Female responsibility for single motherhood.

[ObserveandReport]

My girlfriend and I had a lengthy argument last night about whether women are "responsible" for the detriments children suffer from growing up without a father. I ruled out cases due to rape or widowing, naturally. Eventually we agreed that a woman is responsible for the reasonable vetting of her sexual partners, if she is not prepared to terminate a pregnancy via morning after pills or abortion. We also agreed that the extent to which vetting is considered "reasonable" is influenced by the fact that a life hangs in the balance, therefore setting the bar for "reasonable" quite high. She still claims that the father's decision to ditch is far more important/bears more responsibility. Does anyone here think a woman is just as responsible (50/50) or more responsible than the man? If so, why?

 

Is it useful to even discuss the extent to which one person is more or less responsible, so long as it is recognized that they bare some responsibility? Is the question of assigning moral responsibility relevant once it has been determined that, blameworthy or not, women's decisions to better vett their sexual partners can have positive and negative impacts on child rearing as a whole?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

It sounds like excusing responsibility. Both parties are responsible for their choice of who to have a baby with. If you have a baby with a person who is such a poor parent that they don't even care to stay around for their child, you are completely responsible for the effects of that, since you had every opportunity to prevent it from happening.

 

That doesn't include the exceptions, but if you've ever met any single mothers, I don't think you'll see many moral diamonds hiding in the rough within that group. I believe they tend to be low IQ, abusive, and parasitical. These are not among the highest rung of moral people in society, to say the least.

 

How many single mothers find a new husband who is wonderful to provide for their children? How many single mothers apologize to their children and take more responsibility for their actions going forward? Where are the groups of single mothers trying to warn others about the mistakes they have made so they are not repeated?

 

In my experience, and if you want to test this just go on a single mother website or speak to a few single mothers, there is a general expectation that their children are responsible for adapting to the mother's choice not to have a father around. It's actually insulting those children to say their mothers are not as responsible. It is to say their mothers could be doing no better for them in the present, and since single mothers are often abusive, that is not even close to the case. 

 

There is colossal room for improvement for single mothers (and this isn't an insult - to pretend it wasn't true would be). Giving them excuses is just going to precipitate even more single mothers and resentment on part of their children which will be repressed, and acted out in the future.

[Mister Mister]

women have more choice of mates, as it is easier for them to turn down men than it is the other way around.  Men tend to be the ones asking, and women the ones acquiescing or rejecting.  So if a woman says yes, most men will stay with her until things get reaaaallly bad.

 

Furthermore, women have evolved with the capacity to distinguish between men who are dependable, and men who aren't.  nearly every culture has cues to help recognize this, and also understands that the less dependable men can be more physically and sexually attractive in some ways.  So part of the problem is women's choices, but even more important in my opinion, is the breakdown in cultural communication of this information to men and women - any limits on sexual "freedom" is considered oppressive and old-fashioned, and the idea that women at all should have to rely on men in any way during the child-rearing process is misogynistic.

 

the analog for men is that oftentimes the most physically attractive women are the most shallow and manipulative and potentially abusive.  so for a woman to say she didn't know a man was dependable, is like saying a man didn't know a woman was crazy after dating her for year.  still, it's understandable that a man could get in this situation, and part of the responsibility lies on his family and community to protect him from these kinds of women.

 

On the personal level, I might ask your girlfriend if she thinks you are reliable.  Also, do you know about her family history, and what bearing, if any, that might have on the issue?

[ObserveandReport]

women have more choice of mates, as it is easier for them to turn down men than it is the other way around.  Men tend to be the ones asking, and women the ones acquiescing or rejecting.  So if a woman says yes, most men will stay with her until things get reaaaallly bad.

I've heard Stefan echo a similar point and I even brought it up last night. However, I think it may be a weaker argument. How could one be sure this is the case? Is this an evidence based claim? Wouldn't a man just as easily be able to terminate the relationship and the fact that they choose not to is simply irrelevant? Aside from legal marriage which has financial consequences for ending a relationship, how is it actually more difficult for a man to do so? Is a man's willingness to settle for an unhappy situation, the fault of the person he's choosing to settle for? You point to his family. That's fine if in the same breath as you assign blame to the woman you point to her family. I'm not sure either is productive or necessary. 

 

How do you balance the woman's ability to vet and terminate a relationship against a man choosing to leave? On it's face it doesn't appear to be a numerical evaluation ("one more so to blame than the other" suggesting a ratio other than 50/50).

 

I know a bit about her family history. She is the daughter of immigrants, who themselves received highschool and college educations. They put her and her brother through the best education possible. She went to a very prestigious charter school. Her father seems levelheaded and calm and they seem to have a healthy relationship. On the other hand, her mother seems excitable and their relationship seems slightly strained. This is probably due, in no small part, that her mother is religious and she is an atheist. It's an odd dynamic. As far as picking mates goes, her parents relationship I believe is a loving and happy one. I've yet to meet them, but that's what I've been able to gather. I'm not really sure how any of this plays into the argument, since at least as far as her parents are concerned, good mate selection on the mother's has been modeled. Nothing I've seen yet indicates that her father was anything but supportive, peaceful, and all around a descent man. Maybe I'm missing red flags.

[dsayers]

She still claims that the father's decision to ditch is far more important/bears more responsibility.

This is assuming that the absence of a father is because he ditched. In the case that he did ditch, is she not responsible for having chosen to have a child with somebody that could leave?

