Mgtow

[CandiCame]

There's spill-over in other areas too. Some corporate attorney's are advising their clients not to hire women if at all possible. Essentially that advice is based on the same risk/benefit analysis.

Self-inflicted wounds are the hardest to heal.

1: Citation please
2: Some corporate attorneys are about to lose their certification and ability to practice once those lawsuits start piling in and the HR department in charge of hiring says, "No but my ATTORNEY told me to discriminate based on sex."

You know, if that was a real thing.

 

[CandiCame]

Idk why I used bathrooms as an example of men being awful. Could have used this very thread.

 

[Oblimo]

There's spill-over in other areas too. Some corporate attorney's are advising their clients not to hire women if at all possible. Essentially that advice is based on the same risk/benefit analysis.

That’s quite a claim to make without anything to back it up. Especially to folks like me who work with a Fortune 100 corporation’s legal department.

 

[beew]

Oh, yeah, it's the liberal MEN who don't want to get married- it's not the multitude of studies that young women are looking at that shows that marriage makes them miserable.

Marriage is beneficial for men and AWFUL for women, so more and more people are rejecting it as a concept. There's no way in hell my gf would marry me even if I asked- so I know her well enough not to ask. I did ask, when she was pregnant, because I thought the financial benefits would outweigh the risk, but she didn't want to, for her sanity (which is why I had to pay child support to MYSELF until we could prove some shit to the courts. Thanks, family-first state bullshit. If you'd have signed the paper, baby mama, we wouldn't have had to do that. I'm not bitter about it but we could have gotten a no-fault divorce at literally ANY time and it would have been cheaper than all the fucking government fees- not bitter. It sounds like I am. I'm not. I respect her decision.) Now this obviously wouldn't be for love- there's absolutely no point in marrying for love and pretty much no one does it- when they're surveyed people give answers related TO THE ACTUAL LEGAL CONTRACT- imagine that?? Which is why religion had no place in the conversation. It's ALWAYS been illegal to discriminate based on gender in legal contracts- so if I can have a wife to put on my insurance, claim on my taxes, and get assumed co-parenting responsibilities that would lead to custody arrangements in the event they were necessary- then I can have a husband to do all those things.

Took people a long time to realize that.

Marriage isn't a commitment, which seems to be what you're implying here. Most marriages make it about 4 years before both parties decide to void the contract.

Kids do not care if their parents are married or not. They don't care if their peers' parents are married or not. It is a non-issue.

Women are much more averse to marriage than men. They're happy single, and if they get married, they don't get that happiness back until their husband dies.

Men do a LOT of shitty things- I'm not gonna sit here and say that my gender's not awful- every public bathroom sends me into a RAGE. But this one isn't on us.

Dunno...

It's not the idea of marriage in general that I'm bent on. People obviously had different life experiences, or for some partnership works better than marriage.

I just think that, when a child comes into the picture, priorities should change.

The format of traditional family unit brings in all sorts of sources of stability for the child, psychological or otherwise. Not in the least a wider or more involved extended family.

 

[CandiCame]

Dunno...

It's not the idea of marriage in general that I'm bent on. People obviously had different life experiences, or for some partnership works better than marriage.

I just think that, when a child comes into the picture, priorities should change.

The format of traditional family unit brings in all sorts of sources of stability for the child, psychological or otherwise. Not in the least a wider or more involved extended family.

No, it literally doesn't. Look at the studies. There is NO DIFFERENCE between kids raised by parents who are married and parents who are cohabitating. Marriage does NOTHING for children. At all. That's just not true.

That's why you can't back that claim up. Whoever told you that just flat out lied to you because it's not true.

 

[bellisarius]

No, it literally doesn't. Look at the studies. There is NO DIFFERENCE between kids raised by parents who are married and parents who are cohabitating. Marriage does NOTHING for children. At all. That's just not true.

That's why you can't back that claim up. Whoever told you that just flat out lied to you because it's not true.

Then there are the studies concerning single parents. Whole new ball game there.

 

[Que]

No, it literally doesn't. Look at the studies. There is NO DIFFERENCE between kids raised by parents who are married and parents who are cohabitating. Marriage does NOTHING for children. At all. That's just not true.

That's why you can't back that claim up. Whoever told you that just flat out lied to you because it's not true.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? The legal and social entanglement that is marriage tends (although it is not entirely effective) to keep couples together for a longer duration than those who have never been married. Wanting that not to be true doesn't make it not true.

