Commenter Libertardian sends along this link to a story about a Wisconsin Senator who introduced a bill that amounts to a massive social shaming campaign against single moms.
Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married
In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.
Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.
The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”
I approve of this bill. If socially shaming women to the point that even one of them avoids becoming a single mom by choice and burdening society will her illegitimate hellion spawn, then it has done far more good for the nation as well as the individual woman than all the trillions spent on leftist wishful thinking, non-judgmentalist programs over the past 50 years.
The facts are out there, for anyone willing to listen. Children do best with a mother and a father. The growing ranks of single moms are creating a degenerate horde of emotionally and mentally destitute orclings, and we — all of us — will pay the price, sooner rather than later. Count on it.
Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.”
In “How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families,” he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.
Sen Grothman: realtalker. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the good senator has been perusing the Chateau archives.
His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. “It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools,” he wrote. “It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.
This guy’s policies make so much sense it’s like a cleansing blast of mountain cooled breezes through marshy, addled skulls. Godspeed, Grothman. Do not go defensively into that morning light. Stay the course.
Naturally, the lefties who run the joint are three faulty synapses from a mass epileptic seizure. Case in point: the female “””impartial Yahoo! journalist””” can’t finish writing the story without snarling about Grothman’s own childlessness as some sort of proof positive cunt whistle for the dumbass brigade.
Saying that people “make fun of old-fashioned families,” Grothman — who has never been married and has no children — criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents
Oh, the snark! It’s so delicious, isn’t it? Grothman has no kids! He’s unmarried! Secret decoder ring says: what the hell does he know about single moms?! After your bout of ironic SWPL chortling where you get your feelgood fix remotely lording it over the rubes in flyover country, you may want to examine the raft of logical fallacies in your thinking. Here’s a starting point: you don’t have to be burned alive by non-hateful merry pranksters to know that it’ll hurt.
Libertardian comments:
This strikes me as aiming at the effect (single motherhood) rather than the cause (i.e. society’s unshackling of female hypergamy).
You take your policy improvements where you can get them. The root cause is unshackled female hypergamy, but a policy aimed at shaming one of the symptoms — in this case, single momhood — will do some good as well. Call it the broken persons theory of social policymaking. You fix immediate problems at the margins by shaming individual bad behavior and in time the bigger, mass scaled dominoes begin to fall. At any rate, it’s a better plan than the total cultural immolation we’re currently experiencing.
Of course, some exceptions to the social shaming program will have to be made. For instance, widows with children are not single moms, and shouldn’t be lumped in under that label. The shaming should target those women who choose to have kids outside of marriage and those unmarried women who shack up with unreliable jerks and act all surprised when the jerk heads for the hills after a kid is born. In other words, shame the women who make bad choices, not the women who are stuck in unexpected bad situations through no fault of their own.
Note that a social shaming program against single moms would work regardless of the precise correlations between single momhood and dysfunctional bastards. In what I generously refer to as the Jason Malloy theory of genetically inherited Bad Lifestyle Choosing (he is the occasional web commenter who drops gems of insight in cutting edge blog comments sections) — a theory which holds that the dysfunction of single moms’ kids is due to the kids inheriting the awful genetic predispositions of their trashy parents — the effect of shaming would work at the genetic level as well as the social level. Women with a jagged genetic suite that inclines them to be single moms would be shamed into avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage, and thus refrain from having kids altogether and passing on their shit genes (eugenics, yay!) or would be impelled to choose a marriage-minded mate more wisely given the social strictures against out-of-wedlock childbirth and lack of governmental support for their chosen path.
Either way you cut it — whether the dysfunction is predominantly genetic, environmental, or both — the act of shaming women away from the single momhood cesspit and cutting off the flow of their financial lifelines is good for the women, good for America, and good for Western civilization. And most importantly… it’s good for the children. Especially those children who have evaded the misfortune of being born to selfish single moms.
MOAR GROTHMAN
It’s good for the children whose moms are pressured into remarrying. Otherwise it punishes the kids for their parent’s failures.
You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. If the next generation sees the current generation of single moms suffering because aid is cut off, then fewer kids will be born to single moms next generation. It is good for everyone in the long run. Bad for single moms and their kids in the short run.
[heartiste: yes. a liberal blindspot is their inability to separate the feelings they get from their overactive empathy modules from the bigger picture. they see someone suffering, and immediately call for policies that would ultimately result in millions more suffering. their solutions, iow, guarantee a steady stream of basket cases to satisfy their craving to sympathize and morally preen]
“yes. a liberal blindspot is their inability to separate the feelings they get from their overactive empathy modules from the bigger picture.”
Very well put.
oh, my SWPL feminazi friends got all twittered up over this story. Just reminds me a PJ O’rourke quote which I paraphrase “It remains to be seen which program will cause greater societal damage, China’s one-child policy or America’s one-parent policy.”
The problem with our Wisconsin hero, who is pissing into a hurricane of feral welfare recipients*, is that the Federal government has made single motherhood the preferred, financially rewarded parenting choice. True, it depends on your individual tolerance to live on government cheese or not**, but Obama and co are doing the best to make that government cheese more and more gourmet.
*=more Christian, less eugenical types would probably reject the shittier genes thesis and insist that they’ve merely been led astray.
**=remember the last psychiatrist on the bitch who “retired” at 27 to live on $600 a month. What is it here in DC, that being an unemployed parent can net you social benefits to the tune of the equivalent of a $60K salary. What’s the point of working?
Same here. Bitches on Facebook going crazy over this story. I think its hilarious.
I wrote on a comment on this the other day, but I’ll say it again. Shit is simple: free reversible vasectomies for all men (it’s working tech, they inject a spermicidal polymer into the vas deferens). Follow up with stupidly expensive child support. No more men knocking up women, no more single mums. Easy.
That is the most logical thing I heard in a long time. Now to get the ball rolling on this.
Heh. You can tell them not to worry as the baby boomers already beat them to the last of the largess as $66T in Social Security payouts will be liable in the next 10 years. Fiat butthex and all that too.
If women are strong, empowered and independent …
they should have no problem agreeing with the passage of this law.
They are empowered to bang their tender fists agains the floor and cry their eyes out for sympathy-handouts.
But what are the practical implications of determining that a mother is neglectful or abusive? Most likely: the state takes the kid away. Kid ends up in shitty, terribly, probably *actually* abusive foster care. Who pays for it? You, the taxpayer. Meanwhile mom goes and rides some more cocks to replace her lost child. Who then ends up in foster care. We sure showed her!
Also for some reason the right has decided that the gays are as bad if not worse than single parents, so the “married biological parents” thing is the ball in a special-Olympics football game.
The law does not have two settings, “Approve” and “Shame!”
State or church run orphanages work well too. Raising foster children is often a racket.
Grothman is a real politician — when did that happen? Almost makes me want to give a damn about the current meta! I hope those go through. I will, from time to time, take my metal baseball bat of justice and smash the beehive of feminism because it provides me with a source of entertainment while making a girl self-reflect even if it is in a spasm of emotional disarray.
This gives me more entertaining firepower.
while making a girl self-reflect even if it is in a spasm of emotional disarray.
Filed away under “to steal”.
This law gets a “oh hell yes” from me. I respectfully think Libertardian is wrong. The bill is aimed directly at the cause, which is the unshackling of female hypergamy caused by the cultural relativism of “families come in all different shapes and sizes” nonsense. He is directly addressing this lie with the truth that single motherhood is bad for kids. Period. Every study that has every studied this reaches the same conclusions. People are getting upset over this guy saying what everyone already knows out loud?
Did you guys notice the pic of the “single mom” in the story?
Picture
I am going to sound like a major dick, but chances are if she’s a single mom then she is probably making up to $5-10k a month, cash, under the table.
[heartiste: i thought that was a stock photo to advance the leftie agenda. few single moms look like that. hot women usually have what it takes to secure marriage and commitment from a man.]
That is funny, especially when the face of single motherhood is more accurately defined in movies like Precious or Baby Boy.
Ummm, I think not. While alot of them are black, there are plenty of single moms who aren’t ghetto living on welfare.
http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff2/report-72-percent-of-african-american-babies-born-to-unwed-mothers/
Get a clue, woman.
All I said was that “plenty” of them weren’t ghetto, that’s it. I didn’t say “most” or “all”. And I said alot of them were black. Sheesh….
“72 percent of black children are born out of wedlock.”
“72 percent of children born out of wedlock are black.”
Do you know the difference between these two statements?
Not to make you guys want to kill yourself, but a lot of single mothers in Florida do pretty much look like that. One, a 24 YO, 105 pound, blonde ex-six–figure-a-year stripper going to nursing school, just texted me in attempt to rent me her pussy for $300 (something I’ve taken her up on repeatedly for 2 1/2 years).
you know what, you’re kind of right about certain parts of Florida. However, the wall doth approaches the sex worker and the girls who monetize their looks too. But the point is the kids. How do her kids act?
BTW, I used to say there was an upper limit to the hotness of the unwed mothers, but that all changed about 10 years ago, at least in Tampa Bay and Southwest Florida, maybe not as much in Orlando. It also cuts across all groups: I know a Jewish family where two sisters were living at home with their parents, each having been knocked up by black guys.
