The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Judgmental Bitch Meets Online Dating

I regularly peruse a variety of blogs including those of single women. I also often look at feminist blogs. Sometimes, the feminist bloggers post on their own, personal lives. While I find feminism to generally be a socially corrosive ideology, feminist bloggers do tend to express their thoughts – especially regarding their personal lives – a bit better than some ditzy dame bitching online about her husband or the lack of a good manicure place in her neighborhood.

This particular blogger is a twenty something New York City attorney. She’s certainly attractive, perhaps an 8/8 (man jaw alert!). Given her career, political activism, political philosphy, she would require hard asshole Game to bed her.

I’m not going to link directly to the blog where she blogged the post.  The cross post would be picked up by WordPress and that would land a bunch of young feminists squarely into my part of the Net and squarely in the middle of the Manosphere. I also request any comments to not link to the blog post should it be found.

She is writing honestly about her online dating experiences and I’ve snagged a couple of good paragraphs to comment on:

I got a lot of stupid, sleazy and/or borderline-illiterate messages which I deleted after circulating to friends for laughs, but the handful of dudes I actually met in real life (which to be fair was a grand total of like 5 dudes, so small sample size) were all totally nice and normal and I’ve remained friendly with a few, even if I didn’t end up wanting to boyfriend any of them.

What’s particularly nice about online dating, though, is the ability to auto-eliminate the people who you definitely are not going to get along with. He lists The Da Vinci Code as his favorite book? Rejected. Are those wrap-around Oakleys? Rejected. Really, Creed? Rejected. Shirtless photo? Rejected. “I like to have fun and hang out with my friends.” Original! Rejected. Did he really not spell-check this thing? Rejected. Etc etc.

An attractive 20-something girl has the luxury of screening out for such mind-blowingly shallow reasons. The problem is that when she finds herself single again in her late thirties – after the big cash-out divorce from her beta provider husband and hitting the wall of attractiveness – she will still have this selection process baggage left over from her 20s. As a side note, she currently only dates “hot men”.

Online dating makes it easier to be a judgmental bitch, I guess is what I’m saying. And in matters of the heart, I think being a judgmental bitch is a pretty good idea. That doesn’t mean rejecting people for any perceived flaw — the thing about people is that everyone is terribly flawed, and the trick is finding someone whose flaws are tolerable and maybe even kind of endearing, or at least not entirely soul-crushing — but it does mean knowing what you can’t deal with, and not involving yourself with someone out of a sense of obligation or desperation or “I’m a nice person”-ness. Straight women especially are often told that we’re too picky, and if we ever want to get married we should accept the overtures of any Good Men who cross out paths. That is ridiculous. Be picky and end up with someone you actually like.

She identifies herself as a judgmental bitch. She’s likely a “fiesty” girl with a “strong and independent” nature. The alphas she meets online in New York City will simply hump and dump her because, well, she’s a judgmental bitch. She is quite likely under the delusion that men will find her career and achievements attractive and so will be suprised as hell that she’s been humped and dumped so many times before she meets her beta provider.

There’s no point going on about how her life will turn out. Red pill men already know. There are, however, some key points about online dating to take away:

  • Messages and profiles are used for female, public amusement.
  • Online dating actually works to get normal dates.
  • Women will reject for the slightest of reasons.
  • Beware of bossy and domineering women
Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

62 thoughts on “Judgmental Bitch Meets Online Dating

  1. Oh dear God.

  2. This post nails how most women view online dating – no matter what their status.

  3. odysseus on said:

    PM describes this woman as “an attractive 20-something girl” from NYC. She sounds exactly like the average-looking 40-something women I have met though online dating in small-town America. Women do not outgrow their unrealistic expectations. When a woman “settles” for something less than super alpha (i.e. someone of comparable sexual market value to herself), she will take out her resentment on the poor sucker foolish enough to get entangled with her.

  4. detinennui32 on said:

    ::rolls eyes::

  5. My Name Is Jim on said:

    She describes all you need to know about the Five Dudes in those words, nice and normal. Seems like your average beta still has a place in the single hypergamist’s life, she requires a few going-nowhere dates with them every once in a while, just to keep her convinced she’s hot and make sure the bad boys she loves don’t grind down her ego.

    These women aren’t like most, they aren’t looking for a beta provider now or ever. I don’t remember the show well, but remember that guy who was Murphy Brown’s handyman? Eventually they’ll want something like that. Oh, he might be a college professor by trade, but he still serves the same function for her. Her companionate clueless dupe who she can boss around. She’d rather have had Mr. Big, but the masculine is attracted to the feminine, not the slightly less masculine than itself, and they just don’t have that in them.

    • “She requires a few going-nowhere dates with them every once in a while, just to keep her convinced she’s hot and make sure the bad boys she loves don’t grind down her ego.”

      “The masculine is attracted to the feminine, not the slightly less masculine than itself.”

      Spot on, Jim.

  6. 1lettuce on said:

    That is… wow. I guess I’d describe her writing as ‘headache inducing’.

  7. Before feminism, this woman would have been an elementry school teacher who would have been happily married to a STEM guy, whose sons would have been super smart and daughters would have been feminine and gorgeous, and they, and others like her, would have pushed western society to new heights.

    Now, she’s a bitch who will unlikely have children, and there will be one more genetically capable guy deprived a woman who, in an earlier time, would have been a beautiful and dutiful wife. What a fucking waste.

    Western culture deserves to die out. Let our future women do circles about Kabba’s in burqua’s. That’s what they deserve.

  8. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: On the Run Edition

  9. Anonymous on said:

    Spoiled beyatch, welcome to embittered spinsterhood because “all men suck” or some such. Enjoy!

  10. Udolipixie on said:

    Did you purposefully omit where she stated/implied she thinks men care for her career/achievement?

    Perhaps she thinks her looks will get a guy considering she is young & you called her attractive.

    Also considering perhaps she dates hot men because she finds them her equal in herattractiveness.

    Also what you think is shallow reasons may just be things she can’t tolerate.

    Just like some guys refuse to date women who watch sex & the city or listen to pop music.

    If something is a turnoff shallow or not it is a turnoff. Just like shallow or not most guys do not consider a woman they aren’t attracted to as a partner.

  11. Udolipixie on said:

    So circles & burkas are what future women deserve for depriving men of having a woman?

    To me no woman is obligated or owes a person sex, relationship, marriage, or companionship unless he paid for those specific things and she tried to cheat him.

    Also these deprived males can get a mail order bride to be their dutiful beautiful wife.

    As for this earlier time…are you were plenty of depressed woman and women who hated/resented their husbands?

    Plenty of horror stories from the majority of women I talked to who existed in the earlier times you are probably talking about.

    Or was just male happiness and men getting a dutiful beautiful wife your concern?

    I’m guessing these beautiful wives don’t have equally physically attractive husbands.

    • Why is it when men argue for male interests, a woman’s first instinct is to shame him?

      • udolipixie on said:

        There is a way to look out for male interests while being rational.

        How is saying future women deserve to do circles about Kabba’s in burqua’s.because a guy is deprived of having a partner looking out for male interests rationally?

        It’s more of getting upset/shaming women for not doling out sex, relationships, marriage, and companionship because he’s genetically capable.

        No one is obligated to give those things to another person unless that person paid for them.

        All irrational self-serving solutions that are just shaming others for not suiting your needs should be questioned.

        Rationally looking out for male interests would be to get men partners that want to be with them rather than suggesting women deserve ill treatment for not doling out themselves to men.

      • “How is saying future women deserve to do circles about Kabba’s in burqua’s.because a guy is deprived of having a partner looking out for male interests rationally?”

        How is saying a man needs to man up for a slut, looking out for male interests rationally?

        “It’s more of getting upset/shaming women for not doling out sex, relationships, marriage, and companionship because he’s genetically capable.”

        It’s more of getting upset/shaming men for not doling out cash, material things, and status because she’s genetically capable.

        “No one is obligated to give those things to another person unless that person paid for them.”
        That’s why many men don’t go on dates anymore. It’s an expensive show with a talk later.
        Show = how she looks.
        Talk = you’re such a nice guy, but…

        “All irrational self-serving solutions that are just shaming others for not suiting your needs should be questioned.”
        Sluts don’t suit my needs, but they need to be shamed, otherwise other women will follow their bad example. Look at Sex and The City.

        “Rationally looking out for male interests would be to get men partners that want to be with them rather than suggesting women deserve ill treatment for not doling out themselves to men.”
        Rationally looking out for male interests would be to improve themselves and stay out of the way of women who want to use them or penalise women that try to do them wrong. Women reinforce their selection of men through how many other women get jealous when they are alone with him.

        Most Women don’t value men for themselves … they value men based on how many other women think they’re the bee’s knees.

  12. Have you considered that such hyperbolic language stems from the fact that there are a lot — a whole lot — of frustrated, pissed off and angry men out there? There’s a reason for that. And it’s not that we’re not getting enough fiber in our diet.

    You’re right, no one is obligated to give anything to anyone, save taxes. But that also includes the obligation to protect and defend those women who chose to eschew and demean men and masculinity. If nothing else, men are not obligated to share their company with women who feel entitled to it when it suits them. For every single woman in her late 30s with baby-rabies I know, desperate for a last-minute Mr. Right, there’s a single dude who would rather play XBox and whack off to internet porn rather than put up with her bullshit out there. In a few years he’ll marry a younger, less demanding woman — perhaps from a foreign country — to have his babies, and his female counterpart will end up getting a lot of cats, a vibrator, and talking loudly about how “she doesn’t need a man” to her girlfriends before she eventually dies alone.

    Women don’t owe us a damn thing, true. But that means we don’t owe them a damn thing, either. And you might want to reassess the consequences of that line of thought.

    • I am quite aware that the language from his comment stems from anger & frustration.

      Hence why I commented on it.

      Hence why I commented on your comment that an irrational self-entitled comment stemming from anger & frustration is looking for male interests.

      While it does argue for male interests it doesn’t do that in a rational way.

      Unless that interest is also to have the male gender portrayed as angry bitter men who feel women are their to serve their needs & are obligated to dole out sex, companionship, relationships, and marriages whether she wants to be with him or not otherwise they deserve ill treatment.

      Though perhaps that is the interest with your comment that I am shaming arguing for male interests rather than shaming irrationality stemming from anger & frustration.

      As for the rest of your comment.

      Nowhere do I state or imply men are obligated to protect & defend any woman much less women they feel demean them.
      I’m unsure why you added in that men aren’t obligated to do such.

      After all the police & army exist to protect & defend it’s citizens. While some men in the police & army may have joined to protect & defend women the plentiful of those I’ve met and talked to did so because of their family history or because they wanted to serve their country & it’s citizens.

      Men can wish ill, rape, or murder women all they wish, take enjoyment from such incidents or stand by and watch it occur. I was questioning the irrationality in the implication that women are obligated to dole out things for men.

      Of course men aren’t obligated to dole out sex, companionship, relationships, and marriages to women.

      I already stated this:
      “No one is obligated to give those things to another person unless that person paid for them.”

      So it wasn’t a gender issue as it clearly works both ways.

      While your cliche baby crazy old woman/old man getting younger hotter woman seems to also reek of some anger & frustration against women it does show one of the many advantages men have in dating- the ability to date & marry much younger.

      Or you just perhaps believe that people without partners will be miserable and whining about how the opposite gender doesn’t want them or how they don’t need them.

      I personally think the lady in your scenario has a better life than going for a last-minute Mr.Right and most likely ending up one of the 50% of women who regret their marriages.

      Though why didn’t she just surrogate, adopt, or in vitro to fulfill her baby-crazy needs? You don’t need man to have a child.

      Rather than defend/excuse an irrational angry comment suggesting women deserve ill treatment for depriving men of their company why not promote the advantages of dating & alternatives.

      Lots of alternatives to feeling owed a woman such as going to other places in your country, going to other countries, p*rn, dolls, mail order brides.

      Or doing what you portrayed negatively in the cliche cat lady finding other emotional & sexual outlets- pocket p*ssy being the equivalent to a dildo to me.