"Studies show" that studies tend to be self-serving and reflective of the biases of those conducting said studies. Peer reviewed studies of studies shows that peer review is absolutely worthless on vetting the value in applicability of studies..

 

[CandiCame]

Plus, like, this is gonna sound counter-intuitive, but kids don't change your life THAT MUCH unless you're already a shitty person. They just give you a reason to be less of a shitty person because now your shitty behavior has consequences for someone other than you.

Kids are great. They're time consuming, but you don't notice it, because you're doing shit that you would have been doing anyway, but now with someone who has never really done it before, so it's FUCKING AMAZING to them. They've not done ANYTHING, so EVERYTHING is the most amazing thing ever.

Restaurant has square plates? WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT MAGIC SHIT??
Grocery store gives out free samples? THE WORLD IS AMAZING.
Stranger talks to you in the line? THAT'S NOT ANNOYING, THIS IS A CHANCE TO MAKE A NEW FRIEND!
They've never read books that you love, or seen movies, or played video games- and every single one of those things is a new and amazing experience.

Kids are people. Like, in the same way that I talked about women being people earlier. I know a lot of people are like, "I'm not your friend, I'm your dad." But like... I don't get that? It's very much like just having a really cool friend, who is into pretty much the same things that you're into. Or like a little sibling but not as bitchy, because you're in charge of that bitchiness, so you learn how to help them work through it.

I don't know. I never wanted kids until I had one, so like, don't have kids if you don't want to, but they're pretty great.

A big part of that, the reason that people don't like kids and think that they're smelly and sticky or whatever that other user said- is because they don't think of kids as people, but as something that they have to take care of. They're just people with the same thoughts and feelings you have, so like... they don't WANT to shit themselves- teach them not to. They don't WANT to be sticky, they just are covered in... probably sugar, from my experience. Whoever came up with candy jewelry, you're a fucking sadist. They do want to be loud, but so do I so I get that. I never really developed an inside voice, either, so who the fuck am I to tell someone to shut the fuck up? You don't want to hear people screaming, don't come to the kid's movie, Jackass. That pisses me right off. You can act like a jackass during Rocky Horror but she can't watch and enjoy something SHE'S the core demographic for? Don't be an asshole.

And yeah, they throw fits over stupid shit but like... people do that. Grown people do that. And most of the time, if you talk to them you can figure out what their problem is and talk them out of it. They're pretty easy to redirect. You have to remember that just like they've never had the good stuff, they've never had to deal with bullshit. They don't know how. The thing that's happening to them that seems like nothing to you might, without exaggeration, be the worst thing that ever happened to them.

Basically what I'm saying is that just like marriage doesn't mean anything to kids, kids aren't this massive life changing thing- they're just a person. I mean MAYBE if you've never had to take care of literally anything so any kind of responsibility terrifies you? But if you've had a dog or a little brother a kid's not a whole lot more than that, really.

 

[CandiCame]

Then there are the studies concerning single parents. Whole new ball game there.

Yeah, single parents tend to raise happier kids if they have a social support system. Sometimes this includes the other biological parent, sometimes it doesn't. The support system is what matters, not the marital status.

A kid with a single parent and an extended family does BETTER than a kid with married parents but one of them is say, in jail, or a long-haul trucker, or otherwise not as involved with the kid. Kids needs adult /interaction/- the books and shit call it "quality time"- not two biological parents. Going fishing with gramps or uncle jackass is just as beneficial as going fishing with dad.

The ONLY time single parenting causes a kid to suffer is if the parent doesn't have that social support system. No friends, family, church group, whatever. That does happen. It's become more prevalent since the 1950s when society tried to make the nuclear family a thing and encouraged people not to do the extended family as much.

There was a really interesting study I read as an undergrad about this- because certain groups stayed collectivist instead of individual, even after that massive social push. Mine was one of them. It asked the question, "Who read you your bedtime stories."

My gramps did. Like, obviously.

Most people say their mom. Because as society moved away from that support-structure, stopped using the village to raise a child, more and more responsibility fell upon the mother- which drove her crazy because that's a lot to ask of someone, to be your ONLY social link to the world. It's very stressful.

Your gramps ought to be telling your bedtime stories, if you want a healthy family. In fact, single parents that live near or with families, tend to raise more well adjusted children than married people who lived in independent nuclear family units.

