TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Fatherless homes produce: 71% of our high school drop-outs, 85% of the kids with behavioral disorders, 90% of our homeless and runaway children, 75% of the adolescents in drug abuse programs, and 85% of the kids in juvenile detention facilities

[deleted]

August 23, 2014
621 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Fatherless homes produce: 71% of our high school drop-outs, 85% of the kids with behavioral disorders, 90% of our homeless and runaway children, 75% of the adolescents in drug abuse programs, and 85% of the kids in juvenile detention facilities
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 621
Comments 162
Date August 23, 2014 6:40 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2eck48/fatherless_homes_produce_71_of_our_high_school/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/fatherless-homes-produce-71-of-our-high-school.228535
https://theredarchive.com/post/228535
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill

Comments

[–]Nebulose11 65 points66 points67 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

There was an elephant relocation movement that basically said the same thing. Remove the fathers and the young males start acting like idiots. Bring the Bull Male back and the young males fell right back in line.

Links were easier to find then I thought: http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/in-the-absence-of-fathers-a-story-of-elephants-and-men/

[–]sciencefacts 23 points23 points23 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So what you're saying is we need more patriarchy and not less?

[–]1ZAQXSWCDEVFR1 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Or more male primary caregivers so that when couples divorce, kids stay with the dad.

Edit: Actually if I recall Sweden managed to change the whole "fathers are bad" stereotype by assigning a certain amount of required parental leave exclusively to men. So of course most men started taking it and suddenly no one was questioning the manliness of guys who want to be good fathers.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]12FAM0US 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

that pretty much sums up Chicago's south side right there

[–]nrjk 32 points33 points34 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

TIL Chicago is full of elephants.

So, their high gun crime is actually poaching?

[–]slcjosh 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I shouldn't have but I laughed out load

[–]M4gikarp 40 points41 points42 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

When I was twelve I had enough shit from my single mother household and sought out my Dad. I lived with him until I went off to college and I was amazed at how long he was able to put up with my mom's shit before he hightailed it out of there. I resented him at first for leaving, but I finally understood. He treated me better than anyone I had ever met, was a smart, nice, and really funny dude. He legitimately cared for me and taught me how to think for myself.

Had I not left when I did, I probably would have killed myself

That's why these articles don't surprise me

[–]ModMachiavellianRed 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

FYI: reddit shadowbanned you I've had to manually approve your post.

Edit: seems you're not shadow banned now.

[–]bowhunter_fta 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What does it mean to be shadow banned and how does "reddit" do that? Why do they do it?

Not trolling. Asking sincere questions.

Thanks!

[–]1dongpal 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

when you post you think everything is fine but in reality you are invisible to the rest

[–]bowhunter_fta 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm still not clear on what happens, how that happens and why it happens. Also who decides to make that happen.

[–]Career-Criminal 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The process is not transparent. Reddit is not as legitimate as many people think.

[–]1dongpal 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

admins ban you, you can still post but no one sees your posts

[–]bowhunter_fta 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you.

[–][deleted] 62 points63 points64 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

BUT HOMES WITH FATHERS PRODUCE 100% OF THE PATRIARCHY.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nothing changing? The nuclear family is fucking destroyed, what are you talking about? There is no patriarchy any more. It's dead. Daddy government has replaced the need of a man for the average women.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Roe v. Wade is THE abortion law. Gay marriage is a religious issue. Glass ceilings are a fucking excuse for whiny ass women and they can fund their own fucking healthcare. Men don't get free healthcare either and they work longer and harder for what they have.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get it, patriarchy means no handouts. Religion has more to do with abortion and gay marriage than anything else.. Glass ceilings, that's another way of saying you won't be promoted above a certain point because you can't fuck your way any higher.

[–]Meatclap 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The feminist lie is a layered series of lies, and one of those lies is that a healthy family doesn't need a man or a father. The feminist lie is about pushing the idea that men are irrelevant, our current child custody issues demonstrate this, popular societal views reflect this.

But rather than examining the issue at it's core, the feminist lie convinces otherwise sensible people that the blame for these problems, dropping out, homelessness, etc, fall solely on those that drop out or are homeless, etc.

Imagine a child that has been pinched until he's screaming and crying, then everyone else seeing him screaming and crying and calling him a crybaby. They blame him for the consequences of other people's actions that have led him to be where he was. The unstable home, the absent father (usually not by the father's choice), these are tools the feminist lie has used to destroy the family unit, and the destruction of the family unit, of that cohesion for children and adults alike are why we see these problems on the rise today.

