It’s just like running a restaurant

I took the family out for breakfast this morning and the place was unusually packed.  At the end of our meal I took the kids out to the car and my wife settled up the bill.  At the cash register the manager was apologizing to a woman for the slow service this morning.  He explained that they were much busier than usual which had the entire staff running around.  The woman accepted his apology, explaining with pride:

I understand, it’s just like being a single mother!

My wife chimed in helpfully with a big smile, matching nonsense for nonsense with:  Or an old blind woman! The heroic unwed mother clearly wasn’t pleased but didn’t know what to say.  Somehow failing to provide her 5 year old daughter with a father had suddenly gone from something to speak proudly of to something else entirely.

This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Motherhood, Stantons Heroes. Bookmark the permalink.

196 Responses to It’s just like running a restaurant

  1. Simon Grey says:

    Too funny. I hope I have an opportunity to use that line some time.

  2. Opus says:

    I am put in mind of the nursery rhyme, which begins:

    There was an old lady who lived in a shoe,
    She had so many children, she didn’t know what to do.

    Heroic single mothers (i.e. selfishly, short-sighted, sluts) are, it would seem, nothing new.

  3. hurp says:

    Did she ever come up with a comeback, or had you guys already left by then?😮

  4. PA says:

    Someone on Facebook was lauding lesbian parenthood as “least likely to be abusive.” While I avoid politics on FB, I wrote: “denying the child a father is a form of abuse.”

    This got me a good number of “likes” and one “unfriended.”

  5. Wowser, Good on her. I cannot stand the high ground that the term single mom claims, from most folks.
    People reach for their wallets the second they hear “single mom” in an angel tree appeal or whatever. But even without the appeal, the poor kids deserve the help, i just refuse to gush over the courage, the will, the POWER of the woman…..puh leeez, she didnt have it happen to her like a quadriplegic or something for goodness sake. 7/10 times, she went willingly into that status, and uses it for empathy leverage.

  6. deti says:

    Glad you’re back, Big D. The natives were getting restless around here….

    [D: Thanks!]

  7. greenlander says:

    I dated single mothers for awhile in my more beta days.

    I eventually came to the conclusion that they fall into two categories.

    The first category is girls who got knocked up by a badboy. That’s really her fault: it means she’s attracted to badboys. Therefore, she’s not a match for me.

    The second category is girls who just ejected the poor guy because he was too beta. That’s her fault too: it means she doesn’t care enough to keep the father in the child’s life and honor her commitment to him.

    After I figured that out I stopped dating single mothers completely. Not only are they themselves not worth marrying, but there’s the second problem that now you’re bringing up some other guy’s kid.

    Unfortunately, it appears that I’ve “married” them anyway through the high taxation I pay to support the free government cheese they get. My God, I despise feminism.

  8. deti says:

    Busy restaurant having the staff running around is “just like being a single mother”?

    Did the restaurant’s owners drive away their best suppliers with refusals to pay for goods sold, late payments, and constant complaining about being unhaaaaaaappy about the goods received?

    Did the owners anger and alienate their best workers with demands that they work ever harder and longer hours while simultaneously removing the incentives to put in the hard work?

    Did the restaurant’s owners start out with good restaurant suppliers (the dependable, experienced and time-tested ones that don’t look flashy but can get the supplies where they need to be), only to trade them in for cheaper, less efficient ones? Or did they just get the cheap, inefficient ones to start with (i.e. the good looking flashy ones with the pretty trucks and the hunky workers, the ones who don’t know what they’re doing, and are here today and out of business tomorrow)? In other words, did you get a good, wise supplier or did the owners get pumped & dumped?

    Did the owners have a well-upkept building with good tables, chairs, plates and silverware that now looks worn out, shabby, dirty, filthy, and dilapidated?

  9. jbamai says:

    Welcome back BIG D. I was just reading a recently published Slate article on Mark Dricoll’s church and I remembered your other posts. Can’t wait to get your take on this here: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/02/mars_hill_pastor_mark_driscoll_faces_backlash_over_church_discipline_case_.html

  10. Lavazza says:

    “denying the child a father is a form of abuse.” I got really proud when my tween daughter made a similar comment after watching Tina Fey’s Baby Mama.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    greenlander, don’t forget the slogan: “Women and children first”, not “children and women first”.

    Dalrock, welcome back.

  12. Random Angeleno says:

    Zing!

  13. ray says:

    whew thank Goddess! just under the one-week deadline

    the only person i could find who’d agree to being taken hostage was Andrea Dworkin, and she demanded a Booking Fee plus an Appearance Fee (that darn Andrea: still pushy, still dead)

    thank you Dalrock for saving me from a death worse than fate

  14. Rmaxd says:

    I find it humorous these women call themselves mothers

    Mother implies biological norm

    A father is the biological norm …

    Without a biological norm these women are simply single women with children

    A mother without a father is prey for the carousel & a life of beta misery & fitness testing … if she’s lucky …

    The wall hits these women hard & either they turn into manic depressives, or rabid cat farmers … as their biology self destructs in their spinsterhood …

    No man no gina tingle …

    The gina tingle strikes already underway, with the betas leading the way … with no alpa to stabilise most women, their toxicity in old age, the wall is all they have

    The alpha is the catalyst for a womans beauty & sex drive, without a clear socially defined masculinity & alpha’s for the women to dress up for & ream, the wall hits ever quicker

    The alpha regulates a womans biology & sex drive, masculine ambiguity confuses a woman, with no social feedback to elevate betas everywhere, to guage a mans behaviour, she turns to the carousel …

  15. Rmaxd says:

    The less contact women have with an alpha, the more toxic they become, with no alphas to challenge their behaviour & keep them in check

    Masculinity regulates a womans morality

  16. rmaxd

    Can you just write a few posts aabout alphas and tingles and how ta treat da biatches and such, powerful and massively hyperbolic posts, pushing envelopes….you know….shock value, all that, irreverent, bold and unashamedly aggressive and flippant things, make say 4 of em, label them A, B, C, D….then, no matter what the topic is you can just say:

    “A, add second half of B” and stuff like that.

    Because its essentially what happens anyway but that would be more efficient

    sheesh man, we get it already

  17. Chris says:

    Glad your back.

    Mrs D. knocked that one out of the park, didn’t she?

    Of course, In Canada, Australia & NZ, it would be hate speech.

  18. Chris says:

    I hate no edit button. Should read Glad you’re back. My bad.

  19. 7man says:

    This post is proof that Dalrock has a great woman for a wife. She reflects his leadership. My bet is that she is a content woman and his demeanor provides safety and security to her.

  20. Rmaxd says:

    @Empath

    Are you trying to hurt my feelings ….

    Its for newbies really, also peeps from walsh flee when they hear the word game … think of it as a public service …

  21. Anonymous says:

    “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of law into an instrument of plunder.”
    –Frederic Bastiat

  22. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    Actually, what your wife did should be an example to anti-feminist women. The only way that things will ever change in our culture is women start collectively shaming and marginalizing these bitches.

    Unfortunately, though, I think besides your wife you probably couldn’t scrape together two dozen other women for such a movement!

  23. Eric says:

    Greenlander:
    LOL, I can relate to that… my past experience with single mothers has just about convinced me that most women don’t love or care about children any more than they do men.

  24. Chris, we don’t have hate speech laws in Australia. I have said some choice things in public, with little fear.

  25. ruddyturnstone says:

    Alpha, beta, omega have nothing to do with it.

    There ARE two main paths to single motherhood, one of them is entirely the woman’s fault and the other mostly so.

    The first path is when a woman kicks a perfectly adequate father out of her, and therefore the child’s (as the mother gets custody, unless she is actually in prison!), life. In this case, the woman is entirely responsible for her plight, and, more importantly, the plight of her child.

    The second path is when a woman has unprotected sex with a man, or a boy, who clearly have neither the ability nor the inclination to be fathers. And, then she doesn’t have an abortion, or give the child up for adoption, or “legally” abandon the child. In this case the woman is mostly responsible for her plight and that of her child. Yes, a man has a responsibility to support his children, but a woman also has a responsibilty to not have children with irresponsible men. And given that the choice of reproducing is almost entirely hers (lots of kinds of contraception, choice of abstinence, choice of only engaging in “safe sex,” choice of abortion, choice of adoption or legal abadonment, choice of who she mates with in the first place), the fuck up her is more hers than his. And that is compounded by the fact that she knows that he is not going to stick around, but goes ahead and screws him without using contraceptives. Since she knows she is going to be one left holding the bag, it is even more stupid on her part to not choose more wisely.

    Alpha, beta, omega, whatever the greek letter assigned to the father, in either scenario, makes no difference whatsoever.

    In the first instance, in which the good father is kicked out, she could be kicking out a beta cuz he’s failing her shit tests, she could be kicking out an omega, cuz the best job he can get is at Burger King, or she could be kicking out an alpha cuz she is tired of his arrogant ways. It doesn’t matter. If the guy was a “good enough” father, she is severely hurting her child by kicking him out, whatever his faults viz a viz her and whatever letter pop evo psych experts on blogs want to assign him.That he wasn’t alpha enought to “regulate” or “stablize” her is no excuse whatsoever. She had a good enough father for her kid and she dumped him. That makes it her fault. Period, End of story.

    In the second scenario, the “type” of man still makes no difference…as long as there was every reason to know he was not going to be a good father. Plenty of women/girls have sex with high school boys, who are not going to be good fathers whatever letter they grow up to be. Others have sex with alpha playas who treat their “Baby Moms” like a napkin from McDonald’s….use them and throw it away. Others, perhaps, choose omegas who can’t be good fathers, even if they wanted to be. Others still have sex with betas who for one reason or another are obviously not going to make good fathers. It just doesn’t matter.

    Someone, I forget who, once said that the strories of single mothers is never told from the beginning. The story always starts with how hard it is to be a single mother. And it IS hard. Despite glib comments on the manosphere, about how Uncle Sam is the new papa, being on welfare actually sucks. Adding all the possible benefits together, the lifestyle it supports is still crappy. And there is a lot of BS to deal with. Having a husband and a father for one’s child is not only better in terms of status, but in terms of simple living standards too. A woman attempting to pay her own way has to deal with the issue of child care. Basically, taking care of a young child is a full time job, and you can’t do it if you have to work full time too. So, yeah, running a resturant without adequate staff is somewhat similar to being a single mother.

    I have a lot of sympathy for kids without fathers. They face terrible odds in life, whether boys or girls. And they pose huge problems for society, which I also feel about it. Shit, I’m enough a softy that I even have sympathy for the single mothers themselves.

    But, goddamnit, how did you become a single mother in the first place?!?!?! What is the beginning of the story, the part you don’t want to talk about? Unless you are (1) a widow, or (2) can truly and honestly say that the father of your child did a complete 180, went from Jeckyl to Hide without a clue before hand, then it is your own fucking fault that you are a single mother.

  26. bob says:

    Remind me not to cross Mrs. D. !

  27. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but… a critical article on the Manosphere by a women.

    “Complementarity, Not Competition,” by Elizabeth Duffy, Patheos, 2 Feb 2012
    http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Complementarity-Not-Competition-Elizabeth-Duffy-02-02-2012

    Not likin’ hypergamy, etc. but not likin’ men’s response to it either.

  28. Will says:

    Ruddy, that is a good question – WHY ARE ALL THESE SINGLE MOMS GETTING PREGNANT?

    Theorectically with the easy availability of hormonal bcp and numerous other methods of contraception it SHOULDN’T be happening.

    But yet IT IS.

    As you said these Women must be having unprotected sex whilst not being on birth control themselves.

    Speculating: It must be because of a conscious or unconscious desire to get pregnant or poor impulse control by the Women. Although these are not mutually exclusive.

    It would seem that the female biological imperative to produce children is so powerful that not even the easy availability of reliable birth control will prevent them from becoming pregnant. Or in short, these Women are slaves to their biology. They’re not in control of themselves.

  29. Rmaxd says:

    “Ruddy, that is a good question – WHY ARE ALL THESE SINGLE MOMS GETTING PREGNANT?”

    Something to do with 20-24 being the peak of fertility, they go crazy for alphas around the age of 16-20

    You hear plenty of feminists complain of craving studs & crushing hard on teen boys, in their pre-spinster teen days, & wondering why oh freaking why … didnt they land a beta sucker instead…

  30. Pingback: Complaining about the Service « Gucci Little Piggy

  31. rmaxd

    Nope, not trying to hurt feelings, I have no way to do that. Ok then I can accept the lecture on basics for newbies, I can be one to repeat first principles on other more interactive forums to be sure.
    I do get a bit concerned that describing the problem, the dynamic, whatever, the nature of things…..has been done and done.
    I especially like D’s wife’s tactic, that, frankly, is belief in action, planting seeds, her comment is so incongruent with the memes of single motherhood in our culture it has to be memorable, likely even repeated by folks who overheard it.

  32. The question is not why did they get pregnant. Truly thats the wrong path to go down. The question is why are they SINGLE. The relevance of the question may change by age and ethnic demographic, Id imagine it does, but the woman in that restaurant I am 100% sure the question should be why is she single….where is the dad?

    Not only the law as we all know trounces men, but the societal kneejerk sympathy serves as a draw through for divorce, its right there waiting as she files, knowing that she will get to be part of a club that garners instant empathy….the single moms club….Awwwwwwwwwww, look at that women honey the poor dear.

  33. Old hat maybe worth a revisit

    Baskerville Says:

    http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-01-019-f

    “”””Contrary to common assumptions, divorce today seldom involves two people mutually deciding to part ways. According to Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin in Divided Families, 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, that is, over the objection of one spouse. Patricia Morgan of London’s Civitas think tank reports that in over half of divorces, there was no recollection of major conflict before the separation.

    Under “no-fault,” or what some call “unilateral,” divorce—a legal regime that expunged all considerations of justice from the procedure—divorce becomes a sudden power grab by one spouse, assisted by an army of judicial hangers-on who reward belligerence and profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, custody evaluators, social workers, and more.”””””

    Baskervilles corpus of writing is at:

    http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/Published_Articles.html

    This is why single motherhood is THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME a sure indicator of the moral bankruptcy of the woman. And it has nothing to do with why and how did she get pregnant, its why and how did she get SINGLE.

  34. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Speculating: It must be because of a conscious or unconscious desire to get pregnant or poor impulse control by the Women. Although these are not mutually exclusive. It would seem that the female biological imperative to produce children is so powerful that not even the easy availability of reliable birth control will prevent them from becoming pregnant. Or in short, these Women are slaves to their biology. They’re not in control of themselves.”

    I buy that, except to the extent that it is letting them off the hook. They COULD control themselves, they simply don’t. They want to have kids. For many of them, being a mother is the only thing of any importance they can be. So they have them, even though they know there will be no father around and even though they themselves are lacking in resources. Then, later on, they bemoan their fate.