 

Like it or not, men can spray and spray again, move around, etc. A woman, once impregnated, cannot escape the result of that action. Biologically speaking, she has WAY more incentive to be selective of her mate. I don't know if this means she's more responsible, but it does mean she is the last fail safe.

[ObserveandReport]

This is assuming that the absence of a father is because he ditched. In the case that he did ditch, is she not responsible for having chosen to have a child with somebody that could leave?

 

Like it or not, men can spray and spray again, move around, etc. A woman, once impregnated, cannot escape the result of that action. Biologically speaking, she has WAY more incentive to be selective of her mate. I don't know if this means she's more responsible, but it does mean she is the last fail safe.

Yes, she agreed that vetting was a woman's responsibility and that it bears on the child's future deficits. Undoubtedly the rest of what you said is accurate. The disagreement arose, because I argued that she is "at least as responsible" which was the impression I've gotten from Stefan. Perhaps I overreached. 

 

EDIT: Hearing Stefan go on about "the gatekeepers" it seems I did not overreach. I think his assessment is baseless. Men are the keymasters, the last person to check on where their sperm are going. I think placing emphasis on the women as more responsible, is irresponsible just because they can't run away from their womb.

[ObserveandReport]

It sounds like excusing responsibility. Both parties are responsible for their choice of who to have a baby with. If you have a baby with a person who is such a poor parent that they don't even care to stay around for their child, you are completely responsible for the effects of that, since you had every opportunity to prevent it from happening.

 

That doesn't include the exceptions, but if you've ever met any single mothers, I don't think you'll see many moral diamonds hiding in the rough within that group. I believe they tend to be low IQ, abusive, and parasitical. These are not among the highest rung of moral people in society, to say the least.

 

How many single mothers find a new husband who is wonderful to provide for their children? How many single mothers apologize to their children and take more responsibility for their actions going forward? Where are the groups of single mothers trying to warn others about the mistakes they have made so they are not repeated?

 

In my experience, and if you want to test this just go on a single mother website or speak to a few single mothers, there is a general expectation that their children are responsible for adapting to the mother's choice not to have a father around. It's actually insulting those children to say their mothers are not as responsible. It is to say their mothers could be doing no better for them in the present, and since single mothers are often abusive, that is not even close to the case. 

 

There is colossal room for improvement for single mothers (and this isn't an insult - to pretend it wasn't true would be). Giving them excuses is just going to precipitate even more single mothers and resentment on part of their children which will be repressed, and acted out in the future.

Well, your anecdotes aside, your questions seem rhetorical without substantiation. I'm not saying they are untrue, but it seems an important caveat. I'm not sure how you are using the word "entirely" because two people can't be entirely responsible for a single result can they? They could share an equal amount of responsibility, but not both be responsible for the whole. If I had to guess, what makes me feel as though the departing father is worse, has to do with the devastation not only to the child, but the betrayal of the mother as well. This of course isn't logical because we are talking about the effects on the child, not the mother. However, this extra moral weight may inadvertently bleed into the discussion when we are empathizing. 

[ObserveandReport]

You and your girlfriend should call in to discuss it on the show...

I can't imagine she would be very interested, but I will ask. I'm also not sure how it would be productive. I've listened to much of his material on the subject and it doesn't seem like I'm missing any key distinctions of his arguments. That being said, I wouldn't mind. Mike if you're reading this, do you think I've erred somewhere, or is Stefan the better person to have this discussion? 

[ObserveandReport]

I had a bit of a breakthrough in talking this over with the girlfriend in that I understand her argument a bit better. When the woman fails to vett properly, she acts negligently, whereas the man chooses to leave acts with intent. Legally we treat people who leave worse because of the malice and forethought they put into their acts. This isn't necessarily a moral argument, but perhaps one lies therein. 

 

While intent is not the whole picture when it comes to judging the morality of acts, it can be quite important because it tells us what you may do in the future. If you punch a baby and it just so happens to fall out of the way of a car because you hit it, we should still be very concerned about your actions. This is a Utilitarian line of thinking, but one which I think deserves consideration. So, the man who walks away intentionally is worse because he is more likely to do it again in the future or at least the kind of person that would do so, whereas the once negligent woman is not the kind of person who would seek to repeat the outcome. She may need self knowledge and practical life skills, but she is a step closer to good living than the man. Moreover, a malicious intent for deontological reasons may be "worse."

 

She in no way finds the prospect of calling in appealing. 

 

EDIT: Stefan's claims, if I understand them correctly, are that the negative outcomes of single motherhood are the or part of the) reason we should deplore such behavior. This is an argument about ends. I don't disagree, but then you can transpose that reasoning on the Utilitarian argument above. I think I'm missing something. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

[ObserveandReport]

Is there a section that makes your point? I've watched this before, but it was a while ago so I'll ask that you be more specific.

[Ama-Gi]

It should be pointed out, that ALL mothers, in america at least, are mothers by choice. Women are permitted, after conception, to take a 'plan b' or another emergency contraceptive. they are permitted to abort. They are permitted to give up for adoption. They are permitted to abandon their kids to the state at any hospital, police station, fire station etc.

So then it follows, that all single mothers are mothers by choice. And save for widowers, who's kids often don't see a lot of the negative effects of single motherhood, I believe that all single mothers are essentially single by choice as well.

Either they choose a man they didn't know well enough, in which case they are partially responsible.
Or they choose a man they knew would not be willing or able to be a competent father, in which case they are responsible.

