Posted on 02/15/2025 10:03:27 PM PST by grundle
"My Standards Are Higher As a Single Mother," Woman Says Men Should Do More For Her and Her Son
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I think that there should be absolutely no societal onus upon men to "step up" and rescue these women. No "looking askance" at men who honestly state that they worked hard to get to their station in life, and don't feel that they should have to "bail out" these women.
Our society as a whole should take all of the rhetorical energy currently being expended to convince high-value men to accept single mothers and instead apply it to inculcating young women with a better understanding of the law of "cause and effect," and that "actions have consequences."
"With great power comes great responsibility." Young women at the height of their SMV have great power. They should therefore be made well aware of the consequences of whimsically squandering that (unearned) power. For the majority of recorded history, that was the case!
Men in their late 30s are at the height of their SMV. Society should not try to "shame" them into squandering that (earned) power.
Regards,
Or simply discarding their mates and then living from alimony, child support, or the largesse of the Nanny State.
Regards,
Sneaky use of the modifier "some."
You are, in fact, talking about the top 10% of men. The "top performers." The smooth-talking alphas.
No one here is defending them or their profligate behavior.
"Ordinary joes" would have to undertake herculean efforts to "cheat," undetected by their spouses, on a regular basis (or they have incredibly low standards and will resort to bedding the lowest forms of life lurking around on a tavern floor).
Regards,
The wife would probably notice the withdrawals from the checking for a paid escort, which is about the only way an average guy could cheat.
It's a basic fact that most of the "bad behavior" of libertine men (rightly) lambasted by women can be attributed to a very thin slice of all males - namely: to the smooth-talking, athletic "Chads." But women want to shame the majority of (innocent) men and hold them accountable for the misdeeds of the small minority of "playahs."
I don't know if this can properly be described as "Moving the Goalposts," or if there is some Latin designation for a fallacy involving redefining - mid-argument - the terms. Maybe "equivocation?"
"All those women enjoying their 'hoe phase' had the cooperation of willing men, so when those women exit their peak years, men should be forced to step up and marry them and provide for their broods." - Sounds logical, on the face of it, right?
But in reality, the "men" in the first part of the argument are not identical with the "men" in the second part of the argument / conclusion. Rather, they are two wholly different subsets of "men."
Regards,
What bad behavior?
Yes. I have met several young men with pumped up egos due to the toxicity coming from these men.
They started thinking that they were minor gods and that women were to be used and discarded. Good kids with Christian upbringing. Some from our old homeschool group.
Several haven’t been success at pair bonding. Those clowns words come out of thei mouths. Less as time goes on. But their res preceede them.
Reputation
Are you serious?
I should think that that would have been abundantly clear, from my previous replies and from the general context of this thread ("Single mothers").
I shall repeat the final paragraph of the post to which you are replying:
About being "pro-life": I most certainly am - but that does NOT mean that the woman shouldn't have to pay a penalty (bear the consequences) of her previous bad behavior. It most certainly does not mean that the man* has any obligation to "step up" and "rescue" her from the unhappy consequences of her bad behavior.
*I, of course, mean a man who is not the biological father. Otherwise, I would have written: "of THEIR bad behavior." And I certainly do believe that the alpha Chads are as much to blame as the single mothers.
What do you think any FReeper of average intelligence would believe I meant by "bad behavior?" When does society demand that innocent men "step up" and "be real men" and marry women?
When they are single mothers!
Conceiving a child outside of the protection of a committed relationship (ideally: a loving marriage) is bad behavior because statistics show that the children of single mothers are prone to a host of negative outcomes: lower graduation rates, higher teen pregnancies (the cycle repeats!), higher drug use, lower self-esteem, higher suicide rates, higher incarceration rates, higher sexual abuse rates, etc.
Do you dispute any of that?!
Regards,
Sorry, but I can't take a single-word reply to my lengthy, logical argument seriously.
Regards,
You wrote that ‘hypergamy’ is not about the women who were dealt a bad hand; rather, it’s about women who slept around in their 20s and then try to redeem themselves in their 30s. But, why are people assuming the woman in the video is that kind of woman? Maybe she’s one of the women who were dealt a bad hand.
Many people don’t want to marry someone who has children, and that’s fine. The woman in the video said she understands that.
Everyone is different. I was married for many years and then divorced, and I didn’t want to date again or remarry.
All my sons are 20-something, so I don’t need to visit the ‘manosphere’ to know what’s going on. I understand some of your complaints. Times have changed since I was young. We had to put up with a lot of creepiness, even when we were young girls. Then, sometime in the 90s, everything flipped 180 degrees. Now, a man might worry that a woman will think he’s creepy if he asks her out. So, everything went too far the other way. I think it’s sad.
With that said, sometimes a man misreads a smile and a hello from a woman. Then, he becomes angry or upset when she turns him down.
