OT: School a boomer

Stigma or not, single parenthood is hard. Gotta be the mom and the dad.

I'm asking about two-parenting without legal marriage, not literal single parenting. I think her thinking is, even if she split with the father, they would have joint custody of any kids.

The simple fact is that children born into a traditional married male and female household, have a better chance of success, by a decent margin, than the same children born into the same household, except without marriage. The married people will be richer as well. When I started, 5% of the cases were paternities. Now its about 58%. In lower, lower middle and middle class areas there really is not stigma. In upper middle class, upper class households there is. Marriage among these classes occurs at the same rate as it did 200 years ago. Marriage among the first three is falling precipitously. The breakdown of family and the loss of religion in American life is the cause.
There are exceptions. My folks have 5 divorces between them. Their 4 kids all attended college and did fine in life. My net worth is probably equal to my youngest brother's plane, boats and motorized vehicles of many different types combined. He thinks strip clubbing is for morons.

Likewise, ski believes intelligence is good for other people, but stupidity has worked great for him.

Yup, nothing funnier than dummies calling other people stupid. Progressives are vile, despicable people.

I just watched a fascinating video regarding the staggeringly low rate of marriage at low income levels. The numbers in awful neighborhoods up to lower middle class are astonishing. No shade on single parenting since it is possible to do it exceptionally well but poor and single is brutal combo to start from. What a terrible disadvantage kids from a community like that start with

I should have known people would land in this thread with their pontoon planes.

I think the single mother is more stigmatized than her child. But its so common that its pointless to judge.

I admit I avoid single moms. Especially dancers. In my experience most are looking for tricks while they still fuck their baby daddies and lay up with bums.

Some of these girls have mental problems. Like the ones trying to get pregnant every time they have a relationship.

I think the reason why someone is a single parent ia important. But unless youre involved. Who cares qhat strangers do

BTW, she's already a dedicated aunt. I'm sure she'd be a dedicated mother, come hell or high water.

^You have no idea at all who or what she is. You just know what she tells you, that you desperately want to believe.

Shockingly, this rick was going to agree with Skifredo until he went all political, as he always frickin’ does.

The irony of Fredo’s political comment is that well-educated, upper class households - ya know, the ones that get married before having kids - skew liberal and less religious. And lower class classes skew more religious but have more children out of wedlock and don’t get married.

There is hypocrisy on both sides. Read David Brooks “How the Ivy League Broke America”. This lion finds some of it exaggerated bullshit, but he has a point. Upper class professionals, like doctors and lawyers (I could make the joke about “actually good lawyers” implying that a certain somebody doesn’t fit in that category, but this lion will refrain from naming names), push to educate their children and get them into top schools. The lower classes are de facto shut out.

The sad thing is that Skifredo sees these issues and becomes a bitter asshole. Engaging in two minutes hate is corrosive. Hating anybody 24/7, like Fredo hates liberals, is doubly corrosive. ROAR!!!

I probably shouldn’t continue being semi-serious, but I’ll add something. I think Ski claimed he acted as a guardian ad litem. Good for him (assuming that this rick has remembered correctly, and assuming his claim isn’t his usual self-aggrandizing bullshit).

Alas, the reality is that any kid that needs a GAL is almost certainly going to end up somewhat bad. There is a lot wrong with society but it doesn’t necessarily map onto politics in a simple way, and our current politics isn’t going to solve the problems. I hate bringing politics into the front room precisely because the real shit that affects society doesn’t map neatly onto the political parties and the frickin’ obsession with politics is corrosive.

That said, I just hope that, if Ski really is a GAL, he isn’t the hateful asshole he appears to be on here. Maybe he exorcises that side of his personality by dumping on TUSCL. ROAR, I guess….

^ loser.

To the OP question - it’s less about stigma and societal judgement and more about the reality that a child growing up without two committed parents (married or not) is at a huge disadvantage for success in life. Yes, there are exceptions, but the odds are stacked heavily against.

