that on a regular basis – it’s just that they are less explicit about it than men. Because women are not men with boobs, they are different.
PS: For those who are considering doing a search as 8to12 suggested, bear in mind that using “Literotica” as a search term is likely to return far more results than you may want to look at. Amazon is just the tip of that particular iceberg.
@ imnobody
It was in that recent R. Tod Kelly interview for the Daily Beast, The Masculine Mystique:
I don’t think it’s surprising that he is remarried because he has never been overly anti-marriage. Mr. Price’s writings are usually well-reasoned, calm and without a lot of hyperbole, yet thoroughly anti-feminist. I think his strong stance against feminism is what makes his marriage to a feminist surprising to many of his readers. It’s sort of akin to how my readers might feel if I one day announced, “Oh, by the way, have I mentioned that I’m married to David Futrelle from Manboobz?” (I’m not married to David Futrelle, though, just to be clear.)
Well, he better hope the relationship doesn’t go south. She has more than enough online information on him and knows every single one of his fears…
Ton
They believed in [Minter] like a prophet
Elspeth
That about says it all doesn’t it?
NAMALT, y’all.
Jen
Elspeth – Excellent point. Just as the most strident feminist is one man away from the alter…
Even the lesbian separatists? Are you sure?
“Guess what? Women are just as dirty and rauchy as men – PUA’s prove that on a regular basis – it’s just that they are less explicit about it than men. Because women are not men with boobs, they are different.”
I worked in a nursing home where the women lose every sort of filter. They said things they wanted to do to me that would make a salior blush.
That’s when the scales started to come off about their “angelic” ways.
Haha, another good reason for having standards when looking for a woman to marry. The chances of finding her are slim to none!
And Ton, I think you’re right on Mark. Too many men are looking for a sort of leader to help them through the troubles they face. Mark probably looked good at the time; not so much now. A leader is troublesome in some manners, they’re always seem to be ready to negotiate away and leave their followers in the lurch.
Just remember, leaders can be brought, they can be blackmailed. The strongest ability of an underground revolution is the leaderless quality it has.
@Anon said: “Women’s porn is widely accepted because of the notion that women are more moral than men, and because emotional porn is somehow seen as less bad than visual porn. Maybe it’s all the words.”
I have noticed some women claiming written erotica was OK, because it was fiction–there aren’t any real people involved. While men’s video erotica was evil, because it involved real actions and real people (a legit criticism, imho).
But, what then men’s animated porn? There is plenty of anime porn floating around. It’s just as hard-core and graphic, but it’s also fiction–there aren’t any real people involved.
Would those same women defending written erotica be OK with their husbands watching anime erotica? My gut tells me no, and what we’re really dealing with is a double standard where the women are rationalizing away any potential ill effect of their preferred erotic vice.
LFM:
Given a state of nature that is brutal dog east dog, I still find it highly implausible that these men would be better suited to survive. Just based upon my own observations.
They aren’t. Female hind brain attraction is (unlike male) very socially conditioned. They are attracted “because cool” at least as much or moreso as “because good genes.”. They are attracted to social dominance much moreso than to raw physical power or aggression.
Women don’t have a “good gene detector”. They have a social dominance (“cool”, in modern society) detector.
“Today’s woman judges her own value on how worthless she is to men”
That’s great!
8to12
what we’re really dealing with is a double standard where the women are rationalizing away any potential ill effect of their preferred erotic vice.
Pretty much. Again, anyone who wants to test this can go to a chain bookstore and peruse the “romance fiction” section. Note the covers. In most of the popular books, there will be an explicit sex scene at regular intervals. But the sex scenes are just the cherry (heh…) on top of the cake, the real emo-porn is the story itself, which can be boiled down to “Taming The Alpha Man”.
“Lord Rod is a brooding giant of a man, with a secret sorrow, who lives alone on his palatial estate, Alpha Manor. He dominates all that he encounters, and has no need for any woman. Patience is a poor but virtuous girl whose parents died in mysterious circumstances, leaving her to find her own way in the world. She seeks employment as a mere chambermaid, but soon finds more to do within the dark, forbidding walls of Alpha Manor”.
Women and various manginae object to visual porn in part because it makes women into objects, and nowadays the claim is made that it raises men’s standards for women and sex to heights no mere normal woman can hope to meet. Those same people have no objection to emo-porn, however, which just happens to reduce men to success objects, and raises the bar for “manly men” higher than any mere normal man can hope to achieve.
There are church going people who object to both visual porn (men’s preference) and emotional porn (women’s preference), however they are quite rare, in my experience.
“Those same people have no objection to emo-porn, however, which just happens to reduce men to success objects, and raises the bar for “manly men” higher than any mere normal man can hope to achieve. “
There are scant objections to emo-porn because in Churchian pseudo theology and tradconism, women are “more moral” than men; have more “innate morality and goodness” than men, and so are better able to handle emo porn than men. Besides, it’s just harmless entertainment; just a book with words on a page. It’s not icky pictures or video .
…some women claiming written erotica was OK, because it was fiction–there aren’t any real people involved. While men’s video erotica was evil, because it involved real actions and real people…
“Real people” who are getting PAID to make these films and who know damned good and well what they’re getting themselves into. Not to justify pornography, but to assume that the people who make these films are blameless and helpless victims is just plain nonsense.
@feeriker,
They are not helpless and blameless victims.
From a Christian standpoint, fornication is still a sin. When you consume video porn you are watching and gaining some enjoyment from someone else’s sin.
But, is this worse than fantasizing about two people committing fornication (which is exactly what someone reading erotic literature does)?
RE: WF Price, he has a great blog. Why do you guys care if he got married again?
The fact, that most of us need to realize, is that most men want and need a woman. I’m not willing to sacrifice my freedom for the scant returns that marriage offers, but if another brother is, then I’ll wish him good luck and have no ill feelings. This is especially true when that man is aware (as Price surely is) of the legal and financial dangers involved, and is thus able to make an educated choice in the matter.
Your way isn’t Price’s way, but that doesn’t make him objectively “bad”, etc.
This is especially true for all the so-called MGTOW bros. It’s about going YOUR OWN way, not some orthodox political “way” that is dictated to you by some other man. If another man finds happiness in what I consider to be slavery to a woman, then it’s not for me to try and “convert” him to what I think he should do.
Best, Boxer
I’m married to David Futrelle from Manboobz
Got it. SSM just outed herself. Lets run with it
Anonymous Reader & earl:
“Guess what? Women are just as dirty and rauchy as men – PUA’s prove that on a regular basis – it’s just that they are less explicit about it than men. Because women are not men with boobs, they are different.”
“I worked in a nursing home where the women lose every sort of filter. They said things they wanted to do to me that would make a salior blush.
That’s when the scales started to come off about their “angelic” ways.”
One might rhetorically wonder, if the fundamental nature of women really is to be such innocent angelic beings, then why did any of those olden-day, evil patriarchs ever find reason to institute sexual repression of women in the first place?
Grey
I enjoyed your comment about being the BMIB (black man in building)…hilarious, one of my friends in the early 80’s always wore the BBMOC (big black man on campus) tee shirt.
I relocated a woman and had all three of my kids with Texas birth certificates
I one up you. I moved to Texas and married a local, hence, where you naturalized as Texas through anchor babies, i did it by marrying in first. My card is a different color than your sir.
Your comments about racial mixing in Texas are so spot on, this from my white perspective. We live in a TN city now and it is so very different in that aspect. When we travel to texas, which is often for family, we note many differences during our visits, and that is but one of them. I love Texas and will, God willing, retire somewhere in that state.