Some men complain about rejection, but they are complaining that the most attractive women rejected them. Beautiful women are only a tiny percentage of the population. I knew some women in that tiny percentage. Men asked them out all the time, so they had to turn many men down. I remember one in particular who was very kind. Now and then, a man would sweep her off her feet, only to break her heart later. How many men should she say ‘yes’ to?
I also knew several women who yearned to be wives and mothers. They were attractive, and they held out for marriage. But, they never married because even the ‘nice guys’ were more interested in the ‘hot’ women who put out. You described a ‘beta male’ who goes to a bar and then returns home alone. If he wants a nice woman, why would he pick up a woman at a bar?
I noticed couples with a strong faith marry very young - yes, even today – and they all seem very happy together. I also knew many couples with a strong faith who married later in their 30s and 40s. They had children, and those couples are still happy together. I am not trying to proselytize here. It’s just an honest observation.
Mr. Samuels can NOT be held accountable for the fact that some listeners misunderstand his wisdom.
A person might be preaching the unadulterated Word of God, yet some of his listeners will misinterpret him, and proceed to do wrong.
Your argument is faulty.
Regards,
Who said that men should ‘step up’ to marry single moms? I never said that, and neither did the woman in the video.
She only said she must have ‘high standards’ because she’s the mother of a child.
By ‘high standards,’ I think she means someone who is trustworthy, someone who understands that she’s a mother.
Maybe he has a kid, too.
If someone (incidentally: It wasn't you) voluntarily relates a story about his uncle's marriage, in a thread about the audacity of single mothers arbitrarily raising their dating standards, then he is tacitly opening himself up to requests for more details.
My request was valid, since it is difficult to assess the legitimacy of the story and/or its relevance to the discussion at hand without knowing whether the woman was, e.g., a widow, or a rape victim, etc.
Anyone posting an anecdote in a thread of this nature cannot expect his story to go completely unchallenged. The whole nature of the thread is that FReepers with differing viewpoints will debate the issue at hand. When someone offers up evidence to support his particular position, other FReepers are entitled to request more pertinent info, in order to be able to properly evaluate that evidence.
But apparently, my request triggered you!
Regards,
Let me hear you cite a single quote from Mr. Samuels that can fairly be characterized as "toxic!"
Regards,
no.
(afaik!!!)
The woman in the video (which I have only now viewed - but I've seen countless others on the same topic) did, in fact, say very little except that she has raised her standards.
(Women like this generally are wisely very closed-mouth and try to reveal as little about the situation as possible. They want to provide a minimum of damning details.)
Most damning was the woman's statement, at 5:00, that it "doesn't matter, one way or the other, if she was at fault for the failure of her past relationships."
That one statement speaks volumes about her total lack of accountability! Her total lack of willingness to learn from her mistakes! Her utter childishness!
The woman in the video is, of course, at liberty to raise her "standards" sky-high, if she wants! She can flatly state that she will accept no one but a Nobel Prize winner, for all I care! (But by doing that, she is damning herself and her child to a life of loneliness!)
As for my having slightly widened the scope of the discussion to include the trite societal expectation that "good men" should "step up" and wife these single mothers: That is a legitimate adjacent topic. To insist that I do otherwise is ridiculous; it is tantamount to demanding that we discuss only one aspect of a major societal problem while ignoring all other aspects.
By announcing to the world that she has "raised her standards," she is implicitly expecting that the world satisfy her demands.
After having viewed the linked clip, I am surprised that this is the hill you have chosen to "die on."
You should choose your battles more judiciously. This tatted-up single mother boasting about her lack of accountability is certainly not the "poster child" for the "brave struggle" of repentant single mothers.
I defy any and all FReepers to view the Youtube clip in full, together with the commentary of Mr. Daniels, and not come to the same conclusion!
Regards,
P.S. Despite Mr. Daniels having said that he would put the link to the original, full-length video in the "description," I was unable to find the original video - can anyone help here?
“Men in their late 30s are at the height of their SMV. Society should not try to “shame” them into squandering that (earned) power.”
Agreed—but more importantly men in their late 30s need to exercise using their middle finger—when any authority figure tries to tell them what they “should” do.
That is part of what power is.
If I were to follow your lead, I could likewise rudely interject: "None of your f@@k@n business."
But I won't because everyone here is free to pose pertinent questions (though your particular question is rather irrelevant to the topic at hand).
Regards,
I had forgotten to discuss the tattoos.
This is a controversial topic—but my view is that any woman with significant tattoos gets two points deducted from her SMV—so by my previous criteria she rates a solid zero.
(I am not going to go into a detailed analysis of why that is—though others can feel free to do so. It is enough to point out that she claims she is leaving her previous life behind but her tattoo is a reminder that it remains.)
The zero score means that means she has become invisible!
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.