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 ...
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.
Well, I'm claiming that it's bad, and unnatural!
In a healthy society, young people would pair up in a process known as assortative mating. Since there are roughly as many young men as there are young women, neither sex would be at an advantage. A (male) "7" would pair up with a (female) "7," a "4" with a "4," and so on.
(Of course, ideally, this whole process would be curated by the parents - but that would be only an added benefit, and isn't an absolute prerequisite for this set-up to function.)
Instead, in today's society, a female "4" can - at least temporarily - hook up with a male "9." The female "4" then thinks that she must, in actuality, be at least a "6" or a "7." (This fault of female psychology is now even amplified by the current "You're a QUEEN" meme.)
In actuality, the male "9" ends up having a loose "harem" of lower-ranking women (some of whom delude themselves into believing that they are enjoying exclusivity, and/or have at least a chance to "land" the man - perhaps by "accidentally" becoming pregnant).
And by the same token, the majority of men (ranging from "6" on downwards) have to scramble for the crumbs. They, in contrast, will experience year-long "droughts," struggle with self-esteem issues, etc.
The familiar pattern then emerges: Come age 30 ("The Wall"), these lower-ranking women, whose pair-bonding ability has been shot to hell (clinical studies show this), suddenly experience an "epiphany."
"Hallelujah! I'm a born-again virgin! And (paradoxically) I'm gonna RAISE my standards!"
The (middle- and low-ranking) men who have been struggling through their 20s are now understandably loathe to "bail them out."
Is any of this making sense to you? Does it ring at all true to you?
The situation is actually much worse, because feminism + liberalism + the Nanny State + the generally gynocentric culture (Oprah) have convinced ALL of these women that "they are the PRIZE." Secondary and tertiary effects mean that you can actually encounter statistically significant numbers of women who flatly state that they got pregnant (without any prospect of marriage) because they wanted to have a baby to pamper and coddle and play with!
In a large section of the Black population, one actually finds the mindset that getting married is a bigger and more-momentous decision than getting pregnant! Of course, some of that may be due simply to retroactive self-justification and rationalization (they didn't really want it, but now they've got to pretend that it was their "master plan" all along) - but by all appearances, a great many of these Black women hold husbands for superfluous!
You imply that men are equally to blame for the desolate state of modern "dating" (I always put that in quotation marks, because TRUE dating should always be a short, deliberate, and mindful process whose ultimate goal is to STOP DATING.) But the "dating" behavior of men is dictated 95% by their gonads, and men's gonads haven't changed all that much since the Pleistocene Epoch. Men have always striven to spread their seed as far as they can. Men don't need a reason (to couple), just an opportunity. Etc., etc.
In contrast, the behavior of women (in the sexual realm) is determined not so much by visceral urges, but rather by social cues, social one-upmanship, a need for social validation, gossiping, group dynamics, and manipulating men by dangling/withholding sex in exchange for resources.
The amplification of bad and, in many cases, downright evil messaging ("Men and women have equally strong sex drives!" "Men and women should both play around!" "Don't need no man!" "A single mother is brave, strong, and independent!" "As the 40-year-old mother of four kids - through three baby-daddies - my value has only increased!") through feminism, and abetted by a Nanny State that funds their insanity, has only worsened the situation.
Regards,
As Mr. Kevin Samuels frequently pointed out, 80% of all illegitimate Black babies were sired by less than 20% of all Black men. Most Black men are side-lined. (I assume that the figures are similar for the non-Black population.)
You are seeing only the most-conspicuous top-performers (in producing illegitimate children), and then making a blanket judgement about all men.
Faulty logic!
Regards,
The 80% of young men who have been sidelined by the "Chads" monopolizing the "dating" market and building informal "harems" are not at fault for the rotten state of the current Sexual Marketplace.
They bear little to no guilt for the fact that many young women are accruing "body-counts" in the double digits, thus ruining their subsequent pair-bonding ability (men are less affected by casual sex, while women suffer neurological damage from it).
Admittedly: These disenfranchised young men then turn to video games, online porn, and other unproductive activities as an Ersatzhandlung. This is both sad on an individual level and a concern on a societal level.
But it is unfair to blame these disenfranchised young men for the ills of the current "dating" scene.
Regards,
...”Says Men Should Do More For Her and Her Son”
For her. Thus she’s dissatisfied
* Dissatisfied 🎯
* Choices 🎯
* On her 🎯
* She owns it, not men. 🎯
Also known as a normal male, about 80% of the male population. "Beta male" is used as an insult, mostly by beta males. Alpha men don't typically insult normals. A characteristic of alphas is they help normals, including children not their own, for nothing in return.