Also, if either partner in the relationship is “on the fence” about having children, the answer should be “no”. Both parents need to be unequivocally “all in”.

Everyone should be initially on the fence about having kids. If they aren't, they haven't thought seriously enough about the risks and sacrifices involved.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Ski. His observations are in line with my own.

Overwhelming educated people still understand the value of intact households for raising kids. They overwhelmingly marry, enjoy much higher household incomes and produce educated children.

But move down the education and income ladder and you find uneducated lower income folks overwhelmingly having kids out of wedlock. Within these circles, it is considered perfectly acceptable.

Sadly we have made this increasingly easy by heavily subsidizing this behavior via increasingly generous food subsidies (SNAP, WIC), free health insurance for the kids and Mom and even housing assistance. While the intentions of these programs was good, what they really have accomplished is to institutionalize poverty.

It will never cease to amaze me when one of my clients looks me in the eye and says: "I will never get married. I don't want the committment". I have a standard response: "I can get you and anyone else out of a marriage. I have yet to discover a way to send kids back from whence they came". I usually follow up with you have 3 kids with 3 different Fathers. You made 3 conflicting lifetime committments and why you don't get that is something I will never understand.

Simplistic conclusions may be satisfying, but they're rarely accurate.

Take a marriage between two fundamentalist Evangelicals. They may be less likely to get a divorce, or be neglectful of their kids, for self-indulgent reasons. But what if they have a kid who isn't straight? Or isn't religious? They are more likely to cause the kid a lot of pointless suffering.

If you think a person should not be a parent unless they can be an ideal parent, that's a great formula for achieving Tucky's Great Replacement. If you think you can shame people into being ideal parents, you should be ashamed of such foolish thinking.

Some of the leaders of BLM were known to criticize the nuclear family. Because it can interfere with the proper goal: have as many caring adults, who are good influences, in a kid's life as possible. Because getting a malignant parent out of a kid's life, with support from other loved ones, is a good thing. (I've seen several cases where the other loved ones are the malignant parent's relatives.) And those BLM leaders were stupidly demonized.

^ BLM's agenda is Marxism ("we are trained Marxists"), self-enrichment, and the destruction of American society. They deserve to be demonized at every opportunity.

Thankfully, their grift of monetizing the guilt of rich white progressive women has dried up.

Any more disinformation PT?

^ Look at their own website. Truth hurts.

So, PT, since you reject that Marxist theories have any validity, it seems to me like you're out of explanations for The Great Depression. FDR's policies were based on Marx's analysis that, the more advanced Capitalist economies are, the more prone they become to depressions due to crises of overproduction. ("Breadlines knee-deep in wheat" was a common analogy used in the 1930s.) Since Reagan, conservatives have argued that, with more time, a continuation of Hoover's policies would have resulted in a faster, stronger recovery. But, I assume you reject that, since Hoover had more time to fix the bad economy than what you allowed Biden. Conservatives also often blame the high tariffs that were imposed in 1930. But, you are in favor of tariffs and their new king. So, you must have some explanation I haven't heard. Please, enlighten me.

So what is "the" website for BLM? I don't assume you have a bad spray tan PT. If there are people who support BLM and also agree with some part of Marx's thinking, that in itself does not make BLM Marxist.

I see what Marxism has done around the world; created shitholes that coffee shop socialists rationalize by saying "the right people weren't in charge.

Where's the website? Is that "Google" site beyond your comprehension?
blacklivesmatter.com
m4bl.org

Patrice Cullors said "We are trained Marxists."
Alicia Garza has also described herself as "a queer social justice activist and Marxist."

It's only idiot bleeding hearts who say "they just want to make black people's lives better!"

Thankfully these assclowns are out of favor; we'll be better off when they fade into obscurity altogether.

Where do the 4 letters "marx" appear on this page? blacklivesmatter.com

^ Read above. Slowly.

Some pathetic moron posts something from blackliesmatter.com as proof? What a buffoon.

I wan't expecting ski to call PT a buffoon.