As far as how to the kids act, askjoe, just Tuesday night I was talking to a female friend of mine who is quite libertine, and we were talking about another chick, a gorgeous blonde who at one point even into her 30s was at least HB9, and how she raised her daughter. This other chick is fairly functional in that she usually has jobs, but explicitly would tell her daughter that she was getting in the way of her fucking (both Jays and Janes). At 15, the daughter had moved in with a guy in his mid-40s (something I don’t condemn in and of itself, but just painting a picture), who would take her down to Lauderdale to pimp her out and otherwise kept her around by giving her Roxies. The call the other night was because the daughter is going blind from a childhood injury the mother never bothered to pursue a legal claim over.
Another chick from that circle who used to be besties with the HB9 lost a toddler when her boyfriend got drunk, passed out on him, and crushed him to death.
To be fair, I’ve known some where the kids managed to be raised well. I have an ex who had 6 kids by 4 guys (two from a husband, one from a minor league baseball player she had a one-nighter with) by the time I met her at 32, and who got no child support. She slept in the living room of her house and would have me stayover shortly after meeting her and bang her right there, and the kids would be coming through in the morning jumping on the bed, etc. I wasn’t the only one -she entertained he clients on the same bed. To be fair, her kids so far seem to actually be turning out well – maybe because despite this stuff she is truly an affectionate mother that dotes over them. Of course, much of the where the burden falls is summed up by a diatribe, an excerpt of whichI paraphrase here: “I’m vote straight Republican because I don’t want those immigrants taking away the welfare benefits I’m entitled to as an American.”
Ugh, wish I could push her through the sterilisation door.
Cash or Check?
Always cash.
It has to be a stock photo, the story doesn’t actually interview any bitches. They’re trying to Murphy Brown the story, making it seem like it’s the choice of winners, not a feral problem.
To clarify, twenty years ago there was a very popular TV sit-com called “Murphy Brown”. Murphy Brown was an aging, single professional woman based in D.C. One storyline has her willfully and deliberately getting pregnant.
The Vice-President of the United States at that time, Dan Quayle, widely perceived to be a bungler (and not altogether without reason) wisely and quite correctly spoke out against the show, calling it irresponsible. Children, according to the V.P., ought to be raised with a mother and a father.
The usual suspects called for Quayle’s head. The screaming and the rancor lasted for quite some time, as I recall.
If I recall correctly, the storyline was also that she wasn’t sure who was the father out of three men. Quayle had a bit of the Forrest Gump or Being There quality to him. A lot of the “smarter” people would have done well to listen to him at times. Just not when it came to spelling.
Yes, and less than one year after Quayle made that remark “the
Atlantic” magazine put a cover out with the headline:
“Dan Quayle Was Right”
http://graphic-server.com/cgi-bin/jpg.cgi?mid/ATMO199304.JPG
Full article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/7015/
For a brief moment it looked like common sense might gain some traction but the election was over and the Clinton era begun.
The article should have been titled, “Dan Quayle Happened to be Right.”
Nothing like the Aesthetic Prop to prop up a weak TV show, movie, or agenda.
Along with a little cherub that would make Shirley Temple look irascible.
And yet they would destroy the only men capable of producing angelic creatures such as these… go figure.
hot women usually have what it takes to secure marriage and commitment from a man
Interesting way of thinking. What’s the correlation being hotness and securing marriage and commitment besides the…well…. physical hotness?
[heartiste: let’s just say that when a man is… sufficiently inspired… his primal urges become quite malleable.]
Hey Boss – yes, I am positive it is stock “clip art.” Should’ve emphasized the sarcasm more. But I bet that SHE TAKES CARE OF HER KIDS!
As Dirk, infra, points out, there are some smokin’ single moms. One of the hottest strippers in Austin is a single mom – or rather, she was a stripper, but she now has a legit job and an older boyfriend, so I am happy at the outcome.
This is more typical…
Where go my baby daddy?
Mudsharks are more typical than the goddess and her angel shown in the picture… but as a percentage, it’s Negro women that are the “typical” single mother case… and it ain’t widowhood.
If the typical fatherless children looked like the little girl in the picture, well… let’s just say it wouldn’t be the heinous issue it actually is.
What is the daughter? Half black? sigh…
My eyes…the pain!
“few single moms look like that.” The “Understatement of the Year” contest is now closed. That pic probably has everal hundred black men on their way to Wisconsin right now!
Heh… visions of Venus dancing in their nappy little heads… but invariably they’ll only secure what you see in the video… The Women That YT Can Spare… And Gladly!
regarding licentiousness and smarts, I think some smart girls do it for grrrlpower reasons to prove that they’re not living by what they consider prole values. Screw you, jesus and dad.
Or they get tired of waiting for a kid, and see siblings or friends having babies and want one of their own. Or they think if they have a kid with a guy, he will suddenly feel the need to marry her. So she gambles on getting kid and husband all in one, but usually loses all around.
while you jest, i know plenty who fall into that category, but honestly, i think that’s just the lie they tell themselves and anyone who’ll listen so they don’t seem like such a failure.
the older i get the more i become of the opinion that when it comes to getting pregnant, a woman’s body works against her more often that she cares to admit or even realizes.
His brain is in the right place, but unfortunately as the case with politicians, the only solution they see is to pass more laws (which is the last thing we need). If he wants to solve the problem, work to repeal the laws that encourage this behavior, not enact new “rules” for the populace to follow. Every new law passed, whether you agree with it or not, increases the power of the state, which, I for one, am adamantly against.
And for abolishing entitlements there is a simple argument: They can just say “we have no money” and then let the people decide on whom to spend taxpayer money. Divide et empera.
Excellent point… sometimes I think these neocons purposely do the throwback routine because they know the ruckus it will cause, without really having any effect on the actual issue, whilst adding one more brick to Moloch’s wall… hence, they are merely shills for the Left they pretend to battle.
+n
John, get in touch. I’ll be offline for a while, and am finished with commentary.
solutrean.social.club@gmail
e-mail sent
Sorry to see you go.
uh–good luck to you.
I complete disagree.
Undoing/repealing laws will not boldly announce single motherhood as child abuse to bitches everywhere. And that is exactly what this legislation is doing and what needs to be said through a fucking bullhorn. This is for once an example of a good and much needed law.
You must be young, so I’ll forgive you for your ignorance and dependency on “rules”, since you’ve lived most of your life under them and have been conditioned that the solution to all problems is more laws.
There was actually a time not too long ago where single motherhood was shameful and it was before all these incentives were put in place by laws. Repealing these incentive laws will not immediately make society revert back to the way it was, but it eventually will. Just like incentivizing single motherhood didn’t make the stigma of being a single mother disappear overnight.
Passing more laws to counteract bad laws is just a fucking retarded thing to. You really want to give the state more power to expand the definition of “child abuse” and intrude itself more into the private lives of individuals? You really think that passing a law announces something through a bullhorn? Think about it. Buying $10 million in ads ridiculing and shaming single mothers would be way more of a “bullhorn” without giving window licking bureaucrats in DFACS the power to hold judgement over the individual. There has not been a “good and much needed law” passed in 50 years. In fact, I would say up to 80% of the laws on the books need to be repealed. The *only* people who would be hurt by that would be lawyers.
Quoted for truth. Well done.
I’ll forgive you for confusing your age with wisdom.
I guess back when out of wedlock children were called bastards there were no laws in place relating to single motherhood. Of course there were and most of them were decidedly anti single mom. Like say that Texas abortion law. It wasn’t just shame that prevented mass sluttery. You have over romanticized the “good old days”.
And no good laws in 50 years? Not one? Really?
So I ask. What law should repealed that will send a bitch to jail for lying about rape or lying about who the real daddy is? The answer is none and so women will keep lying cause “morality” is a much shittier motivator than prison.
The state must have some power. Stop knee jerking.
I was about to say the same thing in a comment. Repeal special consideration for single mothers. It’s quieter, it’s more able to be ethically upheld, and it has the same effect.
So much truth in this article. So much truth I am smiling.
I would agree that single motherhood is a problem that should be avoided. The reason I go for blue politics is because it’s better for society if those bastard children have a chance at a decent education and failing that publicly funded prisions.
I don’t think that basic social programs are an incentive for female hypegamy. At the point when a single mother child is born the damage is already done. It becomes a potential society problem and there should be a public solution.
To the point of this article, won’t this increase cases of children being taken out of homes and landing them on public services? The bill increases cases being ruled neglectful which would make them more of a burden on the state.
Manzo,
Why don’t you talk some of your fellow blues into legalizing prostitution? Since most mothers who were fuckable are still fuckable while their children are still minors – and thus can make a decent living as a pussylord – their kids should be able to live a decent life without sponging off the hard-working guys she otherwise refuses to fuck.
BUT IT’S SOOO DEGRAAAAADIIIINNGGGG….
Dirk,
I no longer believe that prostitution should be legal.
I’ve recently come to believe that selling sex should be illegal, but buying it should not. Why did I come to this conclusion? It’s the exact opposite in Sweden. Think about what that means. Bitches over there don’t do anything that doesn’t benefit women AND harm men every chance they get.
What are you talking about?