[ObserveandReport]

It should be pointed out, that ALL mothers, in america at least, are mothers by choice. Women are permitted, after conception, to take a 'plan b' or another emergency contraceptive. they are permitted to abort. They are permitted to give up for adoption. They are permitted to abandon their kids to the state at any hospital, police station, fire station etc.

 

So then it follows, that all single mothers are mothers by choice. And save for widowers, who's kids often don't see a lot of the negative effects of single motherhood, I believe that all single mothers are essentially single by choice as well.

 

Either they choose a man they didn't know well enough, in which case they are partially responsible.

Or they choose a man they knew would not be willing or able to be a competent father, in which case they are responsible.

So my arguments would be centered around your second to last statement. Choosing men "they don't know well enough." While I support abortion, I don't undercut the strength of moral arguments against it. The other options you listed (such as adoption or abandonment) have worse outcomes for the children (so I'm guessing). Therefore, a mother choosing single motherhood is likely a deferment of her gratification and better off for the child. This is at least true of abandonment. The last thing you want is the government raising kids. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

My girlfriend and I had a lengthy argument last night about whether women are "responsible" for the detriments children suffer from growing up without a father. I ruled out cases due to rape or widowing, naturally. Eventually we agreed that a woman is responsible for the reasonable vetting of her sexual partners, if she is not prepared to terminate a pregnancy via morning after pills or abortion. We also agreed that the extent to which vetting is considered "reasonable" is influenced by the fact that a life hangs in the balance, therefore setting the bar for "reasonable" quite high. She still claims that the father's decision to ditch is far more important/bears more responsibility. Does anyone here think a woman is just as responsible (50/50) or more responsible than the man? If so, why?

 

Is it useful to even discuss the extent to which one person is more or less responsible, so long as it is recognized that they bare some responsibility? Is the question of assigning moral responsibility relevant once it has been determined that, blameworthy or not, women's decisions to better vett their sexual partners can have positive and negative impacts on child rearing as a whole?

 

I put in bold what I think are your most relevant statements. I am interpreting that you are asking two fundamental questions: how is responsibility determined; and how are the decisions of women increasing the prevalence of single mother hood, in general (there will be exceptions, but an empirical trend obviously trumps any particular exceptions).

 

So what does it mean to be responsible?

 

I would argue that responsibility is an effect or a consequence of choice. In a matter of choosing a mate, to the extent coercion is not involved (such as in an arranged marriage backed by force), each individual bears full responsibility for engaging in a relationship with their mate, and if children are created, each individual is respectively responsible for choosing the other as their child's parent. If sex in a voluntary relationship is consensual, and since creating a child is a foregone conclusion to engaging in unprotected sex, then any children which are created as a consequence of engaging in unprotected sex in a consensual relationship are respectively the responsibility of each parent; since choice was present, and the option to do otherwise was available, then the basic requisites of responsibility have been met.

 

You will see in what I said, the fundamental link which binds responsibility to a person is choice. To the extent a choice is present, any and all effects of that choice link back in the responsibility continuum to the initial choice, and the degree to which an effect is directly or indirectly linked to a choice delineates where responsibility begins, becomes less clear, and eventually ends.

 

If responsibility is defined as a consequences of choice, it can be applied empirically to an example of a woman choosing a mate, choosing to create a child with that mate, and choosing (if applicable) whether to keep the mate around. To the extent it is possible to do otherwise in all these situations, the woman bears responsibility for her actions, and for the effects that can be linked to her actions.

 

With responsibility defined, I will apply it to the example of a woman creating a child with an unreliable man. Here is where choice exists for the woman who has unprotected sex with an unreliable man

 

- Choice exists to abstain from a relationship

- Choice exists to have protected sex if in a relationship

- Choice exists to end the relationship at any point

- Choice exists to provide more value in the relationship, if doing so would keep the man around

- Choice exists to give any unwanted children up for adoption (who are about as healthy as children from two parent households)

 

There is no such thing as a man being "more responsible" for the effects of his actions, than a women is for the effects of hers. Responsibility is an effect of choice; and it cannot be abdicated to someone else unless that person has used force to remove choice.

 

For instance, a man would be more responsible, and in fact the woman would bear relatively no responsibility, if a pregnancy were the result of him raping her; obviously, because that is not a situation of choice for the woman.

 

So my arguments would be centered around your second to last statement. Choosing men "they don't know well enough." While I support abortion, I don't undercut the strength of moral arguments against it. The other options you listed (such as adoption or abandonment) have worse outcomes for the children (so I'm guessing). Therefore, a mother choosing single motherhood is likely a deferment of her gratification and better off for the child. This is at least true of abandonment. The last thing you want is the government raising kids. 

 

It has been cited multiple times on the show that adoption is preferable to single mother hood for the child. Sources are in the description.

 

I don't know what it means for an argument to be centered around something. If you have a disagreement with my definition of responsibility, please make it clear. If you agree with it, please make clear how all the choices I presented previously are not present.

 

"Don't know well enough" is your value judgement which you are substituting for the woman's. It is not empirical to say a woman didn't know her man well enough to have a child with him. It is subjective, based on substituting your ends (or the ends you believe she has) for her actual ends. It is to assume she is choosing a man based on virtue, rather than something else. If you want to be empirical, I suggest thinking about the benefits of choosing a mate based on a short term reproductive strategy, when state aid is plentiful.

 

Here are some statistics to help you out, but I suggest you watch the show's coverage on this more because clearly you're not aware of or are not digesting the information.