We have traveled far into this realm, perhaps too far for anything to be done about it societally. Men are still disposable, hypergamy is still lauded, male abuse is aggrandized, the single mom is still a modern goddess, and the legal/justice system is still putting the nails to men. Fatherless hoes are an ordinary thing worthy of praise top the average woman and the typical "white knights", and since women hold the cards reproductively and legally, since they have most of the power and the game favors them almost absolutely this will not change for the better anytime soon. I've met rare exceptions, but often these women were only exceptions after believing in the feminist lie had ruined them (such as giving up family for work/wealth, excluding the father until the damage had them regretting excluding the father)

This comment went longer than expected. Apologies for ranting a little here.

[–]MickeyRoarick 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No apologies, you really got into a good swing there

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But I'm a strong woman who don't need no man!

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 11 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

I remember that there was a study done in the 90s that found the disparity between black and white criminals disappeared when products of single mother homes were removed.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't prove that single-mother homes are the cause. It just narrows the cause down to two possibilities:

  1. Single-mother homes are the cause

  2. Black people are the cause.

The answer is: it's probably a little bit of both.

Either way, black families have been decimated by the loss of industry (Blue-collar men can't find jobs). Then "killed with kindness" by welfare programs that leave black women without the need for a provider-man.

A similar story can be seen in poor whites. The divorce rate has skyrocketed for both groups. Meanwhile, the upper class has had a steady divorce rate around 7% (?) since the 80s

Look at a documentary featuring working-class black and white people from the 1960s/1970s. Everybody wore a button-up, spoke in clear English, and was married in a nuclear family.

What the fuck happened.

also: regarding your study, remember that black people only make up 13% of the US population. A lot of blue-pillers like to say "more white people are on welfare than black" but the reality is that when population size is taken into account, a black woman is x6 more likely to receive welfare

[–]1ZAQXSWCDEVFR1 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You haven't named even a tenth of all the possible hypothesis. Here's a good mechanism that explains how cultural traits are inherited even when a family has been removed from that culture for generations.

So don't jump on the genetics bandwagon unless you actually know what you're talking about.

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

  1. Dramatically state that opponent does not understand "1/0 of all possible hypothesis" (it's hypotheses, btw)

  2. Reference obscure academic article

  3. Imply opponent is jumping on a bandwagon and does not understand the argument at hand

Pathetic

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Calling a mental midget pathetic is not getting butthurt. It's like swatting a fly

Your argument is weak and does not qualify as a third explanation

[–]1ZAQXSWCDEVFR1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your explanation requires ignoring the fact that black people and women are treated differently by society and have different recent histories. So yeah, I'd think it's insufficient in many ways. But sure, keep name-calling and downvoting stuff you don't like. I'm sure if you do that enough, you'll somehow be less wrong.

[–]LS_D 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck happened.

The New World Order 'happened'

[+][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Black people are the cause.

...because of social inequality. I think that's a very important addendum.

[–]noteventrying 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

That is a blue pill of a different type. Explain why the poorest counties in america, which are in Appalachia and are totally white, are not the most dangerous. Or why in other countries that have imported africans, such as the UK, see similar crime rates among them.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The overall response I got to this comment is interesting in that it seems to suggest that poverty in some way doesn't positively result in an increase in crime. If you think this claim is wrong, then take it up with the US Census and the FBI.

Being black doesn't impart some kind of genetic predisposition to violence so there are other variables at play. Firstly, that black people in the US are by and large significantly more poor than white people. They also comprise of large percentages of inner city areas. Inner city areas aggravate the already preexisting link between poverty and crime. More people bunched together = higher crime per capita. A nice rundown of this. This is why your Appalachia doesn't really work, because it's population density is much lower than major cities. Using UK as an example has also had a history of racial inequality so I don't see how that helps your point.

Barring Asians, minorities have a higher rate of divorce than white people. So does this cause poverty or does poverty cause divorce? Probably both - it's a feedback loop where they continuously affect the other.

Coming from a broken home vastly increases your odds of becoming a criminal, but saying "lol black people" while statistically correct ignores why it's happening.

This sub is about not falling for the bullshit that society tries to shovel, but it's also about being smart about recognizing what's actually happening.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I have to humbly disagree and say you have a misunderstanding of the very basis of genetics.

It's well established that personality traits are partially (about 50% is the general consensus) genetically coded.

Established how? 50% is a bold claim and you'll need to provide some bold evidence to back it up, because I'm not even certain what you mean by "genetically coded". That was once a claim made several decades ago, but not so much in modern fields.

With that said, certain races would have a greater predisposition to violence.

You're teasing with eugenics at this point which is what happens when you have an understanding of biology straight out of the 1930's (I blame our shit education system for this). Genes are not some rigid framework for how humans operate. Groups of people acting similarly? Well, it must be genetically caused, right? Well...no. Not really. The nature vs. nurture debate usually fails to account for the environment actively and constantly reshaping gene expression. We can look at the heritability of intelligence as a comparison and we see that genetic determination is somewhere between inconsequential to completely non-existent. This is the case with nearly any human behavioral study ever conducted; genetic determination has very little to do with how people act.