Lack of shame/financial penalty is most definitely an incentive for female hypergamy. Why do you think there is more out of wedlock births than in the 50′s yet we have birth control now?
You really need to spend some time living and working in lower class society as you have no clue what it is like. Saying it is a societal problem and needs to be perpetuated to “save” the children is cow manure. What you are really doing is ensuring that there will be more children that need to be saved. The truth is – THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT HERE TO HELP YOU – and you doom more children to this misery. That is why I could never be Blue in my politics. I have a heart and actually give a damn about the children. Ever wonder what happened to children and mothers in this situation before the ever so helpful laws were enacted? They had to get charity from the church and family. At the same time they had to actually face up to the disapproval of both for doing something stupid. Did children die? Percentage wise fewer than do today in the current neglectful “families” they live in. Mom never had to face up to one incredibly bad choice. Want the odds on her facing up to any more under this system? Slim and none. Slim? He got her pregnant and ignores her now.
The problem with Blue politics is that they encourage this behavior rather than seek to limit it. Single motherhood is the cornerstone of big government. It really comes down to the social services being self promoting first. They have no desire or reason to limit sociopathic behavior because it means more jobs and higher grades for those positions that already exist. Its like curing alcoholism by opening up the bars for free drinks.
Unfortunately, living in a fag-loving society, this bill will fail—because fags will sue for “discrimination” for not recognizing their “absolutely normal and healthy” lifestyles.
Why do the gays keep doing things like that? It’s so demoralizing when three to five times a week I have to read in the news about the gays getting all up-in-arms about something or another. It’s like there’s no end to it; no point at which they can say, “Okay, we’ve achieved our goals. Let’s move on.” They just keep finding more and more shit to be offended by. It almost seems sometimes that their tacit wish is to legislate their “normal-ness.” Do they want legal protection from being made fun of? (sincere question). Dear Lord, I wish our country, our towns, our neighborhoods, had public forums in which we could gather and talk about this kind of stuff. Instead, I’m sitting here alone in front of my computer, with a sick, demoralizing, anxious feeling in my chest because of all the “gay rights” bullshit. And I want that feeling to stop, but I don’t think it’s going to anytime soon.
Ugh… demoralizing.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder, and as such, there will never be a time of “moving on” for its proponents… it will always be “push the envelope”… until we reach a time, society-wide, that is the equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Luke 17:29,30)
Gotta keep those NGOs in business. Just because a problem is frivolous, doesn’t mean it can’t be milked for all its worth.
Do single fathers get an exemption, or even a bonus?
I dumped the hippy chick I knocked up at 17 when I had had enough of her BS when I was 25. Raised my three sons to honorable manhood, thank you. While I finished college I gamed the welfare system for all it was worth. The government paid me full boat my last year in college, bought me dress clothes to interview in, free health care. Even free cooking lessons!
The really sweet moments were when I drove up to the welfare office to pickup my FREE food stamps in my Porsche 912.
Banged my case worker too!
You sir, are a legend.
I hope you kept photos — nobody believes anything that their parents say unless they have proof to back it up.
You’re part of the problem.
No. I’d say he was maximising his utility. Problem is the leftists.
Good lessons for your kids. How many hookers have they knocked up and put on the government payroll?
One can look at my case as an example of the positive side of a well-run social safety net. I will admit I took every legally available source of aid I could find and wanted. It made my life and the life of my children better. The state’s contributions may have had the best social ROI since Jimmy Carter started to cash his pension checks. The delta on the taxes I paid from the job I could only get with an in-demand engineering degree paid the government back in a year or two.
One could argue that I, at 17, shouldn’t have put my dipstick into a 16 y/o hippy chick. Point taken…but I did marry her, did 7 years of penitence before divorcing, and raised the brood on my own. I took responsibility.
The case worker was at best a 6, so I did her a favor too!
So I’m sure there are SOME single moms who take the dole, improve themselves, and become productive, taxpaying citizens. I hope their children turn out as well as mine. The problem is sorting the spongers from the aspirants. Government welfare organizations have NO incentive to do that well. Read James Q. Wilson’s “Bureaucracy” for why. I think they were surprised when I walked through their door – a man with a plan!
Another could argue that there is no such thing as “government money”. You took the money from every other person here. So the government collected taxes equivalent to what they shelled out on you in two years? Big deal. I did none of that and payed my own way. Just as always, those who do the right thing in the first place get screwed. You screwed up and gamed the system like many others. You don’t have my thanks or respect for that. And yeah, I have earned six figures for a number of years despite having a degree that has nothing to do with my job.
Orion,
I asked neither for your respect nor for your thanks.
I do thank the taxpayers (including you) and have put the social capital to good use, I think, and have been able to pay back MORE now that I’ve had the government’s help.
It could be compared to government schools. Good idea poorly implemented and, in the long run, corrupted.
I will claim to have put a poor system to its best possible use.
@manzo “I don’t think that basic social programs are an incentive for female hypegamy”
I am pretty sure you are wrong. Give a woman $20k worth of guaranteed benefits, and her attraction to a beta provider earning up to $50k drops to zero. For that amount of money, riding the carosel of alphas is more emotionally rewarding and the downside risk is insured.
Give another woman affirmative action preferences to a federal make work regulator job paying $117k, and watch that woman’s interest in beta providers earning up to $200k drop to zero.
These social benefits and affirmative action guarantees actually impact the priorities of what the woman finds attractive on the basest level. The more women are given, the more luxury/ license they have the ride the carosel.
Common sense isn’t it?
Guys, from what I’ve been hearing out of the mouths of blues lately, you can’t get through – even blues that used to be thoughtful and libertarian-leaning appear no longer capable of the most basic common sense when it comes to political issues. Its as if a brainwashing drug is emitted through the boob tube out of Rachel Maddow’s breath – American Stalinism has arrived.
The socialization of the alpha cock carousel. The link GBFM draws between fiat money and butthexing is becoming clearer to me.
Because I’m sure Lashonda and her kids getting smacked around by the drunkard she’s desperately with just to survive is all for the best…
Children grow up better when a family has a dog as well…you don’t see any bills pushing families to have dogs.
Beats (pun intended) me paying for her bad decisions rather than her paying for her bad decisions.
Really?
Plenty of “Lashondas” are getting smacked around. Being single (unmarried) doesn’t mean they won’t get smacked around by boyfriends.
Maybe if Lashonda is encouraged to get married before having children, she might think more carefully about the men she’s with. You never know.
Because people think about financial repercussions before theyre about to fuck, right?
“Fucking” and “having children” aren’t the same thing.
Niggers arent MEANT to have families. The black man has had 200,000 years in Affica to perfect the art of being black,and he is damned GOOD at it. The black man doesnt belong in the family. He will brutalize it and fuck the keeyuds in the bargain. Blacks take to welfare like a sponge to water. Thats why it must be reined in. Black women used to work for a living. They happily ditched their jobs—as Mexicans happily took them over–to get dat weffare. Interesting that Wisconsin used to have a much smaller black population. In the 60′s they ratcheted up the welfare. Guess who came to dinner???
Two words in response – Bill Crosby.
Screw shaming… just cut the wealth redistribution to single mothers and that will fix the problem by itself. Cut off all their aid and watch their children starve in the streets. If someone wants to be generous and help so be it, itll be on their own dime. Noone should have to be forced to pay taxes for single mothers. I also find it funny that women are creating this very scenario in which the majority of males will be selfish dark triads and wont give a rats ass about helping someone elses child.
“In fact, once “cheaters” cross a threshold of around 10–15 percent of the population, social structures are in danger of breaking down according to Schmitt. That’s bad news for Russia, where almost 40 percent of men received high dark triad scores. In fact, Schmitt found that Eastern European men as a whole tended to score highly on dark triad traits, leading him to speculate that those qualities were perceived as advantageous to survival in a Communist society.”
Hmm so one of the dark triad’s purpose is to combat wealth redistribution by being selfish and hording your resources in the face of authority telling you you must donate. The dark triad will save us all.
Well, maybe women are trying to get more men to be selfish,
since there is only a comparatively small supply of selfish men out there.
I must say it’s a brilliant plan.
Maybe that’s the purpose of feminism after all:
Create more selfish men for the women who aren’t willing to share them.
What article is that from?
Maybe this one
http://www.flypmedia.com/content/bad-news-good-guys
““Only a certain percentage of people can follow that strategy,” says Schmitt. Societies work well if about 5–10 percent (with the remaining majority being altruistic “cooperators”) of the population is dark triad-style “cheaters” or people who behave in ways that, in addition to helping them score women, can lead to ostracism or have other serious social costs.
In fact, once “cheaters” cross a threshold of around 10–15 percent of the population, social structures are in danger of breaking down according to Schmitt. That’s bad news for Russia, where almost 40 percent of men received high dark triad scores. In fact, Schmitt found that Eastern European men as a whole tended to score highly on dark triad traits, leading him to speculate that those qualities were perceived as advantageous to survival in a Communist society.”
Of course, teeheehee, the shaming stops working the moment men realise women CHOOSE the bad boys.
Then you have a problem, as men understand that changing a woman’s mate preferences is a fool’s errand …
so more men will try becoming what women actually prefer,
rather than what women SAY they prefer.