 

Single mothers have an average IQ of about 90

Single mothers tend to abuse their children

Single mothers tend to live off state aid

Single mothers tend to be black and mestizo on average

 

R selected mating strategies thrive in all these groups. The empirical data, in my opinion and as has been argued extensively on the show, suggests single mothers do not take any precaution to prevent becoming so, and therefore are invested in the possibility of becoming single mothers because the benefits, especially from a standpoint of reproducing as rapidly as possible, outweigh the costs.

 

Unless you can directly respond to my arguments, that will be my last reply in this thread.

[ObserveandReport]

 

 

 

"Don't know well enough" is your value judgement which you are substituting for the woman's. It is not empirical to say a woman didn't know her man well enough to have a child with him. It is subjective, based on substituting your ends (or the ends you believe she has) for her actual ends. It is to assume she is choosing a man based on virtue, rather than something else. If you want to be empirical, I suggest thinking about the benefits of choosing a mate based on a short term reproductive strategy, when state aid is plentiful.

 

Undoubtedly your argument here about the incentives and behavior of single mothers is accurate. That being said, single motherhood existed pre-subsidy. At least some percentage would then presumably be making their decisions based off of mistaken assessments of virtue. (I admit the tripling of single motherhood since the welfare state is damning). I suppose this resembles a "not all X are Y" argument, which to that extent, I erred. 

 

 

 

IHere are some statistics to help you out, but I suggest you watch the show's coverage on this more because clearly you're not aware of or are not digesting the information.

 

Single mothers have an average IQ of about 90

Single mothers tend to abuse their children

Single mothers tend to live off state aid

Single mothers tend to be black and mestizo on average

 

R selected mating strategies thrive in all these groups. The empirical data, in my opinion and as has been argued extensively on the show, suggests single mothers do not take any precaution to prevent becoming so, and therefore are invested in the possibility of becoming single mothers because the benefits, especially from a standpoint of reproducing as rapidly as possible, outweigh the costs.

 

 Agreed, low IQ, violent parenting, and government subsidies are particularly problematic as it relates to the communities of people of color and single motherhood. Rent seeking is the natural function of subsidizing. My only addition to that assessment would be the cliche "it takes two to tango." That being said, I realize most arguments are aimed at the mainstream view and are responses to singling out of deadbeat dads. I suppose if I had thought about this longer, I might not have posted the original thread. I'm not asking for content or follow ups other than to the question, do you think I engaged your arguments as requested? A "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Undoubtedly your argument here about the incentives and behavior of single mothers is accurate. That being said, single motherhood existed pre-subsidy. At least some percentage would then presumably be making their decisions based off of mistaken assessments of virtue. (I admit the tripling of single motherhood since the welfare state is damning). I suppose this resembles a "not all X are Y" argument, which to that extent, I erred. 

 

I appreciate the common ground. 

 

I just want to try and be clear. It does not follow that if there is not state aid, that single mother outcomes are the result of a mistake by the woman in choosing the man based on virtue. It could be, but it does not necessarily follow. There could be many reasons why any single mother outcome has manifested, but in general, since there is a choice involved to make babies rather than not make babies, the mother cannot abdicate her responsibility (sorry to repeat the phrase) to the man for leaving. Even if it were a mistake, then either the woman is responsible for the mistake, or she isn't; but if she isn't, the man can use the same reasoning to say his choice to impregnate her was a mistake.

 

If the woman (or the man; interchangeable here) were committed to virtue rather than biological self interest, then it would not be exemplified in her decision to chose a man who would not raise his child (and to the extent he provides financial support, it can be argued he is fulfilling his most essential role as a father by providing resources for the woman to raise the child). The claim that any woman was seeking a virtuous relationship but resulted with a single mother home would have to be true in spite of that evidence. In other words, there would have to be additional evidence that would have to overwhelm the fact that the relationship ended in a way contradictory to virtue, if the claim is the woman chose according to virtue, but failed. That's the only way I see to make the claim testable, given the disparities in biological self interest and the ways which that manifests to the detriment of virtue. For instance, the corollary to run-off dads are mothers who use the state as a surrogate husband, or women who get one man to raise another man's children unsuspectingly.

 

 

 Agreed, low IQ, violent parenting, and government subsidies are particularly problematic as it relates to the communities of people of color and single motherhood. Rent seeking is the natural function of subsidizing. My only addition to that assessment would be the cliche "it takes two to tango." That being said, I realize most arguments are aimed at the mainstream view and are responses to singling out of deadbeat dads. I suppose if I had thought about this longer, I might not have posted the original thread. I'm not asking for content or follow ups other than to the question, do you think I engaged your arguments as requested?

 

 

 

Again, I appreciate the common ground. 

 

Every argument I gave with regards to what a person is responsible for applies to both sexes, and the only factor that would make one party more responsible is a power disparity such as that resulting from force. There are power disparities between the sexes in nature, but I've yet to see the evidence that males have more power in the sexual market, where as I have seen evidence or at least arguments to how the woman has more power. That said, neither party is relieved of responsibility for making choices which could have been avoided or substituted for better choices.

 

I appreciate how clearly you said what you agreed with. I also appreciated that you did not ask multiple questions in a row, and that you didn't digress too badly, which were things I personally noticed that I had a hard time responding to in previous posts of yours. It was an improvement for me personally, so I appreciate that whether it was conscious will of yours to make that effort for me or not. Just as an example of the digression thing, for instance:  

 

 "If I had to guess, what makes me feel as though the departing father is worse, has to do with the devastation not only to the child, but the betrayal of the mother as well. This of course isn't logical because we are talking about the effects on the child, not the mother. However, this extra moral weight may inadvertently bleed into the discussion when we are empathizing."