And before anyone gets their panties in a twist then I'd recommend watching the Stanford course on behavioral genetics because it talks about this whole issue specifically and it's entertaining as hell IMO. I don't want to be a pedantic asshole, because we may agree in some cases, but I think the subtleties are infinitely more important to understand.

EDIT: The 8 minute mark is where he discusses twin studies which is most relevant to this discussion.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Note that the highest correlations are genetic not environmental. Identical twins raised apart are much more similar in IQ than unrelated children raised together.

I think you may be getting the wrong impression as to what those numbers mean. Environment does not begin at birth. Those with higher heritabilty shared prenatal environments. Prenatal effects on humans in staggeringly potent ways so you can not say accurately that "highest correlations are genetic not environmental" because that's not what heritability means. Heritablity concerns how much genetics are playing a role in differences in IQ. This is not the same as to how much genetics influences IQ in any one person. That distinction is very important to remember.

Trust me, I fucked up this concept for years and a lot of others do as well. This explains where the confusion starts.

The Stanford course I linked speaks of adoption and twins studies at length and the information present there does not result in the same findings that you claim. Quite the opposite in some cases.

You have an uphill battle in demonstrated that some races are genetically inferior or genetically prone to more aggressive behavior btw. Good luck with it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thats easy to explain, thats rural vs urban. Rural is notoriously safer. Even black rural poor counties are safe. I grew up in appalachia. Our cities are still cesspools of crime, but our rural counties are not.

[–]noteventrying 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Black offending rates are still over three times the white rate in rural areas. Read for yourself (pages 31 and 32).

[–]blue_27 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because social inequality isn't just about money, dickhead.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]noteventrying 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What you say may be true but wikipedia has this to say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#England_and_Wales_crime_statistics

[+]Hypocrite_Redditor-6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So the red pill of that type is racism? Cool bro you sound like a nice guy

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's the same logic as calling the red pill misogynistic.

It's not a hatred toward any race. It's just acknowledging that nations of people evolved separately and developed different traits.

We acknowledge that different breeds of dogs have different traits but when it comes to humans we won't even entertain the idea because it's "racist."

[–]1ZAQXSWCDEVFR1 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that we can fully control a dog's environment and figure out genetic traits easily because of that. We can't control how people react to different races or genders. Which means that you can never get rid of these confounding influences. A black guy simply doesn't experience the same world that a white guy does. People react differently to him, expect him to behave differently, and ultimately influence what he does with his life.

In the context of human behavior, all we can say is "this is what happens". We can't know why anything happens unless we actually establish a mechanistic pathway. It will be at least 30-40 years before our understanding of the brain is anywhere near enough to do stuff like that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well we know there are differences in disease susceptibility. Black males have also been shown to have higher testosterone levels.

Then there's this study http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

But also a large part of it is them not growing up with fathers, that contributes to a lot of problems with that community. I just believe that there are genetic factors as well, as uncomfortable as that fact may be.

[–]1ZAQXSWCDEVFR1 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Testosterone is a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's a mechanistic pathway. So if you do studies on people and artificially change their testosterone, you can (not definitively but somewhat reliably) figure out what traits testosterone causally affects. It might affect these traits in some kind of loop or it might be more direct. Spatial reasoning abilities for instance, that's probably something that men are going to be better at even without confounding social influence merely because we know for a fact that testosterone directly influences it. You can't, however, definitively know exactly why testosterone itself is higher in blacks. Testosterone fluctuates in response to all kinds of things including mood.

As for the adoption study, it's all good stuff, but they're still going to experience the world differently from white children. There are tons of studies and all of them show that people react differently to white and black children and adults. Since human beings are insanely complex, it's pretty much impossible to know the effect this has on people.

[–]noteventrying 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I am not saying this is the final word or that the discussion is settled but check this analysis out. Jump to pages 272 and 273 for a summary chart.

[–]1ZAQXSWCDEVFR1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is great. It's exactly the kind of research that can give us clues ahead of when we'd normally be able to figure this out using direct study of how the brain itself works. The big problem with cross culture studies is that cultures aren't really randomly distributed, so it's hard to make too many claims based on a bunch of them. Especially in the context of globalization. That being said, it's a very clever way of going about this kind of research.

[–]busior 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP is about accepting the world the way it is, no PC BS should affect your thinking. Just because you don't like facts doesn't make me or him racist/misogynistic

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I love how articles like this dance around the truth and add so much placating language when the point could have been stated in a paragraph.

[–]ProfessorD2 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It seemed pretty direct to me. Jam-packed with statistics, but quite direct.

What exactly do you think it's dancing around?

