Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women nearly always bear the brunt of responsibility for their children. There are a few worthless women who leave it to the father or their own parents to raise their children, but I’m willing to bet a goodly number of the mothers of these 43 were the ones who raised them.
I agree with that also. And probably "they are raising them" via welfare, something this man is being blasted for.
Don't get me wrong it is refreshing to actually see the father taking heat for illegitimate children on welfare instead of always the mother but why is it ok for a mother to depend on welfare to support children but not for men to be in the same welfare state?
And also, that does not address the question as to the thought processes of reproducing with a man that has demonstrated his lack of responsibility by fathering a multitude of children he neither financially supports or physically parents. If indeed one man fathered 43 children.
Would you be so passionate about this man if he was a white billionaire who lived in Beverly Hills?
Somehow I don't think the focus would be on his 43 children or use of public funds if it had been a white billionaire living in Beverley Hills that had been bludgeoned to death in his home, do you?
What lifestyle would that be, being black or being poor?
You people are truly sad. There is an article about a 63 year old man who is killed in his home, someone said he fathered 43 kids (unconfirmed BTW) and all anyone does is assume they know his life and make judgments based on his address and a rumor. Now you seem to somehow justify his murder because his "lifestyle" put in the position to be murdered in his home.
That’s right, I certainly can make a judgement about someone with 43 kids with 7 different women. Even if those numbers are inaccurate, 33 kids with 5 women is just as bad. You still want the world to be all happy-happy- joy-joy, and that is not real life. Wake up.
The sister of a friend of mine in the late 90s and early 2000s, had been married, divorced, and had three grown children with her ex-husband. The sister's only husband had been her ex. When she married him (in the early 1970s), she thought she was his first wife, but it turned out he had beed divorced twice. I asked her (the sister) how that could have happened. She said she never asked her ex (prior to the marriage) if he had ever been married before .
Its been awhile but don't they ask that when you get your marriage license?
43 kids on welfare and probably headed for a life of crime and prison. Thanks for that liberals.
It's strange how liberal women talk down men and yet in dating go after the strongest, most confident men. It's almost like modern feminism is a big bleep test weeding out the weakest men so they can all share the strongest men to breed with. There's no logic applied at all to their arguments.. they go after the exact type of men that feminism dictates they should avoid and friend zone the men who are actually the nice men who support equal rights and all that.
Lesson for men reading.. red pill yourself and don't listen to what women say or societal expectations placed on you.. be a man.. have discipline, clean your diet up, get to the gym, and make the women chase after you. You'll be much happier in the long run than if you're a "soy boy."
During the evolution of our species at least 99% of it, a good 66% of men never got to breed though.. it's always been until very recently the alphas breeding with ALL the women, which is why women are so attracted to power and confidence. It's no surprise the further down the income and education scale you go, the more people start acting more like the animals we are. One man having 45 kids would not be that uncommon 20,000 years ago. The thirsty MGTOW/Incel crowd has always been around, they've just never had a name before.
I'm at a loss of words but trying to come up with something. No one else can.
You wrote "these men" several times....seeming to indicate men of inner city neighborhoods. You are generalizing. You are insinuating all men living in inner city neighborhoods are the same. Ridiculous. You insinuate most men are in prison. Also untrue.
Why does it matter how many children a person has? How do you know the "mentality" of the men living inner city? What do you mean?
Have you thought of the difficult, extreme conditions that might accompany living in an inner city environment?
Do people there do something to deserve being there or do they find themselves in this predicament through no fault of their own?
Have you any idea what it's like not to know:
where your next meal is coming from...
how to pay rent money?
get clothing for your children?
how you get medical care for your sick mom?
I thought not.
You just contradicted yourself. A generalization would be that most men are a certain way. A generalization does not mean all. Logical fallacy. So many people make this mistake.
I'm not being stupid, I'm just calling out 2mare's prejudice. I agree, when having more than 5 or 6 kids, even if you are very wealthy to afford them, the children still miss out. I also don't like to hear about the man who has 10 or 15 different kids by multiple women because it seems to me that he is trash that sees women as objects, and not as human beings.
Prejudice? How is that prejudice? A poster said this particular man would have ended up being murdered anyway due to his lifestyle and I asked what lifestyle that was.
Seems to me the other poster is the one prejudice as he/she was judging this man, his life and his value on his finances and color of his skin.
It's strange how liberal women talk down men and yet in dating go after the strongest, most confident men. It's almost like modern feminism is a big bleep test weeding out the weakest men so they can all share the strongest men to breed with. There's no logic applied at all to their arguments.. they go after the exact type of men that feminism dictates they should avoid and friend zone the men who are actually the nice men who support equal rights and all that.
Lesson for men reading.. red pill yourself and don't listen to what women say or societal expectations placed on you.. be a man.. have discipline, clean your diet up, get to the gym, and make the women chase after you. You'll be much happier in the long run than if you're a "soy boy."
Actually it makes perfect sense. Liberal feminist or not the reality is that it is usually the woman who takes responsibility for parenting which requires some forfeiture of career; salary, promotions, contacts, staying in the loop. Therefore it should be imperative that a spouse be able to fill in those gaps and provide. Being strong and confident and employed are not characters feminist avoid. And feminism does not dictate.
I agree with your lesson for men. If men would follow this and women would weed out the "weak" men to breed with we would not have situations with 43 baby mommas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz
During the evolution of our species at least 99% of it, a good 66% of men never got to breed though.. it's always been until very recently the alphas breeding with ALL the women, which is why women are so attracted to power and confidence. It's no surprise the further down the income and education scale you go, the more people start acting more like the animals we are. One man having 45 kids would not be that uncommon 20,000 years ago. The thirsty MGTOW/Incel crowd has always been around, they've just never had a name before.
Oh please do share the source of your statistics on evolutionary human reproduction and the associated female psyche.
You’re right about the quality of his genes but you forgot all the jobs those 43 children are going to create: medical personnel, teachers, social workers, policemen, firefighters, construction trades, etc
Look at the bright side of things once in a while.
You forgot emergency room workers, prison guards and funeral directors.
Somehow I don't think the focus would be on his 43 children or use of public funds if it had been a white billionaire living in Beverley Hills that had been bludgeoned to death in his home, do you?
And I'm saying you are the type that wouldn't care enough to give it a passing glance if the person was white, rich and lived in a nice neighborhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
