I want to like this post, but I think it misses crucial points. One such point is that many women who become single mothers find themselves in that situation because of reproductive coercion tactics on the parts of the men they are with. For example, those men sabotage birth control and pretend that the woman was just unlucky to have her contraceptive fail, only revealing what they have done when the woman is well into the pregnancy. Some use actual abuse as well. This happens A LOT among blacks, where the women are more educated than the men, and tend to be more willing to date down socioeconomic hierarchies. They end up with these men because of culture and ither social pressures. Women who are with men who are lower socioeconomic status than them have the higher rates of domestic violence for the same reasons - the men want to humble them but mate guard. Food for thought.
I wish that the federal government would just foot the bill for women to have long acting birth control like IUDs. I would suspect that it is a lot harder for an abusive man to sabotage something like an IUD or implant.
Using a reliable form of birth control seems easy to someone like Bryan, who is rational, thoughtful, self-disciplined, and good at emotional regulation. Not all of us are like Bryan.
Agreed, but please let's stop subsidising unproductive, indisciplined people with poor impulse control. In the West, welfare is throwing evolution into reverse.
Unproductive people make unproductive life choices and suffer unproductive life outcomes.
Punishing (through taxation) productive people making productive life choices and experiencing productive life outcomes is insane.
I wonder if your analysis or opinion has changed or become more nuanced in the 10ish years since you first wrote this? But I wouldn't expect much from the person who believes that many mental illnesses are "choices".
It's an extreme oversimplication to believe that birth control is "cheap and reliable" for *women*. Condoms are the closest to both cheap AND reliable but require the man to cooperate for them. And too often women only have the "choice" between their man not wearing a condom or, if the woman tries to refuse sex, he does violence against her.
What if a woman fears she will never meet a man who both meets her standards and is willing to marry her? In lower-class American communities, never marrying is now the typical way of life. In such a case, what is the point of telling women “wait to have kids until you are married,” when realistically they will never get married?
Women's self-esteem as regards their prospects is such an underdiscussed topic. Thank you for bringing it up. I grew up working class, and I never felt unlovable and unmarriageable (though I know many who have). I have also been adamant about not wanting to be a single mum and about wanting to marry. The males in my area arr NOT desirable, and as an educated woman (recently became a lawyer), they do not want to marry me (though many have tried, unsuccessfully, to inveigle me into giving them attention in an effort to trap and humble me). I am 30 now, and my best bet is to migrate to a country with more desirable men, so I can find a husband. I am making arrangements to do so through grad school, as other means of immigration are quite difficult and quite expensive). I cannot say that many women born into my circumstances have been able to give themselves that option. I was lucky to be born with the aptitude. Those who have it and can understand the male desire to humble and trap them before they can become something do so. My main hope is to avoid rape with as much skill, and hope for the best when I move abroad.
Poor single women (in the US) have children IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR WELFARE. They are LEGALLY, STATISTICALLY poor and need to remain so. If they seem poor receiving welfare, that is because they either spend the money on drugs and/or give the money to men to spend on drugs and guns. When the kid turns 18, they lose welfare unless they have MORE kids. One reason they can't/don't marry the fathers is because they copulate with so many different men, they don't know who the father(s) is(are), at least not without DNA paternity tests, which require specimens, etc. If the test identifies a rich, reachable man (rarely), they can (and do) legally enforce support from said man(men).
Mostly true, and an excellent way of ensuring a low fertility rate.
In countries where women are able to abstain or use birth control until they find a reliable man, and not have kids until they can afford to do so, women have far fewer kids.
This is a main reason that East Asian birth rates are dropping faster than elsewhere.
Mt. Aunt and Uncle fall under the poverty guidelines. The family trust owns their home, all of their income is not taxable (muni-bonds and the like), and they live very well.
Others in retirement collect one, two, or three pension checks or annuity distributions each month and earn below the poverty level. Some have even been offered state assistance!
The stats need more refinements to the input data.
Is it “irresponsible to have kids you can’t afford to support”? If you cannot afford to support them *yourself*, and—very likely—*no one else will support them*, then, yes, it is irresponsible. But if, very likely, private charity will step in or, better yet, a government program will provide support, then, no, it is not irresponsible.