    “Something to do with 20-24 being the peak of fertility, they go crazy for alphas around the age of 16-20. You hear plenty of feminists complain of craving studs & crushing hard on teen boys, in their pre-spinster teen days, & wondering why oh freaking why … didnt they land a beta sucker instead…”

    Let’s say that alpha/beta stuff is true. It still doesn’t explain why they didn’t use contraception during their alpha crush days. It is widely available. It’s use is preached to them day and night in school, on TV, etc.

    “The question is not why did they get pregnant. Truly thats the wrong path to go down. The question is why are they SINGLE. The relevance of the question may change by age and ethnic demographic, Id imagine it does, but the woman in that restaurant I am 100% sure the question should be why is she single….where is the dad?”

    That’s just looking at the other side of the same coin. My question wasn’t “Why did you get pregnant?” but rather “How did you become a single mom in the first place?” You ask “where is the Dad?” Again, there are two main choices…he was either kicked out of her and his and her child’s life by the single mom or he was never a good candidate to be a dad in the first place.

    “Not only the law as we all know trounces men, but the societal kneejerk sympathy serves as a draw through for divorce, its right there waiting as she files, knowing that she will get to be part of a club that garners instant empathy….the single moms club….Awwwwwwwwwww, look at that women honey the poor dear”

    True, but it is still very strange that she would seek this status. At least one of the reasons the “club garners empathy” is because it really is a bad deal.

  35. ruddyturnstone says:

    “This is why single motherhood is THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME a sure indicator of the moral bankruptcy of the woman. And it has nothing to do with why and how did she get pregnant, its why and how did she get SINGLE.”

    Not disputing this, in cases of divorce. But the other half of the story is the single mothers who were never married in the first place. Again, yes, the question is not “how did you get pregnant>” but nor is it, I think, “how did you get single?” Instead, the question is “how did you get to be a single mother?” Both single AND a mother. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is EITHER because of exactly what you say…unilateral, uncalled for divorce, or it is because of unprotected, out of wedlock sex with men or boys of whom it was clear at the time that they would not be good fathers.

  36. Its not the other half of the story though, statistically. In some demographics it is, illegitimate births are the majority. the black community suffers that.
    The low socioeconomic white community suffers less than the black community, but still not half, the middle and upper class whites are single moms because of divorce, the majority of the time.

    So, one could target their inquiry per demographic I suppose. Though all stirred up in a melange, it may be roughly half, other sides of coin, etc. the drivers and differences across these demographics are so different that they need to be analyzed separately.

    Im less concerned, morally, with the spontaneous physical urge, than the plotted destruction of a family. One is tactical the other strategic.

  37. Doug1 says:

    Ruddyturnstone—

    And given that the choice of reproducing is almost entirely hers (lots of kinds of contraception, choice of abstinence, choice of only engaging in “safe sex,” choice of abortion, choice of adoption or legal abadonment, choice of who she mates with in the first place), the fuck up her is more hers than his.

    I think it’s almost entirely her responsibility in your second case as well, because:

    1) She always has the option to take plan B, abort or give the child up for adoption, but he does not; and

    2) Not only are all but one of the reversible methods of contraception under her sole knowledge and control (with the one that’s joint lessening pleasure for both, but esp. the man), but I’m thoroughly convinced for a number of reasons that most “accidental” pregnancies are really “oopses” that are wanted, consciously or more often subconsciously, by the woman but not the man. Girls that really don’t want to get preggers, such as ambitious girls in good colleges, very rarely do.

    Someone, I forget who, once said that the strories of single mothers is never told from the beginning. *** But, goddamnit, how did you become a single mother in the first place?!?!?! What is the beginning of the story, the part you don’t want to talk about? Unless you are (1) a widow, or (2) can truly and honestly say that the father of your child did a complete 180, went from Jeckyl to Hide without a clue before hand, then it is your own fucking fault that you are a single mother.

    Yeah, exactly. And as to the latter we all know that women love to lie or vastly exaggerate about that all the freakin time, to shirk their own responsibility.

  38. Suz says:

    Will, the answer is a combination of the previous 7 comments AND financial/social incentives. There have always been single mothers, but there are so many more now that the consequences have been minimalized. Praise instead of shame, lower standard of living (with eternal hope for betterment) instead of abject poverty. Immoral women with poor impulse control have always been among us. They’re now being rewarded for it.

  39. I’m curious to see, when and if there is ever a safe easy BC pill for men, and a baby is born, will this narrative change?

    It seems to me a strange place to put most of ones passion about feminism and men’s rights and the like, to focus on the sex act aspect of single motherhood. In my opinion these points about birth control and responsibility intercept mens rights in a different way, where reproductive rights are robbed from men, where men would have no claim to custody on a baby resulting from a casual sexual encounter, men have no say in abortion, etc etc. It just seems a strange place to find the point of origin of single motherhood and its impact on men.

    The single mother from casual sex impacts men collectively by taking societal resources. She may impact a man by forcing child support. The single mother from divorce does all of those things PLUS she takes a child who did have a perfectly good father and separates them, rending an already formed bond.

    That someone had unprotected sex CAN also be said about the man, notwithstanding gender availability to methods. Its shared to SOME degree. Once its about divorce, in the vast majority of the cases, it is unilateral, she is not haaaaapy, she files, and dad is tossed. Its not an act in a moment of passion, its premeditated. The state walks beside her as she creates a single mom family from a nuclear family.

    Maybe the men posting about that are single men, I dont know, or maybe there is some game angle on this issue, there seems to be about everything else.

  40. Seems to be a conflating of single motherhood with those who give birth illegitimately. These are only coincidentally proportionate.

  41. Doug1 says:

    empath–

    That someone had unprotected sex CAN also be said about the man, notwithstanding gender availability to methods. Its shared to SOME degree.

    I’ve never knowingly had unprotected sex in my life. I’ve only had sex without a condom after getting to know a girl well and she says she’s on a specified method of birth control, plus that she’d get an abortion if an accidental pregnancy occurred. If she lied or failed to follow through with that promise would I still share some of the responsibility? I think not, and don’t think I should have to pay child support=also stealth alimony for a child she wanted but I explicitly didn’t.

  42. Doug I agree with everything you said, but since I wasnt talking about YOU, nor about that exact and specific set of circumstances, what does it have to do with anything? Its utterly irrelevant in a general topic to share your anecdotal experience and frame it as germane to the point.

    I thought “the man” was a general term, somehow you inserted “Doug1” in for “the man”. I hate to point this out but this is one of the chief complaints about how females argue. Say to the average female “most people are right handed”, and she may well say “no way, I have 3 siblings and they are all left handed”.

    My point stands, about “the man (minus Doug1)”

  43. Doug1 says:

    empatho–

    Don’t get your panties in a twist.

    My point was a logical, moral one. I’m not the only guy that operates similarly. I imagine that most of the time when a white middle class and up guy has unprotected sex with a girls, it’s because she said she was on birth control. I also think that most of the time when she subsequently becomes pregnant nonetheless, it was an “oops” consciously or subconsciously accidentally on purpose one.

  44. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Im less concerned, morally, with the spontaneous physical urge, than the plotted destruction of a family. One is tactical the other strategic.”

    Not really seeing the difference. The “spontaneous physical urge” is to have sex, not have children. So, it doesn’t explain not using contraceptives. Funny thing too is that teen pregnancy is down, for all demographics. It is the lowest it has been for ninety years.

    And it is down for all demographic groups. Teen abortions are down too. As are pregnancies and abortions among eighteen to twenty years old women.

    http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Teen_Pregnancy_Rate_Lowest_in_At_Least_90_Years_120211

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends08.pdf

    So it is not primarily young teenage girls and women, who concievably just don’t know any better, who are driving the out of wedlock birth explosions. Rather it is women in their twenties, and even older, who damn well know all about pregnancy and contraceptives and so on, and about what single mothers without resources really face, who are just going ahead and having babies anyway, despite the lack of a suitable father. I read somewhere that the median net worth (assets minus debts) of single black mothers is FIVE DOLLARS. That’s not a typo. Five dollars. Not five thousand or even five hundred. Black women must be aware of this, in general terms, if not the exact number. They must know that their single mother peers are about as broke as persons can be, yet a good number of them go right ahead and voluntarily join their ranks anyway. So, yeah, this:

    “…the answer is a combination of the previous 7 comments AND financial/social incentives. There have always been single mothers, but there are so many more now that the consequences have been minimalized. Praise instead of shame, lower standard of living (with eternal hope for betterment) instead of abject poverty. Immoral women with poor impulse control have always been among us. They’re now being rewarded for it.”

    is true, to some extent. But the “reward,”: at least the financial aspect of it, ain’t much. Maybe praise instead of shame, but five dollars as one’s life savings sounds a lot worse than merely a “lower standard of living” and pretty darn close to “abject poverty.”

    Married or cohabiting Black women, by the way, have a median net worth of $31,500.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-84.stm

    Tactics? Strategy? Hard to see how either is involved in either the divorce or the single mother ab initio scenario. Being a single mother is a crap situation, no matter how one gets there. And it stinks for the kids, no matter how it comes about.

  45. Rmaxd says:

    Suz gets it right …

    Single motherhood, is now trendy for fathers to encourage their sluts to sleep around & look the other way

    In fact fathers now see it as a moral obligation, to look the other way

    Mothersve never been real moral enforcers, theyve always been about moral norms & socially acceptable trends

    You can blame economics all you want, but its people who create people …

    Also shame is always linked to economic status, single sluts simply see no shame in sleeping around, as there are no economic penalties

  46. Rmaxd says:

    Without economic penalties, shame is too easily circumvented in secularism

  47. ruddyturnstone says:

    “single sluts simply see no shame in sleeping around, as there are no economic penalties”

    That just isn’t true. Single mothers are the brokest of the broke. Married mothers and even co habiting mothers are much, much better off economically than single mothers. It isn’t all that complicated…a man’s income make a big difference, and welfare (even in all its forms) is no longer, if it ever really was, all that generous.

    “Single motherhood, is now trendy for fathers to encourage their sluts to sleep around & look the other way In fact fathers now see it as a moral obligation, to look the other way Mothers’ve never been real moral enforcers, theyve always been about moral norms & socially acceptable trends You can blame economics all you want, but its people who create people”

    Even this, I think, is open to question. Mothers and, to a lesser extent, fathers, may be “looking the other way” when it comes to sexual activity of their daughters. But I seriously doubt they are encouraging them to “sleep around” and even less so to become single mothers. I think, instead, the “message” from parents is now more like “if you are going to have sex, be ‘responsible” and ‘protect’ yourself (from AIDS and pregnancy).” And, according to the stats, teen pregnancy is down, so maybe that message is sinking in.

    It is women who are out on their own, who are already adults, who are becomng single moms. Adult women, because they want kids so much that they don’t care, or because they just don’t realize ahead of time, despite all the evidence, how broke they will be, are simply going blindly and blithely ahead and having kids with men that they know, or should know, aren’t going to be good or even adequate fathers. I can’t blame their parents. Just as I can’t let them off the hook under notions that they “can’t control” themselves. They are fucking over themselves, their kids and society simply to satisfy their wants. When men pull stunts like that, no one bends over backwards to place the blame on their parents or on the irrestibility of their inborn, sub or unconscious, genetic drives. Men are expected to “control” themselves.

  48. Doug, sorry, no, its not logical to refute a rule with an exception.

    Someone needs to check their statistics…..but it seems even that wont matter. You’ve decided this is mainly about single women having kids, so be it.

    Im not sure I get the confusion another poster had in seeing divorce as a process, and having an illegitimate child as an event, a fast occurrence, the sex act, vs the process of divorce which takes months and offers ample chance to back out of. Why is that confusing? Maybe “tactic” was the wrong word…..I meant one is long and deliberate, the other is a one off event.

  49. Eric says:

    empath & ruddy:

    Warren Farrell actually summed it up best. ‘The attitude of most women towards getting pregnant is; ‘Choose to abort or sue for support.’

    The MRM has concentrated a lot on the callous, indifferent, and ruthless treatment of males by Western females. What’s often overlooked is that feminine treatment of children isn’t a lot better. What else should be expected? Women are taught that they are the ‘owners’ of reproduction— that it’s another entitlement—just like they presume themselves the ‘owners’ of sex.

    Women will go to abortion mills and daycares with the same lack of empathy, emotion, or even sense of obligation that they take into divorce courts and ‘relationship counseling’. The idea that today’s women care about or love children is just as much a myth as the one about them longing for a ‘real man.’

    In fact, single or not, the majority of American women are unfit to be mothers at all. They only see men as necessary for ‘sperm donors’; and motherhood, a heavy burden imposed on them by Nature. They aren’t about to let kids interfere with their ‘independence’ and ‘grrrl power’ any more than they will allow men to interfere with them.

  50. Eric says:

    Doug1:
    That’s a good reason why PUA should be opposed. I know personally of more than one guy who had sex with someone ‘who told him that she was on birth control’; and then got slapped with a paternity suit. Luckily, for many of them, they were dealing with such sluts that DNA evidence got them off the hook! The men who got hit with false accusations or picked up STDs weren’t so fortunate, though.

    Women, in our culture, are NOT attracted to men sexually; in spite their protests to the contrary. Sex is a weapon and means of manipulation to most women—nothing else. Men who engage in casual sex are setting themselves up for disaster.

  51. Rmaxd says:

    I really want to continue the emphasis on masculinity & in particular patriarchy

    As its key to understanding why we have single mothers today

    Yes, women deliberately get pregnant, & its an epidemic, as their biology kicks in ridiculously early

    So freaking what, womenve been doing it for centuries, we know theyre retarded & have no longterm ability, & yes theyre irresponsible retards, big freaking deal …

    So what …

    Not meaning to hurt your pretty little brainpans …

    The choice of single motherhood, is an entirely different subject … & it involves a far more complex understanding of the issue at hand

    It involves specifically whats known as Fraternity vs Paternity, an important issue …

    Fraternity ie a father not looking out for fathers due to a lack of patriarchy, instead they look out for empathy & other emotionally driven bullshit, instead …

    This is important to understand, as our society is driven on patriarchy, the rules maybe female, but the foundation & basic drive of our society is still male, as men still do the majority of the work

    Do they not?

    Interesting Anonymous comment on Spearhead …

    “At one point he got talking about our basis for our republic by comparing our revolution and how it turned out with the way it all went down in France.

    He said the mistake they made was in trying to base their new republic on equality, liberty, and fraternity (brotherhood), whereas we went with paternity instead.”

    This is a key problem with fathers today, they no longer enforce fraternity, they no longer think in terms of brotherhood, they no longer think in the code of whats best for themselves as men

    Men no longer create groups of men

    Instead of thinking in terms of fraternity, they now think in terms of paternity

    Its this paternal form of raising children, which is the main reason behind the epidemic of single mothers

    They need to enforce fraternity & they need to enforce patriarchy

    They no longer think in terms of as good of the patriarchy

  52. Anonymous says:

    Stay away from to 20- 25 year old age group (you know, they one that’s most described in Penthouse Letters… there’s a reason for that)… if they’re not single parents and/or haven’t otherwise messed-up their lives after then, they’re usually better.