“A characteristic of alphas is they help normals, including children not their own, for nothing in return.”
No, those people are known as “saps”.
L
“A characteristic of alphas is they help normals, including children not their own, for nothing in return.”
You get a F grade from the manosphere.
Alphas focus on their own interests and don’t listen to anyone who tells them what they “should” do.
If they choose to help normals that is charity—or a gift—freely given—and never given if the “normal” demands it.
Guilt tripping and emotional blackmail does not work on alphas.
The state of our culture (all the West - we are all in the same boat) is far worse than 20% of the people being uncultured and uneducated.
Modern Western culture is partially ashamed of their accomplishments / their own success, their racial identity, religion, national identity. That is even among those with a so called education and some culture.
This is who we are today:
You will point out that many of the 50% are repeat offenders. But even if you exclude them, you’re still at over 40%.
Of course some of them have true legitimate reasons, but just like abortion, most of it is convenience and a lack of commitment and bad values:
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2024/one-four-us-women-expected-have-abortion-their-lifetime
If you want to know what our culture and values are, just look at art.
Art is an expression of the values a society has, and what does it say about us in paintings, sculpture, architecture, poetry, plays, music, and movies?
Google can show us what our values are, Google: modern art, post modern art. See what you get.
The neck and hand tattoo is cool today:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-americans-have-a-tattoo-including-22-who-have-more-than-one/
If it’s not some homo-erotic nonsense, it’s still just about sex, drugs, deconstructionism, or simple scandalous shock effect (no meaning really) pretending to be art: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ.
Modern culture in the West has devolved into a primitive, commercialized, faddish/trendy, superficial and often untalented (many artists that can’t even sing, read music, or play an instrument - they are hired by demographics, because they look pretty and can dance).
Our culture pushes leftist ideology in education, the news, and arts, as if this is virtuous. You are basically taught that it’s ethical to repeat these ideas in public.
While I do not like their culture either (oppressive and backward), the Muslims are right about us. We are a decedent, perverted, weird bunch today. Their view of us isn’t entirely wrong when considering what was going on with all that trans lunacy and mutilation of children in the last years...
If you want to know what our values are, look at STD rates: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db280.htm#:~:text=During%202013%E2%80%932014%2C%20prevalence%20of%20any%20genital%20HPV%20was%2042.5,all%2C%20men%2C%20and%20women.
People are getting dummer and public schools tell them how smart they are, while in reality SAT, ACT and standardized testing show something entirely different if you take away the attempts to fudge the numbers by changing the scoring: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Average_SAT_Scores.png
Can you tell me one single movie produced in the last 30 years which makes a Catholic priest look good?
Our culture is a trendy / fashionable, commercialized, highly liberal (can’t tell anyone no nor make a value judgement except if it’s against whites, men, Christians or a free market), trash culture which is in reality “valueless.”
A multi cultural society has a hard time with values and the ONLY common denominator regards values is money.
Recommendation: keep your kids out of public schools, be extra critical with the MSM and social media, be selective with what movies you watch. But since you’re on the FR, you probably do all that already.
It’s definitely not right to blame the men who are not allowed to play the game.
To your posts # 299, 300, and 301:
>"Many conservatives yearn for the 1950s."<
I wasn't alive in the 1950s, but we agree on the following point:
>"TRUE dating should always be a short, deliberate, and mindful process whose ultimate goal is to STOP DATING"<
I would like the word dating to return to its original meaning: If a man asks a woman to date, he should mean dinner and a movie, or simply spending quality time together, with no other 'expectations' (if you get my drift). Unfortunately, since I was young, more and more people have been using the word date to mean something entirely different.
However, I know of many young couples (in their 20s now) who dated with respect for each other before marrying. So, I do not make assumptions about people who say they are dating. The woman in the video used the term relationship, but I will not make assumptions about her, either.
I don't understand what people want this woman to say. Do you think a single mom should have low standards? Should she sleep around with lowlifes who use her and dump her? Should she parade men in and out of her child's life? Or, maybe she should not date at all? I would say she should not date if dating means 'adding to her body count' or bringing strangers around her child.
However, I spent much time for many years around a large number of Christian families. A small number of the men and women had had children with other people - a few out of wedlock - before marrying and raising another family. Some other people lived a wild life in their younger years and settled down later. Many people make mistakes and then wise up later. People are imperfect. So, men and women can and do learn from their past and turn their lives around.
>"The . . . men who have been struggling through their 20s are now understandably loathe to "bail them out."<
Perfectly understandable. Notice that I never said men should be expected to bail out women. I never said men (or women) should or should not date or marry a single parent. People make their own choices.
