NYT: "The Trouble with Men"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

Way more than that. Look at the actual stats and data. Talk to your sociologist and social worker friends.

Babies out of wedlock? >>25% of births

Children age 0-18 with no father figure ever? >>25% of minors

This is deliberate. Encouraging dependence of women and children on the government has been and continues to be a key part of the strategy of the Democratic party in the US and progressive governments elsewhere.

The easiest way to do that is to provide lots of social and legal incentives to discourage the formation of intact nuclear families. Anything that undercuts the traditional heterosexual nuclear family is fair game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Yeah! Between that and stopping all incarcerations the last 15 years the Baby Daddy’s are bound to do some high quality, time intensive parenting and spousing. Yeah!

Oh wait. You said “access to their kids.” So it’s all about him again. He wants on demand “access to his kids.” Which as we all know has nothing to do with caring for the kids or parenting the kids. Jsut an ego check the box thing, and the sitter, or his mom, or the new side piece can handle the pizza and screen time.

Access to the kids.

Somehow in someone’s pea brain that equates to being a real dad and needing a divorce court to finally force parenting time. Now only if actual parenting happened then….

to


Your attitude is a.large part of the problem. If a father's access to his children is discounted as illegitimate, because you insist on arbitrary hurdles to that access, you are disincentivizing the father from participating in the family life in a way which you claim to want.

It's called shooting yourself in the foot. Maybe you should stop doing that.

[Anonymous]

Hmm. I haven't really found the problem that the article discusses. Some men are more interested in me than I am in them, sometimes the reverse is true. I would put it at about 35-65 in the men's favor, but that's not too terrible.

I do find that a lot of the men that are interested in me don't have that much to offer - they have normal jobs but don't seem to have many interests or friends. It's not attractive because I feel like they are looking for someone to fill their social needs rather than a partner, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

Are you kidding me? If they were “good dads” there’d be way fewer gray divorces. The women would divorce when the kids were younger (due to “bad husband” issues), or not at all. Because they know their kids wouldn’t take it on the chin during co-parenting time.

Your need to blame fathers is unreasonably biased and is a reflection of being massively brainwashed by feminism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

Wtf. Almost every state is 50/50 custody even if you are an abuser to anyone but the kid.

It’s sad that the only way to get some males with kids to parent is via the court system. Guess their (first) family and marriage weren’t worth growing up for.

What's truly sad is that so many moms who are 100% responsible for whom they choose to procreate with, don't make better choices

There wouldn't be any dead beat dads at all if women weren't constantly using irresponsible unprotected sex to fulfill their own emotional needs, with no thought at all as to the suitability of the men they are choosing to procreate with

Try as you might to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion, women are the gatekeepers to their own wombs. If they grant access injudisciously, they are solely responsible for the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These women want weak men they can dominate. Unfortunately women can never really be happy in a relationship with a passive man because it means the woman has to be responsible for everything.

As always, over privileged over educated white feminist elite liberals are spoiled children who are never satisfied yet blame everyone but themselves for the outcomes of their own choices.

So it is ALWAYS the mans fault.

So passive men are indecisive and reactive, waiting for a Mommy figure to make all the decisions? Yuck. No gracias.

Passive men are what feminists want as partners or think they want because they have been radicalized by progressive feminist doctrine. But since as you readily acknowledge, a.passive man is not a satisfactory partner in the real.world.for most women, the feminist progressive doctrine is writing checks it can't cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. I haven't really found the problem that the article discusses. Some men are more interested in me than I am in them, sometimes the reverse is true. I would put it at about 35-65 in the men's favor, but that's not too terrible.

I do find that a lot of the men that are interested in me don't have that much to offer - they have normal jobs but don't seem to have many interests or friends. It's not attractive because I feel like they are looking for someone to fill their social needs rather than a partner, if that makes sense.

It actually doesn't make sense and here is why--the kind of active, reliable efficacious man that will tick off all the boxes for most women in terms of marriage, children, family formation, and generous financial aspirations, is going to be totally focused on his career, his woman, his children, his family, and his hobbies to the extent he has any time to actually to pursue them.

For most of these men, their wives and families DO fulfill their essential social needs. They have too many actual responsibilities to have time for fulfilling your completely arbitrary and ridiculous demand for them to also have.meaningful non essential social needs.