 

[CandiCame]

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? The legal and social entanglement that is marriage tends (although it is not entirely effective) to keep couples together for a longer duration than those who have never been married. Wanting that not to be true doesn't make it not true.

"Studies show" that studies tend to be self-serving and reflective of the biases of those conducting said studies. Peer reviewed studies of studies shows that peer review is absolutely worthless on vetting the value in applicability of studies..

No, it doesn't. And you know it doesn't, because you know that I've pointed to the studies that say as much and you just don't want to believe them, for whatever reason.

Marriage doesn't do anything for relationships. More and more people are realizing that, so more and more people are just opting out. Marriage is just a legal thing.

Plus, even if that WERE true, that wouldn't be a good thing. In the past, this WAS true. But a relationship lasting longer doesn't mean it's a good relationship. It used to be true that marriages lasted longer than cohabitation- and when they asked people WHY, it was because they literally COULDN'T leave. It was difficult, for a long time, to get a no-fault divorce, so people would stay with people they didn't love, even straight-up abusers, because they had to have what the court considered a good REASON to leave.

A lot of domestic violence laws are SHOCKINGLY recent- when I read that my state instituted the BULK of it's domestic violence laws in the 1980s- the nineteen fucking EIGHTIES, almost within my LIFETIME- I didn't believe it. I had to consult multiple sources because I thought the textbook HAD to be wrong. That was WAY too recent. Things like emotional abuse were difficult to prove in court if you couldn't even get a divorce for PHYSICAL abuse.

"How long someone suffered through a relationship" is not any indication of "how strong that relationship was".

To bring this back to the lady folk and why they're more adverse to marriage- these are people who watched their mothers and grandmothers go through this shit- trapped in loveless marriages that they couldn't escape. No one can blame them for being averse to the institution that let that happen, even if it has changed with the times.

If it's time for the relationship to end- end it. We do have 'no fault' divorce now, because we NEEDED it. Those marriages in the past didn't last because they were happy- they lasted because they were traps.

 

[Que]

You're completely leaving off the well documented problems of single parent hood. That happens between relationships whether those relationships or married relationships or not.

No serious person in the field of child psychology and development would suggest that single parenthood is the preferred and beneficial model. No one would even suggest that it's anything close to the equal of a two-parent household.

Just on the likelihood of proverty alone it fails as a model.

Look I get it your ox is being gored here. Mine too. That doesn't make it beneficial. One has to do the best one can with the resources at your disposal. I'm sure you do. I do as well. That does not mean that it is a good thing for society writ large the trends that we're seeing.

Those same people are throwing those same b******* studies for the last several decades reporting that there is no different are completely ignoring what the actual outcome has been. More children raised in poverty more single parent household children growing up and ending up in prison. These are actual hard facts and statistics. It happens. Pretending that it doesn't is silly.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Dunno...

It's not the idea of marriage in general that I'm bent on. People obviously had different life experiences, or for some partnership works better than marriage.

I just think that, when a child comes into the picture, priorities should change.

The format of traditional family unit brings in all sorts of sources of stability for the child, psychological or otherwise. Not in the least a wider or more involved extended family.

What a complete and total crock of shit.

The one and only thing that creates sources of stability for a child is if a parent is selfless enough to love their child more than they love themself. Period. And that includes knowing when tough-love is needed. Your sanctimonious " traditional family unit" is just another way of saying you have a total lack empathy for anyone else and are dead inside. Join the living.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Idk why I used bathrooms as an example of men being awful.

Probably because ladies' rooms tend to be cleaner between cleanings than men's rooms. Or, so it appears through my spyholes.

 

[Tryharder62]

I don't know why it has to be men vs woman. Can't we be friends and see where it goes from there, instead of having an agenda.

 

[CandiCame]

You're completely leaving off the well documented problems of single parent hood. That happens between relationships whether those relationships or married relationships or not.

No serious person in the field of child psychology and development would suggest that single parenthood is the preferred and beneficial model. No one would even suggest that it's anything close to the equal of a two-parent household.

Just on the likelihood of proverty alone it fails as a model.

Look I get it your ox is being gored here. Mine too. That doesn't make it beneficial. One has to do the best one can with the resources at your disposal. I'm sure you do. I do as well. That does not mean that it is a good thing for society writ large the trends that we're seeing.

