*This is just some random thoughts I've had as of late, and put them here in their infancy to promote further thought, commentary, and additional insights. None are necessarily etched in stone in my mind, and I may well be persuaded to change my opinion on them.

  1. There is no such thing as "double standards" between men and women. "Why do men get to sleep around without shame, yet it ruins a woman's reputation for doing the same?" This is because men and women are not the same. The safety requirements for my home and workplace differ because my home is not a workplace, and my workplace is not my home. Standards are those bench measurements required between two similar things. Double standards between men and women rest on the faux notion of equality. Why are cats and dogs not held to the same standard? This is because cats are not dogs, and dogs are not cats. If we equalize them as both being simply domestic pets, then we can apply double standards to them; remove the equalization and we can not. When we remove the idealistic notion of equality between men and women, we see they are different and require different standards among their own group. The difference in gender is immaterial as well, which is why we do not hold female lions to the same standards as male lions.
  2. Modern Pregnancy Characteristics Does anyone over 45 or so remember in their youth any pregnant women, especially family members, who indulged in the modern meme of dramatic emotional bouts, demanding all kinds of voluminous junk food, and feigned incapacity for domestic duties? I don't. Yes, a very small percentage of modern mothers still eat healthy while pregnant, gain a barely noticeable amount of weight, and continue working right up until the actual birth, but this is not the majority that I describe. Pregnancy absolutely brings hormonal changes, but not to this degree historically. I posit that the reasons for this are multi-fold and overlapping. The advent of the whiny, 'look at poor me!' generations, the availability and low cost of modern junk food, the modern self-indulgence meme, and the chemical/gene-altering nature of many processed foods these days. In short, I think that pregnancy has not always been the caterwauling cry-fest it has become. So, why do modern women act like it has always been this way?
  3. "We need to listen to the kids!" "What they have to say is important!" Horse shit! This also developed from the hippie-60s attitude that everyone's opinion counts, everyone's special, etc. Every person's opinion counts! No, it doesn't. If we're building a bridge and some dolt suggests we build it out of popsicle sticks, his opinion does NOT count. That's when we say, "Excuse us, the grown-ups are talking!" Once again, my age may belie me, but when I was young, children were expected to be seen but not heard, and only speak when spoken to. Our parents recognized that we were far from developed mentally, emotionally, spiritually, least not physically. Once in a great while a rookie player might make a suggestion that the veteran player has not thought of, but it is rare enough that it is generally understood that the rookie keep his thoughts to himself until he gains more experience.

Those adults (overwhelmingly women) that I have heard say that Little Billy made some profound statement are usually dolts with stunted intelligence themselves. He said, "Mom, maybe if we just share, everyone will be happy." Any adult with a whit of intelligence knows that already, and if you have encouraged sharing around your children, all but the dullards will catch on to it as well. So, it was not as profound as you thought, but expected progression in mental development. I firmly think this modern-day nonsense is the result of the 60's attitude of trying to elevate all marginalized people (especially women and children) to the same status as men regarding intelligence, rewards, contribution to society, etc. They did not try to simply put women on top of us, but everyone and anything on top of us. Everyone is above us.

4) The 80/20 rule applies to illegitimate children as well. In my past post, "The Interchangeability Of The Western Father", u/socalskweez left a comment that it took me some time to formulate a credible response to. Like everything here, it is not set in stone, just a synopsis of my on/off again thoughts on the matter. Here is his comment:

>>>"It still does not explain why so many men are absent from their kids lives. Shared custody is not a new thing. Men that were the breadwinners do usually get 25% due to time constraints but many dont even honor that. And that is for the ones that actually attempt to get custody. BTW you can get 50/50 if both work the same hours.

It would help the situation a lot if you read a tinder profile that says 'their father is involved and around' I probably wouldn't mind dating a SM in that case since I would be in the same situation.

Im not saying all your assertions are not right but have I am still trying to figure out why the men have no need to be present for their own flesh and blood, for their offspring.

Time spent with kids is difficult to quantify. The illigitimacy rate is the closest thing that I know of that would give is an idea of the commitment men have to their kids."<<<

With some variance, I think Pareto's Principle applies to children without fathers present as well. Why aren't all the fathers choosing to be around their kids? I firmly think that this is due to a large percentage of them being fathered by a small percentage of men. Chad, Tyrone, Jiffy Lube Jeff, etc. If the 80/20 rule applies to one-night stands, FWB, and sexual encounters overall, why would it not apply to resulting pregnancy among women? Wouldn't roughly 80% of the illegitimate children be sired by only 20% of the men? [I am quite aware there are Regular Joe deadbeats, and the occasional 'player' that likes to see his kids, but once again we speak to the rule, not the exception. I am also aware that there are other factors to be considered as well. This is why I state the Pareto Principle applies with some variance, not being 80/20 exactly, but Id wager the contrast to be in the same lopsided ballpark.]

I recall the story out of St. Louis wherein they did a DNA test on a young Tyrone to see if he was the father financially responsible for a certain welfare mom's child. By whatever means, they found him to have fathered 98 or 99 (IIRC) children currently on the local welfare rolls. Now this is obviously an extreme example, but most of us have known at least one Jiffy Lube Jeff who bragged about having several baby mommas left in his wake. I have never known, on the other hand, one 'regular' guy who was openly hiding from his financial obligation and visitation of a child he fathered, lest it was due to the mother throwing up roadblocks at his potential visitations. So, that is my thought process. When those single mothers in St. Louis decry "deadbeat men", they are maliciously applying that handle to ALL men, when in reality they are all describing the ONE Tyrone that they ALL spread for. Not 98 different men, not a dozen...just ONE!
EDIT: I might also add the not rare phenomenon as described by u/DangZagnut (IIRC) of knowing 3 or 4 girls back in high school who were all knocked up by the same badboi, and who all chose to keep the babies. This is not uncommon to hear nowadays.

**Once again, I can not stress heavily enough, this post is simply a loose collection of fodder that has been tumbling about in my brain. It is not definitive, etched in stone, or the be all and end all of the subjects. It is simply food for thought that I actively encourage feedback on.