Opening Men Up Emotionally

[Doctor Cringelord]

Is it birth control to blame? possibly. Although I agree with coltainne that the advent of the pill was not a bad thing, per se.

Society and humanity will adapt, if we look at this from a birds' eye view and think longterm.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Surely not every single one of the fathers in these cases has been a deadbeat.

.

Even if we accept they are all deadbeats why are women choosing to risk procreation with these kinds of guys?

It takes two to tango and overlooking the fact that women are making terrible decisions shouldn't be ignored (and most definitely not rewarded).

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think men will eventually adapt and society will begin to value them as much as women. We'll see gynocentrism fade away as a relic of a time when it was necessary. As long as medicine continues to develop and the population remains at its current level, it will eventually become obsolete. Men will be valued next to women as individuals free to choose their courses in life and free from being resigned to the roles of jar openers, bug killers, unpaid bodyguards, cannon fodder, et al.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Is it birth control to blame? possibly. Although I agree with coltainne that the advent of the pill was not a bad thing, per se.

Society and humanity will adapt, if we look at this from a birds' eye view and think longterm.

I think the pill is a viable countermeasure but it still doesn't address the issue of women choosing to sleep with deadbeats and then expecting society to be on the hook through welfare for their bad choices.

The pill isn't full proof unfortunately and I wonder if it decreases the weight and consequences of a bad decision to sleep with a deadbeat?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Even if we accept they are all deadbeats why are women choosing to risk procreation with these kinds of guys?

It takes two to tango and overlooking the fact that women are making terrible decisions shouldn't be ignored (and most definitely not rewarded).

So what is the answer? I'm not sure I know. Better education for both sexes? Can we educate hypergamous drives out of women and more responsibility into deadbeat men?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I think men will eventually adapt and society will begin to value them as much as women. We'll see gynocentrism fade away as a relic of a time when it was necessary. As long as medicine continues to develop and the population remains at its current level, it will eventually become obsolete. Men will be valued next to women as individuals free to choose their courses in life and free from being resigned to the roles of jar openers, bug killers, unpaid bodyguards, cannon fodder, et al.

I see no indication that the vanishing of male disposability is anywhere in society's horizon.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I see no indication that the vanishing of male disposability is anywhere in society's horizon.

I don't see it happening in our lifetimes, sadly. This is longterm, perhaps a minimum of a few hundred years (an optimistic guess) or perhaps as much as several thousand years, assuming we don't experience a major catastrophe and therefore need to revert to gynocentrism in order to preserve our species.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

So what is the answer? I'm not sure I know. Better education for both sexes? Can we educate hypergamous drives out of women and more responsibility into deadbeat men?

Human evolution is largely the product of sexual selection and throughout most of history women have held the reigns of power in this area. They are the selectors which is why courtship evolved into mostly men jocking for a woman's favor. That being said, if more women chose dudes that are willing to and want to step up to their role as family men then deadbeats will either have to adapt to the changing sentiment of women or accept running into genetic dead ends.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I don't see it happening in our lifetimes, sadly. This is longterm, perhaps a minimum of a few hundred years (an optimistic guess) or perhaps as much as several thousand years, assuming we don't experience a major catastrophe and therefore need to revert to gynocentrism in order to preserve our species.

I think it starts with raising your own children. Teaching them how to think critically and how to empathize to set them up for success. Your children, boys and girls, are going to grow up being naturally avoidant of low rent partners.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Human evolution is largely the product of sexual selection and throughout most of history women have held the reigns of power in this area. They are the selectors which is why courtship evolved into mostly men jocking for a woman's favor. That being said, if more women chose dudes that are willing to and want to step up to their role as family men then deadbeats will either have to adapt to the changing sentiment of women or accept running into genetic dead ends.

If more and more men go the way of a particular 5 letter acronym, it will eventually affect women and how they go about sexual selection. The playing field will level, or change.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

If more and more men go the way of a particular 5 letter acronym, it will eventually affect women and how they go about sexual selection. The playing field will level, or change.

MGTOW is not the answer in my opinion. I get their gripe but going Galt on women in general only avoids a problem, doesn't fix it. If good men avoid all quality relationships with women then all that's going to be left for them are the low rent deadbeats with whom they will procreate creating more losers. I think leading by example is more effective for men and women. As a man I'll be particular about what kind of woman I want to share a quality relationship with. MGTOW is fundamentally flawed because it assumes quality women are non-existent which is ludicrous.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

By considering women the victims of these bad choices (while simultaneously considering men the culprits) and rewarding the women with state welfare absolves them of any responsibility for their decisions and only creates more welfare recipients. Look at the graph I posted that demonstrates the welfare cliff for single moms that it's in fact better to work for less money to maintain exorbitantly high benefits. As with most government programs I'm sure some people think they are well intentioned good ideas but end up creating perverse incentives.

