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 ...
Irrelevant. My point stands: Mary was not a "single mother" when she gave birth to Christ.
Regards,
My opinion is based on what she alone said without the added commentary.
What she says is so platitudinous and undefined as to be nearly worthless. At least: It's not suitable for post hoc analysis.
I am sure that she would melt under cross-examination!
That is typical of female Youtubers: They are intentionally vague on the really juicy facts, and restrict themselves to the "feel-good" sentiments.
We have absolutely no means of knowing how honest she is being. But we can be sure that she will reveal nothing that casts a bad light upon her.
Self-reported info of this nature is next to worthless.
The man's commentary, on the other hand, is priceless. He is so much more rational, so much more nuanced.
When she said her standards are high, she didn’t mention income or physical attributes.
Of course she didn't!
When she said no one is necessarily at fault when a relationship doesn’t work, all she was saying is that sometimes relationships don’t work, that’s all.
Her meandering conversational style was probably intentionally vague. She doesn't want to be "nailed down."
It sounded to me like she said that it doesn't interest her if she caused the relationship to fail.
You are being far too generous towards her.
Regards,
And they, of course, are presenting you with a totally unvarnished version of the truth.
They aren't, out of misplaced consideration, embellishing certain aspects, while suppressing others.
Ri-ight!
Regards,
I enjoy these threads... Folks posting here on this FR thread live and care about a different World then the one I enjoy...
One of the most important rules of the manosphere is to never believe anything a woman says about her own dating history and values.
It is not that they always lie—it is just that they are the most unreliable possible source—conflict of interest.
I would be interested to hear what her female friends have to say on the topic.
Then we would know a lot more about whether she deserves to be taken seriously.
it’s written that joseph isn’t Jesus’s father...
regards...
Your comments indicate a certain level of unawareness of how bad it is for the average guy. Most average guys don’t go out and socialize because it’s basically a waste of their time. They go out alone and then they come home alone.
I did not call men ‘pigs’ or ‘cads.’
However, I deleted a line before posting, so I will add it here: Most young women are hit on very often, even when they don’t look like supermodels. They constantly must turn men down. It’s not a new phenomenon; it’s always been true.
I mentioned beautiful women as an example. But I also wrote that many nice young women are saving themselves for marriage. Yet, you made no mention of the virtuous women in your reply.
Why not?
I am very much aware of what’s going on. My view is more objective because I am not a part of it, so I can stand back and see the full picture.
Never said you did. But wouldn't have had a problem with your labelling some men as such.
Yet, you made no mention of the virtuous women in your reply. Why not?
Because the behavior of NON-virtuous and delusional women and the resultant skewing of the dating market (all ultimately due to the unprecedented unleashing of female sexuality caused by the "Pill," modern conveniences, Industrialization and the declining need for "muscle" at the workplace, online dating, etc.) gives rise to much more-conspicuous societal ills that can be more-easily recognized and subjected to debate.
It's EASY to discuss why the "Titanic" sank; it is much more difficult (and less interesting) to explain why countless other oceanliners DIDN'T sink.
NON-virtuous women are the ones who currently control the dating market; they are the ones who "set the rules." THEY are the ones dominating the market and contributing to societal collapse.
The phenomenon of VIRTUOUS women does not lend itself so well to discussion in a forum of this nature.
I do not deny that they exist - I'm married to one, and she is staunchly conservative, yet even she is prone to "female thinking," and thus has difficulty sometimes separating rational thought directed at achieving concrete, measurable results on one hand from the desire to achieve consensus and "feel-good" comity on the other, even at the expense of truth.
Regards,
Throughout most of history, young women were under the close supervision of their fathers (and other family members), and - on a wider scope - the small, close-knit community in which 95% of mankind lived likewise ensured conformity to established societal rules and religious strictures, including on chastity and such.
And by their early 20s, they weren't, strictly speaking, "young women" anymore. Rather, they were "heavy with child" much of the time - and when not, then they were caring for their brood. Not the likeliest targets for sexual harassment.
The men in the chiefly small communities that have dominated throughout 95% of recorded history knew their place, knew that their actions were being scrutinized, and acted accordingly.
(Of course, there were occasionally breaches of etiquette, societal ruptures, revolutions, and the like - but to be able to gain conversational traction, we are focussing on the norm here.)
The situation you are describing is a relatively recent one, and was not in effect throughout most of history.
Even my very demur and conservative wife has reported attending, e.g., a small social gathering held by her painting club, where one of the ladies' husbands suggested that they adopt a first-name basis, which here in Germany demands a little ceremonial drinking, after which the participants exchange cheek kisses - but where this 85-year-old man unexpectedly went in for the kill and planted a kiss on her mouth.
Yes, that's part of human nature - and *ssholes and such continue to exist.
But the women you are describing - the "young women," even when they aren't "supermodels," who must "constantly turn men down." 1) Is that so bad? Freq. having to "turn men down?" and 2) Might not their overall appearance, eye-contact, grooming, cosmetics, and behavior (incl. tattoos, nose-piercings...) have contributed to this?
I aver that the situation you describe is, historically speaking, an outlier, and not worthy of further consideration.