      I see no consequences of the line of thought neither genders is obligated or owes the other sex, companionship, relationships, or marriages.

      I do see consequences in the line of thought that women are obligated to dole things out for men because he exists/genetically capable otherwise they deserve ill treatment.

      That line of thought will just have several men thinking since women deprived me of something they owe me then they deserve bad things. I will not engage in anything that is positive to them such as being in the police force or army because those protect & defend it’s citizens and women are citizens.

      Seems however you see a consequence in the line of thought of not owing/obligated especially for women. That women would do best to owe men sex, companionship, relationships, marriages otherwise they’ll be the cliche unhappy cat lady.

      • Though why didn’t she just surrogate, adopt, or in vitro to fulfill her baby-crazy needs? You don’t need man to have a child.

        No, but you a real father to raise a child.

        Voluntary single-motherhood is a socially dangerous blight on our culture and the most extreme form of a woman’s selfishness

      • Egh I differ on needing a real father and/or mother to raise a child.

        Plenty of homosexuals have raised a child. The social stigma has been shown to have a far more negative impact than not having a real father and mother.

        I believe you just need love, discipline, and the finances to raise a child.

        How is voluntary single-motherhood a socially dangerous blight on our culture? Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall.

        Egh I differ on the selfishness as well. If it is selfish to not have a real father raise a child at least in voluntary single motherhood it’s a healthy form of it. Getting a man solely for the sake of having a real father to raise the child when you don’t want a man but just the child will most likely end up as one of those 50% of marriages where the woman is unhappy and regrets marrying. With possibilities such as a sexless marriage as he is just there to raise the child, cheating for both parties as they have sexual needs, and ultimately a divorce.

        Far better to have a voluntary single mother than a mother & father where the mother is unhappy and hates/resents the man. That’s been shown to be unhealthy for the child.

      • @udolipixie

        The phrase, “Something is better than nothing” does not imply that the something is the preferred or desirable outcome.

        Saying a homosexual couple or voluntary single motherhood are just as dandy for a child as a mother and father because of the negative impacts of involuntary single motherhood is like saying a slightly below average height male is a fucking giant because he’s taller than a midget.

        We would all agree that just because you’re taller than a midget, doesn’t mean you’re tall.

        Thanks for playing, though.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Getting a man solely for the sake of having a real father to raise the child when you don’t want a man but just the child will most likely end up as one of those 50% of marriages where the woman is unhappy and regrets marrying.

        And here is the ultimate hypocrisy in what passes for feminist reasoning. Woman gets married, but doesn’t really “need” a man, so after she has the kids she was desperate for to validate her as a woman, she decides to become unhaaappy and divorce, likely depriving her husband of his children and the children of a needed father. And this was likely her plan all along.

        Of course, what Ms. entitlementpixie conveniently leaves out is that while she doesn’t think she needs a man (or children a father), she’ll be quite happy to have that man’s paycheck sent to her every month.

        Thus is revealed the underlying deceit of feminism when it comes to “single motherhood.” They need a man’s genetic material and his income but they don’t feel any need to honor their obligations to their husbands and children if it becomes in anyway inconvenient.

  13. The Geographer on said:

    The intact family unit (father and mother together) performs the best on every measurable outcome we have on the well-being of children and, therefore, society. Your assessment of selfishness isn’t even legitimate. I suggest you study objectivism if you want to have a clue about what you’re talking.

    • udolipixie on said:

      I do have a clue of what I’m talking about.

      The intact family unit (mother & father) does not perform best on every measurable outcome if the parties are unhappy.

      It performs best when both parties are happy together. The relationship itself has to be intact simply having a mother & father doesn’t make it an intact family unit.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Translation:

        “But I’m unhaaappy! So I can ditch my kids’ dad (but not his paycheck) so that I’m ‘fulfilled.’ So what if it screws up the kids? As long as I’m haaappy, my feminist sisters will supply all of the rationalization I need to keep from recognizing how my selfish choices are hurting them”

      • @PRay

        1. “How is saying a man needs to man up for a slut, looking out for male interests rationally?”

        Show me where I stated or implied a man needs to man up for a slut.

        2. “It’s more of getting upset/shaming men for not doling out cash, material things, and status because she’s genetically capable.”
        That would be a nice turnaround if I had stated or implied that men who don’t dole me out cash, material things, and status deserve ill treatment.

        Or if I had made any statement/implication that I am entitled to that for being a female.

        Since I had not I’m unsure of how this turnaround applies here since there has been no statement/implication that men who don’t dole those things out deserve ill treatment.

        3. “That’s why many men don’t go on dates anymore. It’s an expensive show with a talk later.
        Show = how she looks.
        Talk = you’re such a nice guy, but…”

        Cool there’s plenty of alternatives if you feel something doesn’t work out for you.

        A bit of a poor view of the male gender you have if you think men don’t go on dates anymore because to them dates = the person is obligated to give them sex, companionship, relationships, and marriage.

        4. “Sluts don’t suit my needs, but they need to be shamed, otherwise other women will follow their bad example. Look at Sex and The City.”

        Egh…not sure why you’re so focused on sluts.

        This was about shaming/wishing ill on others for not doling you sex, companionship, relationships, and marriages because you feel entitled to it for existing.

        5. “Rationally looking out for male interests would be to improve themselves and stay out of the way of women who want to use them or penalise women that try to do them wrong.”

        That’s pretty much an expansion of this: “get men partners that want to be with them”

        The expansion being get partners who want to be with you for the right reasons. So clearly avoiding those who aren’t there for the right reasons would be.

        Self-improvement to me is a lifelong journey..oops on me for thinking most people didn’t buy the “be yourself” bs but rather thought “be the best you”

        6. “Most Women don’t value men for themselves … they value men based on how many other women think they’re the bee’s knees.”

        Interesting generalization not unlike the plentiful women who state men are incapable of deep emotional connections and that men only value women for their outwards appearance aka youth/beauty.

        Seeings as how there’s no such study done or they and you most likely aren’t a mindreader I just brush off such generalizations.

  14. just visiting on said:

    The impact of not having a father to help love and raise children has been well documented. As human beings do we really need stats to tell us this anyway?

    • udolipixie on said:

      It’s been documented.

      However the notion that without a father the child automatically falls prey to documented stats is widely an inaccurate portrayal of data.

      That percentage is majorly occurs in involuntarily single motherhood, divorcees, and widows.

      Documented data shows that different groups/family units are affected differently from the absence of a mother or father.

  15. udolipixie on said:

    @Alpha
    Seems like the phrase “something is better than nothing” would actually better apply to theprivateman’s statement.

    The whole the child needs a real father so being a voluntary single mother is selfish is actually suggesting that a woman who does not want a man nut just a child should get one because something is better than nothing.

    That it’s better for her to be unhappy so the child can have a real father than for her to voluntarily be single since a father is better than no father.

    When did I say a homosexual couple or voluntary single motherhood are just as dandy for a child as a mother and father because of the negative impacts of involuntary single motherhood?

    Show me where I stated that.

    Just because that’s your interpretation or projection doesn’t make it my response.

    I said I differ on needing a mother/father not that homosexual/single motherhood is just as dandy.

    That’s not stating homosexual/single couples are just as dandy as mother/father couples. It’s more like love, discipline, and having the finances will raise a healthy well-adjusted child are needed to raise a child rather than a real father & real mother.

    I guess you don’t recall:
    “Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall.”

    Thanks for playing though.

    • Your argument here contradicts your premise, observe:

      Egh I differ on needing a real father and/or mother to raise a child.

      I believe you just need love, discipline, and the finances to raise a child.

      Here, you state your premise: As long as you have love, discipline, and appropriate finances, the exact model of parenting is irrelevant. ie, it doesn’t matter if you have two daddies, or two mommies, or just a mommy – as long as there is love, discipline, and financial stability.

      I can prove this is what you think because you said, “I believe you JUST NEED….” without listing a specific parental model.

      You later contradict this yourself, when you say, twice now by your own admission,

      Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall.

      Why don’t you go home now, it has to be hard word defending a falsehood.

      • Interesting that you couldn’t answer this:
        When did I say a homosexual couple or voluntary single motherhood are just as dandy for a child as a mother and father because of the negative impacts of involuntary single motherhood?

        The only contradiction here is that you claim here you state your premise wen it’s actually not what I stated but what you projected onto it.

        I stated: “I believe you just need love, discipline, and the finances to raise a child.”

        Not: “As long as you have love, discipline, and appropriate finances, the exact model of parenting is irrelevant. ie, it doesn’t matter if you have two daddies, or two mommies, or just a mommy – as long as there is love, discipline, and financial stability.”

        Show me where I stated the model is irrelevant.

        Though you’ll probably ignore this request as you did the other.

        If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I put:
        ““Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall.”

        If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I make note of the difference between voluntary & involuntary single motherhood. After all my premise as you claim is that long as there is love, finances, and discipline for the child it doesn’t matter.

        If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I make note of the difference between two-person and single person households. After all my premise as you claim is that long as there is love, finances, and discipline for the child it doesn’t matter.

        If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I make note of that happy units fare better than…the happiness of the units weren’t mentioned in my love, discipline, and finances. After all my premise as you claim is that long as there is love, finances, and discipline for the child it doesn’t matter.

        My premise is that a real father/mother is not needed in the context that the person I was responding to had stated aka any father is better than no father situation.

        Why don’t you go home now, it has to be hard work..not word… defending a falsehood.

  16. @LostSailor
    Actual Translation:
    Unhappy couples are detriment to a child’s well-being on pretty much the same level as a divorced couple.

    An unhappy family unit screws up the kids.

    Seems like you have an issue with feminism since feminism was not even the topic matter or subject.

    Rather data showing that unhappy family units are bad for raising children.

    • LostSailor on said:

      Why am I not surprised that undulatingpixie doesn’t seem to understand what she is saying?

      To defend single motherhood, she repeatedly asserts that “unhaaappy” marriages are detrimental to children on par or worse than divorced single motherhood. So, the answer to “unhaaaappy!” marriage is divorce, since it apparently makes no difference to the kids and at least Mom can fulfill herself at a man’s expense in single motherhood.

      Of course, she’s wrong about there being par between “unhaaaappy” marriages and divorced single motherhood (note that no support or evidence is supplied, natch). But it’s interesting that her go-to solution is divorce and rationalization. Nowhere does she even for a moment consider why a marriage (read: woman) might be “unhaaaapppy!” She doesn’t consider it at all important. The only important thing is a woman–somewhere, anywhere–might be “unhaaaapppy” and “regret her marriage,” which is apparently intolerable and not worthy of any self-reflection.

      Around these parts, we know quite well why a marriage (read: wife) becomes “unhaaaapppy!” Unselfreflectivepixie will likely be perplexed by this, but women come to “regret” marriage after they, aided and abetted by a feminism-infected culture and media, have emasculated and dominating their beta-provider husbands, causing them to lose respect and attraction to them. Their own behavior is causing their “unhaaapppy!”-ness. But, of course the solution is not to correct the behavior, but to harm their kids and husbands by breaking solemn promises in a vain, selfish attempt at “fulfillment” and alpha cock. Yes, those beta husbands could help if they took the Red Pill, but that’s a different post.

      And, darlin’, the deceit of feminism is always the “topic matter or subject” underlying all of this. I have no problem at all with equal rights under law for women, but, of course, that is not what feminism is. I don’t actually expect you to understand.

      • Not sure if my comment will be posted as I think the blog owner doesn’t like my comments.

        1. I didn’t defend single motherhood by asserting unhappy units are detrimental on par or worse than divorced units.

        I stated the unhappy units were as detrimental as divorced units in response to one who believed that mom/dad units surpassed all on every level. I was showing that it is happy mom/dad units that surpass not just mom/dad units.

        If anything I “defended” *voluntary* single motherhood by stating that it has been shown to be far better than involuntary.