//Off topic communique
why did any of those olden-day, evil patriarchs ever find reason to institute sexual repression of women in the first place
Same reason men still hunt deer with bow and arrow
This contrast of porn-literature and porn-visual is indicative of the gender double standard against men. According to society, it is just fine for women to read about fortification, but it is monstrous for a man to view naked women on the net. According to some women, it is monstrous for a man to even visually get-off on viewing his own wife naked.
Speaking of train wrecks, this nutty world is quite a train wreck.
@ emath
.
Hush now! If David finds out I let the cat out of the bag, he’ll…well, you know how those male feminists are behind closed doors.
Anonymous Reader –
“Even the lesbian separatists?”
Oops…uh, probably not them….
@ Space traveler
“Kate does not realise that the same angry man she is addressing (you) is the same angry man that is available to her in the SMP”
I am not an “angry man”. I am NOT available to her. I am a physically fit guy debt free living alone directly on the beach in Los Angeles and am self employed business owner now making over $174,000.00/yr. No wife. No kids.
I am not “available” to a single mother divorcee who blew up her family and is quickly passing her prime in delusion and denial..
Single mother trash who blow up their families – like Kate – are WAY below my comparative market value – not to mention moral requirements.
@vascularity777 says: “According to some women, it is monstrous for a man to even visually get-off on viewing his own wife naked.”
Part of the problem is men don’t spend enough time contemplating what the Bible actually says about sex between a married couple. Consider this from proverbs 5:
Poverbs 5 is a warning on why men should not commit adultery, so the context is about sexual activity. And right in the middle of that context, God dropped the above verses.
May her breasts satisfy you? This is an explicit (you could even say crude) reference to part of a woman’s body, and indicates that at least one of the reasons they exist is to satisfy her husband’s desires.
Intoxicated with her love? Again, the context of Proverbs 5 concerns sexuality, so love in this instance is a reference to sex. How though, can a man be intoxicated by his wife’s sexually unless she is sexually intoxicating?
Just these couple of verses–taken in context–indicates that God approves of vigorous, active, and well…erotic sexual activity–at least between a husband and wife.
@ 8to12:
RIGHT ON BRO! Your response is entirely accurate. It is normal for a man to find women sexually attractive and desirable.
Just as God says it is ok to feel anger, but sin not. In the same vein, I believe God would say it is ok to find women sexually desireable but sin not.
Now the next step is for church’s women’s ministries to teach women that it is normal for men to find women sexually visually desirable. When will this begin?
“…why did any of those olden-day, evil patriarchs ever find reason to institute sexual repression of women in the first place?”
Engels (and Marx) claims this arises from the male need to bequeath his wealth and property to HIS children – the offspring of him and no other. By transforming wealth and property into societal property, you reduce to a minimum this male need to bequeath/inherit to his biological children via sexual repression of the female. “Will that not suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to maiden’s honor…?” (Engels referring to Communist revolution….)
Michael,
That’s good. Good for you.
Good.
Mike, you don’t know me and you and I will never meet personally. But posts like this, they seem entirely disingenuous. To me they do, and I’m guessing to others as well. Comments where you brag about yourself at this level and in the next breath, you make fun of others that you feel are beneath you, do make you appear to be a very “angry man” and that is just your key strokes over the interwebs.
I don’t doubt your situation. I’m sure you do quite well. And because you figure you are quite the catch, you are entitled to catch someone pretty remarkable. But I’ve been reading your posts for some time now and you always COMPLAIN about the kind of women who show any interest in you. This is a re-occuring theme with you. And it makes you out to be a very “angry” person.
May I offer you some advice? I’m going to anyway. You can accept or reject my advice at your choosing afterall, you are a very successful, physically fit, debt free guy living in Los Angeles on $174K a year. Sounds to me like you’ve got it all together but here goes: try flying under the radar. Don’t brag, don’t show off or ever toot your own horn, just be normal and live among and relate to people whom you feel are beneath you. Just try that. I’m not saying that you should do that to have a new appreciation for people whom are below your comparative market value. You needn’t date or marry any of these people. But you might want to simply socialize with them and get to know them because those whom you feel are below your comparative market value might know some woman that is available and is at or maybe even above your comparative market value?
But if that woman is there and you are always bragging, you send out a small vibe that she will pick up and she might not find that attractive. You might repel her Mike. But you can control this if you just focus on flying under the radar.
I’ll close with an example from my own life, my wife and I live in a neighborhood that is far below our financial means. We can afford so much more than where we live BUT we choose to live there none-the-less. We are flying way below the radar. We like our neighbors (even if they are a little salty from the earth so to speak) and we like the school where we send our children. And over the years, our neighbors have become convinced that our family could afford to move away and live in a much nicer area with a bigger house (if we so chose to do) and they beg us NOT to do that. They don’t want us to move because we never-EVER brag, they’ve grown attached to us. They value our conversations and contributions. We just live among them and make them feel good and (as a result) their children involve our children in ALL their activities and these people have helped us over the years (baby sitting, neighborhood watch, being handy around the house, etc.) Now are these people in our neighborhood at our education and intelligence levels? Maybe not. Are they at our income levels? No. Will they ever be able to go on all the cruise and Disney vacations that we do as a family? No. But they will never hear us remind them of that, they already know that and they already know that we love and respect them even though they might think we are at different stages in life. And because they have grown so comfortable with us, the people that THEY know (who we do not know) also feel very comfortable around us, it makes living here great. But if bragged, we might come off a bit as if we were a little “angry” and in that case, they probably wouldn’t want us around….
Jen is very, VERY smart.
@Jen,
Engels was an idiot.
Bequeath is wealth? How about bequeath his genetics?
Even in the perfect communist utopia (where all wealth is shared, and thus no man has any wealth whatsoever to leave to his children) men are still going to want assurances that children are biologically theirs.
It’s a biological urge to leave part of yourself behind–a physical part of yourself–in the form of biological children. All men die; money is spent and possessions eventually crumble to dust; but a man’s chain of descendants can go on forever. Children–biological children–represent the only real chance at immortality a man has.
And Engels thought it was about money? As I said, Engels was an idiot.
8-to-12,
I am not sure that Jen would disagree with you that Engles was an idiot. Just because she understands Engels doesn’t means that she agrees with him. That is part of why I say that she is “smart.”
But Engels understood male nature with the confiscation of personal property for the “state.” Do that, and you dramatically transform a people (particularly a people who are led to believe that there is NO GOD) to look upon the “state” for everything they need. And as a result, your people are much more tractible.
Problem is, Engels wasn’t smart enough to understand what happens in human nature and the will for men to want to have biological children if you take away God and you take away their property. One need only glance at birth rates in Russia today to see where this filthy legacy has left them.
@8-to-12:
Yes, I absolutely agree with what you’re saying. Vascularity much better summed up than I did what I was trying to say with this:
This contrast of porn-literature and porn-visual is indicative of the gender double standard against men. According to society, it is just fine for women to read about fortification, but it is monstrous for a man to view naked women on the net. According to some women, it is monstrous for a man to even visually get-off on viewing his own wife naked.
8-to-12 said Part of the problem is men don’t spend enough time contemplating what the Bible actually says about sex between a married couple.
Yep. Most churchian CEOs (a.k.a. pastors) also avoid this topic like they avoid the plague.
Just these couple of verses–taken in context–indicates that God approves of vigorous, active, and well…erotic sexual activity–at least between a husband and wife.
