Posted on 12/26/2012 2:06:21 PM PST by Morgana
Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.
As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.
In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.
America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
hundred bucks nicole is black. i knew it from three kids, three different dads.
Morgana always comes on these threads to go after people saying women should control themselves, somehow they used to be able to. anytime you do that, expect Morgana to pop up. Funny I never see her say “it takes two” when the comments are negative about the guys.
liberal men back feminazi policies. you don’t have to be female to endorse feminazi policies. clinton was a pro-abort, not a woman but he backed feminazi policies, he wanted their votes and financial help.
someone has to let them in, it doesn’t just magically go in between a gal’s legs.
before women had a little pride about purity and who they decided to let in, and even if they’d wait until they had a husband. what guy seriously wants to know there’s been a number of guys in their wife before them?
and i’d say the same thing for women. they USED to care, now they sure don’t. they were the controlling factor and they’ve decided not to be anymore, and be just as promiscuous as guys wanted to be but couldn’t - but now both can be because the guys aren’t being waved off but hornily welcomed in.
“a man did this to her”
you make it sound like she had no choice in the matter, to have sex, to have sex without being on the pill, or demanding the guy use some, she’s just a helpless waif that can’t be held accountable for the poor choice she made to permit the man to do that to her.
women are active sexual participants today, not passive little wallflowers. they are just as sexually aggressive today than any guy, becuase they’ve been told don’t wait, sleep around, experiment now, birth control abounds, and abortion is legal if that fails, and if they happen to want the kid they can get govt bennies for it so they don’t even need to have a relationship with the guy,’much less even consider marrying him.
Bingo!
Elvis Presley once said "Why buy the cow when you can steal milk through the fence?" Perhaps the "cows" need a stronger fence...
A moral upbringing is what's sorely needed for both sexes, without a moral compass we shall just continue an ever steepening slide into the trash heap of history. This nation was founded on religious principles which, for several generations, have been systematically ridiculed, denigrated, and ultimately ignored. We (collectively) have sown the wind and we shall now reap the whirlwinds.
Just saying, ya know?
GtG
“Funny I never see her say “it takes two” when the comments are negative about the guys.”
This is because all my life I have had to listen to religious a** holes call the woman a slut for getting pregnant, yet say nothing about the boy who got her pregnant.
Another thing that made me so angry. Late in the 80’s my mum used to listen to “Focus on the Family” One day I heard a story about some Christian University (not sure which one) that if a single woman got pregnant she was sent to the deans office, lost all her credits, and was expelled. Mind you the boy was not, only the girl. They had to stop this because they found the the girls were secretly having abortions to stay in school. Of course they were! Christians universties are expensive. They are not going to “ruin” their future over a pregnancy that the school will kick them out for.
If I were still pro choice (I was before I became Catholic) I would argue well at least she is taking care of the “problem” and you can’t call her a slut, nor can you discriminate against her at a Christian university.
Only now that I am pro life I know that it is the woman as well as the baby being hurt by abortion. This is why I wish men would have better attitudes towards sex, same as women. When you are teaching your teen age daughter to abstain are you also teaching your son? Or if you find a condom in his wallet do you find it “cute”? (Yes there are parents who do!!) Think of the double message we send children. If you don’t want your teen age girl having sex then why would you have your teen age boy having sex with someone else’s girl? I know this story is about adults but these morals are taught young. Once they are instilled they are hard to break.
The Presumption Against Marriage
No writer that I know, and I am absolutely no exception, has the right to speak as an authority for all men. No matter what I say about honor and pride, some guy somewhere is going to spend his last dime on a dominatrix or propose to a coke whore. There’s no getting around it. It’s a fact. We can quibble and pretend dominated males are exceptions, but there are legions of guys out there who will put up with any abuse that a woman sends their way. That being said, I would like to address this column to those not pining for the submissive’s chair or anxiously awaiting a girl on a white horse who’ll allow them to pay off her car note and college loan without saying thank you.
The fundamental question is, “Should a man nowadays get married at all?”