I'll sum it up in two sentences: The War on Drugs has disproportionately left black families fatherless. Since fatherless children tend to become criminal adults, the War on Drugs has set in motion and perpetuated a vicious cycle."

[–]kanaduhisfruityeh 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Assuming your stats are accurate, they illustrate some of the disadvantages of the "alpha breeder" reproductive strategy. The child abandoned by an alpha father, particularly in economically disadvantaged circumstances, can face serious challenges. A child with a present beta father may be better off than the alpha's bastard.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That's why successful cultures encourage monogamy.

[–]kawanami 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe it's why you should too... help put an end this growing race of idiots.

[+]reason_is_why -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do ya think? That such a comment is so rare is why TRP needs to get their science from actual real SCIENTISTS, not from sexually frustrated, mentally ill, single young men.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I gather that redpill orthodoxy is that monogamy is a fine thing that's been ruined by the social and legal changes of the past 50 years (feminism). Ideally men are supposed to marry 20 year old virgins, who, being in their prime and having no sexual history, make for quality long-lasting marriage. These women are far more likely to remain committed, and have the potential to remain very attractive for quite a while. The couple's bond will remain strong, and with equitable divorce laws and the right social pressures, the whole arrangement works very well.

However, most women nowadays are accepting our culture's encouragement that they spend their 20's 'exploring' and end up jaded, used up, and well past their prime by the time they start frantically looking to settle down as they approach 30. Feminism says that men and women should do the same things and play by the same rules. This is at odds with biology and and the traditions arrived at through ten thousand years of trial-and-error, and the situation we have now is the result. Through a series of different partners, wall-approaching women have desensitized themselves to lifelong monogamy, spent their best years in the arms of different men, and at around 30 are looking to exchange what's left with some poor beta chump who hasn't taken the redpill. They gave their best years to other men. You're expected to stick around for their worst. Divorce laws encourage them to fuck you over later in divorce court, and there's no social pressure against doing so, as there used to be.

Men, on the other hand, peak later in life. Right as women are approaching the wall, their male peers are peaking in sexual market value. A man of 30 might like to have been married to his hot young virgin wife for years by that time, but those women don't exist anymore, so he's been playing his part in their 'exploration' this whole time, and if he's an alpha redpill stud, will continue doing so. One thing he absolutely will not do is get locked down by some used up wall-victim.

As long as the guy would prefer to settle down with a supposedly non-existent 20 year old virgin rather than plow a bunch of sluts, it's not hypocritical. Best I can see is that more often than not this is not the encouraged route. By far, men are encouraged to do the latter, which seems to be to be a bit of a hypocrisy/contradiction of this whole line of thinking. I think that to be coherent, a redpiller should lament the situation we're in, but accept it and act accordingly. The true alpha thing to do is to find a good woman and raise a good family - you cannot lament fatherless homes while shunning fatherhood. I think that for a while that might have been the prevailing attitude - that fits with the whole notion of "taking the red pill" - but I'm not sure it's the case now. Now we're supposed to just enjoy the demise of western culture and bang as many easy women as we can.

That's just how the redpill thing looks to me.

TL;DR: RP on Monogamy: Monogamy is a fine thing, maybe the finest thing, destroyed by feminism. Act accordingly.

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The majority of successful cultures in history were poly in one way or another.

[–]MelodyMyst 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Care to back that up with some cites or stats, or would yiu prefer to just collect negative votes?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its well known that most culture were poly, its only relatively recently that monogamy caught on. Ancient chinese, ancient greeks, ancient india, most tribes of the americas, africans, and south east asian islands.Monogamy only became common around the roman empire and christianity's acceptance. Even then, jewish, christian and muslim texts all support polygamy.

I don't really care if you guys are downvoting me, its a well known reality for anyone who has studies history or anthropology. Polygamy is the norm throughout history. This current need on reddit for sources on what is absolutely common knowledge to anyone with even a basic education is just shocking. Reddit used to be filled with educated people, not angry twits.

So since you guys made the counter claim to what is considered the status quo, do you have any examples of successful cultures other than our own western one(derived mostly from roman empire) that encourages monogamy? If anything the focus on monogamy now has more to do with succession lines of power, wealth, and taxation, and little or nothing to do with long term stability of the culture.

[–]vaker 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not that straightforward if you try to define 'disadvantage'. Sure such a population will not build or maintain a high culture/civilization. But there will be more of them which is the evolutionary definition of successful.

This behavior can be considered an evolutionary adaptation to rich societies that can afford to support such evolutionary strategy through welfare. When the society/civilization eventually collapses, welfare disappears and those best adapted to welfare find they have a problem.

[–]hermit087 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A comment I have seen countless times in "its a good thing that beta's are not reproducing because they are no longer passing on their weak genetics." In reality that's not how it works, and the beta provider characteristics of the most successful civilizations reflect that.

