Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Incentivize fatherhood?! Holy crap male privilege is mind blowing. Do we incentivize motherhood? No, women are default sole providers.

Women are also the default choosers on the parenthood question in the first place.

Not really anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Incentivize fatherhood?! Holy crap male privilege is mind blowing. Do we incentivize motherhood? No, women are default sole providers.

Women are also the default choosers on the parenthood question in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Incentivize fatherhood?! Holy crap male privilege is mind blowing. Do we incentivize motherhood? No, women are default sole providers.

Incentivize fatherhood.

Try to reform the winner-take-all dating economy (good luck).

Make fatherhood cool again (too many oafish goofballs on TV).

Reverse the decline of communities (very hard to do). Bring back God, churches and communities to try to hold crummy men more accountable.

Embrace stigma (not popular).

Embrace harems and alternative family structures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

The problem is that there are zero real consequences for men who impregnate women either honestly and accidentally or by lying. We make it way too easy for men to walk away. Single moms don’t pursue child support against the guy that raped them because the rapist would be entitled to visitation. Better if he just doesn’t know. In other case, why drop $25k for a lawyer just to get an order for $250 a week in child support that you can’t collect on? So many men still, in 2023, are less competent than a teenage babysitter. 50/50 custody means mom still does everything except she gets a babysitter some of the time, assuming dad doesn’t flake out to go on a date with his new girlfriend.

I am a mom and it is rewarding, but even with my somewhat capable husband who is a good and engaged father, I feel like I’d be better off without him many days. If he was as useless as some of the men who post on here he’d be out in a heartbeat.

Perhaps come out of the dark ages, and consider the skyrocketing percentage of “sterile” woman (and men) today. Why is that, PP?

Anonymous wrote:what solutions do you propose?

I propose that you keep your long beaky nose 👃🐽 judgmental, evangelical out of the lives of other people!

There was a time when unwed pregnant females, of any age, were kept out of school. Fired from jobs, medical insurance would not give maternity benefits to unwed pregnant women.

Women went to back street abortionists and many died or were so butchered that they ere rendered sterile. Who, in their right mind, would want to return to this other than the religious misogynistic GOP!

Every woman should have the right to decide if she wants to carry a pregnancy to term and whether to keep her child irrespective of her marital status.

The age of women as broodmares for your barren womb has ended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much single motherhood. It's absentee fathers.

I contend that so many young men have behavioral issues because they don't have a strong male role model.

Moreover, they often have mothers who coddle them and treat their boys more like partners, allowing them to rule the home.

All mothers need to step-up and let their boys know that no means no. When you allow your boy to ignore you, or “negotiate” with you after you already said no, you’re teaching him he can have his way with women (and girls). The consequences can be devastating for all.

Responsible men must reinforce a woman when she says no to a boy. No debating. You can renegotiate next time, if appropriate.

Wow. Yep. That's it. You got it. Solved it all with this amazing insight. Women are just weak.

Let’s just stop spoiling our boys rotten.
How else do you imagine making better men?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much single motherhood. It's absentee fathers.

I contend that so many young men have behavioral issues because they don't have a strong male role model.

Moreover, they often have mothers who coddle them and treat their boys more like partners, allowing them to rule the home.

All mothers need to step-up and let their boys know that no means no. When you allow your boy to ignore you, or “negotiate” with you after you already said no, you’re teaching him he can have his way with women (and girls). The consequences can be devastating for all.

Responsible men must reinforce a woman when she says no to a boy. No debating. You can renegotiate next time, if appropriate.

Wow. Yep. That's it. You got it. Solved it all with this amazing insight. Women are just weak.

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much single motherhood. It's absentee fathers.

I contend that so many young men have behavioral issues because they don't have a strong male role model.

Moreover, they often have mothers who coddle them and treat their boys more like partners, allowing them to rule the home.

All mothers need to step-up and let their boys know that no means no. When you allow your boy to ignore you, or “negotiate” with you after you already said no, you’re teaching him he can have his way with women (and girls). The consequences can be devastating for all.

Responsible men must reinforce a woman when she says no to a boy. No debating. You can renegotiate next time, if appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Because some men dump their existing families at the drop of a hat. Case in point:



One has 8 kids with three baby mamas.

Anonymous wrote:i don’t see it as a problem. The problem is the lack of money and lack of support single mothers are given.

Single mothers are demonized because they are women.

If most single parents were men they would be given support and accolades.

Misogyny is a lot deeper than people realize.

This! Our society dumps so many problems onto mothers, yet no support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Because what, exactly, are you going to do about that on a societal level? Shoulda, coulda, woulda isn’t a solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the percentage of families with a single mother?

That percentage is not sustainable. Father figures are important.

You see the effects on society today.

Don't reward single patenting. Staying together is sometimes difficult, but single parenting of close to 50% is not acceptable either. An abusive relationship is a different subject altogether.

But the outcomes are not as good as two parent families in the aggregate.

So I wouldn't cut out subsidies, but I would cut them back and make it less attractive.

How many absent father households are the choice of the mother raising the child(ren)? He is absent because of the father- whether that be choice, jail, disinterest, another family, etc. You are punishing women and children for the choices of the male. Super on brand for our culture but nonetheless deplorable. And two parents don't have to be married or live together to raise a child. Data must separate between single parent households with an involved and financially supportive co-parent (regardless of sex) and those that are single parent household by choice and those that are single parent households without an involved and supportive co-parent. These are three different types of issues and more than likely have different outcomes.

Why are women choosing to get pregnant with such irresponsible men? Perhaps our values are all wrong. Why not question our priorities?

Why exactly aren’t these valid questions?
Why ignore the source of the problem? sp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess my question is do women want to be single mothers?
I get the rich people like Charlize Theron and Sandra bullock who have tons of money and can pay for help WANT to be single moms; but single moms of multiple kids who often have different fathers I assume also wanted to or knew they would be raising the kids on their own. So is it a problem?
For the rest of us yes; as often those are the types of kids who struggle in life - but the moms made the choice for them. I thought most of this forum was pro-choice, it does not only mean on abortion.

Yes, it is a problem when 42% of births in 2020 were financed by Medicaid; 63% of youth suicides were from fatherless homes; and 75% of the long-term correctional facility inmates are from father-absent households.

This does not mean that all 42% of births are from single-parent households.

Darn close to it.

When you provide a citation for that then I might take it as a valid point until then it's just conjecture.