My take on the issue is that the appropriateness of marriage has to be determined on a case by case basis but that presumption, in this day and age, should always be against marriage. To put it more simply, the tie cannot go to the runner. Men, when in doubt, walk away. If you have serious reservations about a woman and you marry her, a number of things may happen. One of them is good. Your negative intuition could turn out to be wrong and you’ll end up having a wonderful, blissful life with your bride. Unfortunately, lots of bad things could happen as well:
1. Your intuition was right and she divorces you. She thereby acquires half, if not
all, of your assets and possessions. The state is thoroughly biased against men and seems to have no threshold for its love of male suffering. This is a very real and tragic possibility.
2. Your intuition is right and she’s unreliable. You experience strange men calling the house and hanging up should you be the one to reach the phone first.
3. Your intuition is right as your experiment with paying for her college education ends in her befriending evil radical feminists who call the house and scream “rapist” at you as a greeting. They then follow up this pleasantry with asking if their “play kitty” is home.
4. Your intuition is right and she spends money like a gay party boy on Fire Island leading you slowly but gaily into Chapter 7.
5. Your wonderful children get aborted as she decides they’d take up too much time during the day.
6. You spend all your free time with her at the mall or, far worse, with her family and friends.
Well, you see my point. It’s bad scenario a-go-go. So, in the spirit of the boss from the film “Casino”: “Why take a chance?”
That’s easy for me to dismissively say, but then there’s tons of dopes like this writer who are smart enough to know better but then get married anyway. When I got engaged at Christmas time, Eric Ericson emailed me and said something to the effect of, “Have you lost your mind?”
As it turned out, I had not. I sanely and soberly weighed the pros versus the cons and determined that this particular woman was unlike all the others I had met and that she gave me the best chance of fulfilling my dream of fathering a couple of little critters and having a faithful, intelligent person as a partner. Yet, even with such a rational determinations made in advance, the situation changed and in April I found myself in the midst of an ugly soap opera on which I turned out to be only a temporary, non-recurring character. I was written out of the series before summer hit. For the future, I’ve decided, that unless its near-perfect, there is no way I’ll get engaged again.
My decision is not respected by many of the women I know who attempt to use what I call “shame-based” therapy as a means of coercing guys like me into finding a wife. I am at the point where I can vigorously beat back their attempts to manipulate me, but I thought I’d share my responses with the reader in the hopes that my words can be of benefit in case they encounter similar harassment.
First, I say that the situation had changed with men and women. It used to be that when a man got married, he got a deal. A woman would remain faithful to him or, at the very least, cook and clean for him. You’d get something in exchange for what you brought to the table. Today, men get very little in comparison with the past. I have met no end of women who ask in advance if I cook because they themselves do not. When I tell them that I cook every day, they are quite impressed (although I leave out my belief that pre-made salads, brats, and pizza are the height of fine dining).
Promiscuity is another issue. The promiscuity of the modern female makes marriage a very dubious proposition indeed. Who the heck wants to marry a girl that’s had more sleeping partners than a bed at the Motel 6? Not me, that’s for sure. I’d rather die a cold and lonely death than marry a skank; Paul Craig Roberts produced a magnificent column on this phenomenon a few years ago. I’ve never understood the argument that “all their experiences make them good in bed,” either. If they’re attractive, how good do they have to be? If you ask me, no amount of tricks she’s learned can make up for huge “Tyrone” that her ex-boyfriend had tattooed upon her back (and he was smart enough not to marry her).
Another huge factor to me is the obesity epidemic. While I acknowledge that it’s not really an epidemic by most definitions, weight increases seem to heavily affect married women. I’m 34 years old now, and I’ve met countless females who ballooned to MGM proportions after getting hitched. To me, this is deplorable. I knew one who showed me a picture of her when she was 22. She was better looking than most movie stars. Her body was hard and trim and her face was pure allure, but by age 28 she had gained 65 pounds and wore pants that William Perry could have fit into. I’d look at her husband sorrowfully when she talked of having children. The act of conception with her would have required the courage of St. George. No mere oral dose of Viagra would do. It would require hypodermic injections to get old Bumpty into Humpity form.