 

Which is something I probably do too sometime, which is to bring up something as though it is relevant, without actually making the case. I think you'd agree "moral weight" is not an argument, and whether it could bleed into the discussion is irrelevant to the actual point, unless you were attempting to say it was currently clouding your ability to process arguments, in which case I might have been more empathetic if I had a clearer understanding of that.

[Jer]

I've heard Stefan echo a similar point and I even brought it up last night. However, I think it may be a weaker argument. How could one be sure this is the case? Is this an evidence based claim?

Stefan has referenced a scientific study where an attractive woman approaches college guys and asks for sex and then they repeat it with an attractive guy approaching college ladies.

When offered sex with a stranger some outrageous amount like 75% of guys said yes while basically zero women said yes to sex with the strange guy.

[ObserveandReport]

 

 

Criticisms noted, points taken, and appreciated. I am trying to work on being a more effective communicator/listener, something I've found particularly difficult to do via text exchanges on the internet (or over the phone, don't get me started lol). I'd like to narrow the focus on the power disparity you mentioned in regards to terminating a relationship. Do you see an avenue for testability there?

 

Stefan has referenced a scientific study where an attractive woman approaches college guys and asks for sex and then they repeat it with an attractive guy approaching college ladies.

When offered sex with a stranger some outrageous amount like 75% of guys said yes while basically zero women said yes to sex with the strange guy.

I'm not sure this proves what you are suggesting it proves. I'll at least go as far as to say, women are more prone to disapproving sexual proposals, but so long as men are equally capable, then their decisions are equally important. Call me an optimist, but I'd like to think that despite our lizard brains, we have the ability to reason beyond PRETTY GIRL! SEX NOW! However, men might be incapable of doing so. Still I'd say more evidence than that study is needed to conclude that women are "the gatekeepers."

[Libertus]

> When offered sex with a stranger some outrageous amount like 75% of guys said yes while basically zero women said yes to sex with the strange guy.

 

That could be because, in general, men are more after good looks and sex while women are after status and commitment, and will use sex as a way to get it. Repeat experiment with a guy in a Lamborghini, not directly offering sex, but a ride with a rich stranger.

 

@OP: if I were you, I'd be making sure to wear a rubber. Your gf is telling you, in no uncertain terms, that it's your job to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

[Frosty]

Stefans talk at the MRM conference about male violence and the issues stemming from childhood abuse, typically by single mothers, was the single best talks I've ever seen given on this and I agree with him on basically everything. And he reflects my own position on this particular topic very well during the talk.

 

There is a seriously huge imbalance between the sexes when it comes to dating, the statistics show that men approach many different women and initiate most encounters regarding dating and alike, it's about 95% of the time going by most studies. Conversely almost all women have multiple potential suitors approach them and they have the almost unique opportunity of picking between who she wants to date.

 

She then goes through usually a long period of courting and dating to evaluate how virtuous that man is and if that man is the kind of person who would be suitable to father her child and then typically marriage would occur and some time later they would become pregnant. A virtuous man is going to stick around and provide for that baby providing the woman is virtuous and doesn't drive that man away, someone who lacks virtue is a flight risk.

 

The problem is that a huge number of modern women do not pick men for their virtue, they pick men who are cool, rich, powerful, sexy, fashionable, dominant, etc. None of these things are virtues and so you have no good reason to expect a man with these qualities to stick around when things get tough. If instead you look for loyalty, kindness, empathy, trustworthiness, respectfulness, a sense of justice and things like that, then that man isn't going to leave you and your child.

 

My experience is that all around me no one ever wants to hold women accountable for their actions, in fact quite the opposite sometimes, it's quite often something that results in heavy amounts of white knighting. This is one of the strongest points I think Stefan has made and continues to make, and that is we should hold women absolutely accountable for the choices and actions. We should also hold men accountable for lacking virtue and their evil actions, but lets not pretend women aren't in a unique position here, because they overwhelmingly are. Until there's some kind of parity in the dating scene where women chase men and men are the ones who get to pick between suitors then the responsibility is going to disproportionally be with women.

 

This is the talk, it's absolutely brilliant and really funny as well - 

[ObserveandReport]

Stefans talk at the MRM conference about male violence and the issues stemming from childhood abuse, typically by single mothers, was the single best talks I've ever seen given on this and I agree with him on basically everything. And he reflects my own position on this particular topic very well during the talk.

 

There is a seriously huge imbalance between the sexes when it comes to dating, the statistics show that men approach many different women and initiate most encounters regarding dating and alike, it's about 95% of the time going by most studies. Conversely almost all women have multiple potential suitors approach them and they have the almost unique opportunity of picking between who she wants to date.

 

She then goes through usually a long period of courting and dating to evaluate how virtuous that man is and if that man is the kind of person who would be suitable to father her child and then typically marriage would occur and some time later they would become pregnant. A virtuous man is going to stick around and provide for that baby providing the woman is virtuous and doesn't drive that man away, someone who lacks virtue is a flight risk.