If we could return to traditional values and ways of life (hopeless, I know!), a lot of the problems we are discussing here would vanish.
Regards,
#1. Life Bonding
“Some women realize that the provider husband deserves everything, but not all women believe this.”
The virtuous woman, hero worship.
Yes, pedestal. The men put up with it because they believe their ability to replace the current spouse is lacking.
I’d personally rather live alone than live with somebody who mistreats me.
Men seem to believe they are more rational than women, but men overreact emotionally, too.
This thread is an example - nearly 300 comments, just because a single mom dared to say she wants to marry and have more children.
There are many factors at play in the current dating market. Too many men are non-virtuous, too, but nothing is ever their fault, is it?
The girls call them man-whores.
My point is that most young women have a large selection of men to choose from, so they have to turn many men down. I'm not claiming it's bad or good. It's just reality. Many young men are not successful in the dating market because they have so much competition.
Many women will turn down a man politely, but, if a woman turns him down rudely, then she did him a favor because she showed him her true colors.
I understand dating life is difficult, and I know that a large number of young men do not date at all.
- "Might not their overall appearance, eye-contact, grooming, cosmetics, and behavior (incl. tattoos, nose-piercings...) have contributed to this?" -
She only has to be young and alone.
- "If we could return to traditional values and ways of life (hopeless, I know!), a lot of the problems we are discussing here would vanish." -
We agree on that point!
The same is true for men. They have adult genitalia but are little boys intellectually/behaviorally. All they are good for is collecting neck tattoos and children from different women.
Uneducated and uncultured, they do not know how to set priorities. Furthermore, their value system is all messed up (teaching that some value systems are better than others is wrong - falls under ethnocentrism), and that leads to a long term negative outcome both in marriage and with raising children. Even factors such as crime rates, suicide etc. are related. Wealth does not create culture, but culture does create wealth.
Men seem to believe they are more rational than women, but men overreact emotionally, too. This thread is an example - nearly 300 comments [...]
I, personally, account for a big fraction of those comments - but I would hardly characterize my participation as due to an "emotional overreaction."
I believe that you'll agree that my structured, nuanced analysis, subtle parsing, and concisely formulated refutations are anything but "knee-jerk" responses motivated by a "wounded ego."
I know that "Eigenlob stinkt" = "Self-flattery stinks," but I must insist that my postings have been unfailingly calm and measured. I assert that any "emotional" responses which you may have encountered from other FReepers were because the (on the face of it) relatively harmless sounding thesis statement - "As a consequence of becoming a single mother, I have raised my standards" - is, in most cases, merely a rationalization for the petulant, selfish demand that "I'm older, less fertile, more worn-down, deeper in debt, and have more 'baggage,' but now require any future partner to accept my depreciated value and shoulder those additional burdens - things I didn't require of the baby-daddy!"
Nothing in this woman's demeanor suggest that she is sincerely unselfish in this claimed change in attitude. It still reeks of entitlement.
But if any of my postings have been tinged with fervor, it's because the epidemic of single motherhood is the Number One symptom cause of the spiritual and political demise of America. In comparison, LBGQT activism, Islamic terrorism, the alleged "Climate Catastrophe," the Corona Craze, BLM rioting, the tearing-down of Confederate statues, etc. are all seen as peripheral issues.
As Mr. Kevin Samuels was frequently wont to point out: Single motherhood - vulgo: rampant illegitimacy and its glorification - has accomplished what chattel slavery and the Jim Crow era failed to do: It has destroyed the Black family.
Indeed, if American families were still largely intact, many of the aforementioned issues would be orders of magnitude less evident.
The acute crisis of self-doubt and even self-loathing which America has undergone since the 1950s is, in my estimation, due largely to feminism and concomitant general licentiousness, broken families, and loss of faith.
The fact that even you, a staunch conservative, can countenance the effrontery of this woman is the single most-compelling argument I can muster for the Overton window.
Many conservatives yearn for the 1950s. I'm sure that you, too, can imagine yourself living back in the 1950s, and being for the most part "in tune" and "in harmony" with the general zeitgeist.
Of course, you would be an outlier insofar as you would definitely not approve of racial discrimination. But other than that, you would undoubtedly feel quite at home.
Now imagine yourself sitting in front of your t.v. in the 1950s, watching a program in which this single mother insouciantly announces to the world that her "standards are now higher." How she shamelessly demands that her future boyfriend "be better!" YOU WOULD BE APPALLED.
But today, you advocate for her!
Regards,
Too many men are non-virtuous, too, but nothing is ever their fault, is it?
"Women control sex. Men control commitment."
- Mr. Kevin Samuels
The disordered and spiritually destructive state of the modern dating scene is the fault of those who possess the power - not of the disenfranchised.
The top 90% of all women (in the relevant age bracket) and the top 10% of all men have all the power. They establish the "rules of the game." They determine who gets to play.
When the appeal of so-called "dating" (= serial polygamy) fades for modern women and they begin to want to "settle down," the damage has already been done; they have already been ruined, their pair-bonding synapses have been blown, and the bottom 90% of all men - the ones who had, until now, been more or less forced to stand on the sidelines and watch - no longer feel any compulsion to "step up" and "save" them.
Regards,
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.