        2. Show me where/when I state that the automatic answer to an unhappy marriage was divorce.

        I stated:
        “Getting a man solely for the sake of having a real father to raise the child when you don’t want a man but just the child will most likely end up as one of those 50% of marriages where the woman is unhappy and regrets marrying. With possibilities such as a sexless marriage as he is just there to raise the child, cheating for both parties as they have sexual needs, and ultimately a divorce.”

        That is showing the possible negatives of marrying just to have a “real father” not stating unhappy marriage automatically divorce.

        I’m quite unsure of how you got that to mean such as thing..

        3. “But it’s interesting that her go-to solution is divorce and rationalization.”

        Show me where/when I stated or implied that divorce is the automatic solution.

        Seems like I’m not unselfreflectivepixie but that you are projecting quite a bit of your own issues onto me. As well as claiming things I have never stated/implied but that your issues have interpreted.

        4. As far around these parts we know quite well why a wife becomes unhappy.

        The scenario was women who want to be mothers but don’t want a husband but who choose to marry a man solely to have a “real father” raise the kids possibly ending up in divorced.

        I heavily doubt that being aided by feminism is why such women become unhappy & regret the marriage.

        I think it’s more of they never truly wanted to be married in the first place. Nor did they truly want to be with the man in the first place.
        Seems more like it’s they do not & did not from the beginning want the man other than to have a sperm donor/father figure.

        5. The topic/subject is not deceit of feminism. That’s you r topic/subject.

        It’s the possible negative outcomes of the notion of a child needs a “real father” suggesting that women who only want a child or children should go out & marry a man solely to have a “real father”.

        Unless you can tell me how feminism deceit plays into telling women they should marry men they do not want so the child can have a “real father”?

        though I’ve stated before most feminists in my experiences/observations are against marrying a man solely to have a “real father”.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Let’s unpack imapixie’s statements here and the supposed logic therein. I’ll try to go slowly and use uncomplicated words:

        Plenty of homosexuals have raised a child. The social stigma has been shown to have a far more negative impact than not having a real father and mother.

        Simply raising a child is different from raising a well-adjusted child. I must assume that “real father and real mother” refer to heterosexual married couples that are biological parents. So the “real” family, to borrow your terms, wins.

        How is voluntary single-motherhood a socially dangerous blight on our culture? Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall.

        Here, you admit again that two-parent households have the best outcome.
        We’ll get to your “involuntary single-motherhood” in a moment.

        If it is selfish to not have a real father raise a child at least in voluntary single motherhood it’s a healthy form of it. Getting a man solely for the sake of having a real father to raise the child when you don’t want a man but just the child will most likely end up as one of those 50% of marriages where the woman is unhappy and regrets marrying.

        No, it’s not healthy. And few women “get” a man when they don’t want one. But since “voluntary” single-motherhood is preferable to being in an unhappy marriage, the only possible outcome is divorce. Whether you later advocate that these women shouldn’t have ever gotten married, implicitly accusing them of deceit in marrying in the first place, is beside the point. That ship has sailed. You make no mention of healing “unhaaappy” marriages; you only cite that such marriages normally end in divorce. So, by promoting “voluntary” single-motherhood over an “unhaaappy” marriage, you are implicitly advocating for divorce in those circumstances.

        Show me where/when I stated or implied that divorce is the automatic solution….Seems like I’m not unselfreflectivepixie but that you are projecting quite a bit of your own issues onto me. As well as claiming things I have never stated/implied but that your issues have interpreted.

        Done. And…cue the projection trope! I love this one. When you can’t argue the issues and find yourself in a corner, it’s always “projection.” My only “issues” are with illogic and political correctness.

        The scenario was women who want to be mothers but don’t want a husband but who choose to marry a man solely to have a “real father” raise the kids possibly ending up in divorced….I heavily doubt that being aided by feminism is why such women become unhappy & regret the marriage.

        Sorry, dearie, but that was you’re own, invented scenario. And it’s a straw man at that. The vast majority of women marry because they want both children and a husband. Increasingly, they are waiting until they have a “career” and while they enjoy a string of romps and serial short-term relationships with hot men (see the subject of the original post). When they start to hit the wall of attractiveness and fertility, they get serious about getting a man to commit, but the hot guys either won’t or are no longer interested. So they find a nice guy to be husband and father. They are pretty much genuine in their desire for both.

        But after they punch out a few kids, two things happen that cause those who succumb to be “unhaaappy!” Those two things are feminism and hypergamy. The hypergamy (the innate urge to have a higher-status man) causes her to lose interest in her stable but perhaps not too exciting provider husband and start thinking about the hot men she had and still could (I’m still attractive, dammit, all my girlfriend tell me so!). Then feminism tells her that she doesn’t need a man and her children really don’t need a father (which is your argument); beside feminism has seen to it that she can walk any time and take with her most of her husband’s assets for the foreseeable future. And cue the divorce; problem solved.

        Except for the part where she’s increased the likelihood that her children will be screwed up because they don’t “need” a “real” father. I’m sure the string of desperate ONSs and short-term relationships will help with that.

        Finally, let’s get back to your invented dichotomy of “voluntary” vs. “involuntary” single-motherhood. The reality is that all single-motherhood is entirely voluntary. With a woman controlling her reproductive options, she really only becomes a mother if she really wants to. The outliers are where husbands women still want leave and cases of abuse (real abuse, not the raft of false abuse claims made by many divorcing women). There’s only really one type of “involuntary” single-motherhood that would fit. We call those women “widows.”

      • udolipixie on said:

        1. Simply raising a child is different from raising a well-adjusted child.

        In fact my statement you quoted actually goes with your statement not against it.
        “Plenty of homosexuals have raised a child. The social stigma has been shown to have a far more negative impact than not having a real father and mother.”

        That clearly states studies have shown that the stigma of a homo unit tend to be more detrimental for the child than not having a real father/mother.

        I’m guessing you missed the bit where it was in response to theprivateman’s statement it takes a “real father” to raise a child.

        My homo unit statement was showing him that other units can raise a child. That raising a child is not something that only takes a real father. Recall your difference between raising a child & raising a well-adjusted child.

        The social stigma bit was showing that “any father is better than no father” implication I got was generally incorrect as the homo couples child/ren was more affected by stigma than not having a “real father/mother”. The stigma bit also obviously showcasing how what compromises the model impacts the child/ren’s being well-adjusted.

        Quite unsure why you felt the need to state there’s a difference between raising a child & raising a well-adjusted child.

        My statements on what people/person compromising the model and the effect on the child implies that.

        2. Here, you admit again that two-parent households have the best outcome.

        Admit? Are you implying that I denied it.

        I had already stated it.

        In fact I even clarify that it is happy two-person units that have the best outcome not just two-person units.

        You bring up “admit” as if I had stated the model being what people/person compromises the unit is irrelevant.

        You bring up “admit”as if I had stated that there is no difference in units…when I clearly showed differences in units being one person vs two person & involuntary single motherhood vs voluntary single motherhood.

        Perhaps you need to read my comment to Alpha.

        3. No, it’s not healthy. And few women “get” a man when they don’t want one.
        Egh different opinions on healthy.

        As well as different experiences. I’ve seen multiple women get a man committed married when they want one. It may not be a may they want but they do get a man.

        4. You make no mention of healing “unhaaappy” marriages; you only cite that such marriages normally end in divorce.

        Perhaps because my point was the possible negative effects.

        “It’s the possible negative outcomes of the notion of a child needs a “real father” suggesting that women who only want a child or children should go out & marry a man solely to have a “real father”.”

        “It was about the notion that a child needs a “real father” hence suggesting that women who want to be voluntary single mothers should just marry a guy because any father is better than no father.”

        Quite unsure as to how why healing unhappy marriages would need to be mentioned when I am listing the possible negative effects of having the mindset “any father is better than no father” as a real father is needed to raise a child.

        Though how would you heal a marriage:
        that began and still is a woman who only wanted child/ren not marriage
        married a guy solely to be a sperm donor/father figure
        she is unhappy with her decision to do so as the weight of not wanting the man or the marriage from the beginning has gotten to her

        4. You only cite that such marriages normally end in divorce.

        Actually I stated it was a possibility.

        Unsure of how possibility = normal..but okay.

        “Getting a man solely for the sake of having a real father to raise the child when you don’t want a man but just the child will most likely end up as one of those 50% of marriages where the woman is unhappy and regrets marrying. With possibilities such as a sexless marriage as he is just there to raise the child, cheating for both parties as they have sexual needs, and ultimately a divorce.”

        “The scenario was women who want to be mothers but don’t want a husband but who choose to marry a man solely to have a “real father” raise the kids possibly ending up in divorced.”

        My only citation was that 50% of women in marriages are unhappy and regret marrying. I didn’t state that these women divorced their husbands I stated they were unhappy & regret marrying them.

        I did give possible outcomes of their unhappiness & I see possible outcome = normally occurs to you.

        5. So, by promoting “voluntary” single-motherhood over an “unhaaappy” marriage, you are implicitly advocating for divorce in those circumstances.

        Actually I’m promoting voluntary single-motherhood over women who just want child/ren marrying a man solely to be a sperm donor/father figure as they have the notion a “real father” is needed to raise a child.

        So how am I’m advocating divorce isn’t involved since the women won’t be married if what I promote is followed..o.O

        6. Done. And…cue the projection trope! I love this one. When you can’t argue the issues and find yourself in a corner, it’s always “projection.” My only “issues” are with illogic and political correctness.

        Most likely translation: I’ll claim trope because I can’t show you where/when you stated/implied that because you didn’t.

        7. Sorry, dearie, but that was you’re own, invented scenario.

        I never claimed it was anything but my own scenario. In fact I quoted you showing you the scenario stating “I” thereby holding claim to it.

        I was attempting to keep you in the scope of the scenario.

        I was trying to show you that applying she became unhappy & it was aided by feminism to this scenario was a bit irrational.

        As the most understandable reason to me for why she became unhappy is that she was in a marriage from the beginning she didn’t want with a man she didn’t want.

        8. The reality is that all single-motherhood is entirely voluntary. With a woman controlling her reproductive options, she really only becomes a mother if she really wants to.

        Egh that’s a bit of a stretch to me. You can choose to be a mother however you can end up through no choice of your own to be raising the child/ren on your own.

        Such as get married, divorced, and he runs out on the kids.

        Such as get married and he runs out on the kids.

        Such as get married, divorced, and you can’t find any man not even one you don’t want.

      • LostSailor on said:

        Sigh. One more try. It’s really not fair of me entering a the field of logical argument with an unarmed opponent.

        In fact my statement you quoted actually goes with your statement not against it.

        Wishing don’t make it so, honey. It’s still overall an increase in negative outcome. Same-sex or single-mom families overall tend toward delinquent, troubled children. Now you’re just quibbling.

        Admit? Are you implying that I denied it….I had already stated it.

        Just getting you on record. ‘Cause you follow it up with caveats and qualifications that it’s the best family situation for the kids but the “other units” aren’t really so bad. Yes. They are.

        Egh different opinions on healthy.

        Clearly, since you’re advocating for toxic family structures.

        As well as different experiences. I’ve seen multiple women get a man committed married when they want one. It may not be a may they want but they do get a man.

        Reading comprehension must be taxing at times, dearie. I said “few women get a man when they don’t want one,” meaning that your imagined scenario of marrying just to “have a father” when the woman really doesn’t want to marry or have a husband just doesn’t happen.

        I’m skipping down here, because the rest here is you defending your imaginary straw man. Life’s too short.

        Actually I stated it was a possibility…Unsure of how possibility = normal..but okay….My only citation was that 50% of women in marriages are unhappy and regret marrying. I didn’t state that these women divorced their husbands I stated they were unhappy & regret marrying them.

        Aaaannd… cue the work crew of rationalization hamsters in hard hats in to move the goalposts…

        In your post 12/7 @8:24 you implicitly and strongly suggest that 50% of marriages have unhappy women and ultimately end in divorces. Which pretty much matches national statistics that 50% of marriages end in divorce and the vast majority of them are instigated by women.

