Basicly women have replaced men with the nanny state.
Big strong self-reliant women can’t get along without a hand out from Hillary and her chums.
Men have basicly been supporting themselves and their families for hundreds of years. Women fight for equality and immediately forsake taking responsiblity for themselves and their children. No, they not only can’t support themselves like the men did, but they demand the nanny state do it.
If men demanded the nanny state take care of them like the women do, this nation would fall in on itself.
God what bunch of loser women we’ve turned out.
Jeeeeesh.....
And a lot of women are single because men are scared, selfish sissies and don’t want the responsibility of a wife and a family. THIS dynamic has become much more prevalent in our society, with the declining of the maturity of the American male, who thinks only of himself and how he can acquire more status, without the burden of being responsible for another human being.
How’s THAT for a counterbalance to the most sexist, woman-hating article I have seen in a long time??
A tentative sociology goes like this:
Given Bill Clinton’s record of violence and idiocy, it’s no wonder his wife has a nany mindset... but they do love those “bandit crackhead” looks of losers, with no one in charge around... and then they panic and want a nany state and become very submissive to the gangs about. Couples who like to beat each other and who love the “fight for power” line are like that.
Those single women, by the way, are as deadbeat as the men... but that does not even matter, the lawyer critters will always side with nanystate women and bring down good and bad husbands alike... it’s part of the scavanging program.
And don’t forget the important link that the Nanny State gets its funds from the tax base...which consists largely of men.
So, the way to look at this accurately is that women grew so furious at being ‘subservient’ and ‘oppressed’ that they revolted against depending upon me so that they could become dependent upon middlemen.
Big strong self-reliant women can’t get along without a hand out from Hillary and her chums.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It takes the Marxist Village to bring up a child.
They ought to hang and butcher every one of us. Rape us all first because why waste good stuff?
Yes, but they had stay-at-home wives taking care of their kids and the home. Single women do not have that. Many of them make less money than men and have to pay for day care, too. When the kids are sick, the moms have to call in absent to work and it jeopardizes their jobs. That's why these women feel more vulnerable and want a government "safety net." I'm not excusing the women who purposely have babies out of wedlock and then demand the government pay for them. I'm talking about women who find themselves single because their husbands died, left them, abused them, etc.
Thank you...../sarc
All us loser Freeper Females thank you for your compliments.
Many here have already added insight to counter-balance your statements.
Let me just say, you need to account for the break-down in SEXUAL MORALITY that happened the same time as the Welfare State truly took over.
Instead of “bringing men UP” (not that I believe most men earlier were constantly sticking their $!#$!s in women not their wives), the “sexual revolution” “brought women down” to the level of being possessed by sex, or at least willingly handing it out to try to get men hooked.
Now, everything is obsessed on sex, and why wait for marriage?
No matter how much birth control we have, you cannot avoid having bastard children sometimes if you insist on giving into your lust (and that’s all it is - that’s not LOVE).
All the sexual revolution did was lower the denominator, and as a result, women are pumping out ILLEGITIMATE babies at huge rates (check out those stat’s since the wonderful ‘60s). And men have nothing stopping them now from sticking that rod everywhere they want - because “sex is wonderful”, period; how dare we judge them for doing what is natural? How dare we stop them from doing something that is harming no-one and the woman wants, too?
Harming no-one. Hhhmmmmph.
Secondly, where are the Dads of these single mothers? Could they be deat beat dads who won't support their children? I know of at least one case of this scenario and I'm sure this isn't unusual. You try raising a couple of kids with only a high school education and no help from the father. So don't go blaming all this on women!
Do you think single women with children choose to be that way?
I don’t. I just think there aren’t enough good charactered single men around to justify marriage.
And if there were, how many would marry a single woman with children?
I know a number of women who agree with Ann Coulter when she said that she would gladly give up her right to vote if other women couldn’t vote either.
McCain could beat Obama because he (McCain) will have the hispanic vote, but Hillary has too many demographic groups on her side to beat, alas. Obama will be the last black politician of either party to have a chance at high office ever as the hispanic group grows.
Whoa, there is plenty of blame to go around. First, are families (fathers in particular) who don’t protect their daughters from predatory males or insist that their sons respect women. Then there are the women themselves who seem quite willing to be involved in temporary relationships and then abandoned and the men who feel no guilt in using women and casting them and their offspring aside. The children grow up to repeat the sins of their parents.
It takes both men and women to build strong families.
Loser woman? LOL. Majority of men I know don’t even want American wives....unless they’re 20 years younger than themselves. You are very misguided....get out more.