[–]reason_is_why -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do ya think? Does any sane, normal person advocate the strategy of making babies then abandoning them?

[–]atleastitsnotaids 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No but a welfare state that promotes a 'you go grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl' mentality incentivizes and allows this to occur.

[–]kanaduhisfruityeh 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people who are "sane" and "normal" enough to get lots of young bitches to let them cum in their pussy with no condom on advocate and/or follow this strategy. There's lots of chicks who reject betas but breed with drive-by alpha inseminators.

Then society wonders why a lot of men opt out of the golden opportunity to become beta providers for other men's children / sexless marriage husbands / eventual divorce-rape victims. Yep, its a head scratcher- LOL.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

[–]Locastor 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh but I thought all you needed was a mother's love....?

[–]2alisonstone 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most children in single mother households don't even get that because the mother quickly realizes that the kid drags her SMV down the toilet. Even many beta men know enough to not date a single mother. She ends up blaming the kid instead of herself for having the kid.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These statistics are soooo sexist.

Are you saying women can't raise boys into men just as good as men? This must be because, patriarchy. Boys are just defective little girls who need to learn to sit quietly and study politely just like the good girls. Boys don't need a father cuz...you go giiiirrrl.

They are taking apart the richest, most successful society in all of world history brick-by-brick right in front of us.

[–]PlusGoody 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, what to do?

Recognize that we're in a hole and STOP DIGGING.

All never-married mothers and their spawn, and women who electively divorce their husbands, permanently ineligible for government benefits of any sort. Women who can prove they were abandoned by their husbands can have benefits and their ex-husbands impressed into hard labor to contribute to the cost. (Probably break even when you consider the low value of their labor, but it's important to send the message.)

[–]MrToM88 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Arent these statistics biased ? Afaik there are a lot more fatherless homes than motherless homes so the statistics are bound to be higher for the fatherless homes. Maybe we could see some normalized statistics.

For instance what is the propensity for an high school student to drop out depending of being in a fatherless or motherless home.

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 44 points45 points46 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the wrong way to look at this. "Fathers are better than mothers" or whatever is not what we should be taking away from these statistics. That's hard to measure, and we simply do not have the data to determine which parent is better at raising kids.

What we should be taking away from these statistics, basically, is that single parent households are more likely to result in fucked up kids.

You can blame it on shitty mothers, or you can blame it on the justice system for giving custody to mothers most of the time, or whatever. But the facts are put very simply here: when a household splits and a kid grows up absent a parental role, they're more likely to grow up to be a delinquent, a dropout, a thug, or a criminal.

And who's more likely to cause that household split? That's right, women.

Women are waaay more likely to end a relationship than men. This is due to the fact that a) the government incents them to do so, and b) the fact that modern women are trying to get as much mileage out of the CC as they can, resulting in her being forced into a post-wall beta bux marriage, which is going to make her miserable, which is going to result in, you guessed it, divorce, single motherhood, and fucked up kids.

That's the REAL issue here. There's a whole generation of kids being raised poorly because women are being taught by feminist dogma that they can "have it all" - the career, the exciting "bad boy" years, and then the "nice guy" marriage when they slam into the wall.

What no one's telling them is that that "nice guy" bux marriage isn't going to work out in the long term, she won't be haaappy, she'll end it, the government will make sure she gets plenty of vaginamony for her troubles, aaaaand who suffers as a result? That's right, the kids.

That's fucked up.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Staple_Stable 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They're not "biased" in that they're true, but you're absolutely right that you can't used them to make a statement about fatherless vs motherless households.

Also, I want to point out that its hard to normalize these things because even if you do compare them to motherless households, a motherless household is WAY more likely to have good shit going for it because of the nature of the legal system. A father that by some incredible means manages to obtain sole legal custody of his children can not be used as a representative sample of the average father in the US because they basically have to have everything going for them to be able to raise his kids without the mother.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it just relative to the mother though? If the mom is batshit insane in numerous ways with clear evidence to support the notion, the guy could just be any old schmuck with a big enough bank account and be better than her.

[+]bisexie -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

correlation is not causation.

EDIT: jesus christ. I basically summed up what the guy above said in that "They're not "biased" in that they're true, but you're absolutely right that you can't used them to make a statement about fatherless vs motherless households."

[–]slurp_derp 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fatherless Homes = Juvie ; Motherless Homes = Porn

[–]randomkloud 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

at least one's making money

[–]Hyperian 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Yea, i agree. also, how does it correlate with income? It's going to be a lot harder to raise kids just because you're poor.

[–]TRP VanguardtrpSenator 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just woke up and am way too lazy look for the source, but they've found that single father homes are far more productive for children. Obviously household income has a lot to do with it, yet when income is controlled, you still see a real significant difference between the two genders.