 

The problem is that a huge number of modern women do not pick men for their virtue, they pick men who are cool, rich, powerful, sexy, fashionable, dominant, etc. None of these things are virtues and so you have no good reason to expect a man with these qualities to stick around when things get tough. If instead you look for loyalty, kindness, empathy, trustworthiness, respectfulness, a sense of justice and things like that, then that man isn't going to leave you and your child.

 

I'll have to ignore your experiences as they are anecdotal. I will watch the video when I have the time. However, because women are less likely to approve a suitor than men, doesn't mean they have more power, simply that they exercise it more often. Literally at any point in the woman's vetting the man can say "fuck this, I'm investing my time elsewhere" and because women outnumber men slightly, he has all the options of who to pursue. Men choose to narrow their scope (by doing so men empower women so to speak). What you have done is pointed out who initiates relationships and who terminates them most often. You have also illustrated a lengthy vetting process men and women go through. None of this is arguments for a power imbalance, by which I mean mean can equally terminate a given relationship.The sexual market, like any market is one of supply and demand. If men desire different things, the market will change.

> When offered sex with a stranger some outrageous amount like 75% of guys said yes while basically zero women said yes to sex with the strange guy.

 

That could be because, in general, men are more after good looks and sex while women are after status and commitment, and will use sex as a way to get it. Repeat experiment with a guy in a Lamborghini, not directly offering sex, but a ride with a rich stranger.

 

@OP: if I were you, I'd be making sure to wear a rubber. Your gf is telling you, in no uncertain terms, that it's your job to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

Lol no, she holds herself responsible. If you look closely, she even views the woman as "partially responsible" for the deficiencies a single parent child will suffer.  She has an IUD and she's intimated that she is not willing to have a child at this time in her life. I trust that she'll give me a heads up if that changes. 

[dsayers]

I burst into tears at the end when Stef mentioned being coached by his 5 year old to overcome his fears.

[Libertus]

Lol no, she holds herself responsible. If you look closely, she even views the woman as "partially responsible" for the deficiencies a single parent child will suffer.  She has an IUD and she's intimated that she is not willing to have a child at this time in her life. I trust that she'll give me a heads up if that changes.

She still claims that the father's decision to ditch is far more important/bears more responsibility.

K, lol.

[ObserveandReport]

K, lol.

Please elaborate

[labmath2]

This is the easiest issue to resolve ever. Lets do point system.

1. You get to choose who you enter into relationship with and get pregnant with (1 point for both sexes).

 

2. You get to choose if you keep the fetus alive (1 point for the woman).

 

3. You get to determine if the child is put up for adoption and vet the adopters (1 point for woman, .5 p pop int for man).

 

The sex more responsible for single parenthood is (drumroll) ... women.

[Frosty]

I'll have to ignore your experiences as they are anecdotal. I will watch the video when I have the time. However, because women are less likely to approve a suitor than men, doesn't mean they have more power, simply that they exercise it more often. Literally at any point in the woman's vetting the man can say "fuck this, I'm investing my time elsewhere" and because women outnumber men slightly, he has all the options of who to pursue. Men choose to narrow their scope (by doing so men empower women so to speak). What you have done is pointed out who initiates relationships and who terminates them most often. You have also illustrated a lengthy vetting process men and women go through. None of this is arguments for a power imbalance, by which I mean mean can equally terminate a given relationship.The sexual market, like any market is one of supply and demand. If men desire different things, the market will change.

Lol no, she holds herself responsible. If you look closely, she even views the woman as "partially responsible" for the deficiencies a single parent child will suffer.  She has an IUD and she's intimated that she is not willing to have a child at this time in her life. I trust that she'll give me a heads up if that changes. 

 

They're not anecdotal though, this is based off the fact that 95% of romantic partnerships and/or dating are initiated by men, and you can find this number in studies all over the place, it's not a particularly controversial thing, most people experience this imbalance in real life, it's just that no one ever talks about it.

 

It absolutely does give women power that men don't have, if you have zero suitors who are actively pursuing you like the overwhelming majority of men then you have no choices except for those that you initiate. However women generally speaking have multiple interested people and they get the benefit of picking between those interested people and rejecting those she deems unfit and starting a relationship with who she deems is most appropriate. That's not completely unique to women but it's massively skewed that way and certainly true for the average guy.

 

Whether a date occurs or not is basically down to the woman 95% of the time, she gets to reject the mans advances or not, she get's to decide if there will be a 2nd date or not, she get's to decide to say yes or no to proposal, and yes the stats here mirror the same thing, about 5% of those people married claim the woman did the asking.

 

 

I burst into tears at the end when Stef mentioned being coached by his 5 year old to overcome his fears.

 

There's so many good moments in the talk, it's definitely my fave to date and I think I've seen most of his public speaking, he's a funny guy when he wants to be, but the messages he conveys are serious and it all comes across clear and concise so the audience can really absorb it.

 

Seeing someone stand up and actually hold women accountable for their choices is really refreshing, I had a discussion with a friend of mine recently about women and children, he's not married and lives with his partner and they're raising their 2 year old, and he defends women to the very end with excuse after excuse. He claims that I'm "lucky" that I live alone and have myself protected from ever increasingly forceful UK law regarding partners (a bill is going through that allows for alimony claims against partners you live with and have a child with, but aren't married to). People like this just think life is all luck and you can't engineer your own fate, it's depressing to listen to.

[ObserveandReport]

They're not anecdotal though, this is based off the fact that 95% of romantic partnerships and/or dating are initiated by men, and you can find this number in studies all over the place, it's not a particularly controversial thing, most people experience this imbalance in real life, it's just that no one ever talks about it.