Those same people are throwing those same b******* studies for the last several decades reporting that there is no different are completely ignoring what the actual outcome has been. More children raised in poverty more single parent household children growing up and ending up in prison. These are actual hard facts and statistics. It happens. Pretending that it doesn't is silly.

Yeah, single parents tend to raise happier kids if they have a social support system. Sometimes this includes the other biological parent, sometimes it doesn't. The support system is what matters, not the marital status.

A kid with a single parent and an extended family does BETTER than a kid with married parents but one of them is say, in jail, or a long-haul trucker, or otherwise not as involved with the kid. Kids needs adult /interaction/- the books and shit call it "quality time"- not two biological parents. Going fishing with gramps or uncle jackass is just as beneficial as going fishing with dad.

The ONLY time single parenting causes a kid to suffer is if the parent doesn't have that social support system. No friends, family, church group, whatever. That does happen. It's become more prevalent since the 1950s when society tried to make the nuclear family a thing and encouraged people not to do the extended family as much.

There was a really interesting study I read as an undergrad about this- because certain groups stayed collectivist instead of individual, even after that massive social push. Mine was one of them. It asked the question, "Who read you your bedtime stories."

My gramps did. Like, obviously.

Most people say their mom. Because as society moved away from that support-structure, stopped using the village to raise a child, more and more responsibility fell upon the mother- which drove her crazy because that's a lot to ask of someone, to be your ONLY social link to the world. It's very stressful.

Your gramps ought to be telling your bedtime stories, if you want a healthy family. In fact, single parents that live near or with families, tend to raise more well adjusted children than married people who lived in independent nuclear family units.

Reading comprehension, bro.

 

[CandiCame]

Probably because ladies' rooms tend to be cleaner between cleanings than men's rooms. Or, so it appears through my spyholes.

Real talk, since we're talking about parenting- I go into the ladies' room probably a good 60% of the time. You can just do that. No one stops you. It is genuinely nicer. Like, better kept.

If it's not a family bathroom (and it's usually not, out here in BFE), I have 3 choices.

1: Send her in alone to get half-naked around a bunch of strange adults- which is not fucking happening.
2: Take her with me into the guy's room where people might have their dicks out to use the urinals, where she might see strange adult dicks- which is not fucking happening.
3: Go into the ladies' room with her and hope I look fem enough that day that nobody calls me on it. - Not ideal but the other two are NOT FUCKING HAPPENING.

So far nobody has called me on it, but I can blend in, so your mileage may vary.

 

[Que]

Reading comprehension, bro.

Uh, no.

There is no data suggesting that some imaginary social support system suddenly makes up for the difference between two parent household and one parent households.

 

[CandiCame]

Uh, no.

There is no data suggesting that some imaginary social support system suddenly makes up for the difference between two parent household and one parent households.

Dude, are you serious right now? This is one of the TENANTS of developmental psychology. It's been studied to death. It's not imaginary- and even before we had the term "social support system", we had idiems to that effect. Like... no one can be this fucking stupid.

Two-parent households do not provide benefits to children- what kids need is as many competent, trusting adults as they can get. Just go to google scholar like lord god- because this is not something I've ever even heard someone try to argue before. This is so fucking stupid it's trolling level.

What could POSSIBLY make a person think this? Do you like... think that there's something magical that takes place between a sperm donor and their kid too? Do you think adoption is just not a thing? I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from because I've never heard this before. Do you think that only people who father children have a "species preservation over self-preservation" instinct and it unlocks when your sperm breaks through the egg like a goddamn X-box achievement?

What is the thought process here?

I get where that one chick was coming from in thinking that marriage was necessary because society had conditioned a whole generation of people to think like that. Society never tried to condition people to think that someone needed two parents- they were always shoving kids into schools, off on grandparents, over to aunty's house, etc.

This is completely out of left field.

Idk man, here's some recent studies, I guess? There are literally millions, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The importance of Social Support Structures for Mothers of Children with Autism

A proposal for a better system of measurement of the Social-Support-Structure scale during development for current college students

It's easier for children to recover from trauma if they have a lengthy and complex social support structure

Why you may be overlooking non-kin people in your social support structures for elderly care, a study on a sandwich generation

Minority children in this study had fewer developmental disabilities with large social support structure than those in nuclear families (there have, again, been about 5 million bagillion studies like this and this works cross-culturally. This is true AROUND THE GLOBE for ALL HUMAN CHILDREN.)