Single parents, regardless of gender are worse for children compared to children in nuclear households (didn't study gay households, but I imagine it's similar to hetero households), yet single mother households are worse than single father.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]1xchromosome 20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It does when you have to work two jobs or double shifts just to feed your family.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]1xchromosome 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is that at all relevant for the analysis of the presented statistic?

[–]Nikitah 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It kind of does. The underclass is a vicious cycle, it's hard to break free from it. When everyone you know does not give a fuck about school, stealing (and the physical violence involved with it) for "fun" is what youngsters do, home-life is terrible as the mother grew up living the same life, still drinks and sleeps around (of course no protection), the mother does not give a fuck because she simply does not know what giving a fuck is, she was never given a fuck about either etc.

This is also the underclass where the father goes to buy a pack of cigarettes once he finds out the lady is pregnant or the young child is being a "little bitch" (also cf. mother sleeping around, these mothers may not even remember who the father is).

So yeah, being poor in itself != bad parent, but I'm guessing these statistics are definitely influenced by that culture/class.

[–]vox_veritas 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the mother does not give a fuck because she simply does not know what giving a fuck is

Great point. I've always thought that asking a person in that position, "Why don't you care?" isn't the right question. Because they're going to reply, "What do you mean?" They don't even know how to correct the behavior.

So yeah, being poor in itself != bad parent, but I'm guessing these statistics are definitely influenced by that culture/class.

Exactly. Just like a kid getting in trouble in itself != bad parent, but there is certainly a correlation.

Likewise, I don't believe that fatherless home in itself != automatic fucked up kid. I'd like to see statistics comparing fatherless to motherless homes, and for single-parent households in general. I think that the single-parent household issue is the most important factor. I'd also like to see comparisons of single-parent households where the parents are divorced versus never married.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being poor directly relates to level of homelessness, criminality, or mental illness.

[–]MickeyRoarick 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Being poor in America does. Immigrant cultures that brought in entire poor communities that helped support their children together do pretty well.

MTV culture is a disease.

[–]ehenning1537 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not to mention fighting for legal custody. Poor people can't come up with thousands of dollars just to take a chance at becoming a full time father. Even if they spend the money the court still almost always decides in favor of the mother

[–]SanguineThought 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have an older brother. He is put together, has a good job, enough money, no debt, and is a good father, very involved in his kids lives. After 11 years of fighting for custody for his daughter he finally won... but only after the unemployed drunk mom, with a record, stabbed her current husband in front of the kids... and in front of the cops that were already there because of yet another domestic disturbance caused by raging drunk mom. It still took a year. Saying the courts are biased twoard mom's is an understatment.

[–]hiphoprising 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I'd like to see it done by scale. Would be a lot more helpful.

[–]2alisonstone 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The biggest source of potential bias is likely due to fathers not being awarded custody of children unless the mother is incarcerated, institutionalized, or deceased. The only fathers that can get custody of children must have a pristine background, high earnings, and have demonstrated a superior ability to take care of the children.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Those numbers are very significant and show a strong correlation. Although a large majority of these people are black, it would be more interesting and solid to see the breakdown by race and income.

That would put the nail in the coffin.

[–]busior 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I see that a lot of people here are butthurt because it shows that blacks = increased chance of crime, dropping out etc.

This is TRP people - accept the world for what it is or GTFO

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am a single father, been raising my son basically by my self since he was 19 months old (he is 8 now). he does have a mother but she cares more about her social life then her children and so just leaves them to the fathers to care for and visits them at her leisure. I NEVER talk down about his mother nor about women, only that he can be happy without having one in his life.

I AM raising my son with the understandings that marriage is an arcane thing of the past, and that past having babies men do not NEED women. yes love is grand, but our happiness should not be based on wanting or having a woman in our lives.

[–]Drogoe6 points 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Are there any good studies that control for heritability and can show causality?

Most of the studies I've looked at get it confused because fatherless homes are typically in low socioeconomic shitholes with half-retarded mothers and douchebag genes from the father. Throw these into the mix and you get juvenile delinquents.

Get a kid from good stock, raised in a good community, and try to see if the variable of fatherlessness has much of an effect.

[–]noteventrying 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be one of the few that gets it. It turns out that as far as intelligence goes, 80% of adult IQ is explained by genetics and the rest is explained by something else other than SES (socioeconomic status).

[–]Fzed600 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We need a #singlemomsbreedcriminals campaign. Women are so hung up on getting easy money that their ignorance and selfishness is causing the destruction of the nuclear family. I dont use twitter so I have no no how to set that up.