        Most likely translation: I’ll claim trope because I can’t show you where/when you stated/implied that because you didn’t.

        You’re right: I shouldn’t have used “trope”. I should have used logical fallacy. See 12/7 @8:24.

        I never claimed it was anything but my own scenario. In fact I quoted you showing you the scenario stating “I” thereby holding claim to it….I was attempting to keep you in the scope of the scenario.”

        Then you’re arguing with yourself. It’s a false scenario.

        I was trying to show you that applying she became unhappy & it was aided by feminism to this scenario was a bit irrational.

        So you made up an imaginary alternative, and are flinging it into every comment like a chimp with feces. You really should read around here and related blogs a bit more. The Chateau will really blow your mind.

        It’s not irrational. It’s observable fact that feminist indoctrination of both women and men have pre-disposed women to become unhappy in marriage and men to engage in behaviors that feed into that pre-disposition. This part of the blogosphere is trying to stop men from engaging in those destructive behaviors; the result is usually happier wives/GFs/ONS/FBs.

        I was trying to show you that applying she became unhappy & it was aided by feminism to this scenario was a bit irrational.

        You can choose to be a mother however you can end up through no choice of your own to be raising the child/ren on your own.

        This last bit is precious. Of course, honey, it’s never your fault.

        Such as get married, divorced, and he runs out on the kids.

        Nope. This is voluntary single-motherhood. Unless the man initiated the divorce, it’s all on the gal’s choice. If you can’t get a free ride on his labor and assets, tough. You ditched him because you were “unhaaaappy!”

        Such as get married and he runs out on the kids.

        Then choose your husbands better.

        Such as get married, divorced, and you can’t find any man not even one you don’t want.

        This is my favorite! Sorry, imanillogicalpixie, this is still voluntary single-momhood. This is the likely outcome for a lot of woman. Smart men balk at being on the hook to raise another man’s spawn. Of course only you, MissPixie, would complain about a woman who doesn’t want a man being unable to find one.

      • udolipixie on said:

        Unarmed opponent says the user who can’t show me where/when I stated things he claimed I have.

        1. It’s not wishing in fact I gave a breakdown of why that statement supports “Simply raising a child is different from raising a well-adjusted child. ”

        In fact my statements have been about that.

        What a unit needs to raise a child & the effects of the child based on who compromises the unit showcasing the difference in raising a well-adjusted child.

        Quite unsure of why you feel the need to state there’s still an increase in negative outcome.

        Pretty sure my homo unit social stigma, voluntary vs involuntary, it’s happy hetero units that are best overall show that who compromises the can have an increase of negative outcome.

        2. As for me following up with that two-person units are the best but the other units aren’t really so bad…o.O

        Yeah actually I specified happy hetereo units are the best. So it’s not just two-person units.

        I’d ask for you to show me when/where I stated/implied the other units aren’t really so bad.

        Though since you most likely won’t:
        If I thought the other units weren’t so bad I wouldn’t have made a point to showcase the homo social stigma or label it detrimental. After all isn’t really so bad is is what you got from my statements.

        If I thought the other units weren’t so bad I wouldn’t have have made a point to compare involuntary & voluntary. After all isn’t really so bad is what you got from my statements.

        3. As for me advocating for toxic family structures.
        Egh according to studies most family structures can be toxic.

        The happy hetero family structure is the only one where majority it is the least toxic across the board.

        So really if you want to play the toxic family structure game if the structure is not a happy hetero unit (non step) it’s just a which is less toxic structure bit.

        I’m advocating for the less toxic family structure in a certain scenario.

        That voluntary single-motherhood preferred rather than marrying a man solely to be a sperm donor/father figure.

        Both scenarios are toxic as they aren’t the happy hetereo unit.

        Though to me the voluntary single-motherhood is the less toxic one than the unhappy hetero unit.

        That is under the assumption that the woman can’t keep her act and not let her unhappiness/regret be transparent to the child/ren.

        4. Reading comprehension must be taxing at times, dearie. I said “few women get a man when they don’t want one,” meaning that your imagined scenario of marrying just to “have a father” when the woman really doesn’t want to marry or have a husband just doesn’t happen.
        That’s not a reading comprehension fail on my part.

        That’s you being close-minded that just because you’ve never experienced it doesn’t mean that it never happens. It means that it never happened in your surroundings to your knowledge.

        In my experiences/observations plenty of women can get a man when they don’t want one.

        Plenty have married for his money or just to have father..they didn’t want the man just what he could provide.

        Just like I know plenty of men who marry just to have a stable steady sex partner….yeah that didn’t work out so much in most cases.

        Though the point wasn’t how often it occurs but listing the negatives of such a scenario…o.O

        5. In your post 12/7 @8:24 you implicitly and strongly suggest that 50% of marriages have unhappy women and ultimately end in divorces. Which pretty much matches national statistics that 50% of marriages end in divorce and the vast majority of them are instigated by women.

        It’s 60% of marriages end in divorce the vast majority at least that’s been the recent stat for quite a bit.

        Actually I implicitly and strongly suggested that marrying just to have a father will most likely end up as one of those unhappy 50% marriages. A possible outcome of that being sexless, cheating, and ultimately a divorce:

        “Getting a man solely for the sake of having a real father to raise the child when you don’t want a man but just the child will most likely end up as one of those 50% of marriages where the woman is unhappy and regrets marrying. With possibilities such as a sexless marriage as he is just there to raise the child, cheating for both parties as they have sexual needs, and ultimately a divorce. “

        That to me is:
        1. stating that marrying just to have a father most likely will end up as one of the 50% who are unhappy & regret their marriage
        2. Possible outcomes of said unhappiness/regret is sexless marriage, cheating, and ultimately divorce.

        Not 50% of marriages have unhappy women and will ultimately end up in divorce.

        Though to recap:
        You: “You only cite that such marriages normally end in divorce. ”

        Since you got one possibility = normally end in it’s not unfathomable to me how your way of thinking got that statement to mean anything other than what it was stating.

        Despite the fact that I’m not even talking about those 50% of marriages other than the fact that the women in a “just marry to have a father” could be regret/be unhappy in her marriage like those women.

        Or the fact that sexless, cheating, and divorce was the possibilities of such a scenario’s unhappy marriage not the 50% of marriages women are unhappy/regret.

        6. I’m skipping down here, because the rest here is you defending your imaginary straw man.
        The possible negative outcomes of a woman who just wants child/ren marrying just to have a father is the topic.

        Since the topic is the imaginary strawmen what else would I “defend” as I unlike you stay ontopic.

        8. You’re right: I shouldn’t have used “trope”. I should have used logical fallacy. See 12/7 @8:24.
        Not a logical fallacy part.

        Is a bit on your part.

        To equate 50% of marriages have unhappy women and ultimately end in divorces from a statement saying:
        “Just to have a father” may have the woman unhappy/regretting her marriage like 50% of women and possibly having a sexless marriage, cheating on both parties, or divorce.

        There’s no rationalization to me to state one possibility out of a list of them /= normally ends…but egh.

        9. Then you’re arguing with yourself. It’s a false scenario.

        Egh I’m didn’t think I was arguing with myself but I’m listing the negative outcomes of such a scenario.

        For there to be arguing I would have to disagree on the negative outcomes..o.O

        Then make posts about pointing out which negative outcomes I disagree with it….yeah I haven’t done that.

        Only bit that arguing comes in is you applying feminism is why a woman in such a scenario becomes unhappy rather than she was in a marriage she didn’t want from the get-go to a man she didn’t want from the get-go.

        Also it’s not a false scenario as plenty of men I know who have realized they were just a sperm donor can attest.

        It’s a false scenario in your experience to your knowledge.

        Once again just because you never witnessed/experienced it doesn’t mean someone else hasn’t.

        10. So you made up an imaginary alternative,
        More like:
        I got the implication that a real father is needed to raise a child & single motherhood is selfish/dangerous that women who just want child/ren have the choices to either not be mothers or marry a man they don’t want just to have a real father as “any father is better than no father”.

        So I listed the negatives of such implication.

        11. It’s not irrational. It’s observable fact that feminist indoctrination of both women and men have pre-disposed women to become unhappy in marriage and men to engage in behaviors that feed into that pre-disposition. This part of the blogosphere is trying to stop men from engaging in those destructive behaviors; the result is usually happier wives/GFs/ONS/FBs.

        Egh..uh huh.

        It’s irrational to me to apply feminism as the reason for why she’s unhappy when the case is she married him solely to have a sperm donor/real father. When the most understandable reason to me would be she never wanted him or the marriage from the get-go.

        12. This last bit is precious. Of course, honey, it’s never your fault.
        Where do you me stating/implying it’s never the woman’s fault?

        I stated choice to be single mother can be involuntary nothing about whose fault it is.

        Your statement was: “The reality is that all single-motherhood is entirely voluntary. ”

        I was showing you that there are often cases where just because you chose to be a mother doesn’t mean you voluntarily choice to be a single mother.

        13. Nope. This is voluntary single-motherhood. Unless the man initiated the divorce
        Note your unless statement has just stated what I’ve been saying “You can choose to be a mother however you can end up through no choice of your own to be raising the child/ren on your own. ”

        * Of course only you, MissPixie, would complain about a woman who doesn’t want a man being unable to find one.*
        Where am I complaining? o.O

        I’m stating that it’s another case to me where a woman doesn’t chose to be an voluntary single mother.

        Seems like you misread that statement it’s not about a woman who doesn’t want a man being unable to find one.

        ”Such as get married, divorced, and you can’t find any man not even one you don’t want.”

        That’s saying a woman not even being able to find any man not even one she doesn’t want. She wants a man she just can’t find one not even those she doesn’t like.

  17. @LitteSailor

    1. “And here is the ultimate hypocrisy in what passes for feminist reasoning. Woman gets married, but doesn’t really “need” a man, so after she has the kids she was desperate for to validate her as a woman, she decides to become unhaaappy and divorce, likely depriving her husband of his children and the children of a needed father. And this was likely her plan all along.”

    Egh we differ

    To me she was already unhappy from the beginning since she was in a marriage she didn’t want with a man she didn’t want.

    To me since she began the marriage on the lines of having a “real father” for the kids she wants she was most likely planning to stick it out because she wanted a father for her kids not suddenly “become unhaappy and divorce”.

    Though how does any of that relate to feminist reasoning? Where/when was feminism brought in the topic.

    It was about stats and the notion that a child needs a “real father” hence suggesting that women who want to be voluntary single mothers should just marry a guy because any father is better than no father.

    Most feminists are against getting married solely for the sake of having a real father for your child. If anything that reasoning should be on theprivateman….or is he a feminist hence why you call it feminist reasoning?

    How is marrying a guy just to have a “real father” for your kids then divorcing him hypocritical? It’s manipulative but not hypocritical since married or divorced the kids still have a “real father”.

    2. “Of course, what Ms. entitlementpixie conveniently leaves out is that while she doesn’t think she needs a man (or children a father), she’ll be quite happy to have that man’s paycheck sent to her every month.”
    Actually that’s your assumption.

    I have and make my own money.

    I also have enough savings for my retirement and to put 7 kids through college all before the age of 20. woot-woot! 🙂

    As for entitlementpixie….show me where I stated/implied the things I felt I was entitled to.

    3. “Thus is revealed the underlying deceit of feminism when it comes to “single motherhood.” They need a man’s genetic material and his income but they don’t feel any need to honor their obligations to their husbands and children if it becomes in anyway inconvenient.

    It doesn’t reveal any underlying deceit of feminism because your assumption was incorrect and feminism wasn’t the topic or subject matter.

    You projected that in and brought in that off-topic.

    It was about the notion that a child needs a “real father” hence suggesting that women who want to be voluntary single mothers should just marry a guy because any father is better than no father.

    That those women who just marry solely for the sake of having a “real father” most likely can end up as the 50% of women who regret their marriages.

    • LostSailor on said:

      To me she was already unhappy from the beginning since she was in a marriage she didn’t want with a man she didn’t want.

