TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Discrimination against singles

MGTOW_AS_FUCK

April 22, 2016
37 upvotes
/r/MGTOW

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/singled-out-are-america-s-unmarried-discriminated-against.html

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/nov/22/price-of-being-single

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Discrimination against singles
Author

MGTOW_AS_FUCK

Upvotes 37
Comments 30
Date April 22, 2016 5:41 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/4fx4xi/discrimination_against_singles/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/discrimination-against-singles.635856
https://theredarchive.com/post/635856
Red Pill terms in post
MGTOW

Comments

[–]Mardoo29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Beats the price of paying for a kid or an ex-wife..

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Also, betas pay the price for a kid and a ex-wife.

[–]rebuildingMyself7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All men pay for spawn with the endless government programs designed to shield women from the consequences of their actions

[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

depends which government, of course

[–]abandonedthrowaway320 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Best answer I can find... I wonder if someone can make a few calculations to give us some rough estimates on how much money is saved?

i.e. standard taxes for a single person with standard income in a 1 bedroom apartment vs. reduced taxes for a family of, say, 4...both partners work standard income with a 3 bedroom house plus expenses?

[–]Mardoo1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'll probably are better off being single and working full-time. I mean, you have to make time for the wife, the kids, the hobby, the friends, the kid's teachers and whatever comes up, drama, drama, drama everywhere.

I don't really know how much is saved, but you'll probably won't die of a heart attack because you worked your ass to the bone and are dealing 24/7 with kids and wife shit.

[–]jebthecybersoldier0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Turd Flinging Monkey does this in one of his videos.

[+]ryeshoes 10 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I have this hypothesis that governments promote the family unit (or more recently, just the act of making children) because the former creates more taxpayers and the latter creates more opportunities to create tax funded job opportunities (family court, men in prisons...)

In the private sector single people and childless people are treated as disposable labor while people with children get preferential treatment. But I haven't figure out what corporations get by treating their workforce in this manner.

[–]squeadle15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Corporations like family men because they are less likely to job hop. The pressure of supporting a wife and kids, maintaining stability, etc. means a man is more likely to stay in the rat race, pay his dues to seek promotion, not relocate, etc.

[–]Vega-Pinto-Rust-BOOM6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this. Tin-foil-hat or not, it makes sense. And it's also why several companies like people with degrees over actual skill because college = debt, and debt = slavery.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I have this hypothesis that governments promote the family unit (or more recently, just the act of making children) because the former creates more taxpayers and the latter creates more opportunities to create tax funded job opportunities (family court, men in prisons...)

Nah... if that were the case, then governments wouldn't support/subsidize abortion.

A far simple explanation is that the majority of the population (especially the VOCAL population) is either married and/or has children -- add in that their demands can always SEEM to be "selfless" (i.e. "Won't somebody think of the children?"} -- therefore an array of policies that pander to them are an "easy sell".

By contrast, single (especially single & childless) people tend to exist on the margins of society -- they also tend to be less vocal, in no small part because if/when they DO speak up, they are all too easily tagged as being "selfish", and just about the only way for them to avoid that label is to advocate for others (i.e. meaning the single people stand up and say "Won't somebody think about the women & children?")

Add in as well that single people do not come into existence ex nihilo -- by definition they came from, or at least were birthed into existence as part of a "family" (even if it's just a "single mom") -- IOW, during childhood is not the first ~20+ years of their life (fully 1/4 if not 1/3 of their lifespan) they are unwittingly part of the "family" political target group (i.e. and therefore not a part of the "single-adult" group).

[–]oldredder1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah... if that were the case, then governments wouldn't support/subsidize abortion

incorrect.

Governments are forced to do both for the same reason: stability.

Without growth they go broke. Without abortion you get too many criminals in the next generation.

[–]rebuildingMyself2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't mind the family unit being promoted (it produces far more stable taxpayers in average than the single mom spawn). If only the government strengthened marriage instead of weakening it.

