Guys: thoughts on young(20's) single moms

[AT-AT28]

I was raised by a feminist myself so believe me I understand where you are coming from.

 

That sure as hell explains alot

[elaina]

I guess I understand a little bit why some men would not want to date or marry a single Mom, though I do think it's good for men to be good role models for kids and give time to help out in the community. However, I do not understand the hatred and insulting towards them that I have seen here by some.

 

Concerning men who do not want to date them, I understand that many good men do not want to and that's ok. There are certain specifications I desire in a mate. Concerning single dads, I have never considered a man being a single dad to be a dealbreaker by any means. Kids are not baggage. They are people, and should be looked at as people, not as problems. I have also never questioned the quality of the man who is a single father just because of being single. Yes there are reasons people are single, but the reasons are very diverse. Some people are single because of character issues they have. Some people are single because their mate has issues that made the relationship break. Some are mutually incompatible. That doesn't mean the person who is single after being a parent is worthless. No way. It just means that something happened. Life is not all peaches and cream. Things happen in life that are difficult. I'm sure most people would rather have a perfect life, but life in itself is not perfect, and that's ok.

Edited December 11, 2010 by elaina

[Untouchable_Fire]

I guess I understand a little bit why some men would not want to date or marry a single Mom, though I do think it's good for men to be good role models for kids and give time to help out in the community. However, I do not understand the hatred and insulting towards them that I have seen here by some.

Concerning men who do not want to date them, I understand that many good men do not want to and that's ok. There are certain specifications I desire in a mate. Concerning single dads, I have never considered a man being a single dad to be a dealbreaker by any means. Kids are not baggage. They are people, and should be looked at as people, not as problems.

 

Not all single moms are single for the same reasons. Many are single for reasons that are not good.

 

There are two primary scenarios that men strongly object to regarding single mothers.

 

The woman that consistently dating drug dealers and abusive men, had children... and now wants to settle with a man she isn't attracted to, but who can pay for those kids.

 

The woman who leaves her husband for stupid selfish reasons and garners enormous amounts of child and spousal support, while denying her children a full time father figure.

 

I can't say for sure... but from my experience that covers a large chunk of the single moms.

[TheBigQuestion]

Not all single moms are single for the same reasons. Many are single for reasons that are not good.

 

There are two primary scenarios that men strongly object to regarding single mothers.

 

The woman that consistently dating drug dealers and abusive men, had children... and now wants to settle with a man she isn't attracted to, but who can pay for those kids.

 

The woman who leaves her husband for stupid selfish reasons and garners enormous amounts of child and spousal support, while denying her children a full time father figure.

 

I can't say for sure... but from my experience that covers a large chunk of the single moms.

 

As true as this may be for you, no woman who posts here is going to actually accept this as reality, whether it's in your experience or something that can actually be generalized. They're going to (and probably already have) assume that you're misrepresenting your own experiences or that you're just extremely unlucky. So really, it's no use mentioning experience as a factor in this type of debate. Experience is always conveniently dismissed as being insufficient.

[Untouchable_Fire]

As true as this may be for you, no woman who posts here is going to actually accept this as reality, whether it's in your experience or something that can actually be generalized. They're going to (and probably already have) assume that you're misrepresenting your own experiences or that you're just extremely unlucky. So really, it's no use mentioning experience as a factor in this type of debate. Experience is always conveniently dismissed as being insufficient.

 

Honestly, every story is different. Not everyone would categorize things in the same way I do.

 

I'm just trying to give Elaina a reason as to why some guys find these women so offensive.

 

The bottom line is that they tend to be users, and you can't really trust that they actually have feelings for you.

[carhill]

Today, women only engage in sex for as long as it takes to establish a claim on a man's resources. In other words, through marrying and divorcing him or having a man's child out of wedlock. They want the benefits that that provides in marriage, but not the commitment to one man. That's because they want to be free to use their sexuality for themselves and be free to exploit other men for their resources.

 

The really cool thing is, if one listens, women who operate this way reveal themselves early-on, long before a man's noodle gets wet. Really listening to women is one of the best tools I ever learned in MC. Listening and accepting. Mind over noodle.

[Mme. Chaucer]

To all the guys on this thread who are so comfortable and righteous judging and generalizing about single mothers, their motives, and their behavior:

 

Do you not realize that it took a male, in every case, to help create the situation of "single motherhood"?

 

A handful of you blindly bolster one another's hatred of single motherhood, and I'm sure you'll carry on. I hope that the rest will acknowledge that men are equal partners in creating a society that includes lots of single mothers.

[frizzo]

To all the guys on this thread who are so comfortable and righteous judging and generalizing about single mothers, their motives, and their behavior:

 

Do you not realize that it took a male, in every case, to help create the situation of "single motherhood"?

 

A handful of you blindly bolster one another's hatred of single motherhood, and I'm sure you'll carry on. I hope that the rest will acknowledge that men are equal partners in creating a society that includes lots of single mothers.