  53. ruddyturnstone says:

    “You’ve decided this is mainly about single women having kids, so be it.”

    It;s about single women having kids AND married women dumping their husband/father of their kids. Both lead to single motherhood.

    “Im not sure I get the confusion another poster had in seeing divorce as a process, and having an illegitimate child as an event, a fast occurrence, the sex act, vs the process of divorce which takes months and offers ample chance to back out of. Why is that confusing?”

    Because, it is NOT merely the sex act which is at issue. It is the deliberate choice to not abstain, to not use contraceptives or to engage only in safe sex, it is the choice of parnters, it is the decision not to abort, and it is the decision not to go the adoption/legal abandonment route. That sounds like a “process” to me.

    “I meant one is long and deliberate, the other is a one off event.”

    Just not true, see above.

    “They only see men as necessary for ‘sperm donors’; and motherhood, a heavy burden imposed on them by Nature. They aren’t about to let kids interfere with their ‘independence’ and ‘grrrl power’ any more than they will allow men to interfere with them.”

    If that were the case, then there would be a lot more abortions and adoptions/legal abandonments and lot fewer single mothers. Sure, there are plenty of women who don’t want kids or are indifferent to them, hence the fact that there are abortions and daycare centers. But plenty of women obviously do want to be mothers, so much so that they aren’t letting all the disadvantages of being a single mother stand in their way. Women who don’t want to get pregnant, such as women who want careers and are attending good colleges, as another poster mentioned, don’t get pregnant. The few that do abort. But women on the bottom of the socio economic ladder have kids out of wedlock as the norm now. If they thought of being mothers only as a “burden,” and they aren’t even married, they wouldn’t be having kids, would they?

  54. HaHa says:

    This:
    I’ve never knowingly had unprotected sex in my life.
    Does not square with this:
    I’ve only had sex without a condom after getting to know a girl well and she says she’s on a specified method of birth control, plus that she’d get an abortion if an accidental pregnancy occurred.

  55. Professor Mentu says:

    Oh for the day when I can read through OKCupid or Match and 80% of the profiles from girls age 22 to 28 don’t start with “I’m a single mom, so I’m a bit of a superwoman lol”

    Do any kids have fathers anymore? Sheesh.

  56. Anonymous says:

    “Do any kids have fathers anymore?”

    No, they’re disposable like paper towels.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Oh, and speaking of the 18- 25 crowd, here’s something from HIV/AIDS Positive Stories from a 26-year-old who’s thankful she’s HIV-Negative and has wised-up:

    http://www.hivaidspositivestories.com/text/st661.html

    Makes me never even want to mention the word “love” to any woman ever again and (pardon the crudity) only trust my right hand because I know where the heck that’s been. Her boyfriend Mark in there is the prototypical “Beta” good man who gets screwed-over lots these days. She, unfortunately, is just the typical woman who falls for Game or just feels she has to compete that way… being an immaturely emotional, unprotected sex junkie is what (if unlucky) gotten her to be a single mother to a kid (or maybe two or three) by 26. Read and be warned.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Pardon… “being an immaturely emotional, unprotected sex junkie is what (if unlucky) WOULD’VE gotten her to be a single mother to a kid (or maybe two or three) by 26.” I meant to write in there.

    Still, she is exactly what we’re talking about here… single mother, except by the grace of God.

    God help us.

  59. Legion says:

    Rmaxd says:
    February 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    “Men no longer create groups of men”

    Because in the USA it is illegal for men to form a group and keep women out. Women are allowed to form their own groups. To hell with them. Just enjoy the decline.

  60. P Ray says:

    @ruddyturnstone
    One explanation of single motherhood: the book “Promises I can keep”.
    My take on it is that finding a good man will take too much time and effort on their part to keep interested, so they find the biggest thug they can (since in their mind, every man eventually is a jerk as he is sometimes going to say no to them, so just find one at the start and get a baby by him) … since no matter what they do, as the “(biological) clock in San Dimas is always ticking”.
    And that it’s way easier for them to get a pump-and-dump from a guy most other women find attractive, than it is to get commitment.
    Finding a guy they can shame afterwards into becoming the new baby daddy, is mission #2.

    That, along with a heapin’ helpin’ of shaming language, outrageous sex-on-tap to seal the deal, and maybe juggling several other guys at a time (it’s an old technique/rationalisation exercise called “defensive dating” … so this is “wrong” when players do it, but she’s “being prudent” when she does it).

  61. pb says:

    “Complementarity, Not Competition,” by Elizabeth Duffy, Patheos, 2 Feb 2012
    http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Complementarity-Not-Competition-Elizabeth-Duffy-02-02-2012

    Not likin’ hypergamy, etc. but not likin’ men’s response to it either.

    Just read it. Alas, it doesn’t seem to be another more than a Catholic version of the “Man up” response.

  62. van Rooinek says:

    There ARE two main paths to single motherhood, one of them is entirely the woman’s fault and the other mostly so.

    Actually FOUR, and the other two are totally innocent. They are

    (3) widowhood, after having married a good man, having had kids within wedlock, and done everything right — (one of the moms in my oldest son’s scouting group is in that boat, a good Christian married woman whose husband was struck down young by cancer.)

    (4) Christian rape victims who don’t beleive in abortion. (I once met an incredibly lovely young woman who was the product of such a situation… she had no idea who her father was… “he was white” is all mom could tell her.)

    Just sayin’….. SOME are innocent. And dateworthy.

  63. Rmaxd says:

    Im not sure how rape victims are date worthy …

    Also rapes a minor offence, her vagina lives on …

    Rape victims great fodder for manginas to get screwed over though, nothing beats screwing over a beta, after a good rape … as he rides to the rape victims rescue …

    You missed one btw Van

    5. Woman rapes man … through serial monogamy

    Hows my hyperbole standing up guys btw? Wldnt want to let you guys down, i apparently got a hyperbole rep to keep …

  64. Its not just hyperbole.
    Its laser like myopic hyperbole!🙂

  65. Brendan says:

    Just read it. Alas, it doesn’t seem to be another more than a Catholic version of the “Man up” response.

    Yes, it’s the Catholic convert version of “man up”.

    As for the main issue on single mothers, they get sympathy because their interests are lumped together with children in this culture. The catch-phrase is “women and children”. Women and children first. X number of people died, including Y number “women and children”. And so on. It’s never, ever “fathers and children”, but always “women and children”. This is ostensibly done because women and children are weaker than men, but in a culture where any woman is legally permitted to kill her own unborn children, and in which millions upon millions of children have been murdered in this way by their own mothers, this line is a simple bald-faced lie –> women have loads of power, legal and social power, in this culture, and are not “weaker” than men are in these respects. Yet, they still get lumped together with children as per the “old rules” when women were weaker, legally and socially, than men.

    This is important, because children are going to generate a lot of sympathy, generally, and so by continuing to hook our liberated/empowered women together with children culturally in this way, that sympathy gets passed on to women as well, but NOT to the men who are their fathers. We can see how this plays itself out typically in the family court which Baskerville, linked above, so well documents: the “best interests of the child” is basically interpreted typically to mean the same thing as “the best interests of the mother” — again, because of “women and children” being lumped together, almost reflexively, in the culture.

    Feminism benefits greatly from this, of course. Feminism *must* continue to insist that women are disempowered, disadvantaged, and weak compared with men, not only so that it can continue to press ever more radical ideas in the name of needed “justice”, but also in order to preserve these social and legal privileges that came into existence precisely when women actually *were* relatively disempowered legally and socially. It’s the way you manage to get things “coming and going”, as it were – that is, you maintain the privileges based on your prior relative weakness while at the same time living the most empowered/independent lives women have ever led in the history of the species — getting the advantage of both empowerment AND the special treatment that comes from being considered to be disempowered. Having your cake and eating it, too, which of course redounds to the benefit of women “as a class”, which is what feminism is about.

    Feminism must therefore insist that the single mother is lionized, because lionizing the single mother not only de facto empowers women who wish to be single mothers (and here I am speaking of the UMCs who go this route, where it is much less of a financial disaster, because feminism is, and always has been, dominated by the interests of UMC, and mostly white, women) but also perpetuates the stereotype of the beleaguered, disadvantaged, weakened woman who is need of legal and social privilege in order to be made “equal”. It’s coming and going again and again and again, and it always will be so, because it would be far too costly for feminism to ever admit that privileges for women are not necessary. Why give up privileges if you’ve convinced everyone that no matter how much you are “kicking men’s ass” (per Hanna Roisin and others), you’re still so disadvantaged relative to men that you deserve special legal and social privileges. It’s a good gig if you can get it, as they say.

  66. ruddyturnston says:

    “One explanation of single motherhood: the book “Promises I can keep”.”

    Took a look at Amazon and it seems to confirm what I have been thinking. Having a child is something that a poor woman can do. No one can stop her. There are no applications. There are no qualifications. A pulse and menstruation are all that’s required. And by having one or more kid she makes herself not only into a martyr, but, oddly enough, into a person of status. Whatever she was, or, more to the point, wasn’t, before, now she’s a mother. Raising kids on her own.

    Some of the other stuff in the book sounds pretty stupid..like it being such a big compliment when a playa says he wants her to have his baby. Big Deal! It’s not like he’s going to marry her or even help support the baby. Or the usual crap about there needing to be better men for them to marry. This contradicts there own research: they aren’t looking to marry. That would constrict their “freedom!” How much real, practical freedom does a young woman with a baby or two in tow, no husband, and little or no income have?!?

    “Finding a guy they can shame afterwards into becoming the new baby daddy, is mission #2. That, along with a heapin’ helpin’ of shaming language, outrageous sex-on-tap to seal the deal, and maybe juggling several other guys at a time (it’s an old technique/rationalisation exercise called “defensive dating” … so this is “wrong” when players do it, but she’s “being prudent” when she does it).”

    But how often does this work? How many of these women EVER find a sucker who will support them and their kids?

    These women are condemning their children to a life of poverty and deprivation (moral and financial). The idea that some white knight is going to come along, at some, unspecified point, and make it all better sounds more like a fantasy than a plan. It’s like having winning the lottery as your retirement plan!

    “There ARE two main paths to single motherhood, one of them is entirely the woman’s fault and the other mostly so.”

    “Actually FOUR, and the other two are totally innocent. They are

    “(3) widowhood….
    “(4) Christian rape victims…”

    Actually, no. As these are both rare occurences. Hence the use of the words “MAIN.”

  67. QQQQ says:

    This won’t be popular, but fuck it.

    Some guys just leave. I’ve seen it. They find someone with bigger tits, a tighter ass, a kinder mouth, less demanding, and just leave. I’m not going to assign any blame either to the man or the woman, but the result is usually the same; the kid suffers.

    Usually both are shitty marriage choices.

  68. van Rooinek says:

    Im not sure how rape victims are date worthy …

    Welll… there are 2 kinds. The manosphere talks a lot, and rightly so, about drunken slut who cries “rape” the morning after to salvage her reputation and to conceal her sin even from herself. I don’t consider this rape at all, though the “law” might.

    However there are also genuine innocent victims of actual sexual assault, who in no way deserved or desired it. This could be anyone — your sister, your daughter, even your fiancee or wife. How would you handle it if your Christian virgin fiancee was assaulted a couple of months before your wedding? Get her tested for viruses of course, but unless your life is at risk, you’re a monster if you’d break off the engagement.

    Question for you: Suppose you had to choose between two women, otherwise equally matched. and both had previous partner count of 2. One of the girls voluntarily, that is, sinfully, had long term live-in sexual relationships with 2 boyfriends before you, and isn’t particularly sorry about it. The other girl, committed herself at an early age to staying a virgin til marriage, yet through absolutely no fault of her own, was attacked and raped by a couple of thugs one night in a deserted parking lot…

    Which girl is a safer marital choice?
    Which is less likely to cheat?
    Which is less likely to divorce you?

    Hint: Which one is of higher moral character?

    5. Woman rapes man … through serial monogamy

    That’s really not #5, that’s a variation of pathway one, only she does it to several men. Pathway 1, for your reference ,is:

    The first path is when a woman kicks a perfectly adequate father out of her, and therefore the child’s,life… In this case, the woman is entirely responsible for her plight, and, more importantly, the plight of her child.

  69. Höllenhund says:

    @Brendan 9:36 AM

    I’d say you’re largely correct, as usual, but the fundamental reason for this phenomenon is much more simple. Theoretically speaking, society could observe the general situation of single mothers and try find the reasons why so many of them are impoverished, dysfunctional, miserable in general and raising children whom are highly likely to become deviant, psychologically damaged adults. However, the inevitable result would be a focus on the bad choices – sexual and otherwise – made by these women and how these led to their current situation. But this sort of attention would erode the whole feminist ideological edifice, of course. Therefore the bad choices of women are regarded as taboo.

  70. Suz says:

    “As for the main issue on single mothers, they get sympathy because their interests are lumped together with children in this culture.”

    Brendan for the win! Women were designed to be materially dependent, so our capacity to be unrepentant parasites is all but infinite. Children can be handy tools for sucking status and wealth from society, for those of us who can’t (or won’t) earn our own status and wealth.

  71. hurp says:

    This could be anyone — your sister, your daughter, even your fiancee or wife.
    Van Rooinek, I got tons of respect for you in general, and I agree with your broad point here, but there are a few MRAs who wouldn’t find this convincing. The good Rmaxd said above that “rape isn’t much of a crime,” and I get the distinct feeling he doesn’t consider ‘violent’ rape to be much more serious than “date” rape. Maybe I’m wrong, though, but even if I am, there are probably people out there who’d make that argument.

  72. Mule Chewing Briars says:

    When I was younger, my parents made friends with a younger couple. I soon had the husband pegged as an asshole because he couldn’t let a larger-than-average busted woman walk by without some comment, which hurt his flat-chested wife. They had two young daughters.

    Fast forward a couple of years and husband runs into Dem Titties, a girl who had been a year behind me in high school. Think Christina Hendricks or Kat Denning arcwelded onto Natalie Portman. Husband could no more resist Dem Titties than a bird could fold its wings and remain airborne. Wife starts breaking down and insisting Husband go to therapy and counseling but really there isn’t much she can do except go back to puberty and grow a pair of Dem Titties herself.

    She cleaned him out in the divorce, and Dem Titties took what was left when she left. My brother has kept up with both of them. She remarried after seven years to a news anchor. The daughters, who ironically ended up with better-than-average racks themselves, hate their father and call him That Asshole.

    What could the wife had done to avoid becoming a single mother?

