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.
Also true. The social safety net has unlinked women from seeking material necessity to the same degree. This means non-committal men have more sex at the provider's subsidy. The cads are cleaning up. The providers tend to be single, childless women and dorky rocket scientists....generally speaking of course. This is especially true in the underclass...or just Britain. I sense a theme here. British "mums", how cute and delightfully quaint as they continually destroy themselves.
I wonder why this is the case in the UK but not in Scandinavia (some not in the EU) and Iceland, which have low marriage rates, but high cohabitation and fertility rates, plus offer 2 yrs paid maternity leave, 1 yr paid paternity leave in the 1st 10 yrs of the child's life, and highly subsidized day care. Single motherhood is actually lower than in other places and, oddly enough, marriage rates are on the uptick http://paa2009.princeton.edu/downloa...issionId=90232
I do know that at least Sweden is a great place to have kids. I know more than one American couple who moved there for when they decided to have children and stayed for the 1st 5 yrs of their kids' lives because even non-citizens got the benefits at the time. Of course the taxes are unbelievably high, but if you can have 3 years of 1 salary and full salary govt. subsidy after 2 yrs of residence (2 maternity, 1 paternity) followed by free day care. The cost-benefit analysis is not too shabby
I wonder why this is the case in the UK but not in Scandinavia (some not in the EU) and Iceland, which have low marriage rates, but high cohabitation and fertility rates, plus offer 2 yrs paid maternity leave, 1 yr paid paternity leave in the 1st 10 yrs of the child's life, and highly subsidized day care. Single motherhood is actually lower than in other places and, oddly enough, marriage rates are on the uptick http://paa2009.princeton.edu/downloa...issionId=90232
I do know that at least Sweden is a great place to have kids. I know more than one American couple who moved there for when they decided to have children and stayed for the 1st 5 yrs of their kids' lives because even non-citizens got the benefits at the time. Of course the taxes are unbelievably high, but if you can have 3 years of 1 salary and full salary govt. subsidy after 2 yrs of residence (2 maternity, 1 paternity) followed by free day care. The cost-benefit analysis is not too shabby
YIKES!! I guess that's why the rest of the world never hears anything from Sweden; except the occasional hockey gold medal, over rated bikini team, and put it together yourself furniture.
It is an excellent piece regarding what I consider to be the single greatest cause in perpetuating the so-called “cycle of poverty.†As pointed out by Kay Hymowitz in her seminal article, The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies, the Black American family was devastated en mass years before the same pathologies were spread to other racial groups in every country in considered “first†world. As fellow Spearhead contributors and bloggers like Obsidian and Whiskey have pointed out on numerous occasions, the subsidization of single mother households through tax redistribution schemes to fund entitlement programs is something that corrupts all communities and societies, regardless of race. The black family in America was simply the canary in the coal mine. Well, much of society has ignored that canary’s reaction to the experiment of the “GREAT SOCIETY,†and we now see the same thing infecting all corners of our most-assuredly declining Western Civilization.
Read that bold part again. That's exactly what I've been saying.
If they would remove the day care tax deduction, then that would certainly show more faith in the concept. Its not fully exposed to the market. Either find your man to watch the kids, do it yourself, or pay for it rather than rely on subsidies.
With two working parents there's no doubt that taking care of the children is an issue but it can be done. My brother and his wife have four young children which really keeps them busy but they also both work. She works during the day while he watches the kids and then he works in the evenings and on weekends. I know it isn't easy for them but they're happy and have a good family life. If people are motivated they can make things work.
All this vitriol directed at women and single moms leaves out a very important component. Women pay a huge cost (financial and career setbacks, time and enegry, etc.) to mother children. These children do not get created only by women.
If it seems that men (and taxpayers in general) are being asked to subsidize the cost of these children- maybe the situation would improve if the dads would step up.
Most non-custodial dads do not realize the cost of raising kids. They only see the buden of "losing half of their stuff".
If you don't want to support kids- don't have kids.
All this vitriol directed at women and single moms leaves out a very important component. Women pay a huge cost (financial and career setbacks, time and enegry, etc.) to mother children. These children do not get created only by women.
If it seems that men (and taxpayers in general) are being asked to subsidize the cost of these children- maybe the situation would improve if the dads would step up.
Most non-custodial dads do not realize the cost of raising kids. They only see the buden of "losing half of their stuff".
If you don't want to support kids- don't have kids.
No, issues such as those are answered with "That's her responsibility, not mine." Everything is women's fault. That article that was just linked? Blame, blame, blame. Men who sleep around are just being honest and expressing themselves and doing what they need to do. Women who sleep with them are dirty sluts who ruin the economy and emasculate men. Men don't need to change, just women. If you object, you are a bitter feminazi who hates men and engages in shaming tactics. Do you understand now?
No, issues such as those are answered with "That's her responsibility, not mine." Everything is women's fault. That article that was just linked? Blame, blame, blame. Men who sleep around are just being honest and expressing themselves and doing what they need to do. Women who sleep with them are dirty sluts who ruin the economy and emasculate men. Men don't need to change, just women. If you object, you are a bitter feminazi who hates men and engages in shaming tactics. Do you understand now?
While I believe the intent of the post is to prop up the gender divide, the root of the blog, based on comments by Gills Tripplett, is targeting a specific demographic-culturally and economically. It's not really about men and women in general, but those of a special sort. He does refer to the men these women hook up with as losers in general. In short, your typical PUA/player. So, what we have here is the ghetto player complaining about the seeds he plants while demanding all but himself to take responsibility for the mess they both create. It's quite psychotic.
I think I just don't really understand "PUA" thing. I know what it stands for but not much about the mindset. I remember killer21 (maybe he has a new name here and I just didn't realize) and his process of asking out dozens of women in order to catch someone's interest. And if she didn't put out on the first date, she was history. Is that what PUA is about?
I heard another abbreviation the other day: IOI. Indication of interest or intent or something like that. Is this a book or a bunch of seminars or what?
All this vitriol directed at women and single moms leaves out a very important component. Women pay a huge cost (financial and career setbacks, time and enegry, etc.) to mother children. These children do not get created only by women.
If it seems that men (and taxpayers in general) are being asked to subsidize the cost of these children- maybe the situation would improve if the dads would step up.
Most non-custodial dads do not realize the cost of raising kids. They only see the buden of "losing half of their stuff".
If you don't want to support kids- don't have kids.
Hi vicket,
But women used to fear the fall out. Its a little harder to find the leather jacket and switch blade that shagged in his spawn 9 months ago while we do have a fat mama and her suckling showing up at the public trough.
What is going to happen? A minority of charming, poofy haired punks will crawl in and out of the window and hide from paternity police.
Who's working?
The cads? No. Bang, nap, eat, bang, sleep, eat, bang, nap......
The single mothers? Uhhhhh, no.
The good boys? What for? All there is is fat single mothers who were already poked. I think they will play video games, relieve themselves to porn, and live in the basement.
I guess that leaves the career women. Thank god for them.
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.