Well, I believe it is important for moms with uninvolved dads to be funded in such a way as to be able to spend as much time as possible with their kids, especially in the first two years of life when babies should be breastfed. Kind of hard to breastfeed when you are working FT and trying to scramble to do 100% of the life chores.

Also, kind of hard to most moms to rack up baby daddies. Once you are preggers and have a baby in tow, it sort-of effectively takes you off the market so to speak. I know women have repeated unplanned pregnancies, but it is often to the same baby daddy! So neither the women nor her man are learning from their past choices. (i refuse to call any child a 'mistake').

Anyway, as much as you might deny it, I see it firsthand in my clinic. And dads just usually aren't willing to clean up the hot mess they make in women's lives, or take responsibility for it.

I think in these cases, the cause of the problem is not just deadbeat dads, but the disappearance of the extended family in western civilization. I think there have always been deadbeat dads and single moms, but often extended family filled the support role now filled by the state. I don't necessarily advocate that we all return to a traditional Waltons way of life, btw.

I have to agree with ZombieNinja's chart above, that to some extent, the welfare state has incentivised single momhood for some women. Surely not every single one of the fathers in these cases has been a deadbeat.

Sorry, kind of going off-topic from the OP.

Why should a woman's parents have to support her babies?

Also, I corrected my post. I posted 100% of dads do not get involved but that is not the case, upon reflection. However, I would say most are uninvolved or at least reticent about becoming involved to the full degree necessary to provide fully for the needs of the child. And it necessarily falls to the woman then, and consequently, the state.

Look, the state would not be getting involved if they did not have to. The weak point is the absentee fathers, like it or not.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

MGTOW is not the answer in my opinion. I get their gripe but going Galt on women in general only avoids a problem, doesn't fix it. If good men avoid all quality relationships with women then all that's going to be left for them are the low rent deadbeats with whom they will procreate creating more losers. I think leading by example is more effective for men and women. As a man I'll be particular about what kind of woman I want to share a quality relationship with. MGTOW is fundamentally flawed because it assumes quality women are non-existent which is ludicrous.

I think an adoption of certain mgtow tenets mixed with some of the approaches espoused by MarriedRedPill men might be the answer. Obviously going full mgtow means those men will literally be bred out of existence, but I think it is possible to procreate and enter family life whilst adopting some of their core tenets. RPT means happier, empowered men. It seems counterintuitive, but I think it also means happier, empowered women (those who are married to RP men, at least)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Well, I believe it is important for moms with uninvolved dads to be funded in such a way as to be able to spend as much time as possible with their kids, especially in the first two years of life when babies should be breastfed. Kind of hard to breastfeed when you are working FT and trying to scramble to do 100% of the life chores.

Also, kind of hard to most moms to rack up baby daddies. Once you are preggers and have a baby in tow, it sort-of effectively takes you off the market so to speak. I know women have repeated unplanned pregnancies, but it is often to the same baby daddy! So neither the women nor her man are learning from their past choices. (i refuse to call any child a 'mistake').

Anyway, as much as you might deny it, I see it firsthand in my clinic. And dads just usually aren't willing to clean up the hot mess they make in women's lives, or take responsibility for it.



Why should a woman's parents have to support her babies?

Also, I corrected my post. I posted 100% of dads do not get involved but that is not the case, upon reflection. However, I would say most are uninvolved or at least reticent about becoming involved to the full degree necessary to provide fully for the needs of the child. And it necessarily falls to the woman then, and consequently, the state.

Look, the state would not be getting involved if they did not have to. The weak point is the absentee fathers, like it or not.

I don't disagree with you entirely. Was merely highlighting how the state has replaced the role of extended family in many cases.

In reference to single moms who keep falling prey to the same situations with the same baby daddies, certainly these guys are fuckups who should exercise more control and responsibility, as is also true for the women who continue to land on their dicks.

I don't disagree with providing services for single moms, I just have a problem if some people (men and women) are enabled by the system to further contribute to the problem. Apparently these people are allergic to condoms? I dunno.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

By considering women the victims of these bad choices (while simultaneously considering men the culprits) and rewarding the women with state welfare absolves them of any responsibility for their decisions and only creates more welfare recipients. Look at the graph I posted that demonstrates the welfare cliff for single moms that it's in fact better to work for less money to maintain exorbitantly high benefits. As with most government programs I'm sure some people think they are well intentioned good ideas but end up creating perverse incentives.

I think in these cases, the cause of the problem is not just deadbeat dads, but the disappearance of the extended family in western civilization. I think there have always been deadbeat dads and single moms, but often extended family filled the support role now filled by the state. I don't necessarily advocate that we all return to a traditional Waltons way of life, btw.