  73. van Rooinek says:

    there are a few MRAs who wouldn’t find this convincing. The good Rmaxd said above that “rape isn’t much of a crime,” and I get the distinct feeling he doesn’t consider ‘violent’ rape to be much more serious than “date” rape…. there are probably people out there who’d make that argument.

    Not anyone who has ever known, dated, loved a victim.

    That said, MRAs who get called “rape apologists”, when I go back and read the post that triggers the accusation, turn out to be defending INNOCENT men. I really don’t see any argument in favor of rape from MRAs, what I see is an acknowledgement that many accusations are false, either because the act was consensual when it occurred (granted, they’d been drinking, but they still knew what they were doing), or, because the act simply did not happen at all.

    I think this is what Rmaxed is overreacting to — in his mind, a man overpowering a genuinely unwilling woman (either a date or a stranger) is probably a very rare event, and MOST of what’s callled “rape” nowadays, really isn’t. And yes — avoid like the plague, a woman who cried rape under questionable circumstances, I agree with him there.

    But don’t shun REAL victims, any more than you should shun a girl who got mugged or had her car stolen.

  74. Höllenhund says:

    @Suz 12:04 PM

    Other forces are at play as well. The general social consensus is that children aren’t responsible for anything and should be protected from all harm. People also tend to believe that a child shouldn’t be separated from her biological mother unless she’s practically a modern-day Elizabeth Bathory. This creates a situation where it’s impossible to hold even the most nefarious, vindictive, dysfunctional mother accountable for her decisions without (supposedly) harming her child/children as well. And that’s a big no-no, of course.

  75. True story….newly separated and divorcing mom, was entertaining gentlemen , nightly, in a small apartment, the kids were young. The father filed something to get the kids out of that environment. The court went so far as to send someone to the apartment to measure the degree to which sound transmitted through the wall and the kids could hear the moaning or pounding.

    It was deemed….”OK” for the kids to stay there

  76. van Rooinek says:

    Hurp, yes, Rmaxed did write this:

    “Also rapes a minor offence, her vagina lives on … ”

    Rmaxed… First of all, rape can result in disease that destroy fertility, aren’t curable, and/or shorten life. Secondly, it can result in an out of wedlock child and we all know what hell single motherhood is.

    So how is a crime that can, through disease, sterilize you, render you unmarriagable, and/or take decades off your life, a “minor offence”? How is a crime that can bring a new child into the world, under the most inauspicious circumstances imaginable, a “minor offence”? Far from it, the crime can be absolutely LIFECHANGING, or even life-ending. Never mind the psychological damage… you’ve obviously never had a first date end with a woman blubbering her horrible lifestory and sobbing on your shoulder til 2 AM….. I HAVE.

    Try to make a clearer moral distinction between drunk-slut-sex/ex-post-facto rape, and the real thing.

    But…. it should go without saying: DO NEITHER.

  77. Dalrock says:

    @Mule Chewing Briars

    What could the wife had done to avoid becoming a single mother?

    She could have chosen better. His faults were so glaring a child could quickly see them.

    When I was younger, my parents made friends with a younger couple. I soon had the husband pegged as an asshole because he couldn’t let a larger-than-average busted woman walk by without some comment, which hurt his flat-chested wife.

  78. ybm says:

    Should have bought her bolt-ons for Christmas

  79. Eric says:

    Anon:
    “Avoid the 18-25 age group.”

    Better still: avoid American women altogether. After all, it was the bitter, man-hating, ball-busting single moms 25 and over who schooled the younger ones; and the younger ones have proven to be apt pupils!

  80. Anonymous says:

    Misandry as a spay/neuter ad… no, not satire (though they try to make it humorous– to women– at the end) and for real.

    “I Hate Balls is a progressive, innovative and amusing multimedia fundraising campaign that uses a fresh and non-traditional approach to deliver an important and urgent message: spaying and neutering animals saves lives.”
    http://jasonheiglfoundation.org/i-hate-balls/

  81. Eric says:

    Mule Chewing Briars:
    Dalrock’s right: this jerk’s fault were apparent to anybody. And despite playing the ‘Victim Card’, this is why most women choose jerks. They can feel superior to such males; they never really have to give up their independence or commit, because they always can play the victim and society doesn’t blame them. Read between the lines and you’ll see what this woman is actually saying is: “I deserve a better man; it’s all society’s fault for encouraging men to want large-breasted women!”

    Not like she would do anything to attract really decent men. Believe me, there are a lot of men who find slender women attractive.

    This is another place where the feminist/media/academic propagandists fall flat on their faces. Anybody who’s studied even basic anthropology knows that, while men are attracted to physical beauty in females, the standards of that beauty are highly subjective and vary from individual to individual. Someone like Britney Spears may be attractive to a higher percentage of males— but there are men to whom she isn’t.

  82. Eric says:

    Anon:
    And people STILL want to believe that American women don’t get off on the idea of emasculating men? LOL

  83. Tom says:

    Here’s an interesting theme that sprung up overnight…

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/horrible-reactions-to-chris-brown-at-the-grammys

    Chicks dig assholes – story at 11.

  84. ruddyturnstone says:

    “What could the wife had done to avoid becoming a single mother?”

    Not marry a guy who was fixated on large breasts.

  85. Suz says:

    Yes, Höllenhund, there are many factor at work. Naturally greedy people will always find a way to work the system, but feminist society appeals to the greedy instincts in people who wouldn’t otherwise be moochers. This pandering brings out the worst in most of us. A society should protect its children, but ours protects mothers, and allows them to “protect” their children as they see fit, rationalized bad decisions and all.

  86. ray says:

    “single sluts simply see no shame in sleeping around, as there are no economic penalties

    Ruddyturnstone: That just isn’t true. Single mothers are the brokest of the broke.”

    wow, talk about “just isn’t true”

    you dont spend much time in the streets and backwoods of the u.s. do you?

    the “brokest of the broke” are overwhelmingly single MEN, not women or single mothers

    u.s. streets are not full of single mothers, nor are the dispersed campgrounds in the national forests full of mom and kids

    women and “their” children rarely (if ever) die on america’s streets — while this is so common for u.s. males that it’s unremarkable

    just in the one rural country in which i live, there are about a thousand homeless vets, not to mention non-vet homeless guys

    there are no homeless females, and CERTAINLY no homeless mothers

    a couple days ago i questioned a local woman who works for the major “charity” NGO hereabouts about this, and was informed that “priority funding” goes to “families”

    families = women, for those of you who havent figured it out yet

    their policy is the same as that of the government and the churches, even after 50 years of males being forced out of education and employment: men need the help, women get the help

    thus, as in all other areas of culture, are females “oppressed” relative to males

    i see single mothers in their late FORTIES no less, going from Romantic Delusion to Romantic Delusion, tossing aside men left and right for the Nest Thrill, ludicrously trying to convince themselves that they still have the sexual power over men they did at fifteen years of age

    meanwhile, while mom is playing Fem Fantasia in her greying noggin, “their” sons cry themselves to sleep at night (or much worse) because the latest man/father they bonded with is out the door, and Liberated Mom is busy looking for the next assurance, in the form of male interest, that she has still “got it”

    being a GOOD mother isnt easy, and as a single mom it’s much more difficult, economically and elsewise

    but these women have made their own beds, and they desire a different “suitor” in those beds ever few years, to maintain the childish delusions sold to them by their matriarchal nations, and to maintain their own out-of-control vanity

    instead of being called-out on their atrocious behavior, single mothers are lionized, while folks tell us (eroneously) that they are the “poorest of the poor” and that if Those Evil Males would only man-up and marry them, why, all these problems would be solved (for a few months, until Oprah and Dr. Phil and the New York Times and etc etc convince her to to “find a better guy — one who is worthy of her Specialness”)

    how’s that work out for the nation’s boys? disaster

    but not to worry, they’ll soon be adult males, at which point they can also be scapegoated and disenfranchised, and the whole pathological cycle repeats

    “Someday Never Comes” (Fogerty)

  87. van Rooinek says:

    just in the one rural country in which i live, there are about a thousand homeless vets

    Right about now I wish I could afford to give all of them AK-47s.

  88. Rmaxd says:

    lol @ Van Rooineks comments on rape … probably the only person on the planet, who believes rape turns women sterile … hilarious

    Rooinek heres news for you … there are NO real victims of rape, as none-violent rape is just none-consensual sex …

    Violent rape is assault with rape … theres a major different between none-consensual sex & assault with rape

    This isnt a MRA issue, its a reality based issue …

    I had a biting reposte to Rooinek, but TFH spelled it out perfectly …

    TFH basically states, rape to a woman is the perfect test of her fitness as a woman

    TFH – “This is because those ugly women desperately want to believe that they are attractive enough to even *get* that attention. Hence their narrative about ‘rape’.

    Always remember this – why aren’t the pretty girls worried about rape as much as the ugly girls are?”

    A classic line from Rooineks post …

    “you’ve obviously never had a first date end with a woman blubbering her horrible lifestory and sobbing on your shoulder til 2 AM….. I HAVE.”

    Yes, cos you’re a mangina, she saw you a mile away, instead of telling her to shut the hell up, & bend over … which is clearly what she wanted … she spent the night slobbering over your shoulder regaling her glory days of getting reamed …

    Women use shrinks & counsellors, not dates to cope with psychological issues …

  89. Rmaxd says:

    In other words Rooinek, she was attention whoring … nothing more, & you fell for it hook like & sinker …

  90. Rmaxd says:

    I meant … hook line & sinker ..

  91. milchama says:

    Women who are proud to be single mothers are often, at the core, proud of their sin and the results thereof. It is a shameful thing to be proud of, and even if a woman is widowed or left by a legitimate loser of a husband it makes little sense to be proud of it. Isaiah 5:20 says “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” Of course I’m not saying widows or women who had awful husbands are “shameful,” least anyone get the wrong idea.

  92. van Rooinek says:

    First of all, rape can result in disease that destroy fertility

    lol @ Van Rooineks comments on rape … probably the only person on the planet, who believes rape turns women sterile … hilarious

    Rmaxd, you’d embarass yourself a lot less if you’d learn to read. Rape spreads diseases, some of which make a woman sterile. Chlamydia, one of the worst offenders, is often not detected til the damage is done.

  93. van Rooinek says:

    Rmaxd: there are NO real victims of rape, as none-violent rape is just none-consensual sex … Violent rape is assault with rape … theres a major different between none-consensual sex & assault with rape

    You are not sane.

  94. Lily says:

    This isn’t logical
    Im not sure how rape victims are date worthy …
    Also rapes a minor offence, her vagina lives on …

    How can rape be a minor offence if the victim is not even considered ‘date worthy’.

    “Violent rape is assault with rape … theres a major different between none-consensual sex & assault with rape”
    Ok tell that to the male victims of rape who froze up and/or didn’t fight back, let alone the female ones or their wives.

    If you came up before my pa in a court, he would lock you up and throw away the key. And he would consider that far too good for you. Oh sorry, I meant he’d let you off for medical reasons..straight into a mental asylum.

  95. Lily says:

    “Ok tell that to the male victims of rape who froze up and/or didn’t fight back, let alone the female ones or their wives.”
    Typo, I meant families. Do you have any family? More important, do you even know what a minor offence is?

  96. van Rooinek says:

    Thanks Lily. For a while I thought I’d be the only one standing up to his psychosis.

  97. Lily says:

    It’s all rather bizarre.

  98. van Rooinek says:

    Til now I thought “rape apologist” was just a dismissive term used by radfems to shut down discussions of the very real problem (a proven by DNA, per the innocence project) of false rape accusations. Never encountered an ACTUAL rape apologist on the net.

    Til today. Ugh. I guess at least one actually exists.

  99. Glad to have you back, Dalrock.

  100. Joe Sheehy says:

    Rationalization hamster wheel developing powerful moment of inertia here:

    Pay attention in particular to her complaints about “outliers” not wanting to commit, but her things “not working out” with commitment minded men. And also note the absurd talk about a decline in the total population ratio of men to women somehow causing alpha behavior: (apex fallacy)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/3/

  101. Joe Sheehy says:

    From the article above:

    “My spotty anecdotal findings have revealed that, yes, in many cases, the more successful a man is (or thinks he is), the less interested he is in commitment.

    Take the high-powered magazine editor who declared on our first date that he was going to spend his 30s playing the field. Or the prominent academic who announced on our fifth date that he couldn’t maintain a committed emotional relationship but was very interested in a physical one. Or the novelist who, after a month of hanging out, said he had to get back out there and tomcat around, but asked if we could keep having sex anyhow, or at least just one last time. Or the writer (yes, another one) who announced after six months together that he had to end things because he “couldn’t continue fending off all the sexual offers.” And those are just the honest ones.

    To be sure, these men were the outliers—the majority of my personal experience has been with commitment-minded men with whom things just didn’t work out, for one reason or another.”

  102. Anonymous says:

    Rooink, if you’re going to let her use you as Emotional Tampax Superabsrobant, get some sex out her for it… ass, grass or gas, nobody rides for free! Regular sex, regular whining… fair deal.

  103. Suz says:

    Two more cents: non-consensual (forced) sex IS rape.
    Some women invite it, some women lie about it. Don’t dismiss real victims when you dismiss fake victims.

  104. Rmaxd says:

    @Van Rooinek

    Still with the fantasy sterilisation caused by rape …

    Yea women get diseases from sex all the time … rape is sex after all …

    Violent assault is completely different & you know it … so why the hysteria about minor none-consensual sex?

    Also as you VERY WELL KNOW, none-consensual sex is almost impossible to prove, making it the bread & butter of false rape

    So you guys are still trying to equate none-consensual sex with violent assault?

    Bit behind the times guys, its all false rape nowadays, virtual rape, obviously some sort of subversive pre-cursor to virtual sex …

    Which feminists will call virtual rape … & then youll have virtual rape hysteria …

    Alot like the fake rape hysteria, today, where the manginas call none-consensual sex, equal to violent assault ..,

    Seriously Van Rooinek, youre just an emotional tampon for women like Lily, theres no soap box to climb on, as there is NO real rape & you know it

    ONLY violent assault with rape, or unprovable none-consensual sexual accusations …

    Dont you know the difference by now …

    Anyone with half a brain knows the difference between violent assault & regular rape

    Apparently not the feminist or the manginas …

  105. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    “non-consensual (forced) sex IS rape.”

    Erm regular sex involves force too … so whats the difference, an involuntary thrust versus REAL provable violent assault ?

    “Don’t dismiss real victims when you dismiss fake victims.”

    There are no real provable victims of regular rape, dna doesnt prove consensual sex, it just proves sex took place, the context of that act is determined by the womans mood ring & unprovable accusations …

    None-consensual sex isnt a crime, unless its provable verified by real evidence

  106. Rmaxd says:

    None-consensual sex isnt a crime, unless it incurs real provable injury, like all regular crimes … get a clue & get off the rape hysteria bandwagon …

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    For women, the chances of becoming infected with gonorrhea from a single act of intercourse is between 60% and 80%. Complications of uncured gonorrhea can be pretty serious for men and women, but notably including infertility in women.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonorrhea

    Gonorrhea is increasingly resistant to antibiotics. A new strain has been detected in Japan that resists all known antibiotics.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/13/cdc-warns-untreatable-gonorrhea-is-on-the-way

    Therefore, many sexual acts can spread disease, potentially causing harm, and nonconsensual acts obviously can case real, provable injury that cannot be undone. Next ?