Chronically Ill Children have a much higher quality of life if they have a larger social support network and succum to disease and symptoms much less frequently and with less severity

Like... you are literally the first person I have ever met to call this extremely important concept "imaginary". Ever. Like before I ever started studying psychology I never heard anyone say anything like that. It's ALWAYS been known that it's better to surround a child with as much love and attention as possible- not to just marry the guy who knocked you up BECAUSE he knocked you up. That's... so off the wall I don't even pretend to understand it.

 

[bellisarius]

Look CC, I'm well aware that all of the various combinations and permutations of family dynamics have been studied to death. And I'm not going to sit here and argue the minutiae with you, I accept that you know of which you speak.

BUT

Most of those kids in single parent households, most of which are female led, DO NOT have any support system. Further the boys growing up in those households have no male role models so they seek them on the streets and more often than not fall in with a bad crowd. The females more often than not emulate their mothers and the cycle continues.

I know that there are community efforts springing up here and there, particularly in the black community, that are trying with some success to address the very issue you speak of. The effort in Harlem is showing some positive results with young men. The statistics with regard to the general population are still grim.

 

[CandiCame]

Look CC, I'm well aware that all of the various combinations and permutations of family dynamics have been studied to death. And I'm not going to sit here and argue the minutiae with you, I accept that you know of which you speak.

BUT

Most of those kids in single parent households, most of which are female led, DO NOT have any support system. Further the boys growing up in those households have no male role models so they seek them on the streets and more often than not fall in with a bad crowd. The females more often than not emulate their mothers and the cycle continues.

I know that there are community efforts springing up here and there, particularly in the black community, that are trying with some success to address the very issue you speak of. The effort in Harlem is showing some positive results with young men. The statistics with regard to the general population are still grim.

Black dads who don't have custody of their kids spend more time and perform more parenting duties than any other group of non-custodial parents.

That's particularly great about this study is that it is LONGITUDINAL. That means that these guys weren't contacted ONCE and then dropped- these were parenting trends collected from all over the country, over a four-year period, during which one of the BEST sample groups ever randomly selected (best as in there was nothing anyone could find to indicate that any of these men were coerced into participating in the study, and were truly selected randomly, and would generalize well to the overall population- this study did better than most pharmaceutical studies and should be very proud of their experimental design process. When I first read it, I couldn't BELIEVE the job they had done.)

Where are yhall pulling this shit from?

Black folks also tend to have larger social support structures- in no small part- it KILLS my atheist ass to admit- this is literally pulling teeth for me- because they tend to be more religious. This gives them a church community to share child-rearing responsibilities with, and fosters friendships colloquially referred to as "church family". Yhall know I hate churches- go over to any religious thread I posted in- but I can't deny the benefit when science says it exists.

I STILL don't think that church is good for kids- because of the indoctrination- but I will admit, because I'm FUCKING FORCED TO BY FACTS, that it gives them a larger social-support network, and in the black community, this has proven to be true.

There are, of course, issues in that community- and as you can see from the study, the biggest hurdle for parental involvement is incarceration. When we study the prison industrial complex, we see that most of these parents are in jail for possession charges- the war on drugs. So AGAIN, I reiterate, this "drug war" is literally tearing families apart. I'm not going to sit here and claim that addicts make good parents- they don't. But the solution to that problem is not to throw them in jail, it's to help them get the resources they need to deal with their addictive personality- by removing the paywall around immersion therapy.


Also, head into any trailer park or holler if you have some misguided notion that black dads are the only ones that this system keeps from their kids. They aren't. White folks are being hit by this too- but white folks do tend to get lesser sentences for the same possession charge. So... the racism ain't helping folks. There's no situation where racism made it BETTER, but it is an issue here.

Which is gonna kill that chick who thinks I talk about racism too much. Too much being "at all".

 

[CandiCame]

Also, as a personal favor to me, can yhall call me "Candi" instead of "CC"? I can't do vanity searches for CC. It comes up as too short.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Also, as a personal favor to me, can yhall call me "Candi" instead of "CC"? I can't do vanity searches for CC. It comes up as too short.

Noted. This board does indeed have a weakass search engine.