>"(This fault of female psychology is now even amplified by the current "You're a QUEEN" meme.)"<
And men are referred to as "kings" now.
>"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."<
Yes, a relatively small percentage of men 'date' a larger percentage of young women. So, then, you agree with me that most young women have many options. Furthermore, both young men and older men chase young women. So, young men are competing with a large number of men over a young woman. So, we agree on that point.
>"- Mr. Kevin Samuels<"
I found some information about Mr. Samuels. I hope young men aren't following advice from a man who was married and divorced twice and continued to sleep around up to his death. It would be like following the advice of Hugh Hefner. No wonder so many young men are cynical and they can't find a date.
>feminism + liberalism + the Nanny State + the generally gynocentric culture (Oprah) have convinced ALL of these women that "they are the PRIZE."<
I never hear women talk that way in Real Life. I have a large extended family, and we were associated with a large Christian community for many years, and NONE of the women talked that way. Again, many of the young women married in their 20s, and they are raising their own families now. You mentioned the 'black population.' I knew many churchgoing black families who raised their kids with good, solid values.
I know that many young men are not marrying or even dating, but many factors are at play. One is the economy. Young men need more job opportunities. Some young men today do not seem interested in dating, probably because they still live 'at home.' At the same time, the young men who want to date are searching in the wrong places.
Many young women don't date, either. They might have options, but they are waiting for a man who wants to commit, which many young men don't want to do. One theory is that young men are not ready to marry, until they reach their late 20s, and then the young man will marry the woman he is dating at the time.
And then nothing is guaranteed. Some people pretend to be 'good,' but they have dark secrets. I have sat and listened to some beautiful young Christian women cry because their 'Christian' husbands cheat on them, and many young women say their husbands are addicted to porn - which is a big problem.
Thank you for your words of wisdom on this subject.
You're ignoring all the male 4's and below who won't settle for anything less than a female 8. To put it in high school terms if you're that overweight guy with the pocket protector and the bad hygiene but refuse to settle for anyone other than the cheer captain (who must be simultaneously a virgin and knowledgeable about how to please a man sexually), whose fault is it really that you're still single?
But the "dating" behavior of men is dictated 95% by their gonads, and men's gonads haven't changed all that much since the Pleistocene Epoch. Men have always striven to spread their seed as far as they can. Men don't need a reason (to couple), just an opportunity.
So you're saying that if a fit woman of reproductive age but a horribly burned face was willing you'd have sex with her? Her facial burns don't affect her ability to carry your baby to term, after all. And her face means she's bound to have a low body count. Or maybe men do have standards besides mere reproductive fitness after all and that is 100% okay. The only problem happens when people of either sex have standards above what they can reasonably expect to attract AND take it out on the opposite sex (since people with unrealistic expectations alone will simply be alone forever, not unlike many celibate priests and nuns).
I don't have a cure for the 4's who think they are 10's. From what I've seen it's a disease that affects primarily white American men, though I have no experience dating European men, so it's possible they're just as bad. I just count myself fortunate to have found a husband from a country not yet contaminated.
I'm actually glad most men don't think primarily with their genitals, that they can control themselves if they so choose, for that would make them unfit leaders. I don't want a leader who will start a war to prove that his "nuclear button" is larger than another leader's "nuclear button". Russia already has that. We don't need it in America.
Thank you for your comments, too.
* Actually the smart male now is the Super Alpha.
* The Super Alpha will never marry a female + The State.
* The Super Alpha, never invites The State into his relationship with a female. Nor sign any documents that appear to open State Sovereignty with her.
* The Super Alpha, will not live in a manner that could also be loosely even be interpreted as marriage to The State.
* The Super Alpha, has the highest values for his assets, guards them, from State invasion.
* The Super Alpha never tolerates s_it tests from her, or anyone.
* The Super Alpha can always “walk away.”
* The Super Alpha is adored by his female, she knows all the other females want him, but he’s “mine” and she always proves it.
* The Super Alpha Creates value, his female always Preserves her value.
That's the primitive jungle rules definition of alpha, a super selfish bad *ss. The jails are full of jungle "alphas". The civilized human definition of alpha is heroic leader, like Trump or Musk, exceptional men that millions of evil men want to assassinate for trying to make America great again.
The Jungle Chad is the one that women respond to best, especially if he can back it up in competence in resourcefulness and competence.
A man’s role is to not make his woman happy, because that is something not even God was capable of doing in the Garden of Eden. A man’s role is to lead his family and attend to his purpose. A woman’s responsibility is to use a man’s resources for the family and use his ability to make her life a happy one for herself while honouring her commitment to marriage.