  108. ray says:

    Right about now I wish I could afford to give all of them AK-47s

    their enemies wish you could afford that too! but i get you

    america has become predatory towards males

    theres a hidden benefit to the situation of those guys tho — babylon used, abused, and ejected them, but that brought some into interaction with god/bible… sneaking up on him

    some of these guys are hungry for god now, humble circumstances facilitate contact

    why not send the AKs to eric holder? he can mount them on his office wall and imagine he’s a man

  109. hurp says:

    To still be in the company of the woman past Midnight, and not be having sex, is an epic fail.

    Not to be a gratuitous guest, but you do know Van Rooinek is Christian, right? I get the distinct impression he believes sex before marriage is immoral. He might also have believed it was his religious duty to show compassion towards a wronged woman (or, as you might put it, “be an emotional tampon” or “playing therapist” or whatever) and thus didn’t want to just up and leave when the girl admitted she’d been raped.

    Now, while I have a great deal of respect for Christianity, I’m not exactly a paragon of piety, so I won’t say that every man should do what VR did. But if he was apparently living up to what he believed his religion teaches, I would hardly call that an “epic fail.”

  110. Suz says:

    Please.

    Rmaxd,

    “The crime of forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse.” – American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed.

    “A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.” – thefreedictionary.com

    “1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
    2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.” dictionary.com

    You’re far more credible when you’re not being deliberately obtuse.

  111. Legion says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    February 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    “For women, the chances of becoming infected with gonorrhea from a single act of intercourse is between 60% and 80%.”

    So your saying you infect 60% to 80% of the women you sex upwith gonorrhea? No, wait, I have never infected any women with gonorrhea. So your rate must be 120% to 160%.

    You are an idiot.

  112. hurp says:

    No disrespect to PMAFT, but while I haven’t been paying that much attention to his blog lately, as far as I know he hasn’t mentioned any other women he’s picked up besides Molly. Judging from one of his latest posts, he might have gone celibate again.

    Aside from that, however, I personally wouldn’t date a woman unless I was planning to bed her. However, religion is probably not the only difference between VR and you and I. Who knows, maybe he simply enjoys the company of women even without sex, or maybe he’s just using these dates as practice for when he actually gets married. I don’t know, and while he’s free to give us more information (if he wants–I won’t pry), until he does I would withhold judgment on him ‘failing’ at whatever his goals were.

  113. Suz says:

    The very real issues of evidence and of laws favoring female accusers, don’t change the definition of rape. Assault/violence are not necessary; the THREAT of them is, except in surreptitious drugging cases.
    (You’ll note I didn’t include the VOLUNTARY use of drugs or alcohol by a “victim.”)

  114. Doc says:

    Have a friend that went through the whole divorce shtick with two kids that he adored. Of course she moved out of state to make it difficult for him to be a part of their lives. I finally convinced him to put it behind him, cut his losses and start enjoying life again. He still gets to see the kids for some major holidays and during the summer, but these days rather than being “devastated” he’s had them visiting with a different young woman each time.

    He’s discovered that kids are almost like having a puppy to younger women – shows he’s the type that did settle down once, and dotes on his kids. Of course, he’s been down that road once and plays it for all that it’s worth.

    Had a Superbowl party and the unannounced (at least to the ladies) theme was, “Bring your Little-Girl” and the ole horn-dog showed up with one of the girls that used to baby-sit for his kids – of course, she’s nineteen now. He was grinning like an idiot most of the evening, as she was sitting at his feet during the game. He’s learning well… (She was with him and the kids over Christmas and New Years – I would have loved to hear the report his ex-wife drummed out of them afterwards.)

    Of course, while the men were watching the game, the women were getting us drinks and chatting in the kitchen and during Half-Time we raided the kitchen to find some of the other women warning her that if her friends criticized him being older, it was because they wanted what she had. My friend was grinning like an idiot – it was good to see him enjoying life again.

    That is what await men after a divorce – a new, and better life.

  115. ruddyturnstone says:

    ray:

    The stats show that single mothers are dirt poor. Are there some single men who are even poorer? Sure. But pretty much ALL single mothers are poor. I’m not saying they’re starving on the streets. I’m not saying they are as bad off as a homeless single guy. But the notion that there is no economic penalty to pay for being a single mother is ridiculous. Single mothers, by and large, are very poor. Married and co habiting mothers, much less so. Single childless women, much less so. The choice to have children while single is a terribly bad one, from an economic standpoint.

    That’s why there has to be something else going on. And I think we’ve found what that something else is….status. As low status as the upper and UM class sees single motherhood, it is seen as being a step up from being a lower class single woman of no particular distinction, a mere “around the way girl.” The book linked to above deals with this.

    “but these women have made their own beds”

    I know, that’s why, in my very first post I said, “Goddamnit….it’s your own fucking fault.”

    “instead of being called-out on their atrocious behavior, single mothers are lionized, while folks tell us (eroneously) that they are the ‘poorest of the poor'”

    They’re the poorest of the poor, when looked at a separate class. Most single men are NOT sleeping in the street. Single men have a range of incomes, from sleeping in the street to sleeping in a mansion. But most single women are poor. The point is that having kids by yourself, for a woman, is a grossly counterproductive move, financially. Yet they do it anyway. And, yeah, you’re right, part of the answer is that they are lionized for it. But denying that it is a stupid move, economically, is not only just untrue but it is counterproductive too.

  116. Lavazza says:

    Anonymous: “I Hate Balls is a progressive, innovative and amusing multimedia fundraising campaign that uses a fresh and non-traditional approach to deliver an important and urgent message: spaying and neutering animals saves lives.

    Annually more than 5 million pets are killed in shelters across the United States. Spay/neuter is the most effective method of helping to reduce that number to zero. A simple surgical procedure will eliminate the possibility of unwanted litters of companion animals, who are then subsequently abandoned at shelters and euthanized when homes can not be found for them.”

    I do not understand this reasoning at all. If you make an animal into a genetic dead end, you might as well kill it.

  117. Suz says:

    “Lavazza: I do not understand this reasoning at all. If you make an animal into a genetic dead end, you might as well kill it.”

    Simple. We bred them into dependence because we want their company. No going back from there. The options are limited: Kill them all. Let them breed unchecked, causing all kinds of problems for us and suffering for them. Keep the pets we love and prevent the births of millions of surplus “nuisance” animals. Not rocket science.

  118. Mule Chewing Briars says:

    Lavazza –

    I have a neutered beagle. I love the little guy, but make no mistake about it. He exists for my pleasure, not I for his. I don’t want him getting out at odd hours to try to spread his seed. I have a hard enough time controlling his tracking instinct and he ended up under a car because of it.

    Neutering him made him a more docile companion. His background was hunting beagle, not show beagle anyway, so no one was particularly concerned about his DNA. He’s having a good life anyway.

  119. van Rooinek says:

    Van Rooinek, I wonder if you realize that 40% of rape accusations are false (something the police themselves admit).

    Yes, I know this. But….actual victims do exist. Are you going to go

    Rooink, if you’re going to let her use you as Emotional Tampax Superabsrobant, get some sex out her for it
    Van Rooinek, if you are on a first date, and have not started having sex by Midnight (let alone 2 AM), you have totally, utterly failed at that date

    I saved my virginity til my wedding night. Y’all can go to hell.

    Van Rooinek simply was not one who got the gina to tingle.

    Actually, I did. She offered… several times over the next several weeks.

    However, religion is probably not the only difference between VR and you and I. Who knows, maybe he simply enjoys the company of women even without sex,

    No, not really. However, I’ve been happily married for 10 years. Not to her, though.

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    “For women, the chances of becoming infected with gonorrhea from a single act of intercourse is between 60% and 80%.”

    Legion
    So your saying you infect 60% to 80% of the women you sex upwith gonorrhea?

    No.

    No, wait, I have never infected any women with gonorrhea. So your rate must be 120% to 160%.

    You don’t understand basic probabilities, it appears, or even the concept of percentages.

    You are an idiot.

    Maybe so, but I understand the concept of probability, and how certain diseases are spread – sometimes involuntarily.

  121. van Rooinek says:

    If Christianity is the reason he had no skills with women,

    My wife would dispute the “no skills with women” assertion. However, I learned most of my skills with her.

    then women are simply using Christianity as a manipulation tool to get free dinners and other usages out of him

    Well, not necessarily. Based on their reactions to me, some of them actually wanted to get to know me in a biblical sense. I turned them down, also in a biblical sense. However, though I never went all the way til my wedding, being single til 38 is a hell of a long time to hold out; with a few of them I went further than I should.

  122. James says:

    @ruddyturnstone

    There ARE two main paths to single motherhood, one of them is entirely the woman’s fault and the other mostly so.

    The Red Pill is supposed to make you see things as they are, not to believe that men are always virtuous and women are always vicious, as if you are some kind of inverted radical feminist. Surprisingly, men and women belong to the same species and are equally prone to bad behavior, even if their strategies, and the attitudes of the law, are different.

    There are plenty of routes to single motherhood. The traditional one is a woman whose contraception fails, and who does not want to either abort her baby or give it up for adoption, even after her “partner” runs away. Another is the woman whose partner turns out to have genuinely unacceptable behavior.

    You don’t have to look far in the “manosphere” to find web sites that give men tips on how to manipulate the mind of a woman. In small doses, this is a necessary antidote to women’s superior social skills. In larger doses, the PUA/Game mindset increases the amount of casual and deceptive sex and therefore the numbers of single parents.

    If in doubt, read The Sexual Dystopia Sucks For Women Too and some of the other pages on that site.

  123. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    You clearly dont understand basic law

    Any crime REQUIRES proof … since its almost impossible to prove none-consensual none-violent rape

    Due to the impossibility of proving regular rape, It is in fact not a crime

    PROVE none-consensual none-violent rape takes place? WITHOUT hearsay or anecdotal statements?

    Quoting a law book, doesnt prove the crime takes place, all it proves is a theoretical definition of a fictional crime

    A crime doesnt exist just because it exists in some law dictionary, theres some pretty wacky definitions of crime in there …

    Also a definition of a crime in a law dictionary, doesnt make it a crime, its merely a definition …

    Theres a very real difference between a definition & real crime …

    Dont let the impossibility of proving regular rape takes place, keep crying over fictional rape victims & their fictional rape trauma …

    I suggest you learn REAL law, instead of parroting feminist rape hysteria …

    Nobody gives a crap about unprovable crime, & that includes rape … go cry me a river, get some real tangible proof it happened, or no attention whoring ….

    ALSO men get raped more then women … fact … again you guys are spouting feminist rape hysteria

    Btw single mothers should be neutered … lol … without welfare …

  124. Suz says:

    Yes, men are raped as least as much as women. It’s still rape according to the definition of rape.

    A crime doesn’t have to be provable to be a crime. Proof is required only for a conviction.

    Those were dictionary definitions, not legal ones.

  125. Will says:

    “Btw single mothers should be neutered … lol … without welfare …”

    I wonder if this sort of thing might eventually happen or rather the insertion of a contraceptive implant under the skin as a condition for single mothers to receive welfare when the state can no longer afford unlimited welfare.

  126. van Rooinek says:

    Stilll no answer from Rmaxd on my 2 questions:

    “How would you handle it if your Christian virgin fiancee was assaulted a couple of months before your wedding? Get her tested for viruses of course….” And then???

    “Suppose you had to choose between two women, otherwise equally matched. and both had previous partner count of 2. One [had] 2 boyfriends before you….The other girl, committed herself at an early age to staying a virgin til marriage, yet .. was attacked and raped by a couple of thugs…” Choose, Rmaxd — fornicatrix or innocent victim?

    And another for ya. What WOULD you really do, if a woman you liked, broke down in tears and told you about something horrible that happened to her? Walk out, as some here think I should have done?

  127. Will says:

    We cannot continue allowing Women to breed at the states expense.

  128. van Rooinek says:

    Hurp — I’m not exactly a paragon of piety, so I won’t say that every man should do what VR did. But if he was apparently living up to what he believed his religion teaches, I would hardly call that an “epic fail.”

    Thanks.

    TFH — No. Then he should not date at all.

    How in the hell was I supposed to get married, if I didn’t date? Duh.

  129. milchama says:

    Van Rooinek, TFH is an example of a person who cannot comprehend Christian morality. I’ve met a good deal of them. They think Christianity and following Christ is either a hindrance to their pleasure (and it is a hindrance to hedonistic pursuits) or a crutch to blame lack of success on. I personally would not have sex with a woman outside of marriage, 1 Corinthians is clear on the ramifications of that. I am not virgin, having had essentially a live-in GF for years before I became a Christian as well as other women, but, the gravity of the sin is huge. The two truly become one flesh, it’s hard to explain, but it will always effect you. Plus, it is a grave sin to join Christ to an act of fornication, as your body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

    There are too many gloom and doomers out there who lament not being able to find a Christian girl to marry, and claim that church girls are “all whores.” I disagree. The thing is, there are too many men out there on this blog and others who cannot subjugate their body into waiting. And it is brutally hard, I know, but remember that God considers a woman you sleep with to have essentially become your spouse. Remember that God sees all and that profaning the Temple is a horrible act of blasphemy. You might need to wait years (like Van Rooinek), and you might never find a Godly wife, but you need to put Christ before all else and trust in God to provide what you need. When Christian men say that waiting is impossible, they are indirectly claiming that they absolutely do not believe Christ can/will provide for all their needs. It’s an issue of lack of faith.

    That said, game can certainly help. I just wrote a post about that on my blog yesterday – it’s also a bad idea to just wait around for a spouse to drop into your lap without taking any action, or to blame lack of social skills and lack of success with women on holding true to Christian morality.

  130. Legion says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    February 14, 2012 at 7:56 am

    I understand. I understand that you are so lacking in the topic you chose that you cant explain it properly. To save me a post, back up that ‘data’ with some references. The kind that can be found on the internet, not the “Oh I have a book that tells me this.’

    Until you can explain yourself properly and show good data on your wild announcement, then you are an idiot.

    A further explaination: I understand that some sources that we think are expert are actually lying through their teeth. We all get foolled that way and it’s part of human nature. It’s only a fault if it happens all the time.

  131. GKChesterton says:

    So while I love Dalrock’s posts I’m really disappointed by the comment stream. This is _presumably_ a Christian blog. The whole, “has to have an abortion,” and condoning of rape is just flat out weird.