My last argument is also my most recently derived one. If it’s at work where I’m getting harassed about my lack of romance (read: susceptibility), and it usually is, I tell them: “I have plenty of masters here. Why do I need one at home?” No more accurate words could be spoken. I’m ordered to do things all day long at work. When I get home, I want to relax. I’m not going to waste time doing unnecessary chores or shopping for things I do not need. The homage we domestically have to pay to our wives is outrageous. Why are they my boss? Here’s what I say now, “Let’s take an IQ test and if you win, then you can tell me what to do.” I’ve had no takers yet, as I’m not giving out a big enough point spread.
In summation, with women, unless they’re without flaw, my advice is to ride the train for as long as you can, but let some other sucker pay for its maintenance and servicing, and always make sure you get off of the route before it reaches matrimonial terminal.
The Presumption Against Marriage, Part II
“Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn’t they’d be married, too.” – H.L. Mencken.
A great sage predicted I’d take some serious abuse for what I wrote about marriage the other day. He was right, but for the benefit of our readers, I’m going to provide public refutation to some of the arguments and whines that were thrown my way en masse–if nothing else, their vaginations actually strengthened my overall position.
Burn the Heretic!
As I have noted in a previous article, Supine or Fall, whenever a man stands up for himself on gender issues, he is immediately accused by women of being unmanly. Why? It’s because we stood up to them, and that’s not right. That’s not manly. We’re supposed to let them walk on us. These women, and those lickspittle male orcs who hobble in their wake, would be wise to remember that the western world now embraces equality between the sexes (at least officially), and that no one should be de facto superior to anyone else. Walking on men, in theory, is not allowed.
Furthermore, it’s a man’s duty to define and defend himself, and I can think of no occasion when this is more true than in making personal life choices. Marriage can be life joy or it can be life sentence, but there’s no room to make allowances for political correctness when thinking deeply about such eventualities. Why would any women be aghast at our pontificating over it? Should we not stop to smell a flower before picking it? I say stop and smell, inspect its structural base, and chemically analyze the ground around it before making a purchase. Perhaps some women became irate at me because they secretly realize that marriage does not offer men the advantages it once did, so their awareness causes them to go after heretics like myself who threaten to make this knowledge public.
I’ll recall the case of Darren Blacksmith here. Darren wrote a “just say no to marriage” piece and got kerosene poured all over him. His offense was such that he quit the business. Luckily, this would never be my response. I’m incorrigible. Harassing me only produces more words. It’ll take more than a few china dolls to deter me from tackling this subject, and if I keep hearing from them, Part III will be even better than Part II!
Nuance Lost:
As much as I hate the word “nuance,” with its outraged tobacco-addicted, post-modernist French professor connotations, I think that the nuance of my argument was lost on some of my critics. Emotions run so scarlet on marriage that many a female reader did not understand the point that I was trying to make. Marriage certainly can be a very good thing and it is, on the aggregate, beneficial for society, but in this day and age, PRESUMPTION must be against it. Our default position should be–“it’s not a good move.” That does not mean it isn’t a good move for everybody in every situation. There are over three billion women on this planet, and many of them could make excellent wives, but you should be vigilant, and nowhere is this more true than in the über-spoiled United States . Men have too much to lose if things don’t work out. Think of my friend Robert and the trauma that he went through. Western independent females, as a rule, do not make the best wives. They’re too “me” oriented for that line of work. One must be very careful indeed. Sit and observe closely before making any decisions.
Who’s Fault Is This Predicament?
Is it the fault of free marketeers like myself clamoring for government to get more of its vile fingers into our private lives? Hell no! Ask the individuals who keep voting for political figures who brag about increasing taxes and adding to the burden with which government sabotages our lives. Many of those who automatically look to the state to provide solutions are the same ones who complain about the decline of marriage today. If they didn’t elect redistributionist judges and politicians, men would not fear marriage the way we do. It shouldn’t be, “if you can’t marry a man, marry the government.” Let’s change it to “solve problems amongst yourselves.” I think that’s an ideal solution. If the divorce courts end their war on men, then we will once again become more friendly regarding matrimonial vows. Until then, it’s best to harken back to the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli: “Every woman should marry–and no man.”