Teeheehee
Good luck passing that in Madison, the liberal Mecca of the Midwest.
True story, not so long ago when I was a student there I had a short fling with a single mom, non-student around my age from a town about 30 miles away. I dropped my load in her before I knew what she was all about but in hindsight let me tell you guys what single moms do…
Almost every weekend, this chick left her bastard spawn (no Dad in the picture) and drove 30 miles to Madison to go out both nights and I kid you not, look for guys to fuck with her other female friend. One night it just happened to be me. She was on the 5yr uterus birth-control thing so she could screw as many dudes as she wanted with no chance of another kid.
She’d return home, work at her dead-end Subway job for a couple days during the week, cash the government check, and spend the next weekend in Madison again screwing guys. Her mom and dad would babysit her kid during weekends so she could exercise her 21st century female prerogative to have sex with random dudes with no commitment.
So when she wasn’t working at Subway, or wasn’t slutting it up, or wasn’t having her parents babysit, then maybe she’d finally find some time to spend time with her kid.
We hear all this one-sided talk of how young men don’t want to grow up, well how about the girls who don’t want to grow up AND choose to forgo their parental responsibilities just so they can live a few more years with sex and booze. Seems to me the latter is much more harmful to society.
No chance of this bill passing. Controversial bills which might come to fruition get swarmed by feminists and manginas breaking down doors and stomping on Capitol marble chanting “Solidarity”. See last year.
It’s definitely not enough. Do you guys realize what it takes to make women behave?
Look at backward shitholes like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. These are the only countries where women act like good little girls.
It takes death penalty for sex out of wedlock, stoning for adultery, punishment for caddish behavior…
And I’m sure they still have single moms.
I would not like to live there obviously, but it’s just to point out that we are far, far away from the mildest form of a patriarchal sustainable civilization. This kind of impotent laws will not ressuscitate patriarchy. Patriarchy is dead, and we’re all fucked.
Let’s get back to the poolside, it’s too late for hope.
[heartiste: backward shitholeification is not necessary. just 50 years ago, the illegitimacy rate in the US was in the single digits. the culture has been in freefall since about 1968.]
freefall since 1968, but the left doesn’t care. They just want power. Free, self-reliant people don’t give up that power as easily as the lazy and dependent.
just 50 years ago, the illegitimacy rate in the US was in the single digits.
Among whites at least. The hordes of illegit Tyrones packed into prisons were on the way.
The black illegitimacy rate has always been higher than the white rate, but there was still less illegitimacy among blacks 50 years ago than there is today. The rate has more than doubled.
Yo man, I be legit!
I think that this proposal is nice, but my proposal would be even better…and it’s camoflauged.
Single best law possible to reduce child abuse:
Make it illegal for children to live/sleep in a house with an unrelated adult.
Incidentally (ahem) it also changes the marriage incentives completely.
See here.
Get rid of the ‘safety net’ and you get less dumb asses trying to walk the tight rope.
The two most destructive social welfare recipients are banks and single mothers, let them fail.
Heartiste for president?
I recently got out of a bad living situation with a lying, bullying, dysfunctional asshole roommate. He was raised by a single mom. Gave me a new understanding of the word “bastard”.
Did he have girls after him?
If so, it is proof that men who are assholes get more female attention than men who are righteously angry and who do not have girlfriends.
Not necessarily. I know a single dad; I don’t know if he himself is a bastard, although he does have a brother. I thought he was cool at first, but he turned out to be a vindictive backstabber. One of my female friends admits he’s “really screwed up”. Before I unfriended him on Facebook, there were times he’d complain to a friend of his on Facebook — another bartender, like himself, who should have girls going at him all the time — about the rotten luck he was having with women.
There are many, many single Dads out there too and often enough not from ‘dysfuntional bastards’ but dysfunctional bitches.
Divorce laws in many states favor lower income earners generally and women in particular, often enough with permanent or ‘lifetime’ alimony judgements.
‘Wealth redistribution’ is not the half of it. Lifetime alimony constitutes legal (court ordered) slavery. My only life choice is to be an indentured servant or scofflaw.
I ended up with our 3 children after ‘Mom’ took up with a bum. Yet she gets both lifetime alimony and gets child support. ‘She’ knows that I will not leave these kids.
These laws come from another time.
No good deed goes unpunished, does it. I know too many good people imprisoned in their own lives. I don’t know what state you are in, but I do not see how that (children living with you yet you paying her child support) can stand. Maybe its worth fighting if she won’t turn around and want them back?
What a shame it would be if someone killed her.
The right would be sooo much more effective, if they could just stop trying to outcompete the lefties in the number of new laws created department.
Why can this guy not simply agitate and vote for abolishing and defunding the darned department he now wants to stick his grubby fingers in? And then keep defunding something or another until whichever pathology worries him self cures?
The dark triad is survivial, not victory, just as game is surivival, not victory.
This seems apropriate:
How about we eliminate welfare programs and let people be responsible for their own lives. Simple enough.
The better and less obvious small step to fixing this (because really… it will take a miracle of manhood in government to pass these bills) is to simply set welfare benefits at X dollars per applicant… regardless of # of children. Offer no health benefits except vaccines. Remove the housing allowances of Section 8, forcing many of these freeloaders into the true ghettos (freeing up housing for people who really want to start a family in a regular neighborhood).
Remove forced busing, which only exists for the idea of ‘forced diversity’. Keeping shitheads in the same hood will allow them to kill each other off, those few who have the magical genetic intelligence to fix their shit, will fix their shit or die trying to leave those hoods.
Remove the cash allowance on welfare for what they call : “misc.. supplies”
Require drug testing, require the children to show up at school daily or with a real doctor’s note for why they are sick or else their benefits decline per diem.
Require the applicant to enroll in some educational classes for a GED (if needed) or lose benefits.
Set a time limit on how long one can collect before a review board needs to check the case for validation and on site inspection. If parent fails at parenting, remove children from home, ban that person from ever collecting from system.
Any arrests made during collection causes benefits to cease permanently. Incarceration for a felony negates the ability to collect but does not prevent an applicant from receiving free advice (mind you.. not free classes) on how to improve themselves or how to start improving themselves.
Applicants must be married to receive more benefits than nonmarried persons. Married persons must be living together.
Mostly section 8 housing drags down good neighborhoods.
Can this be, a ray of hope in a dismal future? A ray of light fighting off the dark? If so, go get them Senator Grothman!
[heartiste: i thought that was a stock photo to advance the leftie agenda. few single moms look like that. hot women usually have what it takes to secure marriage and commitment from a man.]
While I agree with in this particular case, I know of three cases in which chicks as hot as that one got pregnant at their teens by guys who never married them.
In all three cases, the girls rode the cock carrouselwhile they could.
Captain Capitalism linked a Forbes article on it as well.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/03/attention-all-cappy-cap-lieutenants-you.html
Since the weekend I’ve been indulging in the least rational debate of my entire life. I can’t believe a business/financial magazine pays Rick Ungar for analysis of ANYTHING.
@ josecito
Whattaboout abolishing welfare?
Are you prepared to see people starving in the street? As the Lord said “those who do not toil shall not eat”?
Are you prepared to see hospitals receving people in the emergency room and saying “turn back unless you prove you can pay, or your relatives do”?
If not, you are another bleeding heart liberal
Christian do-gooders won’t let them starve, they will keep them alive and reproducing just as in Africa.
What I am stating are small steps towards total elimination. We have to realize that in order to win this war on humanity, we need to take small acceptable steps in the correct direction. It is obvious that we need to fix these issues, but attempting to do it in one fell swoop will only cause people to resist even harder.
It took decades from the Lyndon Johnson era welfare programs to get to where we are today. It will likely take that amount in the opposite direction to reach our prior status and wealth accumulation. Trying to push hard will only cause us failure.
Baby steps are better than no steps towards our goals.. and in this fem-homo-obsessed society, we need to dumb it down and think of the project in small scale easily achievable victories that will get the ball moving in the correct direction.
http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/03/women-under-attack-proposed-law-would-consider-single-parenthood-child-abuse-is-it-fair/
Yet more proof that the true leaders, willing to address ugly truths, hail from the Republican party of my great state of Wisconsin. Let’s see: Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rience Priebus, Ron Johnson and now Glenn Grotham.
Now it’s just a matter of Scott Fitzgerald (super-alpha and master of reframing btw; check out video of his take on the Wisconsin recalls) getting it passed in the senate and his brother getting it passed in the Assembly. And obviously Walker signing the bill. This process may be fudged up due to impending recalls…
In keeping with the themes of this site, I met Scott Walker and can say that he’s an alpha.
Wisconsin Uber Alles!