  132. Lavazza says:

    Suz and Mule: There seems to be a consensus about pets where there is a golden mean between caring for animals that are typically used as pets and seeing them as commodities. But this golden mean is hardly ever expressed and debated.

  133. P Ray says:

    “What could the wife had done to avoid becoming a single mother?”
    Not marry a guy who was fixated on large breasts.

    @ruddyturnstone: His aloofness and indifference towards her probably sealed the deal.
    She never mentioned how many good guys she turned down previously. A bit like Elizabeth and John Edwards. Or see “Shaun of the Dead” for an example of that.
    Not every woman in a bad marriage was tricked – some did a fair amount of heartbreak previously to end up with a guy who would later leave them.

    “What goes around, comes around”.

  134. milchama says:

    @GKChesterson – I attribute the weirder comments to the fact that a lot of the commenters are non-Christians who found Dalrock’s blog through MRA and even PUA blogs. A Christian would never condone rape, and the Spirit would definitely not lead a Christian to support abortion (some Christians are simply ignorant on the subject or don’t listen to what the Spirit and their conscience are saying).

  135. P Ray says:

    @Milchama:
    Requesting restraint from men, while excusing female sluttiness means the guys who weren’t always attractive to women, get to pay for her sins AFTER, in their committed relationship where HE always has to lead (whether she’s a LIbEral or CONservative, doesn’t matter).

    “I attribute the weirder comments to the fact that a lot of the commenters are non-Christians”
    Go back and read your Bible. Specifially 1 Corinthians 7:13.

    And try to remember not everyone has had the opportunity to be touched by the Spirit.

  136. hurp says:

    Wait, you say “pickup artists” in plural. Just how many other PUAs besides the enterprising PMAFT have picked up on his Sunday Morning Nightclub idea? Heck, I don’t even know if he’s bedded anyone besides that Molly girl. Not trying to troll or be confrontational, genuinely curious–like I said above, I haven’t paid much attention to his blog in a while, or anybody’s blog for that matter; been busy.

    That said, I do have a question for our host, if I may be permitted to draw the discussion back to the OP. Dalrock, how do you feel about single motherhood within the context of arranged marriage? Divorce is much rarer in those types of marriages (so I’ve heard), but it does happen. Since in those cases, the woman didn’t “choose” the man so much as the parents chose them for each other, if she divorces and sets off on the path of single motherhood, how has she failed if she didn’t make a mistake by choosing the wrong man? You could say the parents made the mistake, though, but I’m wondering what your opinion on that situation might be.

    Again, not trying to be confrontational, I ask out of curiosity and a bit of personal interest (my own parents had an arranged marriage, which thankfully seems to be working out).

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    Legion
    I understand. I understand that you are so lacking in the topic you chose that you cant explain it properly.

    Perhaps i wrote in haste. Or perhaps you read carelessly.

    To save me a post, back up that ‘data’ with some references. The kind that can be found on the internet, not the “Oh I have a book that tells me this.’

    I already posted references, in links to articles.

    Until you can explain yourself properly and show good data on your wild announcement, then you are an idiot.

    In any given event of sexual intercourse between a man infected with gonorrhea and a woman who is not infected, there is a chance that she will become infected. It appears that the probability of infection is at least 0.6 and can be as high as 0.8. If someone got a 10-shot revolver and loaded 6 chambers at random, spun the cylinder so that it was not possible to see what chamber would come up next, then pointed it at your head – would you let them pull the trigger? Because that’s how the probabilities work. Maybe a click, maybe a bang – maybe serious harm, maybe a miss, maybe serious brain damage or even death.

    If Ted Thug gets drunk enough in a bar to affect his judgement, and while pissing on the side of the building after closing sees on of the barmaids, grabs her, puts a knife to her throat, drags her behind a dumpster and has intercourse with her no matter her protests, if he’s infected with gonorrhea there’s better than 50-50 odds she’ll wind up infected with it. And given that there are strains documented as resistant to most, or even all, known antibiotics, she could have an incurable disease with many side effects for the rest of her life. I’d call that “harm”, maybe you would as well?

    Therefore, given the probability of transmission of disease from an infected man to an uninfected woman, the known existence of anti-biotic strains of venereal disease, it should be obvious that an actual attempt at forcible sexual intercourse in any orifice constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm or death.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  138. P Ray says:

    True, but the issue here is being with someone you can trust that you find attractive, that hasn’t lied to you about her past. Of course, being reciprocal helps.
    But there’s no harm interacting with others who are interesting too.
    After all, there isn’t a relationship until both people say it is, and act in a way that indicates they’re committed to each other.

  139. P Ray says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    There’s incurable gonorrhea now, in Japan.
    Ted Thug or Paulina Playette can both pass it on.

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    PRay
    @Anonymous Reader
    There’s incurable gonorrhea now, in Japan.

    Yes. I pointed that out up the thread with a link to a news story that quoted the CDC on the topic.

    Ted Thug or Paulina Playette can both pass it on.

    Yes. But the issue was Rmaxd’s claim that there’s no physical harm in rape of a female human by a male human, and that’s what I sought to disprove.

  141. hurp says:

    What culture are they from?

    Bangladesh. I’m of the same ethnicity as you, if I recall correctly, or at least from a similar one (you’re from India, aren’t you?)

  142. milchama says:

    No, TFH, you don’t understand Christian morality in the least. You see it as a wall to your pleasure, and display the signs of a sociopath. The Bible applies to men and women, and it does not excuse a woman’s infidelity at all. It does not give one gender a pass to act as it wishes. Maybe in the churches you “sarge” women are given a pass, but they are not given a pass in the churches I have attended any more than the men have, and the Bible certainly gives them no pass (and in the end, the Bible is the sole arbiter of Christian morality, what the church says is irrelevant if it is not in line with the Bible).

    You can’t make a blanket statement that the women in the church have had 10+ sex partners. Have I met sluts in churches? Sure. But the vast majority are not. Some women do live loose lives then go to church looking for a beta provider, but usually they’re in their late 20’s or 30’s, and in my experience this is not extremely popular. I don’t know of any women in my church who are doing this, nor in my last church. I think you are really exaggerating the problem. Additionally, I’ve met more men in the churches who have serious pornography addictions, large numbers of sex partners, live in GF’s, etc. According to the Bible though, they, as well as the female sluts, should be booted from the church/restricted from fellowship until they reform. That’s Biblical church discipline which is not practiced nearly enough these days.

    I agree somewhat with your last statement, TFH. Many churches have become feminized and have become microcosms of the feminist movement, albeit from a “conservative” angle. We even see this on Christian television with all the so-called female “pastors.”

    PUA’s are not “infiltrating the church on Sunday’s and picking up the women there” in large numbers at all. There are not a lot of men who can adequately learn game, let alone have the time to sacrifice a Saturday night to get up early to head to church to pick up women. Most PUA’s aren’t shortening their Saturday’s to have Sunday morning pick-ups. Heck, I think it’d be hard to find even 10 PUA’s who do this, and the degree of success they have would be largely dependent on the individual church itself – and non-churches like the Unitarians or the ones who do gay marriages, have gay clergy, have female clergy, etc do not count, because they are apostate churches that are false religions entirely. I also expect they would have some success in some mega churches as well, but many of those are either apostate or real poor spiritually to begin with.

    Christian women – who are Christ’s and guided by the Holy Spirit, aren’t going to church to get “picked up.” Sure, many of them want to find a good Christian husband there (no fault in that), but your approach to want to “infiltrate” and have sex with Christian women is both sociopathic and God will not let you get away with attempting to profane His flock forever.

  143. ray says:

    Ruddyturnstone —
    “But pretty much ALL single mothers are poor. I’m not saying they’re starving on the streets.”

    well then theyre not the “brokest of the broke” and “poorest of the poor” are they?

    in fact, v few single mothers can even imagine what real hardship means

    “They’re the poorest of the poor, when looked at a separate class”

    no, they are not

    the poorest of the poor are M-E-N, largely single men, often veterans — or are they not a “separate class” too? (certainly they are not considered as such by the feminist state and the feminist churches and the feminist NGOs, all of whom find endless methods of categorizing females into special groups so they can be Better Served)

    but somehow the ACTUAL poorest of the poor, why, theyre just part of the old boys’ network, the privileged patriarchy which includes “single males” eh?

    more logic from the United Sisterhood of America!

    whether churches, state, or prIvate orgs, EVERYBODY finds reasons, excuses, and arguments to provide support and assistance to a group (single mothers) who ALREADY benefit from their first-class status as females in a feminist society

    i definitely agree with your points concerning the likelihood of poverty in choosing single motherhood

    unlike them, many homeless men didn’t CHOOSE their situations, nor their impoverishment, which often is directly related to their willful disenfranchisement (and a lot worse) by a male-hating culture

  144. Rmaxd says:

    @Van

    “And another for ya. What WOULD you really do, if a woman you liked, broke down in tears and told you about something horrible that happened to her? Walk out, as some here think I should have done?”

    YES

    What sort of emotionally driven clap trap is this …

    The correct course is to target her erogenous zones until she gets so turned on, she stops blubbering & starts getting moist …

    Nothing beats a good rogering …to shut a woman up …

    But yes if she was raped id walk out, theres no way im shagging damaged goods

    Its like having sex with a chick who got molested when she was young, & wont shut the hell up about it twenty years later, spewing her personal sordid details to every guy she dates …

    Theres no telling with crazy chicks … dating crazy & damaged goods is asking for trouble …

    I have zero sympathy for crazy chicks, deal with your rapes & molesting with a shrink, not your date

    I am not a shrink & im not there for you to dump your personal private life on, have some self respect & composure for gods sake …

  145. Rmaxd says:

    @Milchama

    “Have I met sluts in churches? Sure. But the vast majority are not. ”

    Erm yes they are …

    Ask your pastors daughter how many guys she’s slept by time she hits 30 …

    ALL western women have 20+ partners by the time they hit 30 … the minority who dont are statistically none-existent …

  146. hurp says:

    TFH, are you Zoroastrian? You’d be the first one I ever met online (never met one IRL).

  147. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    “A crime doesn’t have to be provable to be a crime. Proof is required only for a conviction. ”

    Wrong a crime has to be provable, otherwise it didnt happen

    Crime without proof is CALLED A FALSE ACCUSATION … lol

    A woman stating rape without proof, is a false accusation, a woman stating injury without proof is a false accusation …

    UNLESS there is verifiable proof a crime took place, its not a crime, the CORRECT definition is hearsay or suspicion …

    For more lessons in basic english, feel free to pay in skittles …

  148. Rmaxd says:

    @Van Rooinek & Anon Reader

    State the provable injury in rape, IF the guy has no stds or doesnt cause grevious bodily harm?

    NO proof, no rape …

  149. Suz says:

    Ray,
    Ruddyturnstone’s “poorest of the poor” was based on “$5.00 net worth,” which may be technically true. It’s hardly painful though, when the government, your parents, and sometimes your baby-daddy, are paying the bills. Many of the black single mothers with a net worth of $5.00, didn’t stay in school long enough to know what “net worth” means. To them it means nothing at all.

  150. Suz says:

    “A woman stating rape without proof, is a false accusation, a woman stating injury without proof is a false accusation …”

    It’s an accusation that may or may not be false. You have a strange way of defining “crime.”
    Feminists do that too.

  151. Legion says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    February 14, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    “In any given event of sexual intercourse between a man infected with gonorrhea and a woman who is not infected, there is a chance that she will become infected.”

    Aahh, that is the critical sentence that was missing from your original post that made you sound like an idiot. You did not specify that the man was infected. I will apoligize and say that you are not an idiot. You just rushed off a post. Happens to all of us.

    You assumed people would check your links and know what you are trying to say, but it does not work that way. You should put the whole train of thought in your post.

    The Wikipedia is your backup. That is not a reliable source. It could be right, but you have to trust the people who edit it and that has been found to be unreliable. It’s still a scary scenario.

    On the other hand, you left out women responsiblities in the spread of STD’s. Do you assume women with STD’s don’t screw around or can’t spread them? That’s very sexist of you. They are our equals after all. If the Wikipedia wasn’t providing you with that information, you can now see how unreliable it is.

    Yet in the end, I apoligize for again calling you an idiot.

  152. milchama says:

    TFH – 20 partners by age 30? Where do you get this number from? Do you simply suspect the absolute worst of every woman? Or do you take the worst case scenarios and extrapolate them across everyone? Because in my experience, this is not true at all. Most Christian women are married by 30, to begin with, and the Godliest of them that I’ve known have actually married kind of young. You’re just pulling numbers out of nowhere.

    I highly doubt there will be a “mob” here to oppose what I think. I agree with a lot of what Dalrock says and I am a long time reader, even if I’m a new commenter. Not only that, but I am in agreement with many on here say, such as Van Rooinek, and there’s no mob here to oppose him. You’re trying to validate your statements by hoping a “mob” comes along (which plays to the might makes right falsehood) or hoping that Dalrock will agree with you (as if him agreeing with you is the end all be all validation of what you say). Even if Dalrock disagrees with me, it does not mean I’m wrong, and I still like this blog regardless.

    I make sure that the churches I attend are Godly churches, and not feminized. There are plenty of Godly churches around, even in my home state back in the Northeast. It’s true that many are feminized, that’s a huge problem in the church, but not all, and I stay away from the ones that are.

    You don’t understand Christian morality, you conflate “churchianity” with Christianity. The Bible says fornication is sin, and therefore it is. Christian morality is dictated by the Bible, not a church, and if a church does not stand on the Bible it is acting as an apostate church.

    Yes, I did use shaming language, because you ought to be ashamed of some of the things you say, and what you claim to do at churches. You also use shaming language, as you tried to shame me for supposedly being an “innocent beta man.”

    It’s true not every woman in my church is a “chaste virgin.” Heck, I’m not either, before I became a Christian I certainly was not chaste. I don’t delude myself – don’t make silly assumptions or insult my intelligence. I’m also not wholly opposed to dating a woman whose had multiple sex partners if she is reformed by Christ as I have been.

  153. Legion says:

    TFH says:
    February 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    “I am US-born, from a Persianid ethnicity that resides in India.”

    I met an Indian man from the Punjab the other day. He mentioned he very much liked classical music. I asked if he preferred Mozart or Bethoven. He said, “No, I am a Haydn Sikh.”

    (Read it out loud to yourselves people. Yes, I am a terrible person.)

  154. milchama says:

    One more thing, TFH – if a woman is sleeping around and has 20 sex partners by 30, while claiming to be in the church, she is almost definitely a Christian in name only. There are plenty of Christians in name only, male and female. They are the chaff that will be sifted from the wheat. They are the posers. In the end, God will say to them, “depart from me, you accursed. I never knew you.” Revelation says we can expect an increase of them too. There are many who name Christ but really worship themselves. Folks who sleep around are slaves of lust, and not slaves of Christ.

  155. hurp says:

    On the other hand, you left out women responsiblities in the spread of STD’s. Do you assume women with STD’s don’t screw around or can’t spread them?