Let me begin by confirming that you and I are in general agreement re. the overall sorry state of Western civ.
But let me also point out that your posting is largely just descriptive.
You are simply describing the (static) present situation - not providing analysis, not attempting to trace phenomena back to their socio-economic and sexual roots, etc.
That's fine - but we're trying to identify and understand the dynamics and root causes here.
Now, for a single nit-picks from me:
The state of our culture [...] is far worse than 20% of the people being uncultured and uneducated.
I have no idea where this statement and this figure came from. When discussing, e.g., non-assortative mating, modern dating dynamics, and the like, reference is frequently made to the Pareto distribution (also known as the "80:20 Rule"). But the current level of unculturedness and uneducatedness (whatever it is) has nothing to do with that.
So maybe you just pulled that figure out of your hat and/or are using it as a "placeholder."
In reality, a basic, fourth-grade level of culture (fundamental Western values, discipline and responsibility, esp. re. mate-selection and monogamy) and education (the 4R's) were sufficient for most of U.S. history. Ignorant sharecroppers got along just fine with their rudimentary book-learning and Christian values - a "short list" that would have fit on the back of an envelope.
For the most part, modern Americans do not lack "culture" or "education." Rather, their culture and education have been corrupted and/or supplanted by 3rd-Wave Feminism, notions about progressivism (disguised socialism), DEI, White self-loathing, etc.
(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "uneducated and uncultured," that's what you actually meant, so don't think that I'm trying to attack you here - rather, I just want clarity.)
For some reason, when previewing my post to check for typos, etc., the text stretches horizontally across the entire screen and beyond, necessitating my scrolling to the right to view everything. This is quite inconvenient! Apparently, the Free Republic software is acting strangely this morning. Thus, I am sorry if my text contains any garbled words.
Regards,
Except that radical feminism is wrong / evil!
Are you going to force me to justify that assertion?! Okay...
Except that the radical feminists push abortion on demand, free sex, homosexuality, genital mutilation, Drag Queen Storytime at children's libraries, "From the River to the Sea," submission to Islam, etc. Except that the radical feminists have been undermined by marxists and are freq. working in league with BLM, etc.
Need I go on?
The "manosphere" is a very broad phenomenon, and includes grifters touting "sure-fire" strategies to "game" and bed as many women as possible, incels / sore-losers who want only to sit around and sulk and lament, assorted women-haters, closeted gays, etc.
And they have almost no political power. Not even "soft" power. They are not invited onto afternoon talk shows to disseminate their wisdom - except in rare instances when they are forced to face a hostile audience and a panel of enraged feminists to shout them down.
They organize no marches, do not lobby for legislation, etc.
They are a very mixed bag (see my post #227 above). However, if one is selective and discerning, one can find a lot of real gems dispensing valuable insights among them.
The woman in the video used the term relationship, but I will not make assumptions about her, either.
You are being far too forbearing!
Watch a thousand YouTube clips and TikToks - uploaded by the women, themselves! - and you'll see that she falls into the all-too-familiar pattern of self-entitled baby-momma expecting to be rescued. I agree that a Martian viewing YouTube videos for the first time might not see anything worthy of criticism - but please use your commonsense!
Would you want one of your boys to date this woman? I wouldn't! In fact, I'd exhort them to cross to the other side of the street if they saw her coming!
You and I are in the same age cohort, and have a broadly similar life experience (married to the same person for decades; children), so I can only assume that you are willfully turning a blind eye to all the signs that this woman is trash.
I don't understand what people want this woman to say. Do you think a single mom should have low standards? Should she sleep around with lowlifes who use her and dump her? Should she parade men in and out of her child's life?
Please quit "strawmanning" me! You know that we conservative FReepers would never counsel her to do any of those things!
Or, maybe she should not date at all? I would say she should not date if dating means 'adding to her body count' or bringing strangers around her child.
Bingo!
The obvious solution that 99% of all FReepers would heartily endorse from the get-go! (Why bother even mentioning all those other absurd proposals?!)
This woman should "get thee to a nunnery!" and come to terms with the fact that she will have to spend the rest of her life in drudgery, slaving to pay for her child, with no prospect of a man swooping down to rescue her.
If she were to adopt that mindset, maybe - just maybe some kind-hearted man 25 years her senior, with a modest pension or disability payment, might wife her up.
In the olden days, he could have been sure that she would be immensely grateful for that. He could have been sure that the close-knit community in which they lived would keep an eye on her, and ensure - though social pressure - that she continued to "fly right."