An Elite Club:
Women of the sistahood view marriage as being an elite club and want nothing more than full-time membership. They, whether they deny it or not, admire their friends who are married, and this admiration can sometimes even be transferred onto their friend’s husbands. Women who are married, even if it’s to users who care nothing about them, are higher on the social plane than women who are single. This is implicit acknowledgment of the sweet deal many women receive through marriage. Personally, I do not begrudge them their social hierarchies and care little about affairs apart from my own, but these same women then try to fit guys like me into their social parameters, which is absurd.
Male Diversity Verboten:
This attempt to coerce men into accepting their worldview is quite disturbing but also rather comical. Ironically, it indirectly benefits fellows like me as the fact that I’ve been married before makes me seem far more legitimate than most of my friends. I am a man who could be amenable to their terms and line of reasoning, or non-reasoning as the case may be. After all, I made the vow once and bought rings twice, so I must be on their wavelength. Am I not? Not.[i] Yet, my friends, like the infamous Dianabol, are knocked out of the box repeatedly because they’ve never been married before. Why should he be part of the caste of untouchables? They’d say because he’s a 40 year old perpetual bachelor. Therefore, he must be a loser. I even heard a girl say this very thing about him the other day. She assumed that since he was never married before that there must be something wrong with him. Why did she not assume that there may be something very right about him? Dianabol is a prince of man. He exercises five days a week and drinks for four on the weekends. He works constantly, makes serious coin, and has an apartment that looks like it came out of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”[ii] Dianabol’s a profoundly educated man with a high thrill-seeking personality who strikes the great majority of girls as being the epitome of fun, but his uncomplicated (legally speaking only) past precludes him from some of their considerations. Guess what? It’s their loss.
What’s In It For Me?
I found out yesterday that I’m not supposed to be asking this question about marriage. It appears that many women believe our default position should be “why ask why” on the topic (rather than “why me”). One girl even called me selfish for putting forth the proposition! Shouldn’t I be selfish about my own interests? Maybe I’m not supposed to have any interests. Perhaps my having interests is really a plot to dehumanize women. It seems that the message sent is, “you will marry a chick the size of Toronto and you’ll like it!” Ah, no. I think I’ll pass. I don’t want her, you can have her, Toronto ’s too big, and socialistic, for me.
Contrary to what many a woman may say, I believe that “What’s in it for me?” is the central question one should ask before signing one’s life away. If you derive no benefit, then run, don’t walk. Again, of course, there’s the nuance thing, as it’s situational. My life certainly is worth signing away in a fight against Hitler or Pol Pot, but I refuse to fall down upon my sword in a scrape for Calphalon pots or Lancome makeup.
Well, you’ve heard what I have to say about the matter, but never forget the triumphant words of Zsa Zsa Gabor before making your own decision, “A man is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.”
[i] Of course, I say that now but got engaged a second time at Christmas. I suppose if the right youthful Laotian national comes along next year, I may have to eat my above words. I’m just letting you know in advance due to a history of snap decisions on my part.
[ii] His ex-girlfriend decorated it!
i understand your points but you have such anger, while i agree with your points i don’t want to be on your side. and it’s one sided and can’t be to be fair. unless you want to oppose positive stereotypes for women - always nice, sugar and spice, guys are mean and only think of one thing, kids are always better of with mom, the list goes on and on, you can’t just complain about the negative ones for women and sit silently or promote the negative ones for guys and not be hypocritical. andyou arealways bent on slamming guys, i don’t think you are obective, you are constantly playing defense for one side that you admit are at least equally at fault as the other side. bitterness doesn’t convince anyone you’re right. i mean look how successful the NOW women have been with that.
i had a female frend in college who constantly complained about men to me, a man. couldnt understand why i had a hard time agreeing with her. or why eventully i stopped being her friend. she was askingmeto agre with her that men sucked and couldn’ t figure out why i wasnt totally in 100%
agreement with her. women never were wrong,nevermnade bad decisions, they were smarter than men but had no control of their livesor what happened to tem, or the choices they made as responsible adults.
personally i believe women demnanded to be treated like men, responbsilbe and accountable for their choices, and when they got what they wanted, they found out it’s not as fun as it sounds. liberalism has let everyone off the hook for their stupid decisions, except the responsible workers that fund all these personal mistakes.