It is better for children to have a mother and a father. However, I did not as I (like maybe others who happen to read this post) am a result of a teenage pregnancy. It’s unfortunate (at least to me) that this post insults me by (I would say using the weak tactic) of calling me names such as, “dysfunctional bastard,” “illegitimate hellion spawn,” “mentally destitute,” and “awful genetics.” These are the words heartiste is calling me and in fact for me as a man (who did have a single mother) these names are not accurate. The facts are that I am a functional member of society, I’m good looking, I was the physically strongest male in my high school class, I went to a top University, my mother has a good job, neither of us have received government funds, and these facts are the truth. I will now not call heartiste names. I’m sure others will further attact me and my comments, but I’m not an armchair quarterback and I’m not going to waste any more of my time reading comments on this post. I am an Alpha, but I’m not a jerk/asshole because I often see betas overcompensate by being a jerk and I view this as weak and silly (so to each their own), and I have charisma so I’m not going to go off the rails calling people names or make weak attempts to shame others, and most men view me as cool and many women are attracted to me so go figure. Some people may want to consider getting a vasectomy or at least in the mean time always use covers to not have a double standard and cause an unplanned pregnancy themselves. When this site was called it used to say, “Marriage is for chumps.” Now, the current author (whoever it is), at least in this post seems to be promoting marriage, so what’s the deal? I know I am never going to get married or have kids. Now, I am certain the author of this post does not like me, but that’s fine with me. Good day.
[heartiste: i don’t know why, but rereading my words in the context of this comment gave me a chuckle.
ps it’s averages and statistical differences all the way down.]
Marriage in the post-modernist, leftist, vag pedestalising, intellectual wasteland that is America is for chumps. But a lack of marriage has also contributed greatly to that state of affairs. Heartiste writes here about what’s good for society (the thing you live in, yeah?)
Oh and generalisations are important. Especially if you want to shame a group / behavior. Of course, with a generalisation, you’re going to make an error. It’s better, though, that you suffer the possibility of being tainted unfairly with the shame of bastardy than a 13 year old boy is doused with kerosene and ignited. Truth is, too, your mother made a very stupid, very shameful and very selfish mistake. Fortune seems to have saved you though (genetically, financially, socially or otherwise. With the kerosene pranksters, society was not so lucky.)
I wouldn’t mind being called a hellion spawn. It would be a good name for a college football team. The Arizona State Hellion Spawns.
My mother had me when she was 18 and I’m a fucking genius.
[heartiste: if your nickname is hellion spawn in high school, the good bet is that you are managing a harem of hotties.]
If you’re not in fact lying through your teeth, you are the exception to the rule, as heartiste and numerous researchers before him have pointed out.
The petulance dripping off this post reminds me of the “well-spoken” “intelligent” young man raised by lesbians whose video made the rounds of Facebook several months ago…
People with as many parantheses as sentences in their prose are NOT alpha. Just fucking retarded. And probably 15. Go watch some emo-porn.
WTF? (I love parentheses).
dude, exceptions don’t disprove the rule.
p.s. heartsie, this was your fault for not including the disclaimer ‘not all bastards are like that’.
Are you sure your name isn’t Bill Clinton?
Never received “government funds”? LIAR!!!
enacting that legislation would require a paradigm shift in political thinking which won’t happen until it’s too late.
it’s worth noting that the original social security act only permitted AFDC (the forerunner to TANF) to be distributed to widows. the divorced and unwed need not apply. (it was changed sometime in the fifties i believe) in the past bearing and keeping a baby out of wedlock consigned one to social death even if you got govt benefits. divorce was very much frowned upon. a woman would stay with an abuser to avoid that judgment. so it’s not surprising that the rate for either was low.
let’s not sugarcoat this. in the absence of legal abortion a pregnant unmarried woman was in desperate straits. shotgun marriages were no always or even most of the time prudent, and an illegal abortion was dangerous. the kids of a wifebeater may not benefit from the environment of such homes.
however, now with abortion and reliable bc, most women can avoid such situations, so the conditions for receiving govt benefits should be tweaked.
I agree we should not sugarcoat the past. I’m not sure how it used to work in the USA, but in Britain until about 1965 a woman who became pregnant outside marriage, and could not get the father into a shotgun wedding, would find a pretext to move to a different town before her bump became visible, where she would live in a hostel for unmarried mothers, have the baby and give it up for adoption before returning home. I have met both mothers and children who were scarred for life by these arrangements. The system was brutal, and it affected 1% to 2% of the population.
The arrangements that we have now for single mothers – free money, top of the list for public housing – are much less brutal, but they affect 10% to 20% of the population. I am not convinced that we have reduced the total amount of brutality – which is now manifested as fatherless children and downward mobility.
I suspect that in many situations there is an irreducible minimum of brutality, which arises from the mismatch between human desires and the social impossibility of satisfying them. Opinion formers and policy makers want to appear nice, and so they enact policies that reduce the most extreme examples of brutality; but the unintended consequence is that the same amount of brutality is spread out across a larger number of people.
The US had a lot of those institutions as well.
We have better birth control and legal abortions now. The real problem is that its a better career choice than working or marriage.
The problem I have with this is that sometimes it’s better for two incapable parents to be divorced and happy apart than having them continue to be married and unhappy. The “for the sake of the children” crap is well…crap. Arguing and screaming at each other is not doing the kids any favors and creates a bad environment.
And this “single by choice” thing. I’ve seen it before, but what exactly does it entail besides divorce or a break up initiated by the woman. Even then, we don’t know the entire situation or how long a couple tried to make it work. As for welfare, the majority of single moms overall aren’t on welfare or need government assistance anyway. Concerning those single parent homes on welfare, those percentages appear to be on the decline (http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/08/phyllis-schlafly-debunked-single-parent.html).
To me, the risks are dependent on the mother herself raising the child and if she allows the father in the picture (or if he even wants to be in the picture and is a good father), and less about single motherhood itself. Not to mention the family’s economic situation.
I went through a few of the articles and statistics while I typed this, and can’t help but see the “16 and Pregnant” version of the single mom rather than say the divorced mom with the kids’ dad still in the picture.
Let me say though that I am indeed aware of moms who purposely removed the dad out of the picture just so they can get welfare checks (my mom told me about this one night – before anyone starts, she and my dad are still married).
Good point – the sperm donor is acceptable for a fuck, but not to raise the Little Bundle of Consequence. You’d think somebody’d invent birth control – they’d like, make a million bucks.
Yeah but could these ladies afford it?
Or condoms….
Condoms are birth control.
“The problem I have with this is that sometimes it’s better for two incapable parents to be divorced and happy apart than having them continue to be married and unhappy.”
A landmark 25 year study of children from divorced and still-married-but-unhappily-together families showed otherwise. http://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Legacy-Divorce-Landmark-Study/dp/0786886161
As much as liberals hate it, it’s always better to stay together than get divorced.
My experience bears this out as well… the usual people spouting “it’s better to divorce if the parents don’t love each other any more” are people without children of their own… usually late-teen and twenty-somethings flush with the thrill of being in their second or third year Lib Arts program.
A landmark 25 year study of children from divorced and still-married-but-unhappily-together families showed otherwise.
But to what extent? Is a screaming household or one where there are arguments almost everyday that much better for children than a divorce? I’m not thinking of a flaky spouse leaving at the first sign of unhappiness.
Yes. In an ideal world, eugenics would be embraced for the obviously compassionate idea it is–and some parents licenses and the rest steralised.
(awwww, how can you take away dat crack mothas repraductive rightsth?!?!? You sick bastard!”)
You know, many times I do think that it would be a good idea if one has to earn a license to become a parent
You are dense.
Welfare means a system of doling out free money/services to make the cost of women’s bad sexual decisions somebody elses . Alimony is a form of welfare. So is mandated free birth control pills. So is tax payer funded child care at the church of liberalism er I mean public school
Think outside your box.
Pills and abortions are still way cheaper than welfare. The bottom line is there’s nothing more expensive than an unwanted kid. I say free birth control pills for anybody who wants them, and free abortions too. It’ll save us trillions in the long run and keep society safer. Unwanted kids are far more likely to end up criminals!
Pills and abortions are more accessible than ever, yet single motherhood is not shrinking.
Eff your “sometimes” crying. Look. at. the. statistics. Look at what’s happened to the fabric of society since liberal family reform came in. And then sit down.
I see no other way to rein women in but to strip them of some of their rights. Voting being the main one.
On the day you can look around and see a lot of carbonized shadows on the rebar stumps of skyscraper walls in NYC LA and DC, well, then this might be a remote possibility.
Short of that, don’t get your hopes up.
Heartiste,
let’s just say that when a man is… sufficiently inspired… his primal urges become quite malleable.
Well it takes more than just sex and being turned on to make a relationship work right? What about a woman showing respect, support, being caring, creating an atmosphere where a guy can just relax, basically being pleasant to be around? Yes we’re animals, but we’re more than just our primal urges.
If it’s all just sex, how can a relationship like that last (heck I wouldn’t even call it a relationship).
[heartiste: all those other things are great. a woman’s looks are a necessary but not sufficient condition for a man to consider a loving, long-term relationship with her.]
Looks are at the top of the list and, depending on how attractive the woman is, they can excuse a lot.
Fatty, man jawed, fem cunts get no excuses.
(Unless you’re a sniveling beta fag that is:
http://www.utne.com/uploadedImages/utne/blogs/Media/jessica_valenti.jpg?n=1559
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-okX0HNjKf_0/TeQfYKEYPqI/AAAAAAAAC9o/k5LVm1DoJEo/s1600/truebeta.jpg )
You give Valenti too much credit by linking to her photoshopped best pic eva.