But in today's world? A man would have to be crazy to get anywhere near a tatted-up, self-entitled baby-mamma like that.
I found some information about Mr. Samuels. I hope young men aren't following advice from a man who was married and divorced twice and continued to sleep around up to his death.
Please watch a dozen or so of his shows and form your own opinion!
Warning: You'll probably get hooked!
However, I spent much time for many years around a large number of Christian families. A small number of the men and women had had children with other people - a few out of wedlock - before marrying and raising another family. Some other people lived a wild life in their younger years and settled down later. Many people make mistakes and then wise up later. People are imperfect. So, men and women can and do learn from their past and turn their lives around.
Yes, that is possible - in a tightly-knit Christian community. But please don't generalize! Except in such unusual circumstances, that strategy won't fly!
We have to first fix a number of basic societal flaws (divorce laws) and the fundamentally distorted mindset of society at large before advocating your approach!
Exercise is good! But you shouldn't advise someone suffering from Double Pneumonia to run a marathon!
And men are referred to as "kings" now.
That term ("kings") is used sarcastically. Likewise "Drizzle-drizzle."
Most men learn early in life that the only worth they have (to women; to society at large) is the value they accrue - through hard work, discipline, and patience. Any young man with an overinflated self-worth will be quickly disabused of that false mindset by reality.
Women begin (dating) life on "easy mode." That warps their perception of reality as a whole. They aren't generally "cured" of that until they reach the "Epiphany Stage." But even then, many choose instead to deny reality and insist that their (sexual market) value has only increased.
Regards,
Your entire post hinges on extreme outliers. Extreme cases don't make for productive discussions. Please be reasonable!
You're ignoring all the male 4's and below who won't settle for anything less than a female 8. To put it in high school terms if you're that overweight guy with the pocket protector and the bad hygiene but refuse to settle for anyone other than the cheer captain (who must be simultaneously a virgin and knowledgeable about how to please a man sexually), whose fault is it really that you're still single?
As I've said before: Young men are quickly forced to confront the reality of life. They are quickly disabused of any delusions they may have. They might spend their high school and college years pining for the cheerleaders, but eventually they will "get a grip on themselves" and see clearly.
Of course there are backwoods hermits and other unsavory types who never learn. BUT THEY DON'T REPRESENT A SOCIAL OR POLITICAL FORCE!
They are not allowed to / have little desire to promulgate their distorted version of reality, except maybe in some corners of the DarkNet. They don't even appear on our collective radar screen unless they start sending bombs through the mail.
They are not setting trends or establishing norms. There are no Ivy-League t.v. pundits arguing their cause - if anything, they are derided. There are no publicly funded shelters for them, no govt.-run programs to rehabilitate them. Society's message to them is essentially, "Just die already!" If their existence is acknowledged at all, then only to be held up and jeered at.
Single mothers, on the other hand...
You are suffering from the "boiled frog" phenomenon.
In the 1950s, an overweight guy with bad hygiene who complained publicly about "not getting a date" would have been laughed out of the house.
And a single mother who petulantly complained about no man wanting to "step up and wife her up" - wait, in polite circles, it wasn't allowed to even admit the existence of single mothers! They were pariahs, in any case!
Fast-foward to the 2020s, and the situation for the overweight guy is unchanged. While single mothers are glorified and exalted!
You have forgotten what society-pervading mindset is necessary for the dating market to function properly.
So you're saying that if a fit woman of reproductive age but a horribly burned face was willing you'd have sex with her?
Always with the extreme cases! It is not possible to conduct a productive conversation and derive generalized truths when constantly resorting to extreme cases!
You can't, e.g., go to townhall and discuss setting up a "Free Parking" zone in the downtown area if someone pipes up with, "But what if someone wants to park a car that's as big as an oceanliner - or is highly radioactive?!"
Please be reasonable, and restrict yourself to plausible scenarios pertaining to 90% of the population. That would be useful.
Regards,
Genetic studies have revealed that, for most of human prehistory, almost all the offspring were the result of unions between a small sliver of men on one hand and every available uterus on the other.
In other words: We have a few g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfathers, but many g-g-g-g-g-g-grandmothers.
A fertile uterus was too valuable to waste. On the other hand, sperm is cheap!
Competition among men was stiff. Among women? Not so much. (At most: Competition for the best men.)
Don't want to "get into the weeds" with extreme cases, but: A horribly burnt (but otherwise reproductively fit) woman can still find some sperm. A horribly disfigured man will have to become a high-earner, a productive member of society. Unless he becomes a rapist.
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.