 

Um, feminism was not invented by men - it was concocted by vile, sinister, and evil creatures such as Steinem and Friedan who foisted unfair divorce laws on men. Women are WAY more complicit in this, since it is the MAN who loses his assets, 2/3rds of his future pay, and has his children taken from him. The WOMAN is the one who cashes out. So, how in the f*ck does it behoove a man to not be with the mother of his kids?

[Woggle]

To all the guys on this thread who are so comfortable and righteous judging and generalizing about single mothers, their motives, and their behavior:

 

Do you not realize that it took a male, in every case, to help create the situation of "single motherhood"?

 

A handful of you blindly bolster one another's hatred of single motherhood, and I'm sure you'll carry on. I hope that the rest will acknowledge that men are equal partners in creating a society that includes lots of single mothers.

 

This is true but many single mothers exist they do not want a man or a father figure in the picture at least on a regular basis. Any woman who thinks that low of men does not make a good romantic partner.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Um, feminism was not invented by men - it was concocted by vile, sinister, and evil creatures such as Steinem and Friedan who foisted unfair divorce laws on men. Women are WAY more complicit in this, since it is the MAN who loses his assets, 2/3rds of his future pay, and has his children taken from him. The WOMAN is the one who cashes out. So, how in the f*ck does it behoove a man to not be with the mother of his kids?

 

Um ...

 

First, I don't agree with you that feminism and seminal feminists are "vile, sinister and evil creatures." That's your own opinion, not shared by a great many of us.

 

Also, I don't believe that feminism and single motherhood go hand in hand in any way. There are many, many men who are happy and comfortable in the "baby daddy" role, though they might gripe about child support until the cows come home.

 

No-fault divorce has hurt and benefitted both men and women.

[frizzo]

Um ...

 

First, I don't agree with you that feminism and seminal feminists are "vile, sinister and evil creatures." That's your own opinion, not shared by a great many of us.

 

Also, I don't believe that feminism and single motherhood go hand in hand in any way. There are many, many men who are happy and comfortable in the "baby daddy" role, though they might gripe about child support until the cows come home.

 

No-fault divorce has hurt and benefitted both men and women.

 

It is certainly no surprise that feminists do not think feminism and other feminist evil.

 

No fault divorce laws have hurt CHILDREN and SOCIETY - and since it is MEN who pay the bulk of taxes and who are expected to die for society, it is WE who are hurt the more. And it is funny how you completely dodged the unfair asset division and the total lack of father's involvement in your response.

[112233]

.... it is funny how you completely dodged the unfair asset division and the total lack of father's involvement in your response.

 

I've never understood how two people can get married, live together, and when they split somehow one is entitled to the others income even if they never contributed toward it.

 

Example: Woman has a housekeeping business, marries a doctor. Her income is insignificant compared to his and so she gives her business to her sister, who is also in that line of work. Her husband supports them both and she does whatever hobbies she wishes. They never have children. In 15 years she decides she's lost herself and needs to find something, so she moves out and files for divorce.

 

What on gods green earth entitles her to half or more the doctors income for years or decades?

[frizzo]

I've never understood how two people can get married, live together, and when they split somehow one is entitled to the others income even if they never contributed toward it.

 

Example: Woman has a housekeeping business, marries a doctor. Her income is insignificant compared to his and so she gives her business to her sister, who is also in that line of work. Her husband supports them both and she does whatever hobbies she wishes. They never have children. In 15 years she decides she's lost herself and needs to find something, so she moves out and files for divorce.

 

What on gods green earth entitles her to half or more the doctors income for years or decades?

 

EXACTLY!!!! At MOST, the tw*t would be entitled to whatever her income would have been during that time MINUS one-half of all household bills. Most likely, she'd owe him $. This inherent inequality is the reason so many men are completely foregoing marriage. If the feminists were intellectually honest then they'd agree completely with an end to alimony - since women are equal and capable, then why do they need subsidies?

[zengirl]

I've never understood how two people can get married, live together, and when they split somehow one is entitled to the others income even if they never contributed toward it.

 

Example: Woman has a housekeeping business, marries a doctor. Her income is insignificant compared to his and so she gives her business to her sister, who is also in that line of work. Her husband supports them both and she does whatever hobbies she wishes. They never have children. In 15 years she decides she's lost herself and needs to find something, so she moves out and files for divorce.

 

What on gods green earth entitles her to half or more the doctors income for years or decades?

 

Generally speaking, marriage is a legally binding contract, and it provides for the combination of all assets and incomes during marriage and some consideration as to how those assets and incomes should be divided after marriage. There are various addendums anyone can add -- generally prenups, postnups, and the like -- to change this. (Of course, children also factor in, though not to your scenario.) I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

 

The societal benefit of joining assets in a marriage is that it allows the couple to interact, financially, as a single unit. That's why credit scores become tied, taxes become tied, etc.

 

This is how marriage, as a legal contract, is created. The opportunity to amend it, with the financial specifications any couple wishes to add, are vast. The doctor could easily have avoided it by marrying someone who wished to add an adendum protecting his income and assets, if that was his goal. I don't know what's difficult to understand about that.