I have to agree with ZombieNinja's chart above, that to some extent, the welfare state has incentivised single momhood for some women. Surely not every single one of the fathers in these cases has been a deadbeat.

Sorry, kind of going off-topic from the OP.

I don't disagree with you entirely. Was merely highlighting how the state has replaced the role of extended family in many cases.

In reference to single moms who keep falling prey to the same situations with the same baby daddies, certainly these guys are fuckups who should exercise more control and responsibility, as is also true for the women who continue to land on their dicks.

I don't disagree with providing services for single moms, I just have a problem if some people (men and women) are enabled by the system to further contribute to the problem. Apparently these people are allergic to condoms? I dunno.

Honestly, no one likes condoms.

And. The onus really is on the man, because without his semen inside her, she would not get knocked up. Women are walking seed beds of life. It's like, DUH.

It's almost humerous how pawn-like men are in the procreation game of life.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Honestly, no one likes condoms.

And. The onus really is on the man, because without his semen inside her, she would not get knocked up. Women are walking seed beds of life. It's like, DUH.

It's almost humerous how pawn-like men are in the procreation game of life.

There's something called the pullout method too. I've never had a problem with it in my marriage, except when I didn't pull out once about 7 years and 9 months ago.

How can you place full responsibilty on the men in these situations? Surely women know what happens and surely many have considered that not every guy will be willing to stick around and do his due duty in the event of a pregnancy..

 

[SpankyMcFly]

I have avoided chiming in so far. I see single motherhood as a semi related proximal issue as it relates to the OP.

Sure fathers involved in child rearing gives men an opportunity to weigh in on how boys are raised and by extension how they express emotions but that necessarily tangents the convo into an area, marriage/divorce law, that has been resistant to change for decades. It's a dead end imo. You first need a change in social sentiment (culture) before there will be a legal (ideology) change. One look at what the MRA's have accomplished to date (over the last 30+ years), namely zilch, bears this out. This isn't about politics, or shouldn't be, because that's hasn't really worked.

I think raising awareness of male disposability and how it can exploit us is a good start. There are some men who would immediately take issue with that subject alone. Up until the last few hours it's mostly been about 3 guys, who probably agree a lot more than disagree discussing this. Can we agree that male-disposability is a component of why we raise boys to be emotionaless?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

There's something called the pullout method too. I've never had a problem with it in my marriage, except when I didn't pull out once about 7 years and 9 months ago.

Maybe you can teach a class to your comrades in this method.

How can you place full responsibilty on the men in these situations? Surely women know what happens and surely many have considered that not every guy will be willing to stick around and do his due duty in the event of a pregnancy..

Most of the responsibility falls on them because they have the injectable required. And it isn't me that has placed this responsibility on them. It is God. With great privilege comes great responsibility, peter. Having a dick is a great privilege.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Well, I believe it is important for moms with uninvolved dads to be funded in such a way as to be able to spend as much time as possible with their kids, especially in the first two years of life when babies should be breastfed. Kind of hard to breastfeed when you are working FT and trying to scramble to do 100% of the life chores.

These are called consequences for bad choices. If it's government policy to give massive amounts of benefits to single moms then how is that any different from an advertisement to encourage women to get pregnant with low rent men? If you look at the graph (seriously, look!) a woman making $29,000/yr could effectively be making near $60,000 just by milking the system. Sure some of these women are smart enough to make $60,000/yr in the real world but most of them simply lack the education and I'd argue IQ to do so.

Also, kind of hard to most moms to rack up baby daddies. Once you are preggers and have a baby in tow, it sort-of effectively takes you off the market so to speak. I know women have repeated unplanned pregnancies, but it is often to the same baby daddy! So neither the women nor her man are learning from their past choices. (i refuse to call any child a 'mistake').

These are consequences for bad choices. I think its rather shitty to absolve men or women from the responsibility and consequences of their choices. Rewarding them seems counterproductive don't you think?

Anyway, as much as you might deny it, I see it firsthand in my clinic. And dads just usually aren't willing to clean up the hot mess they make in women's lives, or take responsibility for it.

Again you're absolving the women here of any moral responsibility framing them as the victims. I think that's disrespectful to women in general to not hold them accountable and to blame a man for 'creating' the hot mess.

Look, the state would not be getting involved if they did not have to. The weak point is the absentee fathers, like it or not.

I disagree with this because ever since the state has been involved the number of single women pregnancies have sky rocketed. Every program they've instituted only resulted in more of the problem they're trying to 'fix.' No, upon examination, giving single moms more than twice their normal income in benefits ( equal to a highly educated men or women that worked for it) creates a permanent underclass of dependents which means a guaranteed voting base for those who pander to them.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Can we agree that male-disposability is a component of why we raise boys to be emotionaless?

Yes.

Oh and also that having a dick is a great god-given privilege, so men are therefore fully responsible for all pregnancies.