When you throw young children into the mix, there is even less spare time.

If you have a couple of young kids are you really going to happily encourage your man to go out to the bars with his buddies three nights a week? Are you really going to be cool with your man going on frequent guys vacations?

I mean sister get real. The kind of completely serious and devoted man who can fulfill your family career and financial aspirations as well as be anywhere close to 50/50 on the kids and household chores is not going to be able to fulfill all those things AND HAVE AN ACTIVE SOCIAL LIFE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE YOU and it your kids and or both of your extended families.

This doesn't even include the time commitments that arise if one or both of.you has an elderly or sick parent that needs looking after.

So, not only does it "not make sense," it borders on the delusional, and if you are rejecting otherwise acceptable guys because they choose not to fritter away their limited time attention and money on non essential social relationships of a completely arbitrary and hypothetical nature, well, that's on you not them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the lack of viable dating options…..

Social media
Gaming
Lack of functional adult male role models
K-12 and college system
Lackadaisical parenting
Entitled spoiled kids of all income strata w no goals.
Lack of community
Lack of religion or universal values
Multiculturalism
Lack of goals and values period
Lack of skills

No hobbies or interests

Some can’t even conjur up a sport or team or club they were in in high school or college.

What have they been doing with their time in their teens and 20s? What kind of parents did they have to let them sit around like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is that a lot of women maybe most nowadays seem to think they should magically have access to their choice of what they feel is a desirable man. But there aren't enough to go around. It's supply and demand. If you're not getting the kind of man you want, maybe you yourself don't bring enough to the relationship table. After all, everyone complaining here CANT be all that. It's just statistics.

The thing is a lot of women are perfectly fine with the idea that they either get the type of man that they want or none at all.

+1 and it seems a lot of men would like to return to a time when “none at all” wasn’t (economically) an option.

It still kind of isn’t an option for most women who want kids. On one hand women have more economic freedom, but this has been negated by insane cost of living. You need to earn a top 2-3% income to comfortably have a kid on your own, and how many women of actual child bearing age are earning 250k+ outside of anecdotal stories of high earning girl bosses on these forums?

The average single woman under 35 can barely afford to sustain herself in a 1BR apartment. Raising kids and paying for child care is out of the question.

Which is why the birth rate is falling. If women can't find men they want to have kids with, and can't afford to have them on their own, many will just choose not to have kids.

I'm married and have a kid, but stopped at one for several reasons including discovering how unequal my marriage felt after having kids and not wanting to increase that inequity with more children.

Amen, good call and good luck.

Actually it's natural selection at work. Women who don't relish taking on the traditional mom role are reproducing at far.less.than the replacement rate. They are reproductively unsuccessful at the evolutionary level. They are selecting themselves out of the gene pool.

As are the kinds of men who marry these kinds of women.

Nice perverted non-twist PP.

On the contrary, she choose to have one kid as she quickly found out her husband does nothing. So she is the father and mother and sole home maker. Plus works fulltime.

Thus has one kid. Her husbands a dud, so no more kids with him.

Darwinian indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Yeah! Between that and stopping all incarcerations the last 15 years the Baby Daddy’s are bound to do some high quality, time intensive parenting and spousing. Yeah!

Oh wait. You said “access to their kids.” So it’s all about him again. He wants on demand “access to his kids.” Which as we all know has nothing to do with caring for the kids or parenting the kids. Jsut an ego check the box thing, and the sitter, or his mom, or the new side piece can handle the pizza and screen time.

Access to the kids.

Somehow in someone’s pea brain that equates to being a real dad and needing a divorce court to finally force parenting time. Now only if actual parenting happened then….

to


Your attitude is a.large part of the problem. If a father's access to his children is discounted as illegitimate, because you insist on arbitrary hurdles to that access, you are disincentivizing the father from participating in the family life in a way which you claim to want.

It's called shooting yourself in the foot. Maybe you should stop doing that.

Abandonment rates of 20-30% of the pregnant mother and future child is a Male Attitude and behavior, played out over and over.

That chronic fact pattern is driven by the males’ attitude.

Anyhow they don’t pay child support ever, aren’t married, skip town, have many babies with different mothers so please don’t get your panties in a bunch about how he needs and wants 50% custody of all his spawn. He doesn’t. His actions prove that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

Are you kidding me? If they were “good dads” there’d be way fewer gray divorces. The women would divorce when the kids were younger (due to “bad husband” issues), or not at all. Because they know their kids wouldn’t take it on the chin during co-parenting time.