But I'm one of the many guys out there that's decently successful but won't subject myself to the risks of marriage (dead bedroom, infidelity, etc) and the inevitable divorce-rape that follows. And part of me is still sad about that.

[–]Cashews4U1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Governments have promoted child bearing for ages. You can't continue society if generations continue to have less and less children than the former. Although now it has never been easier to immigrate so that skews things a bit.

[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually this is the hardest in human history to immigrate. The easiest was when there were no passports and no nations so no national borders - just city-states, city gates, guilds and sales people

[–]Cashews4U0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean from a travellin standpoint. Trains planes and automobiles.

[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

that hypothesis is proven by both actions and statements of governments that they need an exponential growth of population just to break even.

In the private sector single people and childless people are treated as disposable labor while people with children get preferential treatment.

I see the opposite. I see those with children enslaved, put to harder work and treated like shit because they can't leave or they will starve their children, while those who are single are treated better because they can find food for 1 with much less problems by being suddenly fired.

[–]ryeshoes1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

well yes in the long term I expect to retire early because I don't have to drop 200k on a kid, nor will I feel the pressure to be promoted due to some woman's incessant heckling.

but you'll see parents ditch work or ask that people with more spare time commit to extra work or overtime because "i need time away for family"

[–]tconwk9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As an atheist, anarcho-capitalist, and general introvert.. I'm used to it. At some point you just have to not care what others think. Quite frankly they don't know shit.

[–]wechselgeld5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

singles are just bad for the divorce industry. the politician know that and try to make you marry....fucking assholes

[–]grasshopa0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Of course the government encourages coupling ( and, likewise, discourages singleism through discrimination ). This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Nor should the reasons; a person who is in a legally committed relationship is easier to control and has strong incentive to produce more, leading to healthier economies ( which thrive on stability and productivity ).

I'm not even convinced it's wrong, and that's coming from the sub-group which is being discriminated against. Not all discrimination is wrong, and a healthy economy is a benefit to us all. If most folks need both the stick and carrot to make it happen, I can't fault that. Sure, it sucks that I'm on the disincentived end of that deal, but then without that social "glue", we'd all be worse off.

[–]dominotw1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

All my coworkers are breeding and taking their 6 weeks paid paternity/maternity leaves. I am stuck with doing all the extra work because no one actually thought about what they going to do with all the extra workload. :\

[–]grasshopa2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I know. Same boat here. However, as management I see the effect getting married and having children has on people, men specifically.

I had a sales employee. Single male. Would breeze in right on time, hit the door the moment his shift was over. Commissions were always on the low side, which was odd given the industry; he left a lot of money on the table. It was frustrating because he was a nice guy and had great potential, but he was more focused on having fun than producing. It wasn't that important to him.

Then he got married. Commissions picked up; he was saving for a house you see. Then the first kid came along. Suddenly he was coming in early, staying later to close deals, and his commissions sky rocketed because of the extra attention he was putting into his job.

The more financially committed an individual is, the greater they produce and the more stability you achieve.

[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

funny, I've seen the exact opposite. The single wants money to spend and won't have it unless he out-performs. The married one is over-tired, needs to leave early to pick up the kids or the wife, etc.

[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so... you get to be paid more for being there more

[–]dominotw0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No I don't .

[–]smoochy20121 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Isn't it great? And then they will complain they don't get paid as much as they spend all day complaining and talking about their kids instead of working.

[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We'd have just as healthy an economy with more singles. The notion we wouldn't is a myth that has no backing, no theory or evidence at all.

[–]grasshopa1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh? Perhaps you're right. I really only have my experiences on the matter, as well as logic. Need trumps want, almost every time. A married dude, trying ( "hamstering" ) to provide for a family often feels more incentive than a guy saving for his next "adventure".

Note; I'm not making any statements as to the validity of the choice. Were I to do so, it would not be complementary. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate the need.

[–]smoochy20121 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course singles are discriminated against. And.. you must either be in a relationship with a woman or you must be gay. There is no third option.

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