^ You're abnormally dense today.

^she is just being a little trans bitch.

I searched with my browser PT, it's not there. You obviously are just blindly accepting bullshit from sources that claim that fact checking is a bad thing.

^ Look up the quote.

That quote doesn't support the assertion that the goals of BLM are Marxist. Just that Marxists are prominent in BLM. And you can't equate all Marxist thinking based on particular Marxist dictators. Just as you can't condemn all Christianity based on The Crusades or The Spanish Inquisition.

Puddy why do you try to teach the willfully ignorant?

^ Teach? More like ridicule. I'm not going to convince him, but I will make him look like a fool (or rather point out how he makes himself look like a fool).

You two need gammy and rickdugan to complete your circle jerk.

He would need to give his sources to teach anyone who wasn't a fool. And he'd understand that if he was being rational, not lamely trying to rationalize hateful hysteria.

^ Stay mad, buddy. Only 3 years and 50 weeks to go!

Do us a favor and keep JB (Jelly Belly) Pritzker in Illinois.

"Sadly we have made this increasingly easy by heavily subsidizing this behavior via increasingly generous food subsidies (SNAP, WIC), free health insurance for the kids and Mom and even housing assistance. While the intentions of these programs was good, what they really have accomplished is to institutionalize poverty."

The issue isn't the programs directly. It's that they are structured in such a way that if you show any reasonable progress (ie start earning slightly about the poverty line) then you immediately lose the benefits.

Essentially some people do work themselves out of a terrible situation, get out of welfare, only to find that living on your own income with the expenses of housing, childcare, food, etc. is rough. Then , without the needed discipline, revert back to welfare.

It's a vicious cycle.

@dugan, my friend, this lion respects you a fellow rick. But let’s not praise Skifredo too highly. He may have said something that made sense to the ricks of the world, but it isn’t like he some sort of genius.

I mean really, I’m sure Skifredo can fill out basic divorce paper work. But I’m also sure he does it in crayon. And then he eats the frickin’ crayons.

Remember that, at the end of the day, Skifredo is a dork that obsessively drinks Strawberry Yoo-hoo and jacks off while listening to Grand Funk Railroad on cassette. But here’s the thing: he wishes he was listening to Grand Funk on 8 track.

Can you imagine the shudder that goes through his office when the see him heading for the can with a bottle of Strawberry Yoo-hoo and then they hear “We’re an American Band!” blasting away? Ewww.

ROAR!!!

Kind of funny/sad that the most important and difficult job in the world, successfully raising a child, has been held by those least capable of performing it.

^
Calm down Skidorkus. Here’s a lil’ somthin’ to focus on: www.bing.com

I even used your favorite search engine. Far be it from this rick to advise you to be semi-normal and use DuckDuckGo if you’re going to eschew Google. Sure…using Bing is a valid life choice. Just like drinkin’ the Yoo-hoo and listening to Grand Funk while you jack it. Ewww!

ROAR!!!

^I never read anything you post. You are a waste of life and serve no viable purpose.

^
C’mon dorkus. At least come up with a creative insult. Oh well…I guess I can’t expect much from a bing user that’s jackin’ off into a bottle of Strawberry Yoo-hoo. ROAR!!!

Now now Mr. Lion, lol. While I obviously don't agree with Ski on everything, on this particular issue he couldn't be more right. I'm wading in the same pool of lower income single Moms that he is, though I'm usually fucking them rather than representing them, lol. It's a veritable shit show.

In fact, I even had a date two weeks ago with a girl who is exactly as described in Ski's example above, 3 different kids from 3 different baby daddies. My better judgment was telling me to disengage, but she was hot as fuck, lol. Hopefully I don't end up being baby Daddy #4. 😅

The stories I hear from these girls are mind numbing. Fathers who are around little if at all. If they manage to receive child support at all, it's often not very much. High rates of behavioral and other problems, especially with the boys. Social and academic problems in school. The list goes on.

