| I welcome all the men who want to to embrace single parenthood through a surrogate. LOL. I'd love to see how long you last. |
Not to be a jerk, but I think it's pretty obvious you're the PP she's responding to and you're just posing as someone else... |
If your point is that it is easier for a single woman to have a relationship as a mother than a single man would as a father you will have no argument from me. But the reality is that there are lots of single men who father children and could have a relationship with their child if they so choose. The courts would enforce the rights of a father in that role and that would be without having to marry the mother. If you are not aware of this then you are ignorant of the law. Marital status is not a prerequisite for the courts to recognize and award paternal rights to a man. |
|
Interesting that forums - and not just DCUM - invariably have numerous women desperately seeking a husband or a relationship with a man. How often do you find forums where men are complaining that they cannot find a woman with whom to have a relationship?
Men - especially if they have money - can find women much younger than they are if they so wish and, of course, those closer to their own age. They really are a dime a dozen. Women, once they are into their forties have reached their "sell by date". It is downhill thereafter in most instances. |
This has been my argument all along - I wonder why it took you three reiterations of it to see it.
These men don't "father" children by design. They are thrust into biological fatherhood by wiling women. Without permission of the woman, that wouldn't have happened. A man deliberately looking for a woman to have his children without offering marriage wouldn't get very far.
Paternal rights enforced by the court do not equal the experience of full-time fatherhood. How much time does a divorced or never-married father without full custody really have with the child? How much control does he have over the child's life and character? Not very much, compared to a full-time father.
No it isn't. But it is, for full-time parenthood and full-time control over the child's life. It is true in case of a woman, too, because divorced mothers with joint custody have to share control with the father. But for a woman, it is immeasurably easier and cheaper to have a child outside of marriage in a way that factors out the father completely. For a man, that would very hard, next to impossible for a regular earner. |
Few men are rich enough to be attractive to much younger women. An average single 40-something, GS-something Fairfax condo dweller is no more attractive than an average single 40+ woman. It's downhill from that point on for both of them. Time only moves in one direction. The fact that men don't complain online about not finding women doesn't mean that every man wishing for a relationship has one. Men simply have different ways of expressing themselves. |
|
There's a period of time - maybe between 45-55 that men look better, but after 55 they don't have an edge.
Gravity catches up with all of us. |
...fixed that for ya
|
Owen Wilson...?
|
I have no idea where in the universe you have been living, and why you seem to equate marriage with 'full-time fatherhood' and unlimited access. The fact is men all over the world have always been able to have children without feeling the pressure to marry their baby mommas. That's just too obvious. I also can't see what would prevent them from enjoying 'full-time fatherhood' (assuming there is something called 'part-time fatherhood')
Did you grow up in a small social circle (built around the church or something)?! Your logic is too simplistic and incorrect. |
In my 30's also. And I shudder to think what kind of man ended up married to you... And btw, being in on a Wednesday night is pretty standard, especially since I have plans for tomorrow and Friday nights. Nobody thinks you're actually happy. Happy people don't resent others like you do. |
Because no other arrangement offers this to a man except single fatherhood with full custody.
You confuse "being allowed to ejaculate inside a woman" with "raising a child." Besides, men haven't been "able" to have children without marriage. They have been allowed to do so by women. Whether a pregnancy occurs is up to both people, but whether it continues is entirely and completely up to the woman. Women control procreation. Few children born outside the marriage have been conceived by men by design; I would guess that most of these men are accidental fathers. How far do you think a man would get if he was explicit and deliberate about his desire to have a child with a particular woman without offering marriage or something like it? A woman isn't likely to agree to this unless she has no other options.
The presence of the mother with custody rights. And yes, there is something called part-time fatherhood. If you see your child every other weekend, that's part-time fatherhood. If that is your arrangement, you have less influence and control over that child compared to a man who lives with the child and sees him or her every day.
Getting personal means you are running out of arguments. But since you asked, I'm actually a woman of the world who knows too many women who opted to become single mothers by choice, at the time of their choosing, without waiting for marriage or needing permission from a man. And yes, most of them would have preferred to do so within the context of marriage, but when that wasn't in the cards, they became mothers by other means that science and the market made available - because women, as I said before, control procreation. A man in the same position would have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars and make a lot more effort to avail himself of similar options. |
|
The biggest hurdle that women have is their biological clock which means that unless they procreate while they are relatively young, they will have missed the boat and the older they are when they get pregnant, the greater the risk of genetic abnormalities in the fetus quite apart from the difficulty in getting pregnant in the first place.
OTOH, men don't see a corresponding decrease in their ability to father a child as they get older and any effect is somewhat marginal. Also - certainly based on the complaints of mothers - one of their biggest gripes against their husbands is that they don't take on the role of parenting to the extent that they should and the burden falls on the mother. Maybe being a "part time father" is something that some men would not have an issue with based on the complaints of women? At work, the incessant complaint by single women who I associate with - some are attractive and accomplished - is that they cannot find a suitable guy who is willing to commit to a relationship. Why do you think men are so unwilling to commit? |
That's not really a hurdle if you know about it, is it? Plenty of means available to get pregnant and screen the pregnancy.
As long as they find a cooperating female, they are OK.
I am sure some won't. Men, like women, are all different. "Part time fatherhood" refers to time in the presence of a child, not percentage of child-rearing effort one actually undertakes.
I think that might be a problem of single women with whom you associate - might you be seeking out the complainers? Start associating with married women and you won't hear as much of it. The single women you associate with might be looking at the wrong men. I personally never had a problem dating and marrying, and all my friends except one are married. So I do think the rumors of unwilling men might be just so slightly overstated. |
What is your location or demographic? Contrast, all my friends in their 30s are having great trouble finding suitable men and none are married. It's an increasing problem on the coasts. |