This is what a feminist really looks like…
http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Valenti.jpg
Ringo Starr is a feminist?
That was good…
Looks like a dyke. Not interested in the least.
The Democrat party has staked its existence on maintaining large blocs of people who depend on government payments. They (and their media flunkeys) will fight to the death to stop any rollback like this.
The only solution is civil war.
Renee, I really could care less about your “reasons”. No one cared about these nuanced “reasons” while these non-custodial dads were being criminalized. I think it’s high time time that these single mothers got a taste of their own medicine whether on welfare or not.
Fathers were attacked whether there was a welfare situation or not. Two parent households are better for children VS. an abusive single-mother household proven to be a terrible environment in comparison generally.
From the numbers WE CAN’T TRUST WOMEN divorced or otherwise in general to allow fathers into their childrens lives. No need for nuance now. As for economics, hasn’t prevented the single mother explosion.
Women were absolutely fine with the state being heavy-handed against non-custodial fathers. I say it’s time to give it back to single-mothers with both barrels. The hell w/ specifics.
I’m gonna send that senator $5.
One of the biggest disasters of liberalism (and that is saying a lot) is the idea that we can educate people to make good decisions. Shame an social stigma are just about the only thing that actually motivates people’s behavior. There must be a study out there showing this.
“Women with a jagged genetic suite that inclines them to be single moms would be shamed into avoiding pregnancy outside of marriage, and thus refrain from having kids altogether and passing on their shit genes (eugenics, yay!) or would be impelled to choose a marriage-minded mate more wisely given the social strictures against out-of-wedlock childbirth and lack of governmental support for their chosen path.”
I doubt it. More likely, the women capable of being shamed out of single motherhood aren’t the ones with shit genetics and poor future orientation.
One thing no one has brought up is the concept of “shaming” as it relates to other women.
These days, women will shame another woman if her man doesn’t meet some ridiculous, unrealistic checklist, yet don’t call their female friends failures if they can’t get a guy to stick around and raise his own kid.
Why is that? Not for moral support, that’s for damn sure.
It’s because feminism unleashed competitiveness in women. Each time we get a new single mom, the market value of single women without kids goes up a notch by comparison. Each time a woman marries, her friends’ social standing goes down a bit. So it benefits women to see other women fail.
The whole “you go, girl” thing they pretend to get behind is really “fuck you, girl.”
This is competition of the worst kind because it pretends to be “support.” Women are their own worst enemy, cheering each other on a “strong” when they fail to 1). Snare a man and 2). Give their kid a good head start in life.
At least when men compete they’re honest about it.
How the fuck do u think Obama ever made it to POTUS? His single white mom raised his minority ass and was able to send the lil’ monster to rich white parochial school then bounce him via affirmative action into Harvard where he pimped his minority status.
Exactly.
Actually, his whore mother was out mudsharking while her parents raised him.
The lesson all well-wishers should learn by his example is how he nevertheless identified with his and glorified the philosophies of his no-account father… a measure of disdain for the White folk who actually gave him the best upbringing he could ever hope for.
Not quite. There’s an interesting but little understood aspect
of his academic career. Punahou is a great feeder school to
Stanford, probably second only to Harvard-Westlake school in
Los Angeles. That a mixed-race Punahou grad and child of a
single mom couldn’t get into Stanford suggests his academics
were awful. He could have sailed in with a B average.
Next stop for Stanford rejects would be Pomona College in Claremont CA, but he didn’t go there either. Instead he settled on
Occidental, currently #37 in USN&WP rankings. 37!
So the guy isn’t particularly smart. Affirmative action didn’t kick
in until Harvard Law School but they coddled him and , as we know, he did next to nothing while on Law Review.
lzozozlzozoz
and even if da childrens are born into an intact family, the federal reseer system has the power to inpsire assocked, deosuled womenz to divorce tehir husbandz and detsory the fmailiesz lzozlzzllzzol
I could almost swear Heartiste argues deliberately against his own self interest. The self interest of the cad would seem to me to be to encourage the single moms, for they separate the responsibility of parenthood from the act of becoming a biological parent. The alpha cads do the honors, the beta dads pick up the tab. That’s what the feminists are moving us towards, through various means. Feminism may not admit it, but it has as a core goal the right of women to choose which man/men will be responsible for raising their children independent of her choice of the child’s biological father.
One restriction on abortion that I think would be fair is to require a married woman to notify her husband of an impending abortion. She would then be forced to give the hubby a chance to question just who the sperm donor was and why she has chosen to abort the fetus (or child, if you will.)
Feminists have been successful in many states in blocking such legislation since it obviously gives the husband too much information at a cheating wife’s expense. By “cheating” I mean either being impregnanted by another male or denying the husband of his own offspring.
He know’s he arguing against his self interest, and has said so. He’s making a societal point.
OR he could be a beta dad acting like an alpha cad
on the internet, you can never know
#obligatorydevil’sadvocate
Renee, marriage is full of downs as well as ups. It’s not rainbows and unicorns. You’re obviously in favor of divorce if the woman’s unhaaaapy, depriving the children of their father and his guidance. The problem with what you have stated is that is untrue. The USA had a single digit divorce rate before the ‘reforms’ of the 60′s and 70′s. Our elders didn’t know any magic formula for picking the perfect partner, so there would be lots of arguing couples in there. The children’s generation had a ‘normal’ crime rate. After those feminist reforms, our crime rate soared, and the majority of those come from broken homes. How is this being better? It isn’t, not for society, and certainly not for the children. The old way of divorces being granted only for abandonment, adultery or extreme cruelty and assigning blame and resources accordingly worked, no-fault (for women) divorce has been a disaster for the children.
You don’t have to be on welfare to be a ward of Uncle Sam. There’s all kinds of programs out there to provide for the single mother and make her life easier, welfare is one of the smaller ones around. Tuition assistance and grants, free babysitting and healthcare, EBT, housing subsidies, I’m just naming a few of the freebies available if you’re an unattached female with offspring in tow.
Doing away with some of the subsidies is essential to fixing the problem, we can’t expect folks to do the right thing while paying them to do the wrong thing.
Renee, marriage is full of downs as well as ups. It’s not rainbows and unicorns. You’re obviously in favor of divorce if the woman’s unhaaaapy, depriving the children of their father and his guidance.
And where did I say this? All I’m saying is that an environment where BOTH parents are completely unhappy, screaming at each other, with no solution in site for the recovery of their marriage can’t possibly be healthy for the kids. Do you think any child will want to come home to a screaming match or an argument on a daily basis? I think not.
With that being said, I do not support purposely keeping the father out of the children’s lives in the event of a divorce (unless he’s really THAT AWFUL of a person), and if the mom is horrible then he should try to file for custody himself – and yes I know the difficulty of that since the courts are biased against men.
As I’ve said, I don’t group single-motherhood into one type or image. I don’t know the situation or the circumstance.
Heartiste, have you seen this? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/02/anthony-bourdain-and-top-chef-have-it-wrong-the-boys-club-is-no-fun.html
This woman is the perfect embodiment of the clueless modern educated woman. Someone just published her book about how she risked life and limb by going “undercover” in an Applebee’s kitchen and worked alongside a bunch of mostly Hispanic lowlifes. One night she went out drinking with them and lo and behold! she may or may not have gotten drugged and raped by one of their friends.
The choicest bit:
“The only comment I couldn’t handle came when I burned my hand during a rush of service. I yelped in pain and kept working. After things calmed down, vanilla-loving Geoff grabbed a handful of ice and came up behind me. “Which hand?” he asked, and when I said my right, he stepped close, grasped my hand in his, and began tenderly massaging it with the ice—but not in a medical sort of way “That’s enough, Geoff,” I said, retracting my hand and assuming a school-marm tone. “I’m a grown-ass woman.” Geoff didn’t miss a beat. “Oh, I can see that,” he told me evenly with bedroom eyes, pressing his palm against mine. I broke his gaze, unnerved and speechless: it’s one thing when people are chattering at you from across the line—that’s a public performance as much as communication. This was a direct and concrete challenge, coupled with physical touch. It was a couple seconds before I managed a retort: “Whatever.” It still bothers me that I didn’t have a better comeback.”
You have the purple prose lifted from romance novels (“Oh, I can see that,” he told me evenly with bedroom eyes, pressing his palm against mine.). You have the mock outrage over harmless infractions (rubbing her hand with ice, teasing from line cooks) that is really just a way for this homely chick (look her up) to brag about how there actually are some men in the world who would willingly dump a fuck in her. In the comments a few people point out that she probably shouldn’t have gotten shitfaced with these dudes, but their commonsense is nearly overwhelmed by a cavalry charge of white knights.
This may be political guerilla theatre. It is at the point where the insane torrent of abuse in response to anything sane actually alienates voters. Hence it makes sense to make aggressive proposals. The opposition is currently self-defeating, especially in a place like Madison.