I want to like this post, but I think it misses crucial points. One such point is that many women who become single mothers find themselves in that situation because of reproductive coercion tactics on the parts of the men they are with. For example, those men sabotage birth control and pretend that the woman was just unlucky to have her contraceptive fail, only revealing what they have done when the woman is well into the pregnancy. Some use actual abuse as well. This happens A LOT among blacks, where the women are more educated than the men, and tend to be more willing to date down socioeconomic hierarchies. They end up with these men because of culture and ither social pressures. Women who are with men who are lower socioeconomic status than them have the higher rates of domestic violence for the same reasons - the men want to humble them but mate guard. Food for thought.
I wish that the federal government would just foot the bill for women to have long acting birth control like IUDs. I would suspect that it is a lot harder for an abusive man to sabotage something like an IUD or implant.
Certainly harder to sabotage. Not surenabout government funding, but maybe. That tests my libertarian tendencies.
Do you have hard numbers on how often such things happen?
This gives an overview of the phenomenon and contains data on various forms: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5577387/
Using a reliable form of birth control seems easy to someone like Bryan, who is rational, thoughtful, self-disciplined, and good at emotional regulation. Not all of us are like Bryan.
Agreed, but please let's stop subsidising unproductive, indisciplined people with poor impulse control. In the West, welfare is throwing evolution into reverse.
Unproductive people make unproductive life choices and suffer unproductive life outcomes.
Punishing (through taxation) productive people making productive life choices and experiencing productive life outcomes is insane.
I wonder if your analysis or opinion has changed or become more nuanced in the 10ish years since you first wrote this? But I wouldn't expect much from the person who believes that many mental illnesses are "choices".
It's an extreme oversimplication to believe that birth control is "cheap and reliable" for *women*. Condoms are the closest to both cheap AND reliable but require the man to cooperate for them. And too often women only have the "choice" between their man not wearing a condom or, if the woman tries to refuse sex, he does violence against her.
What if a woman fears she will never meet a man who both meets her standards and is willing to marry her? In lower-class American communities, never marrying is now the typical way of life. In such a case, what is the point of telling women “wait to have kids until you are married,” when realistically they will never get married?
Women's self-esteem as regards their prospects is such an underdiscussed topic. Thank you for bringing it up. I grew up working class, and I never felt unlovable and unmarriageable (though I know many who have). I have also been adamant about not wanting to be a single mum and about wanting to marry. The males in my area arr NOT desirable, and as an educated woman (recently became a lawyer), they do not want to marry me (though many have tried, unsuccessfully, to inveigle me into giving them attention in an effort to trap and humble me). I am 30 now, and my best bet is to migrate to a country with more desirable men, so I can find a husband. I am making arrangements to do so through grad school, as other means of immigration are quite difficult and quite expensive). I cannot say that many women born into my circumstances have been able to give themselves that option. I was lucky to be born with the aptitude. Those who have it and can understand the male desire to humble and trap them before they can become something do so. My main hope is to avoid rape with as much skill, and hope for the best when I move abroad.
Forgive my typos. Small screen and multi-tasking.
Poor single women (in the US) have children IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR WELFARE. They are LEGALLY, STATISTICALLY poor and need to remain so. If they seem poor receiving welfare, that is because they either spend the money on drugs and/or give the money to men to spend on drugs and guns. When the kid turns 18, they lose welfare unless they have MORE kids. One reason they can't/don't marry the fathers is because they copulate with so many different men, they don't know who the father(s) is(are), at least not without DNA paternity tests, which require specimens, etc. If the test identifies a rich, reachable man (rarely), they can (and do) legally enforce support from said man(men).
Mostly true, and an excellent way of ensuring a low fertility rate.
In countries where women are able to abstain or use birth control until they find a reliable man, and not have kids until they can afford to do so, women have far fewer kids.
This is a main reason that East Asian birth rates are dropping faster than elsewhere.
One oversimplification begets another?
Mt. Aunt and Uncle fall under the poverty guidelines. The family trust owns their home, all of their income is not taxable (muni-bonds and the like), and they live very well.
Others in retirement collect one, two, or three pension checks or annuity distributions each month and earn below the poverty level. Some have even been offered state assistance!
The stats need more refinements to the input data.
Is it “irresponsible to have kids you can’t afford to support”? If you cannot afford to support them *yourself*, and—very likely—*no one else will support them*, then, yes, it is irresponsible. But if, very likely, private charity will step in or, better yet, a government program will provide support, then, no, it is not irresponsible.