      We’ve already established (see above) that this is phantom of your imagination. Further references to it shall be ignored.

      But interesting that you attribute the high rate of divorce to women who married men that they didn’t really want. In other areas of life we call that lying and fraud. And deceit.

      Most feminists are against getting married solely for the sake of having a real father for your child. If anything that reasoning should be on theprivateman…

      Most sane people would be against fraudulent marriage. But I suspect most feminists would say, get married then take him for all he’s got. And don’t blame TPM for your invented arguments; he said nothing of the kind.

      Actually that’s your assumption.

      Actually, that’s objective reality for the vast majority of divorced mothers, entered into law by feminists and their manginas, and enforced by the government.

      I have and make my own money.

      Well aren’t you just special!

      show me where I stated/implied the things I felt I was entitled to.

      It exudes from your pores, hon.

      It doesn’t reveal any underlying deceit of feminism because your assumption was incorrect and feminism wasn’t the topic or subject matter.

      I love the whistling sound when the point goes flying over your head. Feminism is the entire underlying support for your “voluntary” single-motherhood. It’s the fundamental subject.

      You projected that in and brought in that off-topic.

      Bzzzzt! But thanks for playing.

      It was about the notion that a child needs a “real father” hence suggesting that women who want to be voluntary single mothers should just marry a guy because any father is better than no father.

      The notion that a child needs a father is correct. The “hence…any father is better than no father” is from your imagination. No one else on this comment thread said that or suggested that. Talk about projection…

      That children need fathers is beyond dispute. Single-motherhood is a blight on our society because it results in damaged children who become damaged adults. No one is forcing you to marry, but the outcome will be on your collective heads. At least have the courage to face that reality, rather than your pretty feminist lies.

      • udolipixie on said:

        What you responded to is an old comment that the blog owner has decided to pass through moderation.

        1. We’ve already established (see above) that this is phantom of your imagination. Further references to it shall be ignored.

        Cool.

        Phantom of my imagination to think a woman may already be unhappy in the marriage when she only wanted child/ren & chose to marry a man solely to be a sperm donor/father figure because to her a real father is needed.

        2. But interesting that you attribute the high rate of divorce to women who married men that they didn’t really want. In other areas of life we call that lying and fraud. And deceit.

        Nowhere did I attribute the high rate of divorce to women who married men that they didn’t really want.

        In fact I don’t even mention divorce rate…o.O..I mentioned possibility of divorce not rate or stats for it.

        Show me where/when I mentioned divorced rate. Or will you call that a trope as well?

        2. And don’t blame TPM for your invented arguments; he said nothing of the kind.

        That’s the suggestion/implication I got.

        theprivateman:”No, but you a real father to raise a child.
        Voluntary single-motherhood is a socially dangerous blight on our culture and the most extreme form of a woman’s selfishness”

        So to me if women who wish to be singlemothers they either don’t be mothers or be mothers with men they didn’t want as they only wanted child/ren.

        I’ve repeatedly stated that the notion that a real father is needed to raise a child suggest to women who want to be voluntary singlemothers that they should get married to a man when they have no desire for marriage because it takes a real father to raise a child.

        When they are with these men it will most likely a fraudulent marriage as I suspect few women who tell men they only want them to be real fathers to the child/ren and have no interest in him.

        3. Actually, that’s objective reality for the vast majority of divorced mothers, entered into law by feminists and their manginas, and enforced by the government.

        Your words: “Of course, what Ms. entitlementpixie conveniently leaves out is that while she doesn’t think she needs a man (or children a father), she’ll be quite happy to have that man’s paycheck sent to her every month.”

        That is your assumption.

        The assumption being that I will be happy to have his paycheck.

        You made that assumption based on other divorcees experiences however it is still an assumption.

        4. Well aren’t you just special!
        I wasn’t stating that it made me special.

        I was showing that your assumption that I would be quite happy to have that man’s paycheck sent to me every month was incorrect as I have my own money and quite a bit to last.

        5. It exudes from your pores, hon.
        Most likely translation: I can’t show you where/when showed an entitlement since you didn’t state/imply any thing you felt entitled to.

        6. I love the whistling sound when the point goes flying over your head. Feminism is the entire underlying support for your “voluntary” single-motherhood. It’s the fundamental subject.

        I think the point has gone over your head…I haven’t mentioned feminism or stated any support for singlemotherhood other than stats that it is preferable over involuntary..o.O

        Once again that is your projection issues as you are the one who brought in feminism and applied it to the subject.

        Even applying it to being the actual cause of the unhappiness of a woman who married a man solely to be a sperm donor/father figure.

        I have stated that voluntary single-motherhood would probably be best for women who only want child/ren rather than marrying a man solely for him to be a sperm donor/father figure as she thinks a “real father is need.”

        7. The “hence…any father is better than no father” is from your imagination. No one else on this comment thread said that or suggested that. Talk about projection…

        Seems like you missed this:
        “The whole the child needs a real father so being a voluntary single mother is selfish is actually suggesting that a woman who does not want a man nut just a child should get one because something is better than nothing.”

        “As well as the implication that women who want to be single mothers should have a man because any father is better than no father.”

        “It’s the possible negative outcomes of the notion of a child needs a “real father” suggesting that women who only want a child or children should go out & marry a man solely to have a “real father”.”

        “It was about the notion that a child needs a “real father” hence suggesting that women who want to be voluntary single mothers should just marry a guy because any father is better than no father.”

        I stated what it implied/suggested to me.

        No one not even theprivateman has yet to state how did I get that from his statement.

        Rather I got responses from users that ignored that statement and focusing on real fathers being needed. That only have reinforced that suggestion/implication I got.

        Only you have brought up the implication I’ve got from it.

        8. Single-motherhood is a blight on our society because it results in damaged children who become damaged adults.

        As well as unhappy units, single-fatherhood units, divorced units, and step units.

        As stated earlier oddly enough the damage most child/ren from homo units suffer from is not the unit itself but the social stigma.

        9. No one is forcing you to marry, but the outcome will be on your collective heads.

        Egh single motherhood vs being stuck in an unhappy burdensome marriage that I regret…egh not that hard a decision to make.

        That being I believe I’d regret the outcome of the marriage more.

        As well as studies show it’s not only detrimental to the child/ren’s health when it is transparent but also detrimental to both parents.

        So generally taking that route wouldn’t be beneficial to the child/ren, me, or the guy I’m stuck with unless I can put on a good show for life….not interested in suffering through that.

        10. At least have the courage to face that reality, rather than your pretty feminist lies.
        Face what reality?

        I’m quite aware of the comparison for family units in fact I’ve even repeatedly stated that overall *happy* two-person units are best overall.

        Still bringing in feminism huh.

        The only reality I see is that you brought & continue to bring in feminism offtopic and apply it to the subject.

        The only connection I see to feminism is that most feminists do not support a woman who only wants child/ren marrying a man solely for him to be a sperm donor/father figure as she thinks a real father is needed.

        How is that a feminist lie?

        Or actually what feminist lies are you talking about that apply to a woman who only wants child/ren choosing to marry solely to have a real father?

      • LostSailor on said:

        Cool….Phantom of my imagination to think

        Yes. You’re making it up.

        In fact I don’t even mention divorce rate…o.O..I mentioned possibility of divorce not rate or stats for it…Show me where/when I mentioned divorced rate. Or will you call that a trope as well?

        Already done in a previous comment. Not my fault if you can’t keep up with your own arguments, dearie.

        That’s the suggestion/implication I got.

        You were and remain wrong.

        So to me if women who wish to be singlemothers they either don’t be mothers or be mothers with men they didn’t want as they only wanted child/ren.

        Again, your assuming your imagined suppositions and arguing them as fact. They’re not. Your still wrong. Well, actually, you’re right about one part of this. If women want to be single moms out of their own selfishness, probably shouldn’t be.

        The assumption being that I will be happy to have his paycheck.

        Wow, quibbling and dodging the question all in one. But yes, I’m positive you’d be delighted to have your ex-husbands paycheck. And by your posts here, I’m sorry to say the poor schmuch probably deserves it.

        I wasn’t stating that it made me special.

        Of course you were, hon. You were bragging. “Woot!Woot!”, remember?

        Most likely translation: it exudes from your pores.

        haven’t mentioned feminism or stated any support for singlemotherhood other than stats that it is preferable over involuntary….Once again that is your projection issues as you are the one who brought in feminism and applied it to the subject.

        Okay, now you’re just lying, being disengenuous, and deliberately obtuse.

        Even applying it to being the actual cause of the unhappiness of a woman who married a man solely to be a sperm donor/father figure.

        No one was applying it to your straw man, except you. But it most definitely applies to real marriages. No one is discussing your imaginary marriage. No one cares.

        Seems like you missed this: I stated what it implied/suggested to me.
        No one not even theprivateman has yet to state how did I get that from his statement.

        Indeed, you make my case: all of those quoted statement were yours; no one else but you has made any statement or suggestion that “any father is better than no father”. It’s impossible for anyone to state “how did [you] get that from his statement” It’s not in his statement. Only you can discover how you jump to conclusions, but I suspect it’s your primary form of exercise.

        single motherhood vs being stuck in an unhappy burdensome marriage that I regret…egh not that hard a decision to make.

        It’s quite sad, really, that nowhere here have you seemed to consider a happy marriage. But you’re right. You should never get married. You’re guaranteed to make some poor chump’s life miserable. I would also advocate again reproduction at all…

        Face what reality?

        Good question. It’s obvious by this point that have no concept of it. I doubt pointing it out to you again would be to any benefit.

        How is that a feminist lie?

        Nearly all of feminism beyond equal legal protection is a lie. And a deception. And a delusion.

  18. Oops..misplaced response
    @PRay

    1. “How is saying a man needs to man up for a slut, looking out for male interests rationally?”

    Show me where I stated or implied a man needs to man up for a slut.

    2. “It’s more of getting upset/shaming men for not doling out cash, material things, and status because she’s genetically capable.”
    That would be a nice turnaround if I had stated or implied that men who don’t dole me out cash, material things, and status deserve ill treatment.

    Or if I had made any statement/implication that I am entitled to that for being a female.

    Since I had not I’m unsure of how this turnaround applies here since there has been no statement/implication that men who don’t dole those things out deserve ill treatment.

    3. “That’s why many men don’t go on dates anymore. It’s an expensive show with a talk later.
    Show = how she looks.
    Talk = you’re such a nice guy, but…”

    Cool there’s plenty of alternatives if you feel something doesn’t work out for you.

    A bit of a poor view of the male gender you have if you think men don’t go on dates anymore because to them dates = the person is obligated to give them sex, companionship, relationships, and marriage.

    4. “Sluts don’t suit my needs, but they need to be shamed, otherwise other women will follow their bad example. Look at Sex and The City.”

    Egh…not sure why you’re so focused on sluts.

    This was about shaming/wishing ill on others for not doling you sex, companionship, relationships, and marriages because you feel entitled to it for existing.

    5. “Rationally looking out for male interests would be to improve themselves and stay out of the way of women who want to use them or penalise women that try to do them wrong.”

    That’s pretty much an expansion of this: “get men partners that want to be with them”

    The expansion being get partners who want to be with you for the right reasons. So clearly avoiding those who aren’t there for the right reasons would be.

    Self-improvement to me is a lifelong journey..oops on me for thinking most people didn’t buy the “be yourself” bs but rather thought “be the best you”

    6. “Most Women don’t value men for themselves … they value men based on how many other women think they’re the bee’s knees.”

    Interesting generalization not unlike the plentiful women who state men are incapable of deep emotional connections and that men only value women for their outwards appearance aka youth/beauty.

    Seeings as how there’s no such study done or they and you most likely aren’t a mindreader I just brush off such generalizations.

  19. Both divorced and unhappy couples are equally bad for kids, I suspect.

    Its just that usually in a marriage, whether the man or the woman is unhappy, its usually something that the women could solve if she got off her little high chair and became sensitive to the man’s needs.

    If she wants to act like a child, she needs to be controlled in a patriarchal society, and wear a burqa.