 

[CandiCame]

Que, I actually lit this second cigarette to try to explain the concept of a social support structure and why it's better to have an extended one than a nuclear family to you, but then I spent so much time on that other post that now I'm gonna just try to rush it with examples.

Nuclear Family in our current capitalist hell-scape, where both parents work and their shifts may overlap: Kid gets off the bus, walks to their single-family home, and finds a note on the fridge that says, "We're both working tonight. We left pizza money, and there are some TV dinners in the freezer! We love you! We'll see you when you get home! Don't forget to do your homework! If I get home and see that you've played Fortnight all day instead of doing homework, there'll be hell to pay!

Love you,
Dad"

There's nothing inherently wrong with this system. Lots of people HAVE to live like this. You can't support a family on one income unless you have a killer job. Kids do need to learn responsibility, and there's nothing wrong with leaving an age-appropriate child home for a few hours until your shift ends.

Lots of people would LOVE to be able to stay home with their kids- they just can't because of financial restraints. It's the world we live in. I'm not judging those people. I know this is something a lot of people do- and it does NOT mean that you don't love your kids. You'll pick up extra shifts to get their Christmas presents, or pay for their enrollment in their sports-team, or whatever. These people love their kids. They are doing the best they can for them.

Example 2: A single parent with a large social support structure, also working their ass off because of the aforementioned capitalist hellscape:

The kid gets up the bus and walks down the long hike into their holler, along with their cousins who live in the same holler, screaming about some child bullshit like the latest cartoon. As they're walking, the cousin who lives in the first house notices a note on the door, saying that their mom is working late and they need to take their ass down to their aunt's house. The kids keep walking.

As the approach the second house, the aunt is there, visiting with her brother who notices the kids and asks, "Yhall eat yet? You want some candy? Don't tell nobody."

They all take the candy, and the other two children go inside.

The child keeps walking, and comes to their own house, where they find a similar note from their mother, the same basic message of, "I won't be home. I love you. Do your homework instead of playing video games."

The kid goes to play video games because... that's how they do, but a few minutes later, the doorbell rings. It's the uncle who was outside, asking where his sister is. When he finds out that she's not there, he tells the kid to sit her ass down and do her homework. Then he gets on the phone, and a few minutes later- who's that at the door? It's gramps. Turns out granny fried some chicken, and he brought some over- even though the kid would have RATHER had the pizza that her mom told her to get, now she has to eat home-cooked food, like a fucking animal who never gets to have nice things like restaurant food like the OTHER kids.

When mom gets home, uncle is still there, and he gets a lecture about being a fucking mooch and being at her house all the time, and why doesn't he get a goddamn job? And he says that he's "between jobs" right now- even though he's been between jobs for like 5 years- and asks if he can sleep on the couch because he doesn't want to go back to their parent's house tonight. He'll put the kid to bed if she lets him stay. She looks so tired and by the way there's some chicken and taters and shit in the fridge.

The mom asks if the kid did her homework, and the uncle says that she did, but he didn't understand the math, so he had to call their cousin who was always good at that shit, and together they got through it- but he was pretty sure Cousin Anne was just reading that shit off the internet anyway.



Now... which of these children is having more positive adult interactions? The one with the nuclear family, or the single parent with the extended social support structure?

Keep in mind that NONE of the people in the extended support structure are perfect- they may go against the mother's preferred parenting style. One or more of them may exhibit terrible behavior. But as a group, the child gets a more nuanced idea of what life is- and this child knows that in the event of an emergency, they go to aunty's house, or granny's house, or her mom's friend's house- she has a large group of safe adults that she can rely on- many more than she would have in the nuclear family.

Now, of COURSE a social support structure with more adults is better- but none of those adults actually have to be kin to the child. Two biological parents are unnecessary, and add nothing to the child's well-being that a non-related cohabiting adult couldn't.

This isn't something that anyone but Que has ever questioned- and the sheer obviousness of it is why I reacted so strongly.

 

[Que]

The most consistent indicator that you will raise children in poverty is to be a single parent. The best way for society to raise more criminals is to have more children raised in poverty. These are averages. No amount if hypothetical extended family support overcomes that actual, current reality.

 

[Luk]

The most consistent indicator that you will raise children in poverty is to be a single parent. The best way for society to raise more criminals is to have more children raised in poverty. These are averages. No amount if hypothetical extended family support overcomes that actual, current reality.

You never stood a chance