Skip to comments.Single Moms Are Making Us Broke, Says Joe Soucheray
Posted on 05/06/2013 8:48:55 AM PDT by mn-bush-man
click here to read article
One of the many costs of shutting down the “patriarchy.” Shutting down much of our manufacturing on US soil is another. Economic collapse and the default process will be some of the more exciting consequences.
Have fun. Enjoy the slide. It’s a collapse caused by political correctness (romanticism/feminism).
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
by Bernard Chapin
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. Theres no getting around it. Its 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 submissives chair or anxiously awaiting a girl on a white horse wholl 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 youll 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 shes 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 theyd 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. Its bad scenario a-go-go. So, in the spirit of the boss from the film Casino: Why take a chance?
Thats easy for me to dismissively say, but then theres 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, Ive decided, that unless its near-perfect, there is no way Ill 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 Id 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. Youd 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 thats had more sleeping partners than a bed at the Motel 6? Not me, thats for sure. Id 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. Ive never understood the argument that all their experiences make them good in bed, either. If theyre attractive, how good do they have to be? If you ask me, no amount of tricks shes 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 its not really an epidemic by most definitions, weight increases seem to heavily affect married women. Im 34 years old now, and Ive 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. Id 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 its at work where Im 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. Im ordered to do things all day long at work. When I get home, I want to relax. Im 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? Heres what I say now, Lets take an IQ test and if you win, then you can tell me what to do. Ive had no takers yet, as Im not giving out a big enough point spread.
In summation, with women, unless theyre 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.
by Bernard Chapin
Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didnt theyd be married, too. H.L. Mencken.
A great sage predicted Id take some serious abuse for what I wrote about marriage the other day. He was right, but for the benefit of our readers, Im going to provide public refutation to some of the arguments and whines that were thrown my way en masseif 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? Its because we stood up to them, and thats not right. Thats not manly. Were 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, its a mans 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 theres 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.
Ill 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. Im incorrigible. Harassing me only produces more words. Itll 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!
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 beits not a good move. That does not mean it isnt 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 dont 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. Theyre too me oriented for that line of work. One must be very careful indeed. Sit and observe closely before making any decisions.
Whos 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 didnt elect redistributionist judges and politicians, men would not fear marriage the way we do. It shouldnt be, if you cant marry a man, marry the government. Lets change it to solve problems amongst yourselves. I think thats 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, its best to harken back to the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli: Every woman should marryand 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 friends husbands. Women who are married, even if its 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 Ive 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 theyve never been married before. Why should he be part of the caste of untouchables? Theyd say because hes 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] Dianabols 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? Its their loss.
Whats In It For Me?
I found out yesterday that Im 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! Shouldnt I be selfish about my own interests? Maybe Im 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 youll like it! Ah, no. I think Ill pass. I dont 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 Whats in it for me? is the central question one should ask before signing ones life away. If you derive no benefit, then run, dont walk. Again, of course, theres the nuance thing, as its 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, youve 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. Im just letting you know in advance due to a history of snap decisions on my part.
[ii] His ex-girlfriend decorated it!
Those that did were men of Steel and have all passed on, Judge Bork, Daniel Patrick Moyihan, and if my memory is correct William F. Buckley.
The only one alive that come to mind is Charles Murray...
Who’s going to argue with you? Do all those wonderful things. Don’t ever marry. Be the king in your home, be your own boss, eat pizza, don’t take no orders from no fat chick.
But the point of this article is STOP FATHERING CHILDREN.
And if you do and the state (i.e., ME) ends up supporting them, you’re the farthest thing from a king — you’re a bum.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
He’s completely wrong. It’s the other way around.
This guy is an idiot, and only going to make it worse. He’s taking a symptom and making it the problem.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex, men of commitment.
Which is why so many soon-to-be crazy cat ladies wail, "WHERE have all the GOOD MEN gone?"
They gave up after you spent your twenties slutting it up with bad boys; and then had the nerve to ask them to marry you and support other mens' children.
You GO, G'RRRRL.
The headline is “Single Moms are Making Us Broke.”
Wrong. Single moms AND FATHERS are making us, the taxpayers, broke.
And “Single motherhood up blah blah blah percent?” Why not “Single fatherhood” up the exact same percentage?
There is no single motherhood without single fatherhood.
And the progressive, socialist slide you’re on about? I’m not enjoying it at all. But I don’t make the fundamental logic error of blaming it exclusively on women.
Every poor kid of a single mom has a single dad. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
I have never figured out how the super rich managed to hook the fundamentalists and tea party people on their agenda. Didn’t Romney realize that many in those groups actually fall in the 47% category economically?
We have a winner.
I have not understood that either, also how Dems can keep saying the GOPO is the party of the rich is beyond me, most of their support comes fro the west coast and north east which has much more money, they have more millionaires supporting them and yet they label us as the party of the rich, .
I guess they have not been around here and seen the working class who vote republican then.
Twas moi — actually I’ve ben using it for years.
Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown.
“Young men who don’t stay with their children until adulthood, at least, aren’t single dads or dads at all.”
Yeah, you know who disagrees with you? Western civilization and jurisprudence. Try telling the judge who orders you to pay child support that you aren’t a single dad or a dad at all.
If you father a child and aren’t married to the mother, you’re a single dad, whether you raise your kid or not.
This is simply biologically irrefutable.
Adoption is an option for the truly “accidental” pregnancy, but the gravy train won’t be available to them if they give these kids up like they should.
Welfare reform and pro life are not mutually exclusive.
There are approximately 80 social net welfare programs in Ca. which contributes heavily to the overall debt.
I am not going to argue with what he says...but illegals are making us broke and they shouldn’t be here to begin with so get all the illegals out of our pockets and then we can worry about what to do about our citizens that are an issue.
I understand there has been a study of 9,000 women in St. Louis who were allowed the option of the more expensive long term birth control that requires a doctor’s involvement. There was an 80% drop in pregnancies and abortions compared with the national average.
Oh, yeah... there’s a whole bravado male-bashing intent behind the words “single mom”.
I have a family member who posts graphics daily touting single motherhood (the guy was a loser and left her). The graphics say stuff like, “I’m one heck of a woman because I’m the father and mother to my child.” or something like that.
There are a lot of political alliances that don't make sense. Fiscal and social conservatives aren't necessarily the same people, i.e. the Wall Street Broker or Fortune 500 Executive may be liberal on many social issues (or just not care), and vote Republican for the sake of lower taxes and less regulation. Meanwhile, there are impoverished people who rely on welfare and foodstamps but still vote Republican because of their views on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues. What's the logical connection between the two? None. It's an alliance of convenience.
However, you see the same thing with alliances that make up the Democrats. Most blue collar union workers are very conservative on social issues. I doubt that a homosexual with his "spouse" would make many friends at an AFL-CIO meeting, nor would some shrieking feminist. The same is true of most blacks, Hispanics, and especially Muslims, yet they all vote for Democrats and tolerate the feminists, homosexuals, and other social radicals among them. They do so because they either put their economic interests or their racial/ethnic identity ahead of their social views.