 

It absolutely does give women power that men don't have, if you have zero suitors who are actively pursuing you like the overwhelming majority of men then you have no choices except for those that you initiate. However women generally speaking have multiple interested people and they get the benefit of picking between those interested people and rejecting those she deems unfit and starting a relationship with who she deems is most appropriate. That's not completely unique to women but it's massively skewed that way and certainly true for the average guy.

 

Whether a date occurs or not is basically down to the woman 95% of the time, she gets to reject the mans advances or not, she get's to decide if there will be a 2nd date or not, she get's to decide to say yes or no to proposal, and yes the stats here mirror the same thing, about 5% of those people married claim the woman did the asking.

 

Ok, your story may have been an example, but it was still anecdotal. I'm not disputing the content of the studies, I'm disputing the conclusions you draw from them. Women have made themselves attractive on the sexual market place. To the extent that men fail to do so is their own failing. You can't blame women because they aren't interested in what the average man is offering. Power disparity would require the woman's choice to override the man's choice (a.k.a. sexual assault). There is no coercion, there is no power disparity. If you want to say there is a difference in bargaining power, similar to an employer vs. an employee, you have a long way to go. 

More simply: I accept that women have, on average, more interested suitors than men at any given time, all things being equal. Unless men in general are being forced into not improving their sexual marketability, OR men are victims of circumstance such that they could not be more assertive or picky in relationships, because women can levy power than would leave them destitute (like an employee with children and poor marketability who wants to renegotiate but can't) women have no more power. MTGOW leave the sexual marketplace altogether, so clearly men have the choice to restructure their marketplace tactics.

 

If men were dissatisfied with the options provided to them by their current approaches to dating, they could start to be more picky. Women in turn would have to lower their standards (or ramp up competition, or coercively limit the men's actions). The fault lies with men as well as women. What percentage of men are looking for long term partners as opposed to women? Might this not be a decisive factor in the difference between number of suitors? If a man is looking for sex and short term companionship, his best strategy would be to not be picky. It is a sexual marketplace, not a sexual dictatorship. Supply/demand. As an anarchist you should appreciate the invisible hand working its magic.

 

EDIT: I would like to point out that Stefan is specifically responding to the charges of feminism that try and place all the blame at men's feet. He falls short of asserting that men are dis-empowered to select their mates.

[Frosty]

Ok, your story may have been an example, but it was still anecdotal. I'm not disputing the content of the studies, I'm disputing the conclusions you draw from them. Women have made themselves attractive on the sexual market place. To the extent that men fail to do so is their own failing. You can't blame women because they aren't interested in what the average man is offering. Power disparity would require the woman's choice to override the man's choice (a.k.a. sexual assault). There is no coercion, there is no power disparity. If you want to say there is a difference in bargaining power, similar to an employer vs. an employee, you have a long way to go. 

More simply: I accept that women have, on average, more interested suitors than men at any given time, all things being equal. Unless men in general are being forced into not improving their sexual marketability, OR men are victims of circumstance such that they could not be more assertive or picky in relationships, because women can levy power than would leave them destitute (like an employee with children and poor marketability who wants to renegotiate but can't) women have no more power. MTGOW leave the sexual marketplace altogether, so clearly men have the choice to restructure their marketplace tactics.

 

If men were dissatisfied with the options provided to them by their current approaches to dating, they could start to be more picky. Women in turn would have to lower their standards (or ramp up competition, or coercively limit the men's actions). The fault lies with men as well as women. What percentage of men are looking for long term partners as opposed to women? Might this not be a decisive factor in the difference between number of suitors? If a man is looking for sex and short term companionship, his best strategy would be to not be picky. It is a sexual marketplace, not a sexual dictatorship. Supply/demand. As an anarchist you should appreciate the invisible hand working its magic.

 

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm simply making an observation that this is the way it is in reality, and I'd go one step further and argue it's not just because men don't step up, it's because female perception of men is skewed and we have really good data on that as well. Go find the OKCupid study done across their dating site regarding females perception of male attractiveness, across a broad selection of females they found that women find 80% of men below average attractiveness, which isn't even mathematically possible. This demonstrates females hypergamous nature, their desire to marry up and get as much resources as their eggs and genetics can get them. This bias in dating isn't anything to do with men not stepping up, it's a perfectly natural imbalance that genetics tells us has existed pretty much throughout our entire past, in fact there's now enough genetic evidence to show that about 80% of women in our genetic history got to reproduce, but only about 40% of men did.

 

I'm not saying there's coercion, what I'm saying is very simple. In the main, one gender has a choice between many different suitors and the other does not, they make many attempts to initiate romantic with people they find suitable and most are shot down but some work.

 

The barrier, or rather the bottleneck to men and women engaging in romantic partnerships is with women, that is completely undeniable at this stage. And that means the choice as to whether a partnership takes place sits predominantly with the women. Picking a partner to have children with is a choice for women, one that has consequences and since they're entirely in control of their choices they have to accept responsibility for if they pick a low quality male. It doesn't excuse bad male behavior but it does lay the responsibility with the women if she ends up in a bad state due to her bad choices, and we have to acknowledge those bad states negatively affect the raising of children and so they own those effects as well.

 

It's sad that holding women responsible for these kinds of decisions is so foreign to so many people and creates such a backlash when you do. We're talking about grown adults who know the repercussions of their actions and the harm that can do to their future children, who are only interested in putting their selfish desires above that of their children when picking men who are completely unsuitable fathers.