    Yes, women can spread STDs, and they should be censured for doing so. However, the good Anonymous Reader was simply addressing the question of whether or not genuine rape, even “non-violent rape,” is a serious crime. Since a rapist with gonorrhea (or a similarly life-changing STD) could conceivably render his victim sterile, the conclusion reached was that yes indeed, genuine rape is a bad thing.

  156. Eric says:

    Milchama:
    To just to interject another perspective here: The problem is that American culture is feminized to its core; to the point where it isn’t even relevant what religious beliefs are professed by women— they have STILL swallowed feminist teachings and don’t even realize it, in many cases. I’ve seen numerous examples on this blog of so-called ‘tradcon’ and ‘socon’ women who claim to be anti-feminists, yet parrot feminist slogans as though they were the cultural norm.

    That, BTW, is why so many ‘tradcons’ like the idea of Game—a philosophy which also accepts feminism’s core tenets. And since Puritan cultural and history eliminates gender polarity and pedestalizes women as superior to men, its provides the natural soil for feminism. Feminism has never spread into any culture without a strong Puritan cultural history.

    That’s what most people actually conflate. Christianity in other cultures maintains the religion’s original gender polarity: Anglo-Saxon Cultures have lost that polarity.

  157. P Ray says:

    “There are plenty of Christians in name only, male and female. They are the chaff that will be sifted from the wheat. They are the posers. In the end, God will say to them, “depart from me, you accursed. I never knew you.”

    The problem is until that happens other innocent(?) people get to deal with them.
    Oh, of course there is the saying “like attracts like”. But there is also the reality that if you have what others want without having to work for it, deceit is employed if violence can be penalised.
    I’m sure people who have assets, have to watch out for those who want their assets lying to them so that they have an advantage.

  158. Anonymous Reader says:

    me
    <i.But the issue was Rmaxd’s claim that there’s no physical harm in rape of a female human by a male human,

    Of course there is physical harm in REAL rape. Real rape is a terrible crime.

    You might want to check with Rmaxd on that.

    That is still not a good enough reason to incentivize false rape accusations, which are 40% of all accusations.

    Show me where I have ever been in favor of false rape accusations.

    False accusations harm real victims too, by making more men doubt all accusations.

    Everyone on this thread agrees with this. Dance with your strawman somewhere else.

  159. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rmaxd
    State the provable injury in rape, IF the guy has no stds or doesnt cause grevious bodily harm?

    You are moving the goalposts. Previously, I believe you claimed that there was no provable injury to forced sexual intercourse at all. So I’ll take this latest posting as an admission that you were wrong. Even though you do not appear to be capable of admitting error.

  160. hurp says:

    Milchama’s blog title is “one *man’s* war against apostasy within the Christian church.” I don’t think he’s a chick.

  161. milchama says:

    @Eric – I mostly agree man. I think though that instead of throwing blanket statements on the Church, we should recognize that many individual churches and denominations have become corrupt. Apostasy is huge and feminism is playing a role in it. But, there are excellent churches everywhere. I’m originally from MA, the bluest of blue states, and even there I had a hard choice to make between 3 churches to attend. Down South, it’s even better. In those churches are a lot of good people. Generally they are Southern Baptist or Baptist of some sort.

    The Puritans weren’t all bad BTW. The Puritans may have elevated women, but they would never tolerate females among the church leadership, nor would they tolerate women being the heads of the households. Feminism mostly came into the churches due to secular humanism/liberal theology infesting the churches in the 1900’s. Many denominations started straying from orthodoxy, which opened the door for all kinds of heresies. Paul Washer, a Southern Baptist preacher, has an excellent sermon on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAMuoucAEY0&list=PL648BED7608BBA7C8&index=5&feature=plpp_video This tidbit is only 10 minutes long.

  162. P Ray says:

    Why is it that many women seem to find it hard to be with a nice guy,
    when they previously only chose players?
    The idea of condemning the player, but giving the slut a pass is very strange.
    After all, the sluts CHOSE the players.
    Should they not receive the penalty for having chosen wrongly?
    I’m pretty certain that some STDs may be passed down to the later children of any such union, and that the man marrying a slut is definitely at risk of being later divorced (having any partner previously, makes the risk spike).

    “At any rate, even 4 partners before marriage makes a woman unsuitable for marriage.” The man who was thursday and socialpathology (if I remember right), have presented research that the bar is even higher than that. 1 guy previously, is already too much.

    When it becomes offensive to ask a woman if she is a virgin before marriage … and I am sure most priests are too scared to do that, you will discover marriage rates drop. Since STD rates are higher among women than men,
    it is not a difficult conclusion to reach that most women are SHARING a few men. So much for “I’d never tolerate cheating from a man” … it’s more correct to say “I’d never tolerate cheating from a man I am in a relationship with, that I am not completely attracted to”.

  163. milchama says:

    TFH, can you provide a link to the “official stats?” Besides, how do you go from inferring that because women who live in cities supposedly have 20+ sexual partners, that that’s true for the churches of America in general?

    I disagree with your assessment of the church in America. There are many Godly leaders in the Christian church. Paul Washer, Tim Conway, John Piper, John MacArthur, Albert Martin, J.I. Packer and many more. You say that women have no interest in following the Bible or Christianity, but that is false. The apostate churches are also full of men who are not interested in following the Bible, they are interested in only themselves. It’s not just a female problem.

    PUA’s are not standing between beta males and sluts. It’s laughable to suggest that.

    For a guy who claims to be rational and logical you certainly cling to a lot of irrational debating tactics. Insulting the target of your disagreement by calling him a mangina (after you complained that he used “shaming tactics”)? Claiming that you’re automatically superior and correct based on your gender because you thought, falsely, that I am a woman? In my opinion, arguing with you is like arguing with a woman. You make a bunch of statements not grounded in logic or fact and spew insults like “mangina” as if that has any bearing on the topic. Then you continually “cue” others to join your chorus of senseless kvetching.

    “The churches you think are not feminized, probably are in more covert ways.” – You talk like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

  164. milchama says:

    Also TFH, where in the Bible does it say 4+ partners makes a woman unsuitable for marriage? What about the story of Gomer in the Book of Hosea? You claim to know more about Christian morality than I do, yet you make totally unfounded claims continually, proving the opposite.

  165. Rmaxd says:

    @Anon Reader

    The whole point is rape, if it doesnt involve assault is unprovable, as regular rape doesnt involve injury … read my posts thats what ive been stating for the last 5 posts now …

    Rape without assault is unprovable, as it doesnt involve injury, or ANY evidence to stand up in court

    Which is WHY women make so many false rape accusations …

    The fact you dont understand the above basic facts, of rape being a bogus crime, as its virtually unprovable it ever occurring unless it involves clear provable assault, demonstrates the RIDICULOUS levels of rape hysteria you guys are parroting

  166. Rmaxd says:

    @milchama

    Some churches are too backwards to preach feminism, they fallback on good old fashioned ignorant traditionalism … & then theres puritanism …

  167. Rmaxd says:

    @milchama

    TFH already covered your comments …

    “Milchama,

    Dalrock has written TONS of articles exposing the hypocrisy, misandry, and cowardice of ‘Christian morality’, which is really just a cover for feminism, and propped up by ‘Christian’ men who are full of sadism and lust.

    You’ve been exposed.”

  168. milchama says:

    @Rmaxd – Exposed as what? What’s the purpose of simply copying and pasting TFH’s post which I already addressed? Dalrock has written articles on how some use the guise of Christian morality as a cover for feminism, but Christian morality itself, in the Biblical sense, is no cover for such a thing. Dalrock has never claimed that the Bible itself and the laws therein are a cover for feminism.

  169. Rmaxd says:

    @milchama

    You’re missing the point, its NOT some, its MOST, as in the majority of churches are amoral feminist corrupted hell holes, filled with apologists like you …

    Hence, exposed as a deluded apologist for backward churches…

  170. milchama says:

    I’m not apologizing for “amoral feminist corrupted hell holes.” Where in any of my comments do you get that impression? It’s funny that I started a blog on corruption among the churches of the U.S. and a day later I get slandered as being a “deluded apologist for backwards churches.”

  171. tacomaster says:

    @ Doc–
    I liked your superbowl story. How’d your friend wind up getting his old baby sitter interested in him? Curious. Today I saw an older man, say around 50 or so with a girl in her early 20s. I observed how the older women seemed to have scowled at him while they, the couple, were in their own little bubble of endorphins

  172. Legion says:

    hurp says:
    February 14, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    And yet women do rape.

  173. Marie says:

    ” the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. ”

    That doesn’t prove your point whatsoever. You claim that “all American women have 20 sex partners by the age of 30,” but to support your claim, you only cite an estimate for women in Manhattan.

    Try better next time.

  174. Lily says:

    @TFH
    the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime
    This certainly isn’t proof of what you claimed about church women.
    Despite their overrepresentation in the media, the women you mention are statistically outliers.
    It even refers to this fact in the quote itself, small as it is.

    I also doubt there is much crossover between these women and regular churchgoers in Manhattan, let alone the rest of the country. Perhaps some, but not significant terms.

    Re churchgoing women in general, from what I’ve seen the ones (bearing in mind this is Church of England or Catholic rather than churches which may attract more born again types) the majority (note I say majority not all) who are single when older are the same ones who didn’t get much attention from boys when 18-22. Some were naturally pretty but in short hand they aren’t ‘hot’. for example they wouldn’t meet one of Deti’s few basic requirements of wearing make up*. And they may have long hair but often not very fashionably cut or always tied up.

    *interesting the make up thing. In the 1950s I think the majority of women in the UK didn’t. Not like the French lol.

    @rmaxd
    Odd notions of crime. Or even basic right and wrong. I mean even of living in a secular society but you may find the bible or the teachings of Buddha helpful.

  175. milchama

    you say “I disagree with your assessment of the church in America. There are many Godly leaders in the Christian church. Paul Washer, Tim Conway, John Piper, John MacArthur, Albert Martin, J.I. Packer and many more.””

    This again….someone says a general rule and you offer a handful of anecdotes. I think there are 600,000 churches in the U.S. You have a LONG way to go with anecdotes to dent the claim that evangelical feminism is rampant in the church, its not the same as feminism by the way, feminism affords cover for evangelical feminism. Its pure gynocentrism and those leaders you listed are as steeped in it as anyone else.

    the church in the US simply does not offer accountability to women for things that women tend to do. There is the general accountability to Biblical principles, then there is the male accountability to male proclivity, but no offset on the female side. And there never will be because the moment a male pastor spoke plainly to and at women, there would be left an empty hall with overturned tables and chairs as they sought a softer place to worship.

  176. Suz says:

    “Milchama: The churches you think are not feminized, probably are in more covert ways.” – You talk like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.”

    How can churches not be feminized when 99% of their members AND clergy have been steeped in feminism for at least 50 years? Even worse, most feminist Christians don’t know they’re feminists, and many don’t believe they’re feminists, BUT. THEY. ARE.

    One example: A minority of churches make a show of anti-feminism by shunning women who divorce abusive, irresponsible men (usually addicts and sociopaths.) Most people are viscerally appalled when a woman is GENUINELY victimized (which is why it’s so easy to gain sympathy for “fake victims.”) The majority of churches don’t want to make that mistake, so they lean in the opposite direction. Instead of holding both genders accountable, they hold men accountable. Do they ever blame the women for choosing an abusive husband? No, they assume she was too innocent and naive to see the red flags, so they pity her. Sure they gently lecture wives about duty and (limited) submission, but they tell women God understands if they don’t submit to abusive men (I’m sure he doesn’t.) The problem is that in the name of “male accountability,” the church adopts ridiculous, secular definitions of “abuse.”

    The same double standard is applied to virginity. Women are expected to TRY to remain virtuous, but are excused and seen as victims when they are tempted beyond endurance by those evil, predatory seducers. Unmarried non-virgins in the church are almost always perceived as either victims or as reformed, forgiven born-agains who have seen the light. Can’t criticize them for THAT, can we?

  177. Oh suz its far worse than that.

    Go online and find websites for some churches across the U.S. Go to the page that summarizes the offering for various ministries.
    For men, the offerings are mostly of a corrective nature, porn, whatever, about accountability. When there is one that for men but not about accountability, its some silly thing like “burgers and classic cars night”

    For women, its all addressing what is the plague of the modern Christian woman. Low self esteem. The ministry titles are “Be the woman God called you to be”….and such, all encouragement and a tacit admission that the world is just stacked against the poor dears, even the MEN are against the poor dears.

    This is magnified comparing fathers day and mothers day…..Men step Up…..vs…. celebrate motherhood

    I can go on and on and I don’t even need to look to say with confidence that the churches mentioned are steeped in the exact same stuff.

    One final piece of quasi evidence, people, Christians anyway, lament the influence that culture and society has and has had on the church. At greater or lesser degrees, nearly all churches have been dragged along by culture, not at same pace and not to same degree, the differ in the margins, but they have all moved in the last 50 years. One GLARING way is the lack of a posture on divorce, and the utter lack of even mentioning that it is overwhelmingly a female created crisis since 1973.

    So, if one accepts that the church moves with society, well, in terms of femimism, how has society moved in the last 50 years? AWAY from feminism? NOT! Its perfectly logical to see the move to feminism in the church at large.

    None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

  178. Suz says:

    Oh, I know I barely touched the surface. I suspect Milchama is so oblivious to what he claims to be studying, more than one or two undeniable facts might overwhelm him…

  179. Dex says:

    OT: The Hamster Never Sleeps:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2101306/Charlotte-Cory-left-husband-shed-met-just-twice.html
    with an added bonus chuckle for commenter Eric.

  180. hurp says:

    And yet women do rape.

    Uh-huh. And indeed, this displays another problem with attempts to brush away the seriousness of rape–it’ll end up hurting men too. Plenty of men have been raped by women, particularly young boys “pressured” into sex by teachers or older female relatives. By rmaxd’s metric, that wouldn’t be a crime, since it would be “hard to prove” without physical force.

    Yes, it’s very satisfying to tell your hated enemies, the wimminz, to go fuck themselves, but it’s a good idea to stop and think whether or not such arguments would hurt your fellow men as well in the long run.

  181. Anonymous Reader says:

    P Ray
    Why is it that many women seem to find it hard to be with a nice guy,
    when they previously only chose players?
    The idea of condemning the player, but giving the slut a pass is very strange.
    After all, the sluts CHOSE the players.

    Too bad Escoffier isn’t here. I”m sure we’d get a nice dose of rationalization as an ‘answer’ to this.

  182. Anonymous Reader says:

    Legion
    Aahh, that is the critical sentence that was missing from your original post that made you sound like an idiot. You did not specify that the man was infected. I will apoligize and say that you are not an idiot. You just rushed off a post. Happens to all of us.

    I assumed infection was obvious from context. My error. Thank you for the apology, I forgive you.