[–]vaker 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Females voting will gradually turn the state into a provider for them. This fits the marxist agenda of abolishing the family.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe the fathers who left should have some blame.( Not talking about divorces)

[–]busior 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Accept slutty and crazy behavior for the sake of a child?? Don't count on me dude.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You shouldn't. But not all single mother families are caused by this.

[–]busior 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How often do you see a guy leave the family for purely selfish reasons and the woman runs after him asking him not to leave ??

[–]2mbillion 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Turns out the gub-ment is not as good as a real dad

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Article TL;DR: The War On Drugs™ was deliberately constructed to target blacks and has a stronger correlation to the production of single mother households than the welfare state (although the latter, of course, does not help). The destruction of the nuclear family and the rise of the single-mother household has contributed to a massive breakdown in society, especially among blacks. This has also been reflected in the distribution of wealth in society, with blacks owning eight cents to the dollar and having a far more difficult time investing and receiving loans.

Here is a key quote from the article:

As one Nixon’s Chief of Staff wrote in his diary: “Nixon emphasized that you have to face the fact the whole [drug] problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognises this while not appearing to.”

And if there’s any doubt about the weight that quote might have had on legislation, here are Nixon’s own words on abortion: “There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. ” And when exactly would that be? “When you have a black and a white.”

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You can almost never take statistics at face value. Most people will read something like this and make from the correlation that people with no fathers are more likely to be dropouts, juvenile delinquints, etc. but taking into consideration how many of those fatherless families are of African lineage might change the way you interpret this. It's just like the whole "women make $0.70 for every $1.00 a man makes" or "Men are 90% more likely to be injured on the job" statistics

[–]AdmiralKuznetsov 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Except that one of those statistics false while the other is true.

[–]1CaptainFalconer 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Those stats are true, just represented in a misleading way.

Women make unequal pay, for unequal work.

It's only misleading when feminists imply that as a total demographic, that women do equal work as men. Which is blatantly untrue.

[–]AdmiralKuznetsov 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The former is a blatant lie, the latter is potentially misleading.

[–]1CaptainFalconer 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you mix that up?

The latter is a blatant lie, the former is true but misleading.

For the former,
Women earn less.
Women also do less work, easier, less stressful, more flexible, more emotionally rewarding work than men.

For an apples to apples comparison, women as a whole earn slightly less than men. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html

And single childless unmarried women under 30 earn more than men. http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Also for negotiated benefits/bonuses, men earn more. But that's because men negotiate more than half the time, and women hardly negotiate pay benefits at all. Statistically.

[–]MickeyRoarick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All correct here. Carry on.

[–]NAmember81 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Everybody has an average of one boob.

[–]joncho 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

One point something. Women are majority.

[–]NAmember81 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe 1.7 if you count all the man boobs (moobs) at "Golden Corral", "Cracker Barrel" and the china buffet. A lot of dudes are straight up working with solid Double Ds come to think of it. I was at one of the many china buffets in my town and the asian customers are usually very thin and healthy looking but to contrast that the American customers are disproportionately fucking huge, like the whole booth as one seat huge.

But to be fair Evansville Indiana was declared "Most obese city in America" and I am about a couple hours from there. I moved 8 years ago and started a new life and I got curious a week ago and lurked on Facebook to see what the "Hot" and "popular" chicks looked like now in their 30's, needless to say I was shocked, "the wall" is real my friends, and these girls that thought they were the shit hit it hard. But also a lot of just normal average looking girls evolved into very desirable MILF's.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I suspect it has something to do with hormone exposure. I've got man boobs, and they wont go away. I've lost 120 lbs, i've built my pecks up so much i can make them dance with precision, but they wont go away. Legs were down to nothing but muscle, arms were solid muscle or loss skin. Abs were starting to be recognizable, man boobs were bigger than ever.

[–]MickeyRoarick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

could be posture as well. Work on your shoulders.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If i stand tall with good posture i look big and confident, but my moobs also stand straight out. My gutt is now many inches smaller than they are. Its annoying, and i can't afford surgery.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

nice stats, surprising they got out. democracy is the carcinogen, feminism was one of original tumors, those are metastases. more is sure to follow.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Theres a theory that the crime rate has gone down so much due to the availability of abortion to these households. Since they breed so many of the future criminals.

[–]ExistentialDread 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Freakonomics was discredited.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How can we explain the Drop in crime?

[–]MickeyRoarick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lead theory is pretty popular. Check it out

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats an interesting theory.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But let's restrict abortion because its immoral!

[–]Endorsed Contributorbalalasaurus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand the effect that fatherless homes have on kids , but aren't homes with BP fathers equally as dangerous?

[–]MickeyRoarick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're called providers for a reason. While they churn out subservient men, they're probably not turning out as many prisoners.

[–]SlootShamer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I don't think every evil one finds inordinately in single-mother households is due directly to the absence of a father, much of it is.