Your need to blame fathers is unreasonably biased and is a reflection of being massively brainwashed by feminism.

Parenting and fathering is a verb. Fathers, in title only, should try it sometime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

Wtf. Almost every state is 50/50 custody even if you are an abuser to anyone but the kid.

It’s sad that the only way to get some males with kids to parent is via the court system. Guess their (first) family and marriage weren’t worth growing up for.

What's truly sad is that so many moms who are 100% responsible for whom they choose to procreate with, don't make better choices

There wouldn't be any dead beat dads at all if women weren't constantly using irresponsible unprotected sex to fulfill their own emotional needs, with no thought at all as to the suitability of the men they are choosing to procreate with

Try as you might to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion, women are the gatekeepers to their own wombs. If they grant access injudisciously, they are solely responsible for the consequences.

That’s the point of all the recent articles and discord: women are making better choices and skipping over duds.

One problem is there are way more male duds than male non-duds or female duds.

Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These women want weak men they can dominate. Unfortunately women can never really be happy in a relationship with a passive man because it means the woman has to be responsible for everything.

As always, over privileged over educated white feminist elite liberals are spoiled children who are never satisfied yet blame everyone but themselves for the outcomes of their own choices.

So it is ALWAYS the mans fault.

So passive men are indecisive and reactive, waiting for a Mommy figure to make all the decisions? Yuck. No gracias.

Passive men are what feminists want as partners or think they want because they have been radicalized by progressive feminist doctrine. But since as you readily acknowledge, a.passive man is not a satisfactory partner in the real.world.for most women, the feminist progressive doctrine is writing checks it can't cash.

Wrong.

No one wants a passive, inactive, indecisive anyone in their life to rely on. Just fired one last week, lost the company millions by being incompetent and lazy, just smooth talking.

Bet his wife is pulling her hair out all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

Wtf. Almost every state is 50/50 custody even if you are an abuser to anyone but the kid.

It’s sad that the only way to get some males with kids to parent is via the court system. Guess their (first) family and marriage weren’t worth growing up for.

What's truly sad is that so many moms who are 100% responsible for whom they choose to procreate with, don't make better choices

There wouldn't be any dead beat dads at all if women weren't constantly using irresponsible unprotected sex to fulfill their own emotional needs, with no thought at all as to the suitability of the men they are choosing to procreate with

Try as you might to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion, women are the gatekeepers to their own wombs. If they grant access injudisciously, they are solely responsible for the consequences.

The married dead beat dads who pretended to want children are the worst. They really wanted a mommy and a dad guy image whilst their wife mommy did everything. They deserve the divorces they have coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you can have a kid on your own but depriving that kid of a mom or a dad is a selfish decision.

Something like 25% of kids are being raised without a father. I hope you admonish every dead beat loser who puts a check in the mail instead of being a father.

I hope you admonish every evil loser who denies her ex husband access to his kids just to spite him.

Right right. If you were actually a good dad you wouldn’t be “denied access”. Time to face the music, youre the deadbeat we’re talking about NOT settling for.

Women 100% deny access to good dads just to spite them.

Wtf. Almost every state is 50/50 custody even if you are an abuser to anyone but the kid.

It’s sad that the only way to get some males with kids to parent is via the court system. Guess their (first) family and marriage weren’t worth growing up for.

What's truly sad is that so many moms who are 100% responsible for whom they choose to procreate with, don't make better choices

There wouldn't be any dead beat dads at all if women weren't constantly using irresponsible unprotected sex to fulfill their own emotional needs, with no thought at all as to the suitability of the men they are choosing to procreate with

Try as you might to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion, women are the gatekeepers to their own wombs. If they grant access injudisciously, they are solely responsible for the consequences.

That’s the point of all the recent articles and discord: women are making better choices and skipping over duds.

One problem is there are way more male duds than male non-duds or female duds.

From the male point of view, just the opposite. There are more female duds than male duds.

Female duds: unpleasant to be around, crazy, physically unattractive - and yet nevertheless has an absurd list of demands for what she wants men to be and do.

And women wonder why men are increasingly indifferent to them. Astounding lack of self awareness, smh.