If you want to know why the income gap between the poor and the affluent keeps widening, this is it. It doesn't matter how much money we throw at schools or into safety net programs if kids are being raised in fucked up home situations.

@rd none of that would be improved by the people in question getting married. Yes, people should have their shit together before they have kids. The non-obvious case is when two people want to have kids together, but think it's OK if they stayed legally and financially single, with joint custody.

^those people are why I have spent my entire life having fun. They look at what's best for their children based on their narcissistic view of life.

The people who contribute most to society are not the ones who obsessively and pointlessly whine about those who do harm to society. Even though it's extremely expensive, it's cost effective to make sure all public schools are true havens from a bad or mediocre home environment. Pay now to avoid paying much, much more in 10 - 20 years. I know someone who spent much of her childhood in a boarding school. Contrary to the stereotype, those years were among the happiest of her life. But it was a Catholic boarding school. If the government could figure out how to create such boarding schools (never has anywhere, anytime that I know of), it would make it easier to get kids out of the worst homes.

^ As long as public schools are controlled by teachers unions they will remain the problem and not the solution.
Further, you probably shouldn't tell Bostonians that the catholic church is the solution for kids since the pedophilia scandal and all the lives ruined by that piece of shit cardinal Bernard Law and his pimp superiors in the vatican.
The 4 years we lived in the projects were the best part of my childhood, but I sure as hell don't recommend moving to one.

===> "The non-obvious case is when two people want to have kids together, but think it's OK if they stayed legally and financially single, with joint custody."

It's non-obvious because it rarely works out as intended. These types of couples are rarely still together by the time the kids hit school age and then all the usual broken home problems come into play.

^^ The whole Catholic church should have been indicted under RICO for that.

Love how Law got a diplomatic immunity appointment 3 days before he was going to get indicted! He should have been slowly lowered into a tank of hot aqua regia.

In the specific case I was talking about, it was an all girl school, run by nuns, minimal contact with priests.

^ I've known of all girl, nun-run Catholic boarding schools in Central America where the nuns actually pimped out the girls.

^^ The religious schools in Canada where they put First Nations kids were known for horrible abuses.

I enjoyed parochial school. Nothing better than whispering in class and then having to hold out your hands to have them smashed by a sister with a stick.

@PT just go to Coahuila street clubs in TJ next time.

^ I've done FKKs, but TJ doesn't appeal to me. Something about the vibe just seems...off.

^By that do you mean travelling far and spending a lot of money on prostitutes in a vacation locale you wouldn't be caught dead in otherwise? Yeah, me too lol.

^ And having to look over one's shoulder for shakedowns and robbers.

@PT because no nuns or jail bait available?

^ Wow, that's a nonsequitur.

This thread is crazy. Whoremongers talking about wholesome families.basically blaming societys decline on womens rights. Ignoring end stage capitalisn....

Rickdugan talking about the need for nuclear families after cheating on two wives with hookers and creating two broken homes is priceless

TJ is a great place. Beaches, a great food scene. Medical tourism, nice hotels. Clubs. Its not just about hookers. Summing it down to that is plain bigotry

"End-stage capitalism." Lulz.
Capitalism is stronger and more validated than ever.

Marx brought the term Capitalism into wide use in the late 1800s. Capital then was the dominant means of production, and controlling it meant political and economic dominance. But skilled labor has steadily gotten more and more important to production. Right after WW2, Mexico might have had more capital than Germany, but Germany had more skilled labor. But, the more crucial skills of limited supply a worker has, the more they find common interest with the owners of capital, rather than workers with less crucial skills. So, we didn't get the kumbaya workers' paradise Marx thought we would get. People often use capitalism to mean market economies, which in practice have worked much better than command economies.

"Thankfully these assclowns are out of favor; we'll be better off when they fade into obscurity altogether."

THIS^^^

We agree on the statement Puddy. But I'm thinking of your ilk on the long game, not the simple four years, or next executive order signed. For now, 51% to 48% with two shitty candidates to choose from.