Although loose single moms are the scourge of modern Western society, let’s not forget that deadbeat dads also play an equal role in what will amount to the unraveling of our culture and its decent into destruction. The vast majority (but certainly not all) of people who are the product of a single parent household usually turn out to be pretty low quality human beings. This is pretty consistent. Even though this is often not their fault, it doesn’t excuse the fact. One out of every 100 American adult males is currently incarcerated. This is an actual fact from the Justice Dept. It’s pretty likely that the vast majority of them grew up in some sort of turbulent single parent household. Generation X/The Millennial generation are undoubtedly the laziest, fattest, ugliest, most entitled, and most useless collection of Americans ever spawned. They will certainly be at the helm when this ship we call the United States of America runs aground.
Thank you single moms and deadbeat dads for your selfish lack of dedication to your offspring.
Single moms are the scourge of society. Case closed.
If the Republicans had any sense, which I’m doubtful of, they’d run clips of the feral spawn of single mothers looting and rioting in London and across the UK last August to garner support their bill.
Sadly, this bill will be DOA and I suspect that nothing will be done until those UK riots are replicated here in the US.
Who know ‘A Clockwork Orange’ was our reality and not just a book and movie?
I’m singing in the rain…..
My brother is seriously dating a poor, over 30, bad-looking single mother. She also has a giant tattoo on her back, and loves drinking. He haven’t had a girl for ages and I always secretly hoped that he would get some. And now that I saw the 2 together, I feel miserable. Life isn’t fair, I know he could do better
F*ck. Me Too. My brother ‘effed himself beyond belief with his
choice of wife. He married her AFTER she porked out and the usual
decade of carouselling.
Now he serves as a shining example that women have nothing to
worry about. My brother is tall, went to a top 5 university AND
Law school but married a disgusting, undereducated porker who
quit working soon after she moved in. Now she’s unemployable.
Poor bastard (heh). I feel for him.
No doubt there is some truth to what this Wisconsin politician is saying. I do believe government incentivizes single motherhood to an extent.
However, from the perspective of “game” and “alpha/beta” conversation, I am confused.
For a single mom to be married she needs a man whom wants to marry her.
Heartise has numerous times on this blog made statements to the effect that:
-single moms are a pump and dump
-do not single moms trap you into marriage
– single moms are not worthy of your long-term commitment
So Heartise is insisting single moms should be married, while at the same time telling men to not marry them. Please clarifiy.
[heartiste: your premises need adjusting. first, women should be married *before* having kids, and they should have those kids with their husbands. second, men who know the score should avoid marrying women, childless or not. now, how to get out of that pickle? well, as i’ve always said, what’s good for society is not necessarily good for the individual. but if its society’s interests you have in mind, then you can go a long way to fixing problems by making marriage a more attractive alternative for men and divorce a less attractive alternative for women.]
Dear CH,
I fully agree with the majority of your posts, I also agree that single motherhood is suboptimal, but I think you should distribute the blame for single motherhood equally between males and females.
I am not apologetic for woman at all, since they can behave really mean, if men allow them to, nevertheless: many single moms are NOT HAPPY to be single moms, they did NOT choose to be single moms. Many were impregnated by boyfriends that ran away as soon the woman was pregnant, Some others became pregnant during a fling with a player…
Often, it’s not a choice done by woman, but they were left alone – should these women really be shamed?
Of course, one could argue now that contraception would prevent this, but we all know that for a female in real heat, contraception is often not top priority – can they be blamed for this ?
To put it differently: What might be good for a player on an individual level, might be bad for society.
Maybe there are some little ones of you or me or other playas running around in this world and you don’t even know it. Does this make a potential mother worth to be shamed?
they did NOT choose to be single moms. Many were impregnated by boyfriends that ran away as soon the woman was pregnant
carrying a child to term is ALWAYS a conscious choice.
women have been clamoring for the right to choose what they do with their bodies. guess what? with rights come responsibilities.
The fact that this even has to be explained is astounding… how can people be so dense and yet still survive, let along bring children into the world?
Charles Murray wrote a piece years ago called “The Coming White Underclass” about white illegitimacy. He advocated cutting off all benefits to unmarried mothers so that they would have to get married (presumably to betas) to survive.
Guys gone wild against women.
What is happening to male Americans.
Not enough mothering?
Guilt?
Simple hate for being left behind by successful women?
Maybe too much football and beer?
Not enough mothering is one factor.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111928/Christine-Jordan-cries-rape-night-stand-forgot-name.html
You can invent stuf like this
Jordan, who is now pregnant with twins by another man, was convicted of perverting the course of justice and was jailed for two years yesterday.
Well, at least she suffered some consequence… but sheesh.
Renee has a point. A big part of the problem isn’t just female hypergamy, its shit-ass behavior.
How much wisdom is being imparted to our young womyn today? How many of them enter the adult realm, well-equipped to function in a healthy relationship, with an understanding of how things work? With a dose of self-discipline, self-control, and discretion?
How many of them understand the massive destructive power of their own speech, and thereby control and manage it, preventing damage and sabotage to their own relationships and life?
Then, you add on top of them that no one is even teaching them how to EAT wisely, and they get all fat and misshapen too.
I like the bill in the OP, and all that, but the problem of single motherhood has some serious underlying problems, and without addressing them, we’ll likely continue to see a rise in single motherhood, or at least a rise in abortions (another disaster of humanity)
I think that the “shaming”, while reasonable and fair, will only result in more womyn feeling more ashamed for their slutty hypergamy (which they don’t even understand about themselves- womyn often hate themselves because they feel they can’t seem to stop themselves from acting poorly) and so therefore will keep birthing babies, but will just be more self-destructive, pathetic, and prone to drug use, because they have one more thing to feel bad about.
It’s fine to tell them the wrong way… but we’re also going to have to show them the right way.
Is there any way to shame mothers (or otherwise compel them) to buckle down and teach their kids better? What about prompting fathers to impart some damn wisdom?
What would you all in the manosphere recommend to remedy the issue of poor parenting perpetuating all this devolution?
Perhaps the ‘shaming’ of single mothers is a start to the process, but even if it worked, and we got their attention…. what resource would come about to better equip them, lest they fall into the trap anyway?
Renee doesn’t have a point and neither do you.
Taking away money (ie. ending the welfare state) AND legally punishing bad behavior is way way more effect than shame ever would be or as you propose “educating” them into not being such stupid whores.
I would also say the contraception shouldn’t only be a “woman’s” thing. Guys should be just as responsible when it comes to sex.
Not to mention that since it takes two to make a baby, both sexes should be taught some self-control, precautions, or at the very least discretion in who you sleep with. Or hey teach abstinence along with precautions to take with having sex.
[…] Punishing single momhood. […]
While I see what Grothman is trying to do, I doubt his bill will have much success. “Too little, too late”. Think about it: last I heard, there are sperm donors out there who are fathering 100 children per man! We’re far past the point of reviving traditional marriage.
What seems more likely, is that all the single-mother children will gradually weed themselves out. Expect prescription drug abuse and suicide rate to skyrocket in teh future.
Heartiste, has it ever occurred to you that the reason there are single mothers is because there are spineless bastards out there who stick their dick in and then can’t handle the responsibility afterwards???
[heartiste: of course. but it has also occurred to me, which it apparently hasn’t to you, that there are even more women who’d rather getting impregnated by the town badboy than hitch themselves to boring beta providers.]
Maybe if your blog didn’t promote such diskshit sociopaths to indulge in such retarded behaviour, there’d be less bastards born out there.
[and guess what! it’s also occurred to me that these women having bastards could easily require use of condom before fucking, or take some form of female prophylactic. but they don’t. i wonder why…]
Your blog should read – ‘Man the fuck up and take responsibility for once in your life.’
[actually, a more precise descriptor would be: ‘it takes two to tango.’]
Ah well, so you DO know there are two sides to every story.
[heartiste: only an idiot with reading comprehension problems such as, oh i dunno, to pick an example completely at random… you, would think that the biomechanical forces of men’s desires get off scot-free here.]
So, if you think that “these women having bastards could easily require use of condom before fucking, or take some form of female prophylactic.” is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do, why demonise women on oral contraception as sluts?
[please show me where i wrote that, readingcomprehensiongirl.]
Do you love to undermine yourself? Reveal your own double standards?
[you’re quite stupid, did you know that?]
damn, heartsie. are you trying to make her love you long time?
[heartiste: in jen’s case, it is very easy to find her thermal exhaust port. she prides herself on her educational cred and smarts. her email handle is ‘imperialjenny’. sez it all. a blow which strikes at her soft underbelly is one which takes her lapses of judgment and discernment fully into account.]
I think a few of Maya’s chromasomes shifted and out came Jen.
Heartsite you have the patience of a saint dealing with the tripe these bitches spew.
We can build a model that contains Jen’s concepts of unmarried mothers and women who act responsibly.
Obviously, the Venn diagram on this looks like a pair of binoculars.
Venn diagram = binoculars… that’s gold, baby… gold,/i>!
Love when these bishes deliver the same agitprop we’ve been saturated with since birth with, “Has it ever occurred to you . . . ?” and the like. Well, no, the idea that it’s guys’ fault didn’t *occur* to me, just like it didn’t occur to you, you effing lemming. You and I and everyone else had the anti-white-male memes variously pounded and insinuated into our minds. But go ahead and keep pretending that your thoughts are a product of your own individual analysis.
Yeah, the arrogance and confidence with which they use sophistry is telling. You know that they know that when they deliver these little catch phrases to their fellow manjawedfemcunts, uncontrollable nodding ensures (and not the good kind of uncontrollable (or uncontrolled–heh) nodding.)