    It looks like your great nieces ( I assume you do not and will not have children) will be doing circles in burquas, pixie, because you and your female cohort are setting an irresponsible example.

    Its circles. That’s what your female descendents deserve. Circles and circles.

    • Quite assumptive and presumptuous to assume that the issue is most likely fixable the woman is automatically at fault and the evil one on her high char while that the male is just the poor victim.

      Usually both parties have contributed to the downfall it is rarely just solely one parties fault combined with the issue being easily fixable.

      I will have children.

      I doubt they will be doing circles in burkas as I will certainly not remain in America if the increasing trend is women are obligated to give me sex, companionship, relationships, and marriages solely for being men.

      As well as the implication that women who want to be single mothers should have a man because any father is better than no father.

      How is it an irresponsible example to when you only want a child or children to not marry a guy solely for having a “real father” to raise said child/ren?

      If anything I think it’d be irresponsible to marry for only for that reason.

      Egh guess we differ on irresponsibility.

  20. Still not sure this will be posted as my other 5 responses weren’t.

    @LittleSailor
    I gave no support link because the info is readily & easily available and I tire of giving out studies, survey, polls, and other data only to have a response of oh it’s only a study they don’t know every person or some government conspiracy plot..o.O

    Always interesting to see people ask for studies/evidence then cast it off. Though I think it’s common for most to nitpick which studies they believe in.

    A nice quick overview is:
    Clinical child and Family Psychology Review in 2002
    What Are the Costs of Marital Conflict and Dissolution to Children’s Physical Health?
    Wendy M. Troxel and Karen A. Matthews

    Though really I’ve seen several studies in most couples therapy clinical handbooks with an appendix.

    The case that seems to be the best for unhappy units is when the parental unhappiness is not transparent to the child/ren.

  21. @udolipixie – you’re a dumbass.

    When did I say a homosexual couple or voluntary single motherhood are just as dandy for a child as a mother and father because of the negative impacts of involuntary single motherhood?

    In your own words (twice now):

    I stated: “I believe you just need love, discipline, and the finances to raise a child.”

    Show me where I stated the model is irrelevant.

    You said you just need love, discipline, and finances. In the English language, you can replace the word “just” in this context with the word, “only” and it will be the exact same statement. Hence, right there, you effectively said, “The only thing you need to raise a child is love, discipline, and finances.”

    You fucking moron.

    If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I make note of the difference between voluntary & involuntary single motherhood. After all my premise as you claim is that long as there is love, finances, and discipline for the child it doesn’t matter.

    If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I make note of the difference between two-person and single person households. After all my premise as you claim is that long as there is love, finances, and discipline for the child it doesn’t matter.

    If my premise was that the exact model of parenting is irrelevant then why would I make note of that happy units fare better than…the happiness of the units weren’t mentioned in my love, discipline, and finances. After all my premise as you claim is that long as there is love, finances, and discipline for the child it doesn’t matter.

    I presume that you make a bunch of contradicting points that work against your thesis because you’re a woman and don’t know how to argue logically. You probably just word vomit whatever comes to mind first, regardless of how well or where it may fit into your argument.

    My premise is that a real father/mother is not needed in the context that the person I was responding to had stated aka any father is better than no father situation.

    This is true and false. Its not that a father isn’t needed in a single parent home, it’s that the step father (any father) is irrelevant. As science has shown, negative outcomes and delinquency are just as high in step-families as they are in single parent homes.

    So, no a father figure isn’t needed in single family homes, because stepfamilies are scientifically proven to be just as bad for kids as single parents. Unfortunately, this is ultimately defeating to your point – which is that love, discipline, and financial stability are all you need (thus, the classic nuclear family model is irrelevant).

    • More like you misinterpreted that.

      Stating you need love, finances, and discipline to raise a child well is not comparing a homo family unit, single family unit, or hetero unit.

      It’s stating what is a unit needs to raise a child.

      It’s not stating what people or person makes up that unit.

      Nor does it compare the units.

      My words do fit into my argument. That is when a reasonable rational person can read my argument not what they read into it.

      If I thought that the people/person making the unit are irrelevant I wouldn’t have made points that you think are contradicting because you presume to know and tell me what my argument & point is rather.

      I won’t go by gender slams but assume you’re just irrational and projecting more onto my words of what you read into them rather than what is there.

      Especially since you obviously & clearly missed my point due to your own projections. My point being that any father is not better than no father & that according to studies it is happy hetero units that are best overall not just any hetero unit.

  22. @Alpha
    I won’t do gender slams, cursing, or insults as you have done but I am quite curious to get how you extended this:
    “I believe you just need love, discipline, and the finances to raise a child.”

    to this: a homosexual couple or voluntary single motherhood are just as dandy for a child as a mother and father

    To get that interpretation from a statement of what the unit needs to raise a child when not what people/person compromise the unit is to me a bit irrational..not meant as an insult.

    No where in that statement do I:
    state model is irrelevant since I don’t discuss who makes up the model but rather what the model needs
    discuss the people/person who compromise the unit
    make comparisons of people/person units

    Though to me what is needed to raise a child /= what people compromise the unit.

    Were you thinking it did equate that …o.O?

    Though I would think my other statements if you hadn’t brushed it off as woman = illogical would have cleared that confusion up.

    My other statements discussed that other part aka what people compromise the unit. After all pedophile/child molester can give a child love, discipline, and have the finances hence why the statement of what is needed to raise a child /= what people should compromise the unit.

    If I thought model being the people who compromise the unit was irrelevant I wouldn’t been comparing voluntary vs involuntary single-motherhood. Or stating two person units win overall (when it’s a happy unit).

    In fact the thing that can reasonably gotten of what I think about who compromises the model is that the unit when a two person one would do best to have a happy relationship with one another or not let their unhappiness be transparent to the child/ren.

    I’m curious because you got what I stated correctly “The only thing you need to raise a child is love, discipline, and finances.” though that may be because it’s a basically repetition of what I stated.

    Yet you did not stop right there but rather went further and projected model is irrelevant despite my many statements stating otherwise.

    Though you gave your reason why you brushed that off as what contradicts what you think is my argument is just woman = illogical.

    Will you at least consider that you were being presumptuous that my statement states model is irrelevant?

    Especially considering that nowhere does that my statement says who is giving the love, discipline, and finances just that it is need.

    Or despite me repeatedly telling you that is not my argument will you continue to tell me what you read into my statement tell me what my argument is..with cursing, insults, and gender slams brought in as seasoning?

    • Okay, holy crap. We’re going to go over this one more time, just for you.

      I am quite curious to get how you extended this:
      “I believe you just need love, discipline, and the finances to raise a child.”

      to this: a homosexual couple or voluntary single motherhood are just as dandy for a child as a mother and father

      Here, you admit my point for me – “to this: a homosexual couple … just as dandy … mother and father” – because my statement – “you only need… etc”.

      You claim you don’t understand how I got to the premise that the model of parenting is irrelevant out of your statement.

      So lets approach this from a different angle – Do you have homeowners’ insurance?

      I’ll assume you do. And please, read this slowly, thoroughly, and carefully as you have done with my other posts. I’ll refrain from mocking, cursing, and gender bashing – but make an effort to read this thoroughly before you respond.

      Now, if you have something called a “named peril” policy for your homeowners, it means you’re only covered for perils mentioned. All perils excluded from being mentioned are, thus, considered irrelevant by the insurance company.

      Lets say your policy has these 3 perils:

      Fire
      Riot
      Burglary

      Next, lets say a large windstorm and hail hit your area. Hail breaks your windows and the wind and rain cause a telephone pole to fall over and land in your house. The insurance adjuster will come to your house and determine the cause of glass breakage to be hail, and the proximate cause of structural damage to be a windstorm. The wind blew the pole over, the pole hit your house.

      Because neither hail nor windstorms are listed as perils on your homeowners policy, you are responsible for the damages yourself and your homeowners insurance will deny the claim, and there is nothing you can do about it.

      Side note: Check your homeowners policy and make sure its “open peril” – meaning it only names exclusions.

      Now you can say this is unfair of the insurance company, but it is what you agreed to – whether you knew it or not.

      Now, lets apply this to us, shall we?

      You said,

      “You just need love, discipline, and finances to raise a child.”

      Think of your thesis as a named peril HO policy. Because you excluded the gender and number of parents we can presume that, to you, those things are irrelevant.

      Stop typing! You promised you’d finish reading.

      Whether or not you think that, doesn’t matter. Because the premise you keep repeating is that THE ONLY THINGS NECESSARY TO PROPERLY RAISE A CHILD ARE MONEY, DISCIPLINE, AND LOVE.

      If the gender and number of parents are important to properly raising a child, then they should be included in that list.

      Because you have excluded them from the list, we can reasonably assume that they are irrelevant.

      You back up this point yourself when you say that voluntary single motherhood is better for a child than involuntary.

      I’ll give you, you immediately back up on that statement and say two parent homes are better – but here, once again, you neglect to mention gender of the parents, so we can assume that it is irrelevant.

      However, studies show that voluntary single motherhood and involuntary single motherhood are both terrible for children – and neither one is better or worse for a child.

      Do you understand, now, how I got to where I was?

      Please, email me your response (alphapersona@yahoo.com) because I’m tired of blowing up Private Man’s lawn. You can post a response here, and I’ll read it, but I’m done with the commenting.

      • udolipixie on said:

        @Alpha
        I don’t email random strangers on line.

        Thank you for showing me how you made that extension.

        I have no further responses to you.

        As you can’t grasp:
        Stating you need love, finances, and discipline to raise a child well is stating what a unit needs to raise a child.

        It’s not stating what people/persons compromising the unit or that what compromises the unit is irrelevant.

        Look at your policy analogy. No where do you extend as you did with my statement that what the policy covers to means that any person/people having the policy is just as dandy as the next.

        Your example clearly shows that is not the case.

        That what the policy covers is just stating what it covers not every household who has it is just as dandy as the next.

        To me a far better analogy would be that a job has certain requirements however that doesn’t mean what people/person you hire for it is irrelevant and every one is just as dandy as the next as long as they find out the requirements.

        Also stating voluntary single motherhood is better for a child than involuntary doesn’t back up the point you yourself think I made because why would if my point was that the model aka the people/person who compromise the unit is irrelevant on the child then her being in/voluntary would not matter.

        Mentioning the effect of in/voluntary is showing that the model of the parents is important.

        I’m been quite tired of blowing up theprivateman’s blog as well by responding to others telling me what my point/argument especially when they state they brush most of it off because it contradicts with what they tell me my point is.

        Good night & goodbye.

      • I am literally going to hang myself over this:

        Stating you need love, finances, and discipline to raise a child well is stating what a unit needs to raise a child.

        It’s not stating what people/persons compromising the unit or that what compromises the unit is irrelevant.

        If you intended for the number and gender of the parents to be relevant, then they should have been included in your list of NECESSARY FUCKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RAISING A CHILD.

        Jesus, its like arguing with a wall.

      • When dealing with such commenters like her, just remember that logic and reason are tools of the patriarchy and that emotions are perfectly valid foundations for an opinion or belief.

        With that in mind, only when you change her mood will you change her mind.

      • LostSailor on said:

        TPM, you are a calm voice of reason.

        But you did tweet for help, and at least she’s apparently run away…

        But I love “I have no further responses for you” followed by 9 paragraphs of response.

        Classic.

  23. udolipixie on said:

    1. Yes. You’re making it up.
    Okay then I guess the multiple men I know who were shattered when their wives revealed that she just wanted him to be a father for her kids were just making it up.

    Just because you haven’t experienced to your knowledge doesn’t mean such scenarios where the woman marries him just to have a sperm donor/father figure are false and never occur.

    2. Already done in a previous comment. Not my fault if you can’t keep up with your own arguments, dearie.
    More like it’s not my fault if pick one of the three possibilities I listed to equate to normally end.

    Yeah still unsure on how a possibility from a list of others = normally end in.

    I would think most would get possibility from a list of others = possibly end in.