 

The doctor agreed to the financial situation when they lived together and by supporting her for so long, thus agreed (most courts would find) to do so on a regular basis thereafter.

 

Is she ****ty if she leaves for a crap reason? Absolutely. Is that any legal argument against her getting alimony? Maybe, maybe not. I personally would support reasonable "fault" laws (i.e. if you cheat, you lose your right to enforce the part of the contract that protects you---meaning, generally, you lose a greater part of the assets, within reason). But that's got very little to do with the legal component of marriage. Make no mistake---marriage is a legal contract.

[frizzo]

Generally speaking, marriage is a legally binding contract, and it provides for the combination of all assets and incomes during marriage and some consideration as to how those assets and incomes should be divided after marriage. There are various addendums anyone can add -- generally prenups, postnups, and the like -- to change this. (Of course, children also factor in, though not to your scenario.) I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

 

The societal benefit of joining assets in a marriage is that it allows the couple to interact, financially, as a single unit. That's why credit scores become tied, taxes become tied, etc.

 

This is how marriage, as a legal contract, is created. The opportunity to amend it, with the financial specifications any couple wishes to add, are vast. The doctor could easily have avoided it by marrying someone who wished to add an adendum protecting his income and assets, if that was his goal. I don't know what's difficult to understand about that.

 

The doctor agreed to the financial situation when they lived together and by supporting her for so long, thus agreed (most courts would find) to do so on a regular basis thereafter.

 

Is she ****ty if she leaves for a crap reason? Absolutely. Is that any legal argument against her getting alimony? Maybe, maybe not. I personally would support reasonable "fault" laws (i.e. if you cheat, you lose your right to enforce the part of the contract that protects you---meaning, generally, you lose a greater part of the assets, within reason). But that's got very little to do with the legal component of marriage. Make no mistake---marriage is a legal contract.

 

This would be true IF pre-nups could not be thrown out by a judge on a whim. And don't worry ladies - we men were indeed slow on the uptake, and vagina is a powerful mind-altering substance, but we are waking up. The next time you girls are wondering why men don't want to commit - now you know!

[zengirl]

This would be true IF pre-nups could not be thrown out by a judge on a whim. And don't worry ladies - we men were indeed slow on the uptake, and vagina is a powerful mind-altering substance, but we are waking up. The next time you girls are wondering why men don't want to commit - now you know!

 

Maybe in some high profile crackhead celebrity case, but most prenups are generally upheld. And, yes, you should pick a bit carefully before committing to someone basically for life and entering into legally binding contracts to combine all assets and basically intertwine your fates in every other way. Marriage should be a high-stakes decision. And it is, for most people, whether they realize it or not.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I've never understood how two people can get married, live together, and when they split somehow one is entitled to the others income even if they never contributed toward it.

 

Example: Woman has a housekeeping business, marries a doctor. Her income is insignificant compared to his and so she gives her business to her sister, who is also in that line of work. Her husband supports them both and she does whatever hobbies she wishes. They never have children. In 15 years she decides she's lost herself and needs to find something, so she moves out and files for divorce.

 

What on gods green earth entitles her to half or more the doctors income for years or decades?

 

I hope that you can expand your perspective to understand that what you are reacting to is a sort of pendulum effect that coexists with all kinds of social change.

 

My father was a doctor. I was born in the 50's, and grew up in an affluent area where most of my peers' dads were professionals.

 

Here is the typical story of that time:

 

The couple were married young, while the future doctor was still in med school, or doing his residency. Finances were very tight. In many cases of families close to me, the wife was working hard (my mother, as a nurse). The idea was that when the doctor / lawyer got his practice going, the wife would stop working outside the home and they'd start a family.

 

So, that's what happened.

 

By the time the kids were getting towards their teens, there was an epidemic of "greener pastures" coming from the men's points of view. A very great percentage of the fathers of my peers either had affairs (and got caught, and divorced), or left their wives for much younger women.

 

The first wives had spent their youths helping to support their husbands' burgeoning careers, been out of the work force, and still had kids at home.

 

Lots of these women got a raw deal in the divorce (SOME, not all). Frequently they were too blindsided to fight, or to know how to fight. I believe this was the beginning of the huge epidemic of divorce that was to become "normal" after a while. There weren't even many cut throat divorce attorneys ready to benefit from such a scenario, though they certainly developed quickly as the niche for them became obvious. That's when more ex husbands got "taken to the cleaners."

 

112233, I know that the scenario you presented does exist, but it did not come out of a vacuum. It's certainly unjust, but it is part of a continuum.

[Tony]

I regret that this thread has degenerated into an off topic circus which includes many who dislike women. These posts are not appropriate for our forums. This has gone on way too long. No more women hating posts in our forums, PLEASE! If you dislike women, go elsewhere on the Internet because this kind of bias does not lend itself to healthy, wise advice giving. Thank you!