Often times when these startling numbers are mentioned, the first thing the hamsters start spinning out is that it is solely a question of money. Namely, when dads are absent the kids face a financial deficit and this (and only this) is the reason for worse outcomes.

Even if one were to grant (for argument's sake) that the only pitfall of absentee dads is a financial one, we would be left to ask what the solution ought to be? As by itself, that reason alone makes a pretty good case for kids benefiting from having old dad around.

Of course we already know their answer - just expropriate the money from men! Problem solved!

TL-DR: Even where neo-bolsheviks seem to acknowledge the contribution of males to child development, it is only as a pretext to justify putting their hands in people's pockets to finance their war on family life.

[–]hiphoprising 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can we get a ratio on that with motherless versus fatherless?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a young man raised by a single mother who dropped out of HS I can agree that fathers are needed for a real sense of authority in the household.

[–]Gami_Lon1 points 11 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

My husband and I were talking about this today. He stated that all of the craziest girls he ever dated had two things in common:

  1. they had tattoos

  2. they smoked

Basically both of these things were indicators that the person had problems with self-control.

The same concepts likely apply to children. If you are a fifteen year old male, the only person controlling your behavior is YOU if there isn't a man in the house.

IE, a 45 year old woman will have a hard time controlling the behavior of a 15yo boy, but a 45yo man has a fighting chance. If the man isn't there, then the only person policing the 15 year old's behavior is himself.

[–]saucey_cow1 points 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I see what you're saying and the last part of your post I agree with. No child should have to raise himself, and in situations where it's a fatherless home, it really boils down to if the child can make the right decisions for himself. As you can clearly see from the statistics, many fatherless children cannot. Some are able to, but many kids are...not mature enough to be able to do that.

Some people in the thread talked about how they were in a single parent household(Their mom) and they turned out to be "productive members of society"(Not sure how else to put it really). Well great man, you managed to raise yourself. Many fatherless kids can't, you are one of the lucky ones.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anddd, Its the dads fault, not really the some who raised them.

[–]ieatcarrots 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel lucky being on the opposite side of this.

[–]Zchavago 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How many of those are blacks?

[–]whitey_male 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To ad insult to injury the left wants more taxes on men to pay for this garbage, to sweep the problem under the rug.

Good thing you have privatised jails in the US.

[–]arhombus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gonna check these numbers, they sound high.

[–]jakethesnake76 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i would add to that some of the Beta men's children , where the mother rules the house are also subject to these influences..

[–]incraved -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe it's just correlation?

EDIT: Just as an example, how about African Americans inflating these numbers? A big percentage of them is fatherless and commit crimes etc. Maybe the thing that's causing a lot of fatherlessness in their communities is also causing the whole "gangsta culture" thing?

[–]1CaptainFalconer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps. But there's also plenty of studies that show that crime rates drop when access to abortion goes up.

Freakanomics covered one of them in their original book

[+]Aweshocked -20 points-19 points-18 points 11 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a redpill user to be honest. I only come here for the laughs, which is why I don't comment because then I'm told that crazy drop the bluepill beta and swallow the red pill shit and become an alpha whatever that means then down voted to shit, which will happen now.

But I don't know if these statistics are really true. I'm 17 with a single mom and I just made principle list twice last year, only smoke when I feel like it (7 times to count) , only drink in good conditions. And just last month I finally got laid. WHICH by the way I did by being sweet on a girl, not being some alpha male whatever

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't understand how statistics work.

Highschool is serious business.

[–]Subtletorious 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Learn the difference between likely and certain.

[–]troll_bends_fir 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Congratulations on winning the lottery.

[+]Aweshocked -10 points-9 points-8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'll prepare for the downvotes

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You mean the attention-whoring. Ironically, seeking negative attention is also correlated to boys in your situation.

[–]Aweshocked -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That correct punctuation and everything. You really worked on that one

[–]awesomesalsa 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[–]Average_Black_Man -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That time you invested being "sweet" on a girl could have gotten you 5 girls had you not been a beta. I'm willing to bet she was below a 6/10 as well.

[–]Aweshocked -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bet what you want. The girl was beautiful man. I don't need to prove anything

[–]Deebo33 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you didn't need to prove anything then you wouldn't have mentioned anything in the first place.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but I know a lot of fatherless kiss who do, you have an anecdotal bias, shit head.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That was my point. It was a satire on your post.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what I mean, on to a more serious approach to what I mean. I know people from all sides of this spectrum, I live in divorce capitol. I know people with and without both parents who do these things. I never really thought until this thread/mens rights movement in general that it may be due to single parent homes.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a wonderful anecdote.

[–]Subtletorious 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your misunderstanding of probability is almost as astounding as your hubris.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter