It is. You did it right, I believe. Unfortunately our current ways don’t make it easy for this to happen for most men.
Ridiculing men who are faithful and marry young for “banging da same p— for da rest of your life, bro” doesn’t help either. They must be a “beta”.
I’ve gotta be honest, I find it pretty difficult to believe most single-mom’s are getting pregnant for those sweet child support checks.
Again, I think this is one of those ideas people throw out there that seems unlikely to be true. It’s not like being a single mom is a new phenomena.
I also think men have some responsibility here.
That said, family court is a disaster for sure, but I personally believe a father should support his children ideally on his own, but we don’t live in my ideal world.
never let that silly stuff bother me.
They do. They dropped the ball accepted Sexual Revolution. I’m doing so, they also put their daughters in vulnerable and dangerous positions.
That’s the fundamental basis for what I said. That’s the reason why they can stop any social dynamic.
What does everyone think is the basis for any policy and politics as a whole: force!
Inb4 someone interprets this as condoning domestic abuse. It’s not.
I don’t know who this guy is but wow.
Right, so this again is why I say the solution is to stop incentivising single motherhood. Whether by divorce or lack of marriage - incentivising it is absolutely a contributing factor.
They aren’t, but raising a child, single, with no help from anyone - would likely deter poorly planned pregnancies, no?
I take it you haven’t seen the historical trend of children raised in fatherless homes..?
If not help…confinement.
I suppose we’ve reached an impasse on the topic. I don’t think the sexual revolution is something men could or could not accept without tyrannical force.
How? There is a plethora of men with little to no sexual baggage and they can choose to be monogamous.
Technically, sure.
It is often the basis, but it doesn’t have to always be the basis. The Civil Rights movement wasn’t based on physical force. It was achieved through discourse, perseverance, and persuasion. The American revolution required force, but the Union of the States did not. Federalism wasn’t won through physicality, but through ideas and persuasion.
Yes, but I think it would also incentives increased pregnancy terminations. That’s not a can of worms I really want to open, but I would prefer the number of terminated pregnancy decrease not increase.
I have. We are certainly not doing well as a society here. My point is that I don’t think women are going to be more careful with who they bed on a significant enough scale to matter simply if benefits are eliminated or reduced.
I think the number of women purposefully getting pregnant for monetary support is a very small number. Less than the number purposefully getting pregnant for societal support and I think that number is pretty small too.
In fact, I would think with women now achieving equal to if not more than men economically that being a single mother is even more of a net negative for them now.
I’ll assume you are not familiar with Malcolm X’s quote “We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary.”
“By any means necessary” does not exactly sound peaceful IMO, but I’d rather not get into this derail.
Agree, and I think if we stopped subsidizing abortions, that the number of those would decrease as well - alongside the other items I mentioned.
You’re welcome to think what you want, but subsidies are used for the purpose of incentivising certain actions. When these subsidies were enacted, the actions they incentivise increased accordingly.
I agree, but this is not my argument. I’ve said a few times that my argument is they are incentivised to do so. Not that they do so FOR money, but because they do it because the relative fallout of an unplanned pregnancy is severely reduced via subsidies.
Did black American’s have to resort to violence to achieve equal rights? Would that have even worked?
Understood. I simply disagree that the money some women receive for being a single parent is incentive enough to impact overall rates of single-motherhood. In other words, I don’t think it’s a driver of single motherhood, but a byproduct of it.
There is a difference between ‘threat of violence’ and ‘violence’.
Would it have worked? I’m glad we didn’t have to find out.
So what do you think is the primary driver of single motherhood?
I think it’s primarily driven by a combination of casual out of wedlock sex and 3rd wave feminism.
Sure, but most people can’t remember a single quote by Malcom X, but are very familiar with
“I have a dream”.
@Bauber @Andrewgen_Receptors @zecarlo
Based on your answers, do you think a transgender is justified to call you transphobic?
Ya’ll did mention transgenders are denying biological reality, which is practically what the life style entails.
I fuckin hate spiders, mildly afraid of them. It’s safe to call me ‘arachnophobic’.
I’m not afraid of trannies, nor do I hate them, so no - I am not transphobic.
If you pay attention, you’ll notice that the —phobic label is often used to dismiss ideas that someone disagrees with.
More great news from my neck of the woods.
But what can we do about it? Uh, nothing!
Mental health crisis