    The Wikipedia is your backup. That is not a reliable source. It could be right, but you have to trust the people who edit it and that has been found to be unreliable. It’s still a scary scenario.

    Wikipedia was the first source to hand on the topic. If you read the article I linked to, the 60-80% probability of male to female infection was footnoted thus:

    ^ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). “Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention”. Hyatt Dulles Airport, Herndon, Virginia. pp14

    Generally, the less politicized a topic, the more likely Wikipedia is to be reasonably accurate. I would not bother to look to Wikipedia for anything that has to do with feminism; the entry / non entry on Thomas Ball is but one example. However, on such issues as medical facts, it is not bad.

    On the other hand, you left out women responsiblities in the spread of STD’s.

    Since that wasn’t relevant to the original claim made by Rmaxd, of course I left it out. I also left out the fact that HIV and other STD’s are spread in prison via forced sexual intercourse. Context matters, please bear that in mind.

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Anon Reader
    The whole point is rape, if it doesnt involve assault is unprovable, as regular rape doesnt involve injury …

    For what definition of “provable” or “unprovable”?

    read my posts thats what ive been stating for the last 5 posts now …

    Mere repetition is not proof of anything.

    Rape without assault is unprovable, as it doesnt involve injury, or ANY evidence to stand up in court

    Really? DNA evidence does not stand up in which courts, please?

    Which is WHY women make so many false rape accusations …

    I’m sure there are many reasons for false rape accusations, and the current misandry in the courts is one of them.

    The fact you dont understand the above basic facts, of rape being a bogus crime, as its virtually unprovable it ever occurring unless it involves clear provable assault, demonstrates the RIDICULOUS levels of rape hysteria you guys are parroting

    Disagreeing with your claim is not semantically equivalent to “don’t understand basic facts” for the simple reason that your list of “basic facts” is incomplete. It is ludicrous to claim that any regular poster on this site is peddling or parroting “rape hysteria”. On the other hand, your absurd claim that rape is not a crime certainly does serve the radical feminists quite well.

    Why do you wish to serve the radfems?

  184. Brendan says:

    Mich —

    You’re still young and there’s quite a bit you probably haven’t even noticed yet about the churches around you, perhaps even your own. The degree of feminization in all churches in the US at least is deep, pervasive and encompassing. It is expressed in different ways in different churches, but it’s pretty much present everywhere.

  185. Dalrock says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    You are moving the goalposts. Previously, I believe you claimed that there was no provable injury to forced sexual intercourse at all. So I’ll take this latest posting as an admission that you were wrong. Even though you do not appear to be capable of admitting error.

    I agree that he is clearly moving the goalposts. Rmaxd started with an untenable claim, that rape is a minor offense:

    Also rapes a minor offence, her vagina lives on …

    Real rape (with or without accompanying physical assault) is a serious crime. The fact that feminists have tried to expand the scope of what is considered rape beyond all rational thought doesn’t change the fact that real rape does exist and is a very serious crime. I don’t say this often but the whole thing has a feeling of a false flag to it. He is as you and others point out arguing an absurd characterization of how feminists wish to paint those who disagree with them. Fortunately either way he provided an opportunity for you and others to dispel the concept that this is what those who take issue with feminism are generally like.

  186. hurp says:

    All big cities will be similar to Manhattan.

    The problem is, most (robust) churches won’t be in the big cities. Urbanization goes hand in hand with secularization, from what I’ve heard. Religious women from, say, rural or even suburban areas probably take their religion more seriously than a woman from an urban area, even if the urban woman goes to church (which most don’t).

  187. milchama says:

    TFH is like Stan’s Dad from South Park. He sees something, then concludes something radically different from reality. He makes absurd connections between things and crazy inferences based on one nugget of information, then displays severe NPD on top of it, posturing as what he thinks is “alpha” on the interweb and putting down everyone who disagrees with him as “manginas.” He even thinks I excuse all female promiscuity and I’m supposedly against the Bible because I don’t know where in the Bible he gets a 4 or less partner limit. Again, I point out Gomer in the Book of Hosea.

    @Empathalogicalism – Feminism is rampant among professing Christian churches. I don’t disagree. On my blog, I list it as one of the top problems with the church in America. Just because I’m saying there are many Godly churches and Godly pastors, doesn’t mean I’m defending the entire church. The good pastors rarely get any media time. Last night I saw Mark Driscoll on TV talking about sex. What about the pastor who said to be wary of Driscoll, John MacArthur? John MacArthur has sold way more books over the decades than Driscoll has, and is arguably far more popular among the Church than Driscoll. MacArthur has been preaching faithfully on the subject of divorce since the 70’s, saying that men and women who divorce without adultery are not allowed to remarry (although if one spouse leaves one for frivolous reasons, the one who was left is free to remarry). The “mainstream” evangelical church is mostly an apostate, or very nonorthodox church that the media holds up in order to mock Christians. The Ted Haggard’s, Driscoll’s, Rob Bell’s, Rick Warrens and Joel Osteen’s – they’re not exactly the face of Christianity in America, they’re just the part the liberal media likes to hold up. The mega churches “get mega” because they pander to the flesh. But, all over America, there are excellent pastors and churches. They don’t get the same attention, but they’re all over the place. They’re not huge, but I’d much rather go to a small church and know the people than a huge church where you’re just another among the sea of people.

  188. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH, what evidence do you have to support your claim that all big cities will be like Manhattan?
    For example, in what way is Houston, Texas like Manhattan, New York?

    I do not think you fully grasp the cultural variance of the US. Many Americans don’t either, and they grew up in the country.

  189. LadySadie says:

    @ Rmaxd

    “The whole point is rape, if it doesnt involve assault is unprovable, as regular rape doesnt involve injury … read my posts thats what ive been stating for the last 5 posts now …

    Rape without assault is unprovable, as it doesnt involve injury, or ANY evidence to stand up in court

    Which is WHY women make so many false rape accusations …

    The fact you dont understand the above basic facts, of rape being a bogus crime, as its virtually unprovable it ever occurring unless it involves clear provable assault, demonstrates the RIDICULOUS levels of rape hysteria you guys are parroting”

    I am a violent crime victim, there are statistically VERY few of us, (around 1.5% of the population as a whole, and that accounts for ALL violent crimes, not just rape, not just even crime with female victims). If you think that rape wouldn’t cause any lasting damage, you’re sadly mistaken. Any such crime can have devastating long term effects on a person’s ability to connect with other people, or even to feel safe in their own homes or confident in their ability to protect their children. It can be a real struggle to keep the symptoms of PTSD from taking over one’s life. Throw rape on top of it…I can’t even imagine how any woman who has been through that can manage to function again.

    (Thanks, Dalrock, for pointing out that REAL rape is a serious crime.)

    As for the commentary about single mothers…for the most part, you’re all pretty much on track. I am in the unique position of not falling into either of the two “main” categories, and again, there are so few of us that it is a statistically insignificant part of the population. None of you seem have any personal experience with how difficult it can be to have this type of responsibility alone, but you have spouted off the standard cliches about welfare and poverty levels, so kudos to you for that.

    (I recognize that I am not typical or representative of single mothers, so bear with me.)

    What you fail to fully appreciate it the “hero” status that single mothers have. Many times people introduce me using that “title” as if I am a doctor, lawyer, or famous athlete. “This is Sadie, she’s a *SINGLE MOTHER* (TM).” With all that I do and the many things I have accomplished, the most glorious thing that many people can say about me is that?! It is extremely insulting to me, but I suppose to many, well, whore is a whore…guess that includes attention whores as well.

    When I tell people that my daughters are AP students, what my job is, that I am taking college classes online in addition to my full time job, that my kids all have roles in the latest theatre production, or …(insert any other minor accomplishment here…the response invariably the same, “That’s so amazing that you can do that as a single mother.”

    Really? I stayed up after doing homework for two months making alterations on costumes for the play, and still managed to cook breakfast almost every morning and get the kids to school and myself to work on time and help with three science fair projects…doing that as a *Single Mother”(TM) is what makes me amazing? Really? I just want to tell them to “eff-off”

    It’s very difficult to sometimes to make ends meet, but I manage without either child support, or welfare, and no one is around to take my kids off my hands every other weekend either. When some of these part time moms and dads claim, “single parent” and what they really mean is that they have 50/50 custody…um, no! You are Not a single parent, so keep your advice to yourself. Live with your folks, and call yourself a single parent? Fail. So along with asking how the person came to be a single parent, it also matters what their single parent lifestyle is.

    Most of the single parents I know around here are guys whose wives swallowed the divorce porn stories hook line and sinker, and simply LEFT. Single moms? They are typically asking me if I found what I needed in the store or if I “want fries with that”…I don’t associate with them, so I wouldn’t know.

  190. Arden says:

    A restaurant would be like single mothers only if the restaurant manager saw the need for dishwashers and completely ignored it.

    I would be hard on everyone. Everyone would have to work twice as hard substituting as a dishwasher in-between doing their own jobs. But would anyone call them strong, brave or anything complementary? No. And there is no way in hell I would eat there.

  191. Rmaxd says:

    @LadySadie

    You’re supposed to stop being a victim, rape, abuse etc.

    The whole point of being a victim, is to overcome being a victim & grow a backbone, so you’re no longer a victim, but overcome & grow into a stronger & more resilient person

    Its sickening how women pride themselves on being victims, instead of growing a backbone & parading their vaginas like trophies for scraps of emotional sympathy

    Your not meant to be a victim in perpetuity, this is what I have problem with, women claiming victimhood & using rape or abuse, YEARS afters they occurred, as if it were inflicted on them every freaking day …

    The fact is you’re not going to be maimed or seriously injured for life from rape, stop using it to attention whore

    Stop trying to equate rape with REAL serious violent crime, it has & always will be a minor crime, compared to REAL violent assault, such as being stabbed or shot

    MORE men get shot & killed then women get raped, rape in comparison is & always has been women status whoring, ie cash prizes & white knighting, a pussy pass to the ultimate sympathy card … rape along with single mothers, has always been a joke

    Women use sympathy as extortion, to extort violence & welfare & social status, its frankly sickening how women pride themselves on being victims, instead of moving the fuck on

    Get over it already, most people go through crap alot worse then some ameriskank crying rape, its a none issue, compared to everyday violence & abuse

    Its about time men stopped pedestalising women using pussy passes for sympathy & attention

    Rape & abuse, is just another farcical pussy pass, used to pedestalise & portray women as being pure & moral

    Rape is modern day puritanism, posing as victimhood, its the ultimate women & children first cry, women use to raise their status

  192. Rmaxd says:

    In a politically correct society, victimisation is status …

  193. LadySadie says:

    Let me start by saying that I do agree somewhat with the points that you are trying to make on many levels. Most rape accusations are total BS, and for that reason, a certain amount of anger is a normal reaction and thus, justified without any apology necessary.

    I would ask you to consider that in a situation of real rape, the trauma is real and there are legitimate long term effects. There is no attention-whoring involved. Remember, statistically only a tiny fraction of the population is classified as a Victim of Violent Crime, and in many instances, those people, men and women alike have PTSD in one form or another. Just so you know…yes, men are more likely to be crime victims when it comes to murder, stabbings and assaults, however…that is because men (minorities mostly) are also much more likely to be involved inillegal activities that lead to violent outcomes. When you consider that classification as a “Crime Victim” does not include those people, men are only slightly more likely to be classified in this way.

    Since your reply to my post seems “personalized” I am going to reply in kind: I am not a Victim, I am a Survivor. I speak to others, men and women alike, about moving from “victim” to “survivor. I only tried to point out that there are legitimate effects from real crime, that are not gender specific.

    Before you accuse me of playing the victim card or playing the pussy card for sympathy, think twice…My kids are well behaved and top students, I am active in my church, my job is white-collar, I own my home and I am an active volunteer in my community…most importantly, I keep my pants on. In speaking to groups, I see exactly the attention-whore behavior that you have correctly identified and it is disgusting.

    As for you, your narrow-minded classification of ALL women, everywhere as evil, stupid, and abusers of the system…that is just as dangerous and pathetic as the feminists who try to convince women that EVERY MAN IS A RAPIST, and MALE VIOLENCE is around every corner. Either point of view is B.S.

    I come to the Manosphere, because it makes me stronger and more comfortable to read posts and commentary from people that respect the rightful balance of power between the sexes. Your reduction of women to cum-receptacle (if the woman still has a vagina, she hasn’t been damaged?!!!-Seriously!!!? ) just shows that you lack something fundamental within yourself that makes, you, personally, worthy of respect from either women or men, at least the men in this venue. The Men here, know their own worth, accept their authority over women and show respect for the admittedly few women that deserve that respect. You, and you alone, see all women as exactly equal and devoid of any value whatsoever in any context. (There, I called it like I see it.)

    Before you reply, think long and hard about whether you want to attack me on a personal level, because if you think I am a victim, think again. The perpetrator of the crime against me was convicted of Attempted Capital Murder. I have moved on as far as the criminal justice system will allow. I am required *by law enforcement* to carry concealed at all times when I leave my house and every year since the conviction I have to write letters to the parole board begging them to keep him locked up. Anyone who wants to see me socially must go through the humiliation of a background check, so social life…not likely. I am as much in prison as the criminal.

    Even given all that, I have the ability to understand that NAMALT-I wonder why you can’t do the same when it comes to women? I am here in support of all that Dalrock stands for, and my disagreement with any statements here was only due to the fact that you turned it from the justified redress of grievances against *most* single mothers to a ridiculous argument about rape victims. Now, if you will excuse me, I have a restaurant to run…

  194. Rmaxd says:

    LadySadie, I support & enjoy your comments, im not trying to take away from your commentary btw …

    I was generalising, my posts arent meant to be taken personal

    Also you dont quite grasp the concept of NAWALT, all women are like that, of course there are exceptions, but the few dont disprove the many

    Yes the vagina lives on … so does the woman

    You know exactly what im stating … rape is minor compared to real violent crime

    & yes most women are evil, & abuse the system, the vast majority of women in the u.s are single mothers … stealing or begging, from their ex-husbands or begging from the government

    Btw the last post wasnt supposed to be about rape, it was supposed to be about abuse … late night post …

    Replace the word rape with abuse, as that was the original intent, ive already covered rape earlier on …

    Again pls dont take my comments personally, theyre not aimed at any specific person

    Cheers …

  195. Peter says:

    And then your wife got into your car and proudly reported how she gave a single mom shit?! Good on you guys!

  196. 30-Something Woman says:

    I grind my teeth every time I hear a woman proudly proclaim, “I am a SINGLE MOTHER!” There’s nothing to be proud of in deliberately depriving your children of their father. I’m tempted to respond, “I’m sooo sorry. I know that’s rough … on your kids.” They talk a good story about how it’s all about their kids, but I’d love to see the reaction when the sympathy is directed towards the kids instead of the mother.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s