Yet another portion of the Bible that too many people choose to avoid (or are just plain ignorant of). The clear and obvious message here is that sexuality, especially MALE sexuality, is not only perfectly normal, but should be fully enjoyed within the context of marriage. We can’t have THAT message getting a wider audience, now can we?
Vascularity said Now the next step is for church’s women’s ministries to teach women that it is normal for men to find women sexually visually desirable. When will this begin?
When palm trees start sprouting at the North Pole or when the Saudi royal family converts en masse to fundamentalist Christianity, whichever comes first.
IBB – Yep, I do not disagree that Engels was an idiot or maybe an idiot savant. As you point out, things have not worked out so well in Russia.
8to12 – We are living, to a large degree, under a system that has instituted these idiotic ideas…most of our political leaders are soft Marxists whether they think they are or not.
8oxer, I worked until retirement at a tech company. Some years ago, a really hot engineer hired on. After some months, she commented she was upset because no one asked her out. An especially brave lab tech (way down the social ladder from an engineer) asked her out. The minute the bachelor engineers discovered she had dated a lab tech, she was so busy she couldn’t keep up with all the dating offers. As you say, everyone was afraid to ask her out.
I hereby proclaim Black Knight’s Law: Given enough time, any blog post in the Manosphere will get at least one reply mentioning Marxism.
Jen,
Their’s is world far more evil than is Perdition. No one lives. Either death roams or (far worse) life never begins. They have almost no children as there is very little actual conception (like what Japan is experiencing) or worse, the majority are murdered in utero. Men die from alcohol consumption at age 58. Women live longer and the only ones who have hope for the future are the ones lucky enough to be chosen by men in the United States and the U.K. for wifely “import” or to be selected to be part of Moscow billionaire’s harem.
8to12 and feeriker, not to mention Song of Solomon in this discussion of sexuality within marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Chauvinist_Pigs
While the author still manages to blame men for the failings of women, it’s still much closer to being balanced than most other mainstream writings on the subject.
Clearly you are over stating your market value or you’d have more then confident 5’s hit you up. Your beta provider game is lacking. You don’t make enough cash to pull better on your income alone. Up your alpha or make more scratch. Being a beta, you’ll whine more.
I made about that, part time in a much lower cost of living city. I didn’t do remarkably better with women during that time. Any increase was easily explained by having more free time and more cash to blow/ be out an about town on. Some other regular had the same kind of conclusion in a different city but I don’t recall who. Novaseeker maybe? You should be proud of what you have accomplished but frankly your opinion of it is over blown. I know a drug dealer who turns 150k a year (cash) any number of blue collar small businesses owners who do that, a metric $hit ton of vets who do better then that, with a more exciting job title working part time down range.
On top of that beta provider is the weakest form of game going right now.
On the one hand I don’t care if random dudes on the interwebz marry or not. On the other, I have a hard time respecting a man who knows the reality of women and family courts yet decides to make that decision. The guy on Jackass taking a Tazer to the nuts is making a more rational decision.
I’ll have to echo innocentbystanderboston’s advice to Michael. Also, I’d add, it might be unwise to flaunt how much money you make. The fact that you are able to support yourself working full-time at a business of your own creation and keep it afloat should be sufficient proof of your ability, sense of responsibility and commitment. Beyond that, any woman who’d accept or reject you based on whether you make that sixth figure of income or not is probably of insufficient morals and unworthy of a ring.
Today’s single mom horror story…
We have a single mom in our office that thinks its “cute” that her 13 year old daughter dressup for Halloween as Kimmy Kardashian. She is so morally bankrupt that she is not only allowing this, but she is also leaving work early to assist in the make-up of her 13 year old to make sure she sluts it up enough to get the costume perfect. True story. Shis woman was Giggling about how she has to get her 13 year old daughter’s t-ts blown up enough, were it not for HR I would have asked her if she was going to shave her daughter’s pubes to get her as anatomically correct as Kimmy.
@IBB @10/31/13 @2:49PM:
This reminds me of a former colleague of my wife, a (now) 50-year-old SM with a (now) 20-year-old daughter who, five years ago at Halloween, took her then-15-year-old daughter out to get neck and face piercings – and got her own neck and face pierced with a design identical to that of her daughter.
Have you ever seen a middle-aged woman with neck and face piercings? It provides added power to the workd “GROSS!”
@ Michael,
*I* know you are not an angry man. You sound (to me) like a contented man… And perhaps to IBB you sound too über -contented for comfort, and therefore likely to cheese everyone off you … 🙂
The point I was making is not that *you* are an angry man, but that
a) Kate sees you as such (she said so in her post to you), and
b) The same anger she perceives in you is the same anger she would encounter in the SMP should she show up there post-divorce. So she better get used to the anger she perceives in you, for it will be everywhere she looks. Especially as she seems to be glorifying her decision to divorce her husband.
The vehemence with which you state you are not ‘available’ to her consolidates in my mind the derision women like Kate, who for one reason or another felt the need to walk away from their husbands, draw from men.
Just out of interest, is this a ‘bro before ho’ thing, to use a popular phrase? Are you mad at Kate for doing in your ‘bro’ (her husband) or are you just mad at Kate for being a bad example of a wife and mother?
I can’t judge what led to Kate’s divorce. Rather than ‘schadenfreude’ I feel ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ frankly.
As I mentioned in my comment to you, I am a newly-wed, so I cannot even imagine wanting to do what Kate did. And I am Catholic to boot, and do believe I will go straight to Hell (do not pass go) if I as much as entertain thoughts like that.
But I understand your need to avoid people like her. I really do. Because I feel the same way as you, rightly or wrongly.
I also think you are well within your rights to state that certain people are not to your taste. But sure, if you say that to their face (which I am sure you won’t), then I guess you wouldn’t be Mr. Popular, so I guess IBB does have a certain point afterall…
Blogopolitan ice cream.
Political philosophy/////Manosphere Issues////Wild card flavor
well served
@8to12
“”Most women’s pornography consists of literature””
Yes!….Great call! This is a never touched upon subject within the Manosphere.I have seen lots of women that “read” porn via novels,love stories etc..etc.In fact,I believe them to be more addicted to them that a man watching porn on the internet! A great subject for Mr.D to write about in the future!
feereker,
This is a world in which I choose not to live in. For these kinds of women, they are the ones who are “hip enough” to think it would be so COOL to go and MATCH their daughter’s tramp stamps and vaginal tatoos.
Mark, its been touched on extensively, here at Dalrock’s I think there are multiple posts and resulting comment threads on it. I’m not pointing that out to be snarky but to tell you its there if you want to read it
Black Knight –
“Given enough time, any blog post in the Manosphere will get at least one reply mentioning Marxism.”
It is one possible explanation for the change in female mating selection and sexual behavior in the United States over the past few decades – a change in social and economic incentives. Others may or may not agree.
@Micheal
Get a surrogate to have your kids be your kids and hire an older chick as a live in nanny. Set her up with a van/suv to haul the kids kick her down some spending money for her and save some for her leaving time. It is certain she will respect you more than any woman that says she loves you and will behave respectfully. You are looking for something that doesn’t exist. That is greyghost advice to any hard working young man that is not married. My 7 year old son is getting that advice and teachings from his dad.
Jen is correct. I heard it said on another forum and I tend to agree the 1960s feminism = communism in a dress. I think that is pretty much where it started, where it parted ways with Susan B Anthony. This radical, dangerous feminism, was created based on people who had a certain desire for command economies. They already had “the vote” in 1960, now they wanted divorce and abortion at will coupled with massive government social programs to prop up an empty value system in conjunction with a much larger “state.” The feminists of the 1960s got all that. Now as to what feminism has morphed into today? I think Rush Limbaugh has that correctly described: “Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access
to the mainstream of society.” Obviously not all unattractive women are feminists. But what I found (lately) is that almost all women who openly regard themselves AS feminst, aren’t attractive. Moreover, today’s feminists are openly HOSTILE towards other women whom ARE attractive as if what they do in ANYWAYS are pleasing to men and male desires.
@ IBB
Huh? What are you talking about …
Michael, what am I talking about?
Stop getting “angry” about the quality of women who make passes at you. If you are just telling us here that this happens and its no big deal, then fine. But I get the impression that it infact BOTHERS YOU when a funny fattie approaches you and talks to you.
Stop getting “angry” about society guilting you into dating or marrying the kind of women you would not date or marry. If you are just telling us here that you feel this way and its not big deal, then fine. But I get the impresion that it infact BOTHERS YOU when someone would ever suggest that you date or marry a woman that does not have your “compartive market value” (your words.)
No one here says you should settle. No one here would ever make you feel guilty for passing up on the single moms. I’ll never make you feel bad about it. We are just worried that you are needlessly getting aggrivated at something that shouldn’t bother you.
Prior to getting married, do you know how many times I was encouraged to “man up” and “marry a slut” by an untold various amount of people? Do you know how many times various dad’s introduced me to their obese daughter’s in the hopes that there might be some way that I would go for them? I even had a couple dads try to get me to marry their daughters by offering me Dowries (for lack of a better word.) I was flattered, but I didn’t complain. Did any of their actions in anyway alter my preferences and change my behavior? No. Did anyone ever hear about it (from me) about how insulted I was that these people should think that I should settle for a single mom or that their obese daughter’s were good enough? No. I kept those things to myself. I would never want to make anyone feel bad.
Its good that you have morals and convictions. Its real good that you know your “compartive market value.” But at this forum, your repeated indignation, you are preaching to the choir.
Minter: coiner: “a skilled worker who coins or stamps money”
Mark: “blot, stain, smear, speck, speckle, blotch, smudge, smut”
Mark Minter = Money was spent on a smear campaign. Did you Buy it?
Hipster– that is interesting, and I agree that she is not dishonest (exept with herself). I read several of her articles also some things I do agree with, but her logic is ultimately disfigured.
This is probably because she relies on pop psychology and discounted all ancient wisdom.
Have you met “Mark Minter” in person? Or Kate? “Mark Minter” is alliteration. Much like “Kate Kavanaugh” as in Anastasia Steele’s best friend and roommate in “Fifty Shades of Grey” … the trilogy that sold 70 million units between April and December of 2012. That number would have been DOUBLE without the work of super talented teams that have sacrificed, at great risk, to do their best work. This is serious business.
Have you really not understood the necessity of creating influence?
Did you really think “W.F. Price” was your ally?
In your male ‘chick-flick’ … your soy-infused narrative, your dear leader Mark Minter has married Kate. What’s Kate’s last name? Kavanaugh? MM Marries KK. KK as in Kim Kardashian? Kate Kavanaugh? No, just K as in Kate.
I disagree with your taxonomy.
Divorced mothers, widowed mothers, and never married (a.k.a. unwed) mothers are all single mothers. Excuse makers for badly-behaving females prefer the term single mothers because that allows the large number of irresponsible females to hide behind the relatively tiny number of widows and play silly NAWALT games.
I prefer to avoid the term single mother and use unwed mother whenever possible. (For an extra dash of perjorative, substitute ‘out of wedlock’ for unwed. That’ll definitely get an indignant rise out of the females and white knights.) However some people insist on combining those two categories and when discussing reality with them I’ll often go along with that because the number of widows with children is so small that it really doesn’t change the overall rates of social pathologies among and spawned by unwed and divorced mothers. And in that case I must be sharp eyed and quick to call out anyone who tries to claim that single mothers generally share the characteristics of widowed mothers.
Statistics available two or three decades ago to the best of my recollection (sorry, I no longer have them at hand) showed that the rate of social pathologies among children raised by both of their married-to-each-other biological was the lowest among all households. Almost as good (to within a sliver) were the outcomes of children raised by widowed fathers. (Few studies break out widowed fathers separately from all single fathers because there are so few of them. Single fathers are already so rare in the population that most studies ignore them altogether. Watch for that when reviewing studies.) A stair-step away were the widowed mothers but if the never re-married widowed mothers are looked at separately, their results are almost as good as that of the widowed fathers.
Another stair-step down are the children raised – wait for it – in orphanages. Then after a large tumble downward come the divorced mothers with the unwed mothers close behind.
Notice that this fits Mikediver’s personal experience.
There’s little current evidence that this ranking has changed.
Be careful when drawing conclusions from this or actual studies. First, most widowed fathers never re-marry until the children have grown, left home, and established themselves independently. Second, for a father to gain custody of a child of divorce or out of wedlock birth means he’s almost certainly a Super Dad, financially well-off, and there’s something very wrong with the mother. (Grandmothers are more likely to gain custody of an out of wedlock child than the father. Feminists call that “misogyny” and “forcing women into traditional gender roles”. As if!) These and other considerations show that automatic father-only custody of children born out of wedlock or in divorces would not solve all the social pathologies that wound children and the adults they become yet the situation as it stands is so bad that, nevertheless, father-only custody would yield many improvements. Big improvements!
Getting back to the topic that is the title of Dalrock’s remarks, is there a “shortage” of single fathers? In the literal sense, no, because we certainly wouldn’t want to increase the number of dead, divorced, or out of wedlock mothers. In another sense, yes, because fathers and not mothers having custody of children after divorce would, even if nothing else changed, reduce the number of divorces and that would benefit the children. Also, father-only custody of children born out of wedlock would strongly discourage future out of wedlock births, further reducing the rate of social pathologies.
I disagree with your taxonomy.
Divorced mothers, widowed mothers, and never married (a.k.a. unwed) mothers are all single mothers. Excuse makers for badly-behaving females prefer the term single mothers because that allows the large number of irresponsible females to hide behind the relatively tiny number of widows and play silly NAWALT games.
I prefer to avoid the term single mother and use unwed mother whenever possible. (For an extra dash of perjorative, substitute ‘out of wedlock’ for unwed. That’ll definitely get an indignant rise out of the females and white knights.) However some people insist on combining those two categories and when discussing reality with them I’ll often go along with that because the number of widows with children is so small that it really doesn’t change the overall rates of social pathologies among and spawned by unwed and divorced mothers. And in that case I must be sharp eyed and quick to call out anyone who tries to claim that single mothers generally share the characteristics of widowed mothers.
Statistics available two or three decades ago to the best of my recollection (sorry, I no longer have them at hand) showed that the rate of social pathologies among children raised by both of their married-to-each-other biological was the lowest among all households. Almost as good (to within a sliver) were the outcomes of children raised by widowed fathers. (Few studies break out widowed fathers separately from all single fathers because there are so few of them. Single fathers are already so rare in the population that most studies ignore them altogether. Watch for that when reviewing studies.) A stair-step away were the widowed mothers but if the never re-married widowed mothers are looked at separately, their results are almost as good as that of the widowed fathers.
Another stair-step down are the children raised – wait for it – in orphanages. Then after a large tumble downward come the divorced mothers with the unwed mothers close behind.
Notice that this fits Mikediver’s personal experience.
There’s little current evidence that this ranking has changed.
Be careful when drawing conclusions from this or actual studies. First, most widowed fathers never re-marry until the children have grown, left home, and established themselves independently. Second, for a father to gain custody of a child of divorce or out of wedlock birth means he’s almost certainly a Super Dad, financially well-off, and there’s something very wrong with the mother. (Grandmothers are more likely to gain custody of an out of wedlock child than the father. Feminists call that “misogyny” and “forcing women into traditional gender roles”. As if!) These and other considerations show that automatic father-only custody of children born out of wedlock or in divorces would not solve all the social pathologies that wound children and the adults they become yet the situation as it stands is so bad that, nevertheless, father-only custody would yield many improvements. Big improvements!
Getting back to the topic that is the title of Dalrock’s remarks, is there a “shortage” of single fathers? In the literal sense, no, because we certainly wouldn’t want to increase the number of dead, divorced, or out of wedlock mothers. In another sense, yes, because fathers and not mothers having custody of children after divorce would, even if nothing else changed, reduce the number of divorces and that would benefit the children. Also, father-only custody of children born out of wedlock would strongly discourage future out of wedlock births, further reducing the rate of social pathologies.
@ IBB
Do you have a vagina?
Just wondering..
This was a particularly enjoyable comment thread to follow. Esp enjoyed Ton & IBB’s melee over Lincoln which prompted an out loud involuntary chuckle at one point, but lots of other goodness.
Dalrock as enabled comment moderation. But regular users cannot post,
@LIve Fearless on NBC
Yeah, I’ve met the guy. He’s fucking funny, 6’2″, blond hair, blue eyes, 140 IQ. And he has the guts to use his real name, stand up for what he believes and take a massive ass whipping for doing so.
And yeah I’ve met her.
And before I start, protecting your woman is not fucking beta, it is wolf alpha. You wish your woman was like Kate.
She has a master degree and sports a 1280 SAT. She has been a committed participant in the manosphere for over two years. She is witty, funny, bright, blond, 130 pounds. Young boys in her town whistle at her as they drive by. And our conversations regularly span the topics of the day in the manosphere. And if all women were like her, that truly desired to know themselves, that could accept the information passed out in the manosphere, no matter how negative, as a thing to overcome, and not to villify and deny, then this blog, and all blogs would be out of business in 5 minutes.
For those that care, we have weathered probably one of the biggest storms, public degrading and humiliation possible. And when the rest of the manosphere was throwing eggs at me, she was steadfast, defiant, and stubborn in her commitment.
So, in two weeks, we begin our life together, and we have manopshere projects in the works, all designed to increase the opportunity for people to tell their stories, to testify, and to come together into a community and become the social force possible.
I didn’t want to marry anyone. And I still believe for the vast majority of men, marriage is the single stupidest and riskiest choice they could make.
But the reason I allowed the possibility of it was this blog, Dalrock. And an understanding that men were angry as much over the loss of the traditional male roles as they were over the behavior of women.
So here is a woman, Kate, who has her provisioning supplied already, owns her own home in a manner few people ever will, a custom house built on family property, passed down over time, completely and totally able to remain independent, attractive enough to take from men that what she would wish, yet is a recognizable participant in this movement for the best reasons, because she understands the lie of what should make women happy, what is sold to them by this culture, does not, will not, and cannot make them happy. Being women is what makes women happy.
And yes, she has a daughter, and yes she is divorced, but I defy any of you to show me a woman that tries to come to grips with this culture, to know herself, to truly understand that which is bad in women, that which is good, and purge herself of the bad, and strengthen that which is good.
And you show me an attractive women of 35 years of age with an N count of 3 with the looks for it to be 300.
And when she said, “I wish to set a good example for my daughter, that I teach my daughter that a man is an asset, a husband is a gift and a benefit, that she eschew the teachings of modern culture and be a moral girl.”, given that we in the manosphere know her, that she has been a woman that has been supportive of us, that has taken crap from us merely for being a woman and wishing to participate, then we have to take her at her word.
She once said to me “Innocence is precious, and if the culture will not protect it, then the woman must take it on herself to do so. In each relationship, there will be some cost, some hurt, some pain, some loss and over time it will take its toll and when it is important to bond then she will not be able to.”
So in the year that I was apart of this blog, I heard you men, your pain, your voice.
And when this women asked me to allow her to be a moral woman as an example to her daughter, in hopes that the daughter would learn the truth about what would make a woman truly happy, that when she heard the culture trash men, trash traditionalism, that she would say “No, it is not like that at my house”….
And I could not say no. Sometimes, you have to do the right thing.
I understand those that must beat me, malign me, berate me for doing as I did. And I truly believe the best way to achieve the goals of this community is through “strike”, withdrawal from this culture, through belligerence, through social revolution. I see in most women, a state that is too far gone, and that the best path for most young men to take is the Game Path, the Roosh example, and to accept that the PostModern man must truly create a different path from the man that came before them.
But sometimes ….
There are exceptions to every rule.
There was comment once on Rooshv forum.
Roosh had a post about women and I had piped in with some “pump them, dump them, next them” comment.
And this comment said
“Oh Mister Minter, oh Mister Roosh, neither of you can be taken as objective.”
“Mister Minter has staked his whole reputation on this ‘pump them, dump them’ schtick.”
“Mister Roosh earns his living selling men to avoid relationships, buy his books, and copy his lifestyle”
“Whatever will the both of you do, when love comes into both of your lives?”
I guess I’ll just take my ass whipping.
And I imagine when the day comes, then Roosh will take his.
@sunshinemary.
Wow. Just wow.
I think his strong stance against feminism is what makes his marriage to a feminist surprising to many of his readers. It’s sort of akin to how my readers might feel if I one day announced, “Oh, by the way, have I mentioned that I’m married to David Futrelle from Manboobz?”
Yes, I agree. I’m not surprised that W.F.Price is married (he is a family guy) but, TO AN OUTSPOKEN FEMINIST? I wish them well, but this is very weird.
Minter was less shocking because the guy “did protest too much” against marriage and seemed a non-stable guy. You could see the wound in his soul: a man who had loved and had been burned. And, as you say, any MGTOW is one woman away to a NAWALT trip to the altar. Every man has a woman-shaped hole in his soul.
But Welmer explaining logically and without passion the evils of feminism and marrying a feminist?
I find your frequent citing of statistics to be dangerous. It is impossible to accurately measure the trends of such a large country as the U.S., with billions of people. Statistics are inherently flawed. They take one trend in society and make comparisons without context. Humanity and society are far too complex for this. Statistics are the devil’s work, I do believe.
@MarcusD
Here is a very interesting site for you that a friend emailed me.Check it out…..it is so retarded!…L*
http://www.marry-an-ugly-millionaire-online-dating-agency.com/index.htm
@Michael
I understand where IBB is coming from….I do not think that you are angry..But,I don’t think that you are not playing your cards properly.Let me explain. The Spinsters that you met in Vegas.How many Blowjobs did you get? If that was me I would have had everyone of those women blow me.You don’t have to buy them dinner,take them out,romance them,stick your dick in them..UGH!…..etc..etc.There is no need to! They will get on their knees for you without a doubt! This is just my personal opinion from your posts.You are attracting them….that is GOOD!.But,you have to take it to the next step….you are not doing that! When I meet women like you mentioned in Vegas,I get alone with them and let them “impress” me.It costs me nothing.In fact,I usually don’t even tell them my last name,where I am staying,what I do..etc…etc.That is called “GAME”. Again,you have to do nothing! No dinner,no movie etc..etc. You don’t even have to undo your zipper…they will do all that for you.I know you have “standards” and “morals”…so do I! But,you are missing at beating them at their own game.They think that after they blow you that you “cannot live without them”…..LOL!….Guess again!…yes you can!…and I repeat…YOU HAVE TO DO NOTHING!!!!!…except provide the “c***” that they want so badly! This might sound Immoral to you…dirty….etc. trust me my friend! Let them try to “IMPRESS” you………You have met more than enough wimminz that can suck a golf ball through 50ft of garden hose!……and it costs you nothing! Feminism is GREAT!….once you learn the rules!….Shalom!
Are all divorces “frivorces”? I am wondering, for example, if a woman who divorces an abusive husband – and is just relieved to be rid of him and is not obsessed with remarrying – would be in a different category than a woman who divorced her husband for trivial reasons. Are divorced men also considered risky as potential spouses? Is remarriage generally just a bad idea?
IIRC, alcoholism, drug abuse, adultery, violence, and sundry troubles of like gravity are factors in about 1/3 of all divorces. What the psychologist Joseph Adelson said some years ago: boredom and inanition are common factors. That was not the case 50 years ago.
“For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.”
Every time I get a peek inside women’s heads I hate them a little more.
What is this shit? I just came from Domesticallychallenged.net and read how you are attacking others for making different choices than you would. Are you kidding me? People should abide by your rules and regulations to live? When did you become God? And who the hell are your ‘followers’?
Calling out Michael here. Just read some of your comments and responses on domesticallychallenged.net, and I have to say you have out done yourself.
Your judgement, inflated facts, and backwards thought-processes make me feel very bad for you. I am glad to only come across you on the internet because in real life you and I would not be friends. You are scolding the decisions of a woman who was just trying to write a blog about her new life, without knowing her.
I have been reading Kate’s blog for cleaning tips and family activities.Take her blog for what it is and don’t try to enforce your beliefs on others. Live and let live right? You have proven yourself to be judgmental towards a woman who has done nothing to you, rather is just living her life and making the best decisions she knows how for the sake of her family.
I hope you will take a good look at yourself and figure out why you have such a strong hatred towards women. Maybe invest in some therapy. It will do you and innocent bloggers some good.
@Mark Minter
You are such a clown.
If you or Kate really believed that a husband is a gift, and that Kate’s daughter needs a father-figure in her life, then you’d be giving the daughter back to–and I’m just spit-balling here–her father. You’d encourage Kate to withstand the desire to have another man fucking up the program and running interference…though on this last point I think everyone can agree: Mission accomplished. Mark Minter is no man.
“I heard your pain, your voices”, you mewled. Is this suddenly the Oxygen Network? You never heard anyone’s voice but your own; you panty-sniffing loser. Shut your emo-whore mouth.
@ Stephanie
My facts are not inflated. They have been confirmed by this site. I don’t need to know her (or each and every person like her) or Miss Single Mama personally. I’m reading what they have put out for the world to see. She writes quote:
“Unhappily married is far WORSE! I am a recently divorced woman and I feel as though a huge and heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders.”
AND
“I believe my kids will be healthier and far happier with us living apart”
AND
“My son will ask me why Daddy doesn’t live with us anymore, or why can’t we all go out to the movies together”
AND
I strongly suggest any woman who is in an unhappy marriage to evaluate what they want in life, as life is short and time is precious”
Did I misread something? Both her and you respond to me with shaming and emotions while I respond to you with facts. That is the difference.
As Ruth Dewitt Bukater, from the movie Titanic once said “We’re women. Our choices are never easy.”. This kind of female honor is now long gone. And women chose to blow up their families instead.
She is just another selfish single mother who blew up her family by initiating divorce against her husband. Worse, she admits to growing up in a nuclear traditional family. At the same time shes denies that to her own flesh and blood. Why? Because she has decided, that after getting married AND birthing innocent children into this Godforsaken world, to blow up her family and become a single mother out of a sense of entitlement AKA her emotional needs were not being met or there were household arguments and tension in the home.
She has proven herself a failure as a wife and mother to the opposite sex. That’s a fact.
I have to hand it to you, Mark, for standing up to your accusers and owning what you did, rather than going into hiding, despite what a massive embarrassment you were expected to (and did) endure.
Still, it’d do you good to come out and make it clear where you stand now on what you have written previously. Own any mistakes with the rest, if you think you made any. It seems to me like you still stand behind the general idea of what you wrote, but no longer deal in absolutes. Which is entirely the right thing to do, this is after all sociology, and there are no absolutes in it, just tendencies of varying strength and outcomes of varying probability.
For sure, protecting your woman is wolf alpha, though I’d add the qualifier *worthy* woman.
I wonder why Stephanie J. is so invested in her argument against Michael .
@Michael. You are an ass. Have been following your comments on Domesticallychallenged.net. How about you do something constructive with your time, rather than just be an ass?
Did you all see this yet?
http://sethadamsmith.com/2013/11/02/marriage-isnt-for-you/
Its a quick read.
Ya. Be ashamed. Be verrrry ashamed. Do not talk about stuff I don’t want you to. Now man up, the lot of you .. (cont’d. p.94)
chicks ain’t got dicks. about the only diffrence.
@Cane Caldo: You are literally too ignorant to talk to, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
The term single mom is a smoke screen. it throws a the never married moms into the same general group as divorced moms ( which somehow divorced moms aren’t considered as lowly as the unwed mothers. Have no idea why)
I remember when folks referred to unwed mothers as unwed mothers and divorced mothers as a divorcee.
It’s another one of those PC word games like calling blind people visually impaired as if they wear corrective lenses.
Caldo
I didn’t say I was to be a father figure. Her father lives down the block and is active in her life. I support his paternity and back up his authority. I encourage her relationship with her father, support him in all actions. The situation is the situation. But the reality is they are divorced. She wishes to be with me.
He lives in a house built on land that was legacy property that belonged to Kate’s family and was paid for by money given to him by Kate in the divorce decree. His house is custom built. And he was able to do it because of the money that she provided, and I add unnecessarily and at the outrage of her family for doing.
What she was give her daughter the gift of having her father in her life and that he was not humiliated by having have the daughter come to see him in a run down apartment. The dog and daughter walk over to the fathers house, some few away from where she currently lives.
She did not ask for a father figure. What she asked for was legitimacy. She asked to provide an example to her daughter.
Caldo, I am not losing. I am winning. I get the real better end of all of this. Caldo, I am a 58 year old man, and I get a life with a pretty woman in a pretty place, and trust me, it is an upgrade over what I currently have. And judging by your voice and your frequent participation in this forum, it is definitely better than what you have.
Alpha gets laid by attractive women, Caldo. I frankly doubt you can say the same.
I met her because I was who I was in the manosphere as a writer. And in trade I get an extremely viable, pleasurable, and comfortable life with an attractive woman. And all it cost me was to not have some men say nice things about things I wrote. And frankly I traded a whole lot of nothing for a whole lot of something.
While you are still over here raging at shit because you lack the social skills to find what I found, I’m gonna be having an enjoyable life.
The whole thing about this affair is that it should be an eye opener for all of you. The people writing what they write, their judgement and interpretation about this whole affair is so biased, so wrong, so full of hate and anger, over the fact that two people who have a very rare common philosophy were able to find common ground.
Man, the war against feminism is not going to come skidding to a halt because one commenter from the manosphere met another commenter from the manosphere and found enough reason to be together.
Caldo, if you knew us and you were looking at the real circumstances in both her life and in my life you would say never something like what you did. And while you might look all mannish to some readers, trust me, to anyone that would know me, know her, know the circumstances, you look like a loudmouthed fool.
Kate is a good and decent woman. And you should pray to god you find one that even comes close to her.
Now I leave the rest of you with this warning. You had better learn right now to question the sincerity of these voices in this community, the motive, and the payoff that they receive by keeping you angry. There are whole lot of people in the community that either are using you to for financial success or for attention and gratification. Caldo is an idiot. And if you trust him and follow what he says then you too are also an idiot.
This your life.
This is not a destination, fellows. This is a passage, and hopefully, for you it is a trip to gain the knowledge to make good decisions from now on, and the social skills to be able to capitalize on that knowledge.
The point is that you come in angry and you leave it aware and capable. Or you never mature, never gain the skills to leave, and you endure your own form of a “hell” on earth.
Caldo, enjoy your rather long time in the manosphere.
I do get why divorced moms are considered better then unwed mothers; it has to do with the propaganda regarding a divorce is the man’s fault.
@Mark Minter
Now you’re just cribbing from Charlie Sheen. It’s all there in your apology; from tiger blood transcendence, to your
snowflake-F18-rock-star-from-Mars specialness; from your stunning obliviousness to those around you, to your laughable assertions on family life and love. You think it’s an awesome thing to get involved with a woman who has children with another man, and then allow that child to walk to the house where the child should be living. Well…where would be be without upstanding men like yourself?By the way: You fundamentally missed my whole critique. It was not about your ability to get laid, or find a pleasing woman, but rather that your very presence is a gross interference in the child’s life, and that you justify it by saying, “I got mine.” I simply do not care about your ability to pull women, or whether Kate is all-that. It’s entirely possible that in most ways she’s a great catch. That is irrelevant to me when contrasted with the fact that she must be (according to the facts laid out here) a lousy and ultimately vicious mother. It’s simple: Good mothers don’t shop their pussies to other men.
Mark,
And this is the biggest problem most of these posters have with your situation. The reality is that they are divorced and you enabled that divorce by being the next man that came into her life. If she wants to divorce her first husband, the father of her children, fine. But that means that she doesn’t get a husband #2, not in this lifetime anyway. And then, you come along and desicrate the Bible. Spiritually, you violated Luke 16:18. And that part of the Gospels is important Mark.
Shame on you.
Kate,
Caldo is not ignorant. He’s calling you out for you did. Let me make this even simpler.
You blew up your family for your own needs. You robbed your children of the safety and security of knowing that their mother and father are married for life. You STOLE the secure future from your children to satisfy your own happiness. You are a thief Kate. Shame on you.
Lets parse.
IBB is correct in that he points to the root problem, or what SHOULD be the root problem anyone raining down criticism should be reacting to regarding the divorce and remarriage with kids.
Cane, it is unclear that that is your (only) motive in these last couple of posts. (I’m not suggesting there are no other valid complaints, just that I cannot suss them out of the posts) That there are attendant other issues is 100% true, but they simmer down to the same root, family 1 blown apart, family 2 making the best of a bad situation. That is standard feminist code, and churchian code, where divorce (expressed here as -bad situation-) is spoken of as if it a sentient thing, a circumstance, a bad card dealt. It isn’t. NO divorce would ever….EVER occur unless someone made it occur. No child is walking with his/her dog to bio-daddy’s home UNLESS…..someone makes it so, Period.
Its good to keep the focus there because its a bedrock principle in the Christian sphere. If ever thought we didn’t have that in common, I’d have to look elsewhere for this kind of community.
Thank you empath.
Yes we need to stay at the root and assign “blame” appropriately and “shame” those who are to be blamed for doing what they did. Christ commands that I must forgive the sinners so I forgive Mark and Kate. But the two of them should still be ashamed of what they did, and I don’t see it. I see NO repentance from either of them, just excuses.
@Empath
No doubt my disdain for several other aspects of Mark Minter’s online presence is coming through.
1) It’s–at best–surreal to be criticized as woman-hating and marriage-hating by a man made infamous for doing both; not to mention his hilarious unfamiliarity with my (rather open) life. This means he clearly has not read my comments or blog. More importantly: His projection is of epic proportions. In these parts, I’m usually cast as the Man-Up guy!
2) The surreality continues with his assertion that it is Alpha to be the fall-way-back-guy for a single mother who trolls the ‘sphere; especially when one considers Dalrock’s OP. As an interesting exercise: Check out her comments on Heartiste. The only thing that kept her off Roissy’s jock was her lack of knowledge of his location. Brings out my inner Solomon II, it does…though I confess that is not a good thing.
3) When I heard Roosh bashed Minter in a post, I went beck to find out how it went down. It was in the comments at Heartiste. There, Minter said of his engagement to a woman he gloated as sending him revealing photos : “Top that, motherfuckers.” Quite a catch, that divorced single mother who ephemerally gropes at a succession of transitory bloggers; each with slightly less stature than the one before.
When the laughing fit has subsided, then read the comments of the women in that post; all of whom consider themselves “Red Pill”, and of those there are Christians.
“Har har! Top that motherfuckers!,” they said. And the Whispers continue: “You can have it all.”
@Michael oh wow. Your facts are backed up by a blog on the internet?! Amazing that you can pull your chauvinist head out of nether regions long enough to fact check something by yourself. Sitting in a barren wasteland of sexism and lies, on a website that clearly states it has a hate speech riddled agenda, but hey, IT’S FACT CHECKING FOR ME.
Sloppy. Lazy. Embarassing for the human race in general. Shame on you.
Mark,
One last thing (not that I think you’ll ever read it)…
The war against feminism is not going to come to a skidding halt Mark because people like you are feminism’s greatest advocates. Yes you are. You empowered feminism by marrying a woman who divorced her husband, more importantly, divroced the father of her children. You EMPOWERED feminism, you REWARDED it. You did that.
If you were truly a man of the manosphere, you would put your own 58-year old needs aside (your needs to sex a beautiful younger Kate) and tell her to go BACK to her HUSBAND the FATHER of her CHILDREN because that is what GOD and CHRIST would want her to do. You didn’t. You ENABLED her. You REWARDED her behavior in defying GOD’s commandments.
As long as there are people like you, then feminism will continue to win. Basically Mark, you ARE a feminist.
The manosphere – making rotten xtians out of decent heathens since 2003! lolzzz
@ all
Does this Mark Minter guy have any kids? If so then isn’t a single dad on similar terms as a single mom? They both have kids. I mean give the guy a break. look how old he is. Him being 58 I guess I can understand him wanting pussy from a women as he describes. She is 34 he is 58. She is a single mom and single mothers are trash but … Isn’t that one of the consequences of women being a single mom? Their market value plunges so they have to be a booty call or trade down hard and can only get marriage from loser guys or sgnificantly older men 2 years being eligible for a senior discount at local restaurants. no offense to mr mark I’m just saying ..
Michael,
You are missing it.
Mark Minter enabled Kate and enabled feminism by marrying her. She divorced number one. There should be NO number two. That is her PENALTY for frivorcing her husband, the father of her children.