    3. You were and remain wrong.
    That’s the implication I got from: “No, but you a real father to raise a child.

    Voluntary single-motherhood is a socially dangerous blight on our culture and the most extreme form of a woman’s selfishness”
    So to me if women who wish to be singlemothers they either don’t be mothers or be mothers with men they didn’t want as they only wanted child/ren.

    If it’s wrong egh I already knew there was a chance that what I got may be wrong.

    Only no one has mentioned it. Only you brought it up.

    No issue to me if my implication/suggestion I got from theprivateman’s statement was incorrect.

    4. Again, your assuming your imagined suppositions and arguing them as fact. They’re not. Your still wrong. Well, actually, you’re right about one part of this. If women want to be single moms out of their own selfishness, probably shouldn’t be.

    I’m not assuming imagined suppositions.

    They are quite real to plenty of men I know.

    I’m not arguing anything but listing the negative outcomes of women who just want child/ren marrying a man just to have a father.

    Yeah this probably won’t be getting aware if you remain closed minded to that notion that such a scenario does occur.

    5. Wow, quibbling and dodging the question all in one. But yes, I’m positive you’d be delighted to have your ex-husbands paycheck. And by your posts here, I’m sorry to say the poor schmuch probably deserves it.

    I’m not quibbling and dodging the question.

    I stated I have my own money.

    Most would get that I don’t need his money hence I wouldn’t be happy to get his paycheck as I don’t need it.

    Let me make it clearer I won’t be happy to get his paycheck because I won’t need/want his paycheck so I wouldn’t be getting it in the first place.

    How do my posts here say ”the poor schmuch probably deserves it” when I haven’t stated/implied anything about how men deserve to get shortchanged in divorce? o.O

    Or even for that matter make a single statement about child support after divorce . o.O

    My only mention of divorce being that it is a possibility in a just marrying for a real father scenario.

    I really think you are projecting quite a bit on the who divorce thing.

    6. Of course you were, hon. You were bragging. “Woot!Woot!”, remember?
    That was me being happy about achieving that…okay then if you interpreted that as bragging.

    7. Most likely translation: it exudes from your pores.
    Yet once again you can’t show me any posts or a single sentence about me stating what I feel I am entitled to.

    8. Okay, now you’re just lying, being disengenuous, and deliberately obtuse.
    I’m not lying.

    I didn’t mention feminism first you did.

    You brought feminism in. You applied it to the subject.

    I didn’t state feminism as a support for singlemotherhood.

    The only statements that can be seen as support for singlemotherhood statements I’ve made are:
    “Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall. ”

    “Far better to have a voluntary single mother than a mother & father where the mother is unhappy and hates/resents the man.”
    No where is feminism mentioned in that.

    No where do I speak of feminism before you brought it in.

    9. No one was applying it to your straw man, except you. But it most definitely applies to real marriages. No one is discussing your imaginary marriage. No one cares.

    I stated the reasons why a woman in a scenario would be unhappy.

    You went into well around here we know quite well why a wife becomes unhappy and bringing up feminism..again.. as aiding unhappy marriages.

    I essentially stated….yeah that’s offtopic and not in the scope of the scenario so it seems more like you unwinding issues of your own about divorce.

    No one was discussing why women are unhappy in marriages I was discussing why women in the just marry to get a real father would be unhappy.

    I won’t be so rude to say “No one cares” as you have do so.

    Recap:
    You: “Around these parts, we know quite well why a marriage (read: wife) becomes “unhaaaapppy!” Unselfreflectivepixie will likely be perplexed by this, but women come to “regret” marriage after they, aided and abetted by a feminism-infected culture and media, have emasculated and dominating their beta-provider husbands, causing them to lose respect and attraction to them. Their own behavior is causing their “unhaaapppy!”-ness. ”

    Me: “The scenario was women who want to be mothers but don’t want a husband but who choose to marry a man solely to have a “real father” raise the kids possibly ending up in divorced.
    I heavily doubt that being aided by feminism is why such women become unhappy & regret the marriage.
    I think it’s more of they never truly wanted to be married in the first place. Nor did they truly want to be with the man in the first place.
    Seems more like it’s they do not & did not from the beginning want the man other than to have a sperm donor/father figure. ”

    You: noting that your statement isn’t related but for some reason unwind a long bit about feminism aiding women being unhappy in marriages.

    Me: Essentially saying that while you may apply that to other marriages it’s a bit irrational to apply that here and try to keep it in the scope of the topic.

    10. Indeed, you make my case: all of those quoted statement were yours; no one else but you has made any statement or suggestion that “any father is better than no father”. It’s impossible for anyone to state “how did [you] get that from his statement” It’s not in his statement. Only you can discover how you jump to conclusions, but I suspect it’s your primary form of exercise.

    I used my quotes in response to this:
    “No one else on this comment thread said that or suggested that. Talk about projection…”

    Well not clearly enough for you I was clearly…showing you that I wasn’t saying anyone had said that or suggested that but that is the implication/suggestion I got from theprivateman’s statement.

    In fact when you go to where I state the implication/suggestion I got I only quote theprivateman’s statement as that it what I got from it.

    It’s not impossible for anyone to state “how did you get that”…in fact I’ve been doing that to several users including you.

    In fact most of my statements was “how did you get that” to users believing my argument/point was that the family model is irrelevant.

    11. It’s quite sad, really, that nowhere here have you seemed to consider a happy marriage. But you’re right. You should never get married. You’re guaranteed to make some poor chump’s life miserable. I would also advocate again reproduction at all…

    Sad perhaps.

    Logical to me.
    1. I have a lack of interest in relationships/marriages…. not everyone feels the need to be married or even to have a life partner. In fact it’s an increasing trend in wo/men (men & women). Hence why I put sad perhaps as not being married is not an issue for me. It’s like being sad that I don’t consider it’s raining in another state when I walk outside.

    2. Most likely only a small minority of men fit what I find a physically/sexually attractive & compatible partner I enjoy being with sex included.

    3. My lack of interest in having a relationship/marriage aren’t that much of a motivation for me to go searching in that small minority.

    4. Egh most likely the marriage even with said minority partner won’t be happy as:
    Going by studies only 1 in 10 married couples remain in love…being content wasn’t even the majority of couples.
    50% of women are unhappy/regret their marriages.
    No bit on how many men are unhappy/regret their marriages so no comment
    50% of women cheat on their husbands.
    60% of men cheat on their wives

    What you’re advocating is dismissed I’ll be reproducing my maximum is 7. yay!

    Though perhaps you can give your guarantee to the multiple guys who continue to want commitment from me even so far as marriage. 😦

    11. Good question. It’s obvious by this point that have no concept of it. I doubt pointing it out to you again would be to any benefit.

    Actually was asking what reality in the scope of the scenario…but egh.

    Your points about feminism aiding women being unhappy was unrelated reality to me. More of a conspiracy theory to me. There’s validity but then it just goes to extremes.

    12. Nearly all of feminism beyond equal legal protection is a lie. And a deception. And a delusion.
    Egh…uh huh.

    Agree to disagree I see no lie, deception, or delusion in:
    “Most feminists do not support a woman who only wants child/ren marrying a man solely for him to be a sperm donor/father figure as she thinks a real father is needed.”

    Though to be clear I didn’t see much feminism in choosing to marry a man solely as a sperm donor/father figure..but agree to disagree?

    • LostSailor on said:

      Okay then I guess the multiple men I know who were shattered when their wives revealed that she just wanted him to be a father for her kids were just making it up.

      That you know a lot of duplicitous women is not a statistic, it just mean your circle of friends includes a lot of lying, deceitful women. The question is, why don’t you condemn them for their lying, deceitful ways? No compassion for the men so deceived?

      No issue to me if my implication/suggestion I got from theprivateman’s statement was incorrect.

      Illogical, off-point, and self-serving. You are wrong. But, of course, you can’t deal with or actually address it.

      I’m not assuming imagined suppositions….They are quite real to plenty of men I know.

      Yes, you are imagining. And, for your own sake. That you know “plenty” of men who have been deceived by women isn’t news to us. You should properly be ashamed that you approve of women deceiving men in this manner. But you aren’t.

      I really think you are projecting quite a bit on the who divorce thing.

      I’m not. That’s not my situation. But it is objective, demonstrative reality for most divorced men in this society.

      I really I’m not lying.

      No, dearie, you are. You’re just blinded to the fact of your lies.

      No where do I speak of feminism before you brought it in.

      QED. Indoctrination, when done right, is transparent. I’d encourage you to question your assumptions, but I doubt you’re capable.

      No one was discussing why women are unhappy in marriages

      You weren’t, because you can’t honestly do so. So you resort to straw men arguments. Unfortunately, we’re not confined to your straw man. Deal with the real issues.

      Most likely only a small minority of men fit what I find a physically/sexually attractive & compatible partner I enjoy being with sex included.

      That’s an understatement. You’re of course free to define your relationships, such as they may be. But unfortunately, you don’t get to define the terms of debate. Deal with it.

      What you’re advocating is dismissed I’ll be reproducing my maximum is 7. yay!

      I doubt it. But even if you’re successful, society will be the poorer because of it.

      Run along now.

  24. udolipixie on said:

    @theprivateman
    “With that in mind, only when you change her mood will you change her mind.”

    Quite unsure of what mood/mind needs changing.

    I’ve stated that I see how he got his interpretation.

    It doesn’t change my mind that stating what a unit needs to raise a child is not stating what people/persons compromising the unit is just as dandy as any or that what compromises the unit is irrelevant.

    Just like to me stating the educational requirements for a job does not state that who applies is irrelevant and that as long as they have those requirements each applicant is just as dandy as the next.

    Especially when his interpretation wouldn’t have been so easily gotten if he didn’t assume the other statements were contradictory as woman = illogical but rather his interpretation was incorrect.

    Do agree on the voice of reason.

  25. udolipixie on said:

    @LittleSailor
    1. That you know a lot of duplicitous women is not a statistic,

    I never stated or implied that it was a statistic….o.O

    Quite unsure of why you felt the need to state that.

    I stated that such scenario’s do happen when you repeatedly stated such things as:
    “It’s a false scenario. ”
    “maginary alternative”
    “meaning that your imagined scenario of marrying just to “have a father” when the woman really doesn’t want to marry or have a husband just doesn’t happen. ”

    Recall:
    “That’s you being close-minded that just because you’ve never experienced it doesn’t mean that it never happens. It means that it never happened in your surroundings to your knowledge.
    In my experiences/observations plenty of women can get a man when they don’t want one.
    Plenty have married for his money or just to have father..they didn’t want the man just what he could provide.
    Just like I know plenty of men who marry just to have a stable steady sex partner….yeah that didn’t work out so much in most cases.
    Though the point wasn’t how often it occurs but listing the negatives of such a scenario…o.O”

    Reread the last sentence and perhaps see why the it’s not a statistic bit was unnecessary.

    Or tell me why you added in it’s not a statistic when I was never talking about the stats on how often it occurs just that it’s not imaginary and never happens.

    2. it just mean your circle of friends includes a lot of lying, deceitful women. The question is, why don’t you condemn them for their lying, deceitful ways? No compassion for the men so deceived?

    Hmm…you’re working on the assumption that the females who do such a thing are my friends not the males.

    Interesting bias you have.

    I usually make a disclaimer that people I know /= my friends so your assumption that people I know = my friends isn’t faultless.

    No those aren’t the questions.

    In fact there was no question.

    It was you stating that such a scenario is false & imaginary & straw man.

    Then me stating that it does happen just because you haven’t experienced it to your knowledge doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.

    3. Illogical, off-point, and self-serving. You are wrong. But, of course, you can’t deal with or actually address it.

    It’s not illogical to not have an issue with if what you interpretation was incorrect.

    It’s not offpoint since I made a post stating my implication/suggestion.

    It’s not offpoint since you commented on how my implication/suggestion is my own and that it is wrong.

    I did actually address it.

    I did deal with it…it’s no issue to me if my implication/suggestion I got from theprivateman’s statement is incorrect.