>> My father was inconsiderate enough to die at age 31 so my brother and I were raised fatherless.
You and I both know we’re talking about sperm donors, not fathers who were a part of the family and died prematurely. I’ll bet even though he passed on way, way too early, you know more about him than a lot of kids from intact families know about their fathers. To wit:
1/ My wife’s dad died of cancer when she was 15. Mom never remarried - her dad - a ham radio operator, workshop craftsman, and brilliant electrical engineer affected who she married - me - and what she is interested in (she retired this year as a B-747 captain, and is an extra class ham).
2/ My son was dating a gal for a time who lost her Army test pilot dad in an aircraft accident before she was born. She knows everything about her dad - what flew, who his buddies were, what he liked to eat and drink, his hobbies, work habits, etc.
3/ My nephew lost his dad (my brother) at age 9. Same deal. He is convinced that his dad has repeatedly visited him in dreams when he needed advise. My brother must be saying the right stuff - the kid is a senior VP of a bank - making megabucks, and has a wonderful wife and 2 kids.
That’s a hell of a lot different from some welfare baby cannon sow who has spit out 5 kids from 4 different sperm donors.
“you know more about him than a lot of kids from intact families know about their fathers.”
==
Thanks for that. I was 5 when my father died. I am now 80.
I have their wedding pic framed in my living room,a framed picture they had taken on their honeymoon,many snapshots,his baseball team picture,a funny poem he wrote to his mother,a postcard he wrote to me from the sanatarium(he had tuberculosis),and his death notice.
You’re right,I do know a lot about him.
.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million children in America -- one out of three -- live in biological father-absent homes.
Consequently, there is a "father factor" in nearly all of the social issues facing America today.
Father Factor in Poverty
More http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics
I meant to add “And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,” (Malachi 4:6) in support of the principal.
I work with juveniles in the Indiana dept of correction and it is more that evident when these kids are raised without a father...some actually cling to the persona of a male correction officer because they have no experience with a positive male role model. It is very sad but more than common. Women have no idea of how to raise a male, especially in the inner city environment. The women want to raise a child, and the kid wants to be a thug and rule the world....never works and it is so unfair to the boy that it makes one want to cry....I sometimes do. I mhad one little guy that would reach out to me with his foot just to touch my leg when I was reading to them.....powerful stuff!!!!!
Way to go Snipe (a term I haven’t heard since my U.S.C.G. days)! You are the winner here. The moral problem almost always proceeds all the other problems. When we/our nation abandoned God’s truth we opened ourselves to believe any lie that came down the pike. Actually, we as individuals and as a nation lose our “meter” to gauge good vs evil. That’s how Obama was elected. That’s also how George W. Bush was elected. This isn’t a Republican vs Democrat thing. This is evidence of the cosmic battle being played out in the lives of real people with horrible and eternal consequences. Unless we find our way back to the Creator and soon your tag line will be our epitaph. Maybe hard times will wake us up but I’m not optimistic.
There’s an excellent book out by Donald Miller called *Father Fiction* that deals with his own childhood and the effect not having a father had on him.
It’s written mostly for guys by a guy but there were still chapters in there that can reach women. It really is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the importance of the intact family.
Exactly.
The mentality that it's up to women bear the responsibility for all the moral behavior absolves men of all responsibility in the action.
I agree. Men need to keep it zipped and stop passing themselves off as nothing more than animals with no self-control.
The martyr syndrome doesn't wear well. They're not helpless in it.
They can decide to act like an adult human being and think with the brain in their head instead of thinking with other parts of their body.
BTW it was LBJ as a U.S. Senator who fired the first government shot at churches. It was his amendment to the Tax Code which prohibited churches who were Non Profit Orgs to speak out politically. He did so to silence his opposition in Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.