The cardinal virtue of feminism is that women are empowered with the THREATPOINT at any moment, to blow up a family (for any reason, or NO reason) and emotionally and financially destroy a man. That gives feminism power. To take away POWER from feminism, there must be some penality for the frivorce (that being, no future marriage for the frivorcer.) She has his alimony and child support check and a dildo. That is all she gets, either that or she has to explain to the kids why alpha bad boy that is not married to mommy gets to sleep with mommy.
Along comes Mark Minter. He just wants to get his dick wet and put it into a woman young enough to be his daughter (sexual deviant that he is.) He is thinking with his dick and in doing so, empoowers feminism. He has become an enemy of the manosphere by violating the ultimate code of not rewarding frivorcing behavior. Moreover, how do you think Kate’s ex-husband (now child support ATM machine) feels about Mark Minter?
Letting IBB’s dig at men, who like younger women, slide. He’s right on everything else. If you want less of a certain behaviour, you don’t reward it, you punish it. Kate should be alone, oh so terribly alone.
You get one chance at marriage. Don’t fuck it up! That should be the message sent.
@ IBB
I agree with you 100%. That is exactly what I want to see happen. There has to be consequences of single motherhood. In the 1950’s we had social shaming and only 1 in 20 women were single mothers (including divorcees). Today it’s out of control. However the positive news is there ARE consequences (from what I understand) for the majority of single mothers by choice. As I understand it these include:
1) Plunging market value
2) Being used as a booty call by uncommitted men (i.e. single mothers are easy).
3) Dating poor guys and losers
4) Dating men you are SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER (i.e. old men)
Kate’s punishment for becoming a single mother by choice is that she has to date Mark Minter.
Kate is 34 years old. Mark is 58 years old. What 34 year old single women (never married no kids) wants 58 year old dick? I don’t see very many 34 year old women putting “58 years old” in their dating profiles. In short – Kate is a single mother divorcee who now has to suck OLD DICK.
***Exceptions (my opinion) are if Mark has money, power, is established, well built, keeps in shape, sophisticated, has a good personality and has achieved the things that (in my opinion) enable him date a women 24 years younger. In that case she is not being punished.
Otherwise, look on the bright side 🙂 She IS being punished according to her plunging market value as a divorced single mother by choice. Though not up to the standard she deserves.
Michael,
My disappointment with Mark Minter and Kate is very different for a very different set of reasons. It is not so much about their ages as it is the message that they are sending, that marriage is so trivial that you can throw your first one away (the way Kate did) and dispose of the father of your children (the way Kate did) and a man (like Mark) will still be around to marry you and make you “whole” after everything is said and done. I am disappointed with both of them and (if I had it my way) they would not be allowed to Pastor to Christian people.
I do not like women executing their cardinal virtue of feminism, no-fault-divorce, and then are later rewarded with a new marriage (to any man, regardless of how wrinkly his dick is.) Obviously, there is no alimony being paid by #1 to Kate (because then Kate would NOT have married Mark Minter) she is only getting child support and that doesn’t go away when she remarries. So now she gets a check from #1, the kids from #1, the house from #2, and a penis from #2 (plus all his earning power.) She desicrates marriage and Mark was signing her praises. (shaking head)
I don’t think Kate is being punished at all, if I had to guess, she is getting exactly what she wanted, everything she wanted.
@ IBB
I agree with 99.99% of what you say however by marrying a man old enough to be her father – unless Mr. Minter has something to make up for it like money, power, prestige, physically attractive, good personality, etc – Kate has – from what I’ve learned on the Manosphere gotten the only thing she is can get – given her situation as a singled mother and divorcee.
Now I agree – ALL single mothers by choice deserve NOTHING for their crimes. This would send a HUGE message and the rate of children being hurt would plummet. BUT for now single mothers (in general) dating losers, poor guys or sucking old dick is the current “market punishment” for their selfish crimes. A huge chunk of single mothers (40%+) get nothing. Spinsterism a a dildo. But the rest get:
1) Plunging market value
2) Being used as a booty call by uncommitted men (i.e. single mothers are easy).
3) Dating poor guys and losers
4) Dating men who are SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER (i.e. old men, sucking wrinkly old dick)
Only a tiny fraction get men who are as good or better than their ex husbands. By the time they get over their delusions (like the other Kate on domestically challenged . net) they are old and alone or dating/have dated the guys above.
That is why you constantly see loser guys with single mothers and guys who are “alpha” using them for sex – as an uncommitted booty call. That’s why you hear over and over that single mothers are easy. There is a truth behind that stereotype.
So unless Mr. Minter he has something to make up for his 24 year age difference like money, power, fame, prestige, physically attractive, good personality etc then isn’t Kate getting what her market value can attract as discussed in the Manosphere? Now – I admire men who are able to achieve money, power, prestige, physically attractive, good personality etc because I’m vain. So I think these things matter. So if Mr. Minter has a combination of these things then it’s really bad because that means Kate is getting rewarded. I mean she IS getting rewarded has you say. Yes you are right. But at a much, much lower level.
I also agree with you 100% she deserves NOTHING. But currently that is not reality. So she is getting what she “deserves”. I don’t know if that makes any sense.
Pingback: Old Time Religion | Hipster Racist
“Mark Minter enabled Kate and enabled feminism by marrying her. She divorced number one. There should be NO number two. That is her PENALTY for frivorcing her husband, the father of her children.”
There is no such “penalty”. Divorced people remarry all the time. When they are not remarrying they are shacking up, or dating.
Where did you get the idea that there is any sort of penalty regarding relationships for them? In Western civilization there certainly is no taboo or penalty.
IBB, “My disappointment with Mark Minter and Kate is very different for a very different set of reasons. It is not so much about their ages as it is the message that they are sending, that marriage is so trivial that you can throw your first one away (the way Kate did) and dispose of the father of your children (the way Kate did) and a man (like Mark) will still be around to marry you and make you “whole” after everything is said and done. I am disappointed with both of them and (if I had it my way) they would not be allowed to Pastor to Christian people. ”
I just googled their names and they are Buddhists, not Christian pastors.
If the blogs are anything to go by, Kate is also supporting her ex-husband who lives across the street from her (she pays the rent or bought the house or something to keep him near his child), AND Mark as well. So a “man like Mark” as you put it, is appearantly a man incapable of supporting himself. Some catch, that!
Pingback: Single Mothers and Gender Myopia | The Blackdragon Blog
Pingback: Sell Me This Pen, While You're At It, Tell Me, Is W.F. Price A Person? Mark Minter A Person? Or Are They Magic? - LiveFearless
Society today is totally ignorant of the fact that there are many “single fathers” who lover our children and who pay child support, and who are active in our children’s lives. Being a “single mother” is a disgrace, and oftentimes the whole story about WHY she is a “single mother” is not told.
Time for the truth to be told, and for advocacy and equal support for single dads.
Pingback: Single Mothers and Gender Myopia - The Blackdragon Blog
Mike-
If the single dad is super hawt sexy dude and the facts around his singleness are undeniable to everyone around that he was the victim of his ex, he has a pretty good shot at being noticed.
But in general, you are right.
When I encounter a single mom story, the usual case is that evey one around her is invested in the narrative that props up the “dead beat” dad characterization, even those who have never met him. If you enter that circle of people at a later date, current social norms require you to accept, internalize and validate that story with no questions. Remember, the motto of America is now “who are you to judge me?” (It’s not e pluribus unum or in God we trust whatever).
The problem is, every time I have encountered the father in these situations, if I really get to know him, I find he is a pretty standard, regular nice guy. This causes a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance since I already ingested the “dead beat” balony.
So nowadays, i just ignore the stories about him until further information presents itself.