 

It's also funny that we observe this behavior in men all the time, when a woman is hot but crazy off her rocker men will generally tell other men "don't stick your dick in crazy" because we actually hold each other accountable for our decisions and if we do start seeing the crazy ones and it blows up in our face then we hold that person accountable for their idiotic decision. Men treat other men like grown adults but many men treat women basically like children, and then we wonder why there's so many failed marriages and single children experience what can only really be described as abuse.

 

We need to hold women accountable for their decisions, something that we once used to do but have completely forgotten about.

[ObserveandReport]

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm simply making an observation that this is the way it is in reality, and I'd go one step further and argue it's not just because men don't step up, it's because female perception of men is skewed and we have really good data on that as well. Go find the OKCupid study done across their dating site regarding females perception of male attractiveness, across a broad selection of females they found that women find 80% of men below average attractiveness, which isn't even mathematically possible. This demonstrates females hypergamous nature, their desire to marry up and get as much resources as their eggs and genetics can get them. This bias in dating isn't anything to do with men not stepping up, it's a perfectly natural imbalance that genetics tells us has existed pretty much throughout our entire past, in fact there's now enough genetic evidence to show that about 80% of women in our genetic history got to reproduce, but only about 40% of men did.

 

This again exemplifies taking more from a study than is said. It's what it demonstrates to you. There is a reason scientists and statisticians don't make many related but not fact specific claims upon releasing data. It's because they are not supported by data. Saying "perception is skewed" is like saying "price is wrong." I'll fall back on the fact that this is a market, not a dictatorship.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I would argue their (women's) perception is skewed to the extent that they expect more than they deserve, because the state is 'competing' with men to provide resources to women. This is praxeological: if you give someone more options, the least best options become less marginally appealing.

 

I agree that in general, men compete for women. This is how the selection of our species has progressed. The men with the most capacity for gaining resources are rewarded by the most fertile women. This isn't immoral, maybe it's unfair, but so are lots of things. But to the extent society is willing to point out the difficulties of child bearing, etc. that nature has handed towards women, it is sexist to ignore the difficulties nature has handed towards men.

 

A lot of women do bear responsibility for directly utilizing the benefits of statist sponsored sexism, and those women do have a power disparity based on that force. This should at least be pointed out. And to say men are more responsible for single mother hood when this fact is a given, is doing the opposite of accomplishing that because not only is it untrue, but it is pinning responsibility for the effects of coercion on the victim.

[Frosty]

This again exemplifies taking more from a study than is said. It's what it demonstrates to you. There is a reason scientists and statisticians don't make many related but not fact specific claims upon releasing data. It's because they are not supported by data. Saying "perception is skewed" is like saying "price is wrong." I'll fall back on the fact that this is a market, not a dictatorship.

 

No this is wrong because the inference is directly supported by the statistics, it's not mathematically possible for women to find 80% of men below average looking because biology is statistically distributed about a mean and that's used in science all the time to work out approximations of accuracy in experiments and studies.

 

It's necessarily the case that perception of what is "average" is actually false and skewed towards the high end, and that fits perfectly with the rest of the data we have about females which is that they're hypergamous and use their sexual market value to date up, this is backed by endless other studies and information such as the fact that women initiate most of the divorces and that reasons listed by women for divorce are things like simply being dissatisfied not because of any kind of pressure to leave such as cheating, domestic violence, etc.

[Jer]

No this is wrong because the inference is directly supported by the statistics, it's not mathematically possible for women to find 80% of men below average looking because biology is statistically distributed about a mean and that's used in science all the time to work out approximations of accuracy in experiments and studies.

 

It's necessarily the case that perception of what is "average" is actually false and skewed towards the high end, and that fits perfectly with the rest of the data we have about females which is that they're hypergamous and use their sexual market value to date up, this is backed by endless other studies and information such as the fact that women initiate most of the divorces and that reasons listed by women for divorce are things like simply being dissatisfied not because of any kind of pressure to leave such as cheating, domestic violence, etc.

How is it not possible for women to rate 80% of men as below average looking?

Is that different than 80% of people rating themselves as better than average drivers?

[Libertus]

it's not mathematically possible for women to find 80% of men below average looking because biology is statistically distributed about a mean and that's used in science all the time to work out approximations of accuracy in experiments and studies.

You think women care about those statistics, or math when judging a man's looks?

[Des]

I know a bit about her family history. She is the daughter of immigrants, who themselves received highschool and college educations. They put her and her brother through the best education possible. She went to a very prestigious charter school. Her father seems levelheaded and calm and they seem to have a healthy relationship. On the other hand, her mother seems excitable and their relationship seems slightly strained. This is probably due, in no small part, that her mother is religious and she is an atheist. It's an odd dynamic. As far as picking mates goes, her parents relationship I believe is a loving and happy one. I've yet to meet them, but that's what I've been able to gather. I'm not really sure how any of this plays into the argument, since at least as far as her parents are concerned, good mate selection on the mother's has been modeled. Nothing I've seen yet indicates that her father was anything but supportive, peaceful, and all around a descent man. Maybe I'm missing red flags.

Actually meet her family before you make babies. If I'd known what I know now, I'd have known that the father of the mother of my children was too habitual with his moderate drinking (it was an addiction), and he had been absent for long periods of her childhood in the Rhodesian war, leaving her, as the eldest child, riding shotgun with mom in the literal sense with an actual rifle for defence against attack by people.