“So, if you think that “these women having bastards could easily require use of condom before fucking, or take some form of female prophylactic.” is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do, why demonise women on oral contraception as sluts?”
Either explain how you arrived at that silly conclusion, or at least apologize for missing his point by a country mile.
Women have fought to steal the rights to 100% of all decisions regarding reproduction, away from men.
Therefore, women need to be held 100% accountable for any and all childbirths, financially and otherwise.
Women are the sexual choosers, meaning they maintain 100% control over whether sex happens, when it happens, and with whom it happens.
A woman has 12 different forms of birth control plus tubal ligation. A man has one (coincidentally, men’s only option is the only one that negatively effects sensation).
A woman can get pregnant, not tell her husband, and have an abortion without consulting him, and there is nothing he can legally do.
A woman can insist that a child will be born against all wishes of the father, and again he has no legal recourse, and every obligation that a fully voluntary father would have.
A woman gets to decide whether or not the father will have any access to her or the child before, during, or after the birth.
A woman can carry a child to term, ignoring all 12 birth control options, ignoring the abortion option, ignoring even the adoption alternative, and STILL walk up to any Police or Fire station in the USA and simply drop her baby on the steps and walk away. No questions asked, no legal process, immunity from any charges, the baby instantly becomes a ward of the taxpayer, and the mother walks away without a shred of responsibility.
A woman can legally abandon her child on a doorstep, but when a father removes his child from the house of an abusive mother, an amber alert is put out and he is sought by all available law enforcement agencies, then imprisoned as a kidnapper.
A woman can be a multimillionaire heiress and still engage in forceful garnishment of a third of a working man’s paycheck, for child support.
A woman does not have to produce one piece of documentation, or pay taxes on, any child support she receives. There are no mechanisms in place whatsoever to ensure that the funds are spent on the child, or to require that the child be raised under minimum standards.
This is the reproductive environment that women have legally fostered. Tell me again why men should bear ANY responsibility at all for the child being born and raised without a father?
The difference, Jen, is that so-called “deadbeat dads, players, assholes, losers and douchebags”, and men in general, receive endless bashing and criticism from the mainstream and have for decades now. While women, their nature, and their choices are above reproach and cannot be criticized. That’s “misogynist”.
This blog, and the manosphere in general, is an attempt to remedy that and expose the intelligence insulting pretty lies about women. Suck it up.
Don’t you (and not I or any other man, sadly) have that “right to choose”, my hysterical friend?
The option is ALWAYS there for these types to not have the burden of a child.
If you choose wrong, why should I be responsible for your mistakes?
Hey, you dumb cunt… whatever ever happened to the “Our Bodies And None Of Your Business!” battle cry of the ‘strong wymyn’… heard not so long ago?
Can’t have it both ways, toots.
do slanted hamster wheels function like gyroscopes?
If this doesn’t get you angry I don’t know what will. I just read an article about a single mother who continued to collect food stamps after winning a million dollars in the lottery. Here’s her justification –
“I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t I thought maybe it was OK because I’m not working,” Clayton told WDIV. “I feel that it’s OK because I have no income, and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.”
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120308/METRO/203080386
Bad habits die hard.
Take away women’s right to vote, and then we can start talking about politics.
But since women got the right to vote, I’m now advocating children’s right to vote. Think about the children!!! And the animals too. The poor creatures have souls too!!!
Don’t worry, it couldn’t get worse.
This guy right here has got it.
No chance to bring real change till women are out of the political arena.
Let’s not go crazy now, there have to be SOME limits… let’s just start by lowering the voting age to 14.
Universal shafting has to end. Spread the word! Parade in the streets!
Why not just ban voting for everything besides human beings with more than 115IQ?
The less suffrage the better. Ideally it would be limited to one person.
nah, the founding fathers had it right, jobs or land to vote. The girl who “retired” at 27 because she’s disabled? Sorry, that’s a loss of franchise right there. You may recall the Onion article, “mentally disabled man the only competent person at his job”, well, I’ll respect work over IQ.*
*=and contrary to the smug SWPL assumption, the DNC voting base may include smugs with expensively worthless college degrees but that demographic is outweighed by the Precious government cheese crowd.
I don’t think we have to go so far as to shame single moms. We need to stop praising and rewarding them. I am a retired teacher. My last two years of teaching was in an alternative school—kids who had been kicked out of regular school. I learned that teenage girls who get pregnant are not all accidents, or for lack of birth control. Many do it on purpose. It’s an automatic ticket to adulthood , increased status and income. It gives her the right to move out on her own with housing assistance. They have access to WIC and SNAP (formally called food stamps). Although Aid to Dependent Children is time limited, a few years to a teenager is a lifetime, and other programs take over after that anyway.
One of my students was pregnant both of my last two years, unmarried of course. She brought her first born to school one time and was treated like a celebrity. All the female teachers fawned over the mom and baby. It was obvious that she enjoyed the attention. I was not rude but I tried not to be involved. She never mentioned the father(s) so I don’t know if she knew who it was. She called herself ‘littlesexy’ on MySpace. BTW, she was white.
People are not motivated by lack of praise, they are motivated by shame. A lack of praise can be replaced with manufactured delusion, whereas the mind buckles under the weight of shame.
RE: Homely feminist secretly thrilled that crude sexual attention from undiscriminating horndogs makes her seem desirable. http://t.co/2mwAyhUt
Key passage here:
The only comment I couldn’t handle came when I burned my hand during a rush of service. I yelped in pain and kept working. After things calmed down, vanilla-loving Geoff grabbed a handful of ice and came up behind me. “Which hand?” he asked, and when I said my right, he stepped close, grasped my hand in his, and began tenderly massaging it with the ice—but not in a medical sort of way “That’s enough, Geoff,” I said, retracting my hand and assuming a school-marm tone. “I’m a grown-ass woman.” Geoff didn’t miss a beat. “Oh, I can see that,” he told me evenly with bedroom eyes, pressing his palm against mine. I broke his gaze, unnerved and speechless: it’s one thing when people are chattering at you from across the line—that’s a public performance as much as communication. This was a direct and concrete challenge, coupled with physical touch. It was a couple seconds before I managed a retort: “Whatever.” It still bothers me that I didn’t have a better comeback.
STILL bothers her. LOL
Still winds up her overactive intellectual hamster.
I sent Grothman a letter of support. I suggest you do the same:
[email protected]
Done. Thanks, that’s a great idea.
Excellent post!
I condemn single motherhood but I support single dads. Through work, I’ve had the sad interaction with divorced or never married single fathers supporting a child or two b/c the mother is an absolute disaster. Forget drug use, its a mix of terrible personality traits, actions, choices that fathers are granted full custody, zero time with mommy.
What makes one better than the other?
¨ At any rate, it’s a better plan than the total cultural immolation we’re currently experiencing.¨
Maybe the solution is to push in the direction of immolation, we seem to be so close to it anyway; a good cleansing could be the solution. It would be very liberating to allow the thing to slip into bankruptcy; financial and social, no rescuing. A new start after bringing all of the dysfunction to a screeching halt?
My sister-in-law is a good case. She has had three children, all with different fathers, and has never had a legal husband. Her parents were very upper middle class, Pops ran the biggest bank in the state, partied with Jerry Ford, owned oil wells and a thousand acres of farm land.
How much welfare she’s pulled down over the years I don’t know. She has spent a lot of time on Indian reservations, ACTING poor and eating peyote.
Like her sister, my wife and the brother, I suspect that there’s some rebellion against a strong set of parents.
The mournful fate of the white knight father who tries to raise his daughter to be a good girl, with two parts pedestaling and one part delusion (and zero iron-willed discipline).
Daughter runs a train with the negro ball players in Jr. High and it’s all downhill from there.
Pop stays busy at the office and country club and ignores the hell he has unleashed on the rest of society.
Be firm with your daughters gentlemen. Keep them from the cock carousel that modern life is just waiting for an opportunity to skewer them on.
Of course we need to shame single motherhood. But laws much more innocuous than this one even are met with feet-stomping and protest by the well-organized ruthless feminist machine. Remember the Virginia ultrasound abortion law? The feminist machine is so entrenched and well-organized nothing gets by it. A private business is mandated to cover birth control now, remember, and if you don’t support that, it’s a “War on women.”
Feminist hags will never be satisfied. They have power and superiority in every legal sense but they have to do something next, so they will push for even more and more. Only when there is a WELL ORGANIZED opposition to them, will things stop getting worse. Because right now with feminist-gay control of the media, and majority female voters, they will always win.
This is a nice start though.
Sir, I wish I could shake your hand for this fine article.
under my plan single mom gets one. when she applies for public assistance she gets spayed because she’s irresponsible and one is too many.
I’d settle for a NorPlant. Someday, she might grow up and become an adult.
Check the article’s comment section for more vociferous than usual ‘I hate this because it takes away my free ride!’ female commenters.
erm, when you make being a single mom more difficult, you make women more interested in marriage. When women become interested in marriage, they hold out on easy sex. When they hold out on sex, then my ability to bang lots of easy chicks declines. Bad idea.