    Seems like you can’t deal with the fact that I don’t have an issue with the implication I got from his statement being incorrect.

    4. Yes, you are imagining. And, for your own sake. That you know “plenty” of men who have been deceived by women isn’t news to us. You should properly be ashamed that you approve of women deceiving men in this manner. But you aren’t.

    Wow just wow so I imagined these men and their pain…weren’t you just questioning my compassion for men…o.O?

    Show me where/when I said or implied I approved of women deceiving men in this manner.

    Oh that’s right you most likely won’t because you can’t.

    I stated that it happens. Stating something happens doesn’t mean you approve of said happening…at least not to most reasonable nonprojecting people.

    I made no judgement on whether I approve or disapprove of their behavior.

    As for your continually claiming I made it up.

    Weren’t you just saying the bit about me knowing a lot of duplicitous women questioning why I don’t condemn their ways? o.O

    5. I’m not. That’s not my situation. But it is objective, demonstrative reality for most divorced men in this society.

    Egh I still think you are.

    You went into a long unwind about why women are unhappy in marriages unrelated and irrationally applicable to the specific scenario where I state the women are unhappy.

    Why mention something that doesn’t apply…

    Then you continued to go into several long winds about it stating divorce aided by feminism the underlying topic in a woman who marries a man solely as a sperm donor/father figure topic.

    Bringing something in unasked for and continuing to expanded upon it seems like projection issues to me. You don’t have to be in the situation to be sensitive to it.

    6. No, dearie, you are. You’re just blinded to the fact of your lies.
    Not I am not.
    Fact is you mentioned feminism first.

    Fact is I never stated feminism as a support for single motherhood.

    Seems more like you’re blinded to not accepting that just because you think feminism is the root of everything and that it’s the support for single-motherhood doesn’t mean I think the same so it’s not involved in my scenario.

    Especially when the only statements that can be seen as support for singlemotherhood statements I’ve made are:
    “Voluntary single-motherhood has actually shown to be much better for the child than involuntary single-motherhood. Though two-person households wins overall. ”

    “Far better to have a voluntary single mother than a mother & father where the mother is unhappy and hates/resents the man.”

    Once again no where is feminism mentioned in that.

    Unless feminism is the hidden agenda of anyone who wishes to have a child without a partner. You’ll have a hard time though convincing the plentiful of men and women who make up partnerless parents….yeah actually term.

    7. QED. Indoctrination, when done right, is transparent. I’d encourage you to question your assumptions, but I doubt you’re capable.

    Most likely translation: You’re right nowhere did you state it as you support & you didn’t even mention it first.

    But I’m going to state it’s indoctrination of feminism so you unknowingly bring it in by stating you think women who only want child/ren would do better in voluntarily single-motherhood rather than marrying a guy/using him as a sperm donor just to have a real father.

    Rather than I’m advocating for the less toxic family structure in a certain scenario under the assumption that the woman can’t keep her act and not let her unhappiness/regret be transparent to the child/ren.

    As studies show both as toxic units since they’re not happy hetero units however single unit seems to be less toxic that unhappy unit.

    Yeah that’s really some feminism indoctrination rather than choosing the less toxic unit.

    I’d encourage you not to project your assumptions onto me but I doubt you’re capable.

    8. You weren’t, because you can’t honestly do so. So you resort to straw men arguments. Unfortunately, we’re not confined to your straw man. Deal with the real issues.

    There was no resorting to straw man argument as no one was discussing why women are unhappy in marriages.

    It’s not as if I thought hey I can’t explain why women are unhappy so let me make up some imaginary scenario.

    I was not interested in discussing why women are unhappy.

    I was listing the negative outcomes of a scenario I got was implied from a statement…repeatedly stated this & you repeatedly ignored this.

    Bit irrational to state I’m resorting to a strawman because I can’t honestly explain something that was never discussed in the first place or had any interest in discussing…but okay then.

    I “resorted to the straw man” because I was listing the negative outcomes of a scenario I got was implied from a statement.

    Thus I talked about the possible negative outcomes of that. One being a woman who wanted child/ren and married a guy to be a sperm donor most likely will be one of the 50% who are unhappy/regret the marriage.

    No we’re not confined to my scenario however I was only interested in my scenario as I was talking about the possible negative outcomes of it.

    Something I repeatedly told you which you ignored.

    I told you I had no interest in discussing your reasons as why women
    My topic wasn’t real issues.

    9. But unfortunately, you don’t get to define the terms of debate. Deal with it.

    I’ve stated why women in a certain scenario may be unhappy and that your reason as to why women are unhappy doesn’t rationally apply to it.

    The only what I can think that I am attempting to define the terms of debate is that I stated you can debate if it’s irrational to apply if you want or debate why women become unhappy in marriages just that I have no interest in doing so.

    Seems like you have a lot to deal with.

    Also what debate is this? I’ve gotten.
    You:
    feminism is the underlying topic & the support for single-motherhood
    Me:
    I didn’t bring feminism in you did.
    I didn’t state feminism as my support for single-motherhood

    You:
    the scenario of woman marrying just to have a sperm donor/father figure is false, imaginary, and doesn’t happen
    Me:
    Egh different experiences as it’s real to plenty of men I know

    You:
    No one else on this comment thread said that or suggested that. Talk about projection…”
    Me:
    Well not clearly enough for you I was clearly…showing you that I wasn’t saying anyone had said that or suggested that but that is the implication/suggestion I got from theprivateman’s statement.

    You:
    woman becomes unhappy in her marriage women come to “regret” marriage after they, aided and abetted by a feminism-infected culture and media, have emasculated and dominating their beta-provider husbands, causing them to lose respect and attraction to them.
    Me:
    uh huh on all that.
    It would be a bit irrational to apply that to this scenario of woman who never wanted marriage/a man but only child/ren.

    10. I doubt it. But even if you’re successful, society will be the poorer because of it.

    That’s your assumption.

    Run along now.

  26. udolipixie on said:

    On your “You’re just blinded to the fact of your lies”
    The lies being I did not mention feminism first, had it underlying anywhere other than your projection, and did not use it as a support for singlemotherhood.

    1. Me: happy hetero units perform best on every outcome not just any hetero unit since unhappy hetero units screw up kids on pretty much the same as divorced units.

    2. You translate that as to “But I’m unhaaappy! So I can ditch my kids’ dad (but not his paycheck) so that I’m ‘fulfilled.’ So what if it screws up the kids? As long as I’m haaappy, my feminist sisters will supply all of the rationalization I need to keep from recognizing how my selfish choices are hurting them”

    3. Me: the actual translation is that unhappy couples are detriment to a child’s well-being on pretty much the same level as a divorced couple. Feminism is not the topic/subject.

    4. You: state that I’m defending single motherhood by stating unhappy units are as detrimental as divorced units. So my go to solution & answer to unhappy marriage is since it apparently makes no difference to the kids. Then state feminism is always the topic matter/subject underlying all this. As well as adding in “and at least Mom can fulfill herself at a man’s expense in single motherhood.”

    5. Me: stating I didn’t defend single motherhood by asserting unhappy units are detrimental on par or worse than divorced units….especially since singlemotherhood wasn’t mentioned anywhere in that post.

    If anything I “defended” *voluntary* single motherhood by stating that it has been shown to be far better than involuntary…that was in another entirely different post.

    I ask you to show me where I stated the answer to unhappy marriages were divorce or that’s my go-to solution.

    As my only mention of unhappy marriages divorcing was as a possible outcome for women who marry just to have a father,

    Not sure how you leaped from an unrelated post about a “specific scenario may result in divorce” to apply divorces is the answer in another post of me stating “unhappy couples are just as detrimental as divorced units”

    *You can’t show me where I state divorce as solution or my answer to unhappy marriages so you brush off and claim trope.*

    I state that aided by feminism is why women are unhappy/divorce doesn’t rationally apply to the nly scenario where I have divorce as a possible outcome for a woman in an unhappy marriage.

    Unless you can show me how. You can’t as it’s a “straw man”, “false”, “imaginary”, and scenario that “never happens”.

    You ignore that I guess to deal with the “real issues” of why women in unhappy marriages divorce/solutions other than divorcing that were never in the discussion in the first place.

    Yet somehow came me stating happy > unhappy & unhappy unit pretty much same negative impact as divorced unit.

    Not even from the only scenario I mention where divorce is a possible outcome. Nope comes from happy > unhappy + unhappy unit pretty much equal divorced unit.

    Yeah my lies my lies I’m blinded to to.

    • LostSailor on said:

      Good Gods, woman! Now you’re just blithering.

      You have ceased to be a worthy object of amusement.

      We shall now proceed to mockery. And then on to scorn and derision.

  27. udolipixie on said:

    Seeing as how you most likely won’t come to any realization that you brought feminism in & it’s not my underlying support.

    That my only “support” of voluntary singlemotherhood was that it fares better than involuntary & if a woman only wants child/ren it would be better if she’s a voluntary single mother rather than marrying a guy as a sperm donor/father figure just to have a real father.

    Nor does happy > unhappy + unhappy unit pretty much equal divorced unit mean if you’re unhappy go get divorced.

    I’ll say good morning & good bye LittleSailor

    Apologies to theprivateman for the clogging of my responses to LS long unwinded, projections, and telling me what my point is and what supports it.

    Laters.

  28. Dudes WTF on said:

    Dude wtf on the udolipixie dialog.

    1. She stated that that a father is not needed to raise a child since plenty of children are raised with different parental units.
    That’s true since she pointed out that raising a child and raising a well-adjusted child is different.

    2. She stated that any father is not better than no father.
    That’s a truth for me as simply having a mom & dad doesn’t mean the kid will be better adjusted than those without as the moms & dads without a healthy relationship tend to raise messed up kids.

    3. Her notion was that women who only want to have children should not marry under the idea that any father is better than no father.
    She listed reasonable possible consequences of marrying just to have a father for the kids.

    I’m all for women not suckering guys into being wallets then bailing out with half when they get tired.

    I’m also amused that she’s told that if she/women just want to have kids they should not be single mothers since right before she’s told she was projecting her notion she got that the comment kids a father implies women who only want kids either have to get a man as any father is better than no father or don’t have kids.

    Then again the commenters to her were to me reacting on emotions not logic.

    Udolipixie and American girls who think like her don’t give a f what certain commenters have said that if you want to be a single parent don’t have kids.

    That’s a bit too dictatorship for me as by their logic single homosexuals and widows should be relieved of their kids. I’m curious as to how far their regulations of who can have kids go. Does it extend to whether the mom & dad are happy with a healthy relationship or is it just as long as the kids have a mom & dad? Does it extend to those with a history of genetic disorders? How many occurrences of a disorder is too many?

    Then again those commenters aren’t seeing in their narrow-mindedness that the other alternative would be to marry a sucker that you’ll probably end up divorcing.

    Just like the commenters saying it’s sad you can’t imagine a happy marriage guess aren’t in America where more than half of marriages end in divorce. As well as more than half of women and 30% of men regret marrying and would not marry their partner if able to do it over. Then add in more than half of men cheating on their partners & 50% of women cheating on their partners the outlooks of happy partners in an American marriage is slim. Out of those that are happy not a lot will remain that way with 1 in 10 couples remaining in love. Your best bet udolipixie with American guys is that you’ll end up marrying a guy you tolerant not like or love.

    Due to the pickiness of certain American women I know that to fulfill my dream of being a father & husband I’ll need to either have to forgo the husband and be a single parent or move abroad and marry a foreign female. Marrying an American woman even with a prenup would be bad for me since some states don’t uphold them and even in those that do I’ve seen guys get messed up.

    I doubt I’ll get told it’s sad that I highly doubt a happy marriage with an American woman as you have been told it’s sad you can’t imagine a happy marriage with an American guy. American marriages suck for women and American divorces suck for us men in my opinion.

    I suggest you go abroad the UK and France would be best suited if you ever gain an interest in marriage as increasingly American marriages for both parties are crapola to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: