Yes, there is a movement to take away women’s right to vote

[FeministVampireQueen]

Women always vote in their own personal self interest to the detriment of their children and future generations

Others well being except for when you vote? You just claimed in your first comment that women vote in their own self interest. How is that sacrificing for others?

A mother voting for her own welfare benefits her children and those in her life, just as a man voting for his own welfare benefits his future generations and family.

What are these 'essential' jobs that women have that society would not function without?

I never said that society could not function without women doing those jobs. I said women do essential jobs for little pay because those are jobs that men don't want to do.

Men are the one who have the low paying and underappreciated infrastructure jobs which women can't and won't have the ability to fill

That is so untrue. A man can get a high paying manual labor job without so much as a high school diploma, simply because he's physically superior to a woman. Women have to accumulate four years of college debt in order to make nearly the same amount of pay. While also being told that they are "brainwashed" "sluts" for doing so, by people on this forum.

If a man feels seen and validated, aka Respected, by something like that red pill movement that is not emotional. Women value emotional validation/love. Men value respect

Lol, if a man feels "respected" by a movement that exploits him, then he needs his head examined, and he sure in the hell doesn't need to be in charge of anyone else.

 

[HomesteadWife]

A mother voting for her own welfare benefits her children and those in her life, just as a man voting for his own welfare benefits his future generations and family.

No. Voting for your own welfare does NOT benefit your children. It is taking handouts and an easier life for you at the detriment of your children. Men are able to vote for the future and not immediate personal gain. They are willing to accept more work in their life so their children benefit.

I never said that society could not function without women doing those jobs. I said women do essential jobs for little pay because those are jobs that men don't want to do.

I repeat, what are these 'essential' jobs?? Essential means that society will not be able to function without them. Don't want to do is different than can't do.

That is so untrue. A man can get a high paying manual labor job without so much as a high school diploma, simply because he's physically superior to a woman. Women have to accumulate four years of college debt in order to make nearly the same amount of pay. While also being told that they are "brainwashed" "sluts" for doing so, by people on this forum.

You are agreeing there are jobs which only men have the ability to do. Some pay well but there are many are not paid what they deserve for the amount of risk involved.

Why do women need these college debt accumulating jobs?

Lol, if a man feels "respected" by a movement that exploits him, then he needs his head examined, and he sure in the hell doesn't need to be in charge of anyone else.

How does the red pill exploit men? So many industries and social media exploit women and their emotions that I don't see how the red pill is compromising to men.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

No. Voting for your own welfare does NOT benefit your children. It is taking handouts and an easier life for you at the detriment of your children. Men are able to vote for the future and not immediate personal gain. They are willing to accept more work in their life so their children benefit.

"Handouts?" You mean the tax money paid to the government by its citizens? That can be utilized to make the lives of the citizens that funded it better? Wow, the horror...

And, I don't know very many women who are afraid of work. In fact women make up for half of the workforce, while still managing to spend three times the amount of time with their children daily as opposed to men. Women statistically care for their elderly parents far more often than men do. They spend nearly 90% more time on household chores as well. Women actively devote more of their daily unpaid time to the lives of those around them.

I repeat, what are these 'essential' jobs?? Essential means that society will not be able to function without them. Don't want to do is different than can't do.

Healthcare/nursing, teaching, social work, just a few I can think of off the top of my head. I understand exactly what essential means. What you don't seem to understand is that I have repeatedly said that women do essential jobs for low pay, jobs that men do not want to do. I never said society cannot function without women doing those jobs. You're just so incredibly on edge and looking for a fight, to the point that it's affecting your ability to comprehend.

You are agreeing there are jobs which only men have the ability to do. Some pay well but there are many are not paid what they deserve for the amount of risk involved.

Why do women need these college debt accumulating jobs?

And, once again, you are not listening. I said that a man can get a decently, well- paying job with no experience and no education simply because he has the physical capabilities to do that sort of work. Most women do not have that ability, and if they do it doesn't last very long because we are not built the same as men, therefore if we want to earn the same amount of money, we have to incur college debt just to reach that baseline pay.

I haven't once argued that people are being paid too much or too little for the "risks involved" in their jobs, that's a statement that you made, not me. But, just so you know, you're speaking to someone who worked an outdoor, physically intensive job for over 15 years. I know what people make doing those jobs, I made the same amount. I made that amount with no experience and no education myself, and I know if I wanted to make that amount of money now without doing physical labor, then I would have to go to college for years to do so.

How does the red pill exploit men? So many industries and social media exploit women and their emotions that I don't see how the red pill is compromising to men

So just because feminism exploits women, men can't possibly be exploited? What sort of sense does that make? Lol. Have you not noticed that all red pill content online involves selling a man a course for $99.99, or encouraging them to join some group that cost them money as well.

If any of those red pill men truly cared about men, they would care that the information they're putting out is highly inaccurate. They would advocate for issues that truly do affect men, and teach men how to actually attract genuine women, instead of selling them a lifestyle that they'll never be able to afford. Those men don't genuinely care about other men's well-being. They're actually contributing to the male loneliness epidemic, and they don't want men to better themselves, because that's not what makes them money.

 

[HomesteadWife]

"Handouts?" You mean the tax money paid to the government by its citizens? That can be utilized to make the lives of the citizens that funded it better? Wow, the horror..

No I mean women expecting the government to support them rather than a husband. Why be married if the government will provide for you instead?

And, I don't know very many women who are afraid of work. In fact women make up for half of the workforce, while still managing to spend three times the amount of time with their children daily as opposed to men. Women statistically care for their elderly parents far more often than men do. They spend nearly 90% more time on household chores as well. Women actively devote more of their daily unpaid time to the lives of those around them.

Women have biblical roles within society. In the home and in caring for the young and elderly. Feminism pushed them into the workplace rather than just letting them focus their time and energy into those roles. Working outside of the home goes against biblical order.

Healthcare/nursing, teaching, social work, just a few I can think of off the top of my head. I understand exactly what essential means. What you don't seem to understand is that I have repeatedly said that women do essential jobs for low pay, jobs that men do not want to do. I never said society cannot function without women doing those jobs. You're just so incredibly on edge and looking for a fight, to the point that it's affecting your ability to comprehend.

You are the one who used the word essential. All of those jobs women have always done because its part of our roles as help meets it just used to be operated from the home under the headship of their husband. Now instead of the appreciation of their family they get paid to do these same roles and then complain that pay is not sufficient. These roles were never meant to have monetary value be their purpose. Also, while these fields are predominantly women there are men who choose to go into them.

And, once again, you are not listening. I said that a man can get a decently, well- paying job with no experience and no education simply because he has the physical capabilities to do that sort of work. Most women do not have that ability, and if they do it doesn't last very long because we are not built the same as men, therefore if we want to earn the same amount of money, we have to incur college debt just to reach that baseline pay.

Women have chosen feminism and equality with men and then complain about how that ends up manifesting in the real world.

I haven't once argued that people are being paid too much or too little for the "risks involved" in their jobs, that's a statement that you made, not me. But, just so you know, you're speaking to someone who worked an outdoor, physically intensive job for over 15 years. I know what people make doing those jobs, I made the same amount. I made that amount with no experience and no education myself, and I know if I wanted to make that amount of money now without doing physical labor, then I would have to go to college for years to do so.

What degrees actually go towards making up this pay imbalance? I'm genuinely curious. I know nursiing can. I have a mom and brother who are nurses.

So just because feminism exploits women, men can't possibly be exploited? What sort of sense does that make? Lol. Have you not noticed that all red pill content online involves selling a man a course for $99.99, or encouraging them to join some group that cost them money as well.

If any of those red pill men truly cared about men, they would care that the information they're putting out is highly inaccurate. They would advocate for issues that truly do affect men, and teach men how to actually attract genuine women, instead of selling them a lifestyle that they'll never be able to afford. Those men don't genuinely care about other men's well-being. They're actually contributing to the male loneliness epidemic, and they don't want men to better themselves, because that's not what makes them money.

I'm not saying the red pill is without flaws. It has a lot of aspects to it that I don't consider to be biblical. But in a society that has demeaned and demasculated men to the point ours has men have to have a starting community and support system to actually be able to become masculine and begin to understand patriarchy. Most men with a maturity level and biblical grounding move past the red pill lifestyle pretty fast. Its milk tools on the way back to masculinity. But none of that makes it wrong.

There are very few places in society where men aren't being emasculated and if they have to create paid communities to have that it is more of a reflection of feminism then it is of the men.

What is a genuine woman by the way?

 

[MeganC]

What is a genuine woman by the way?

 

[MeganC]

"Handouts?" You mean the tax money paid to the government by its citizens?

Here is wisdom:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

Here is wisdom:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

I believe less government is nearly always better, but some countries clearly have better systems in place than the US, and they're doing just fine.

I refuse to buy into this narrative that people should feel guilty for accepting benefits from a system they are forced to pay into to begin with. I feel like that's exactly the type of thinking that the government wants us to accept. It keeps taxpayer funded career politicians exactly where they are, while they get to pretend they have the important job of managing money that isn't even theirs to begin with.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

No I mean women expecting the government to support them rather than a husband. Why be married if the government will provide for you instead?

Why do you think so little of marriage that you've reduced it to what someone else can do for you financially?

Women aren't asking for handouts though, like 75% of single mothers are employed, and the majority of those women work full-time. If you actually look at the stats, low income MARRIED families are the ones receiving a large chunk of government benefits. Benefits are based on poverty and income, not on marital status. Which is another reason why paying people a fair wage is so important.

I genuinely don't understand why the majority of the blame for these situations is always put on women. Only about 25% of single mothers even receive child support, which means the majority of single women are out there working, contributing to the economy, paying taxes, and also raising children on their own.

Yet you're choosing to harp on women who are in these tough positions because they choose to vote for policies that benefit them. You do realize that the men who contributed to making these women single mothers, the men who literally walked away from their families, and abandoned their responsibilities, would still retain their right to vote under your logic.

Women have biblical roles within society. In the home and in caring for the young and elderly. Feminism pushed them into the workplace rather than just letting them focus their time and energy into those roles. Working outside of the home goes against biblical order.

Women have biblical roles within society. In the home and in caring for the young and elderly. Feminism pushed them into the workplace rather than just letting them focus their time and energy into those roles. Working outside of the home goes against biblical order.

I can't believe so many people still buy into this 1950s b*******, lol. Women throughout history have worked outside of the home, it didn't just start with feminism. Our grandmother's, our great grandmothers, and our great great grandmothers, all worked outside of the home. What are you even talking about? Even scripture references women who worked outside of their homes, people love to reference the Proverbs 31 woman as an example of this, but look at Mary, Joanna and Susanna, they literally left their homes to travel with the ministry, and if I'm remembering correctly they even supported it financially?

You keep speaking about these biblical orders and roles, like it's some general mandate that all men are positioned above all women in everyday society. Nearly every verse referencing headship and submission in that regard is confined to the covenant of marriage, and even if you look at that order within the marriage covenant, the way that order is practiced is ultimately subject to the husband, not to you.

You're literally inserting yourself into other people's marriages, removing the husband's headship right, and inserting your own definition of what their marriages should look like to you.

You're more strict and ridgid about these biblical roles and orders than God himself seems to be, lighten up a little bit.

But in a society that has demeaned and demasculated men to the point ours has men have to have a starting community and support system to actually be able to become masculine and begin to understand patriarchy

This is just about the only thing I agree with you on, I think the red pill movement is a response to the feminist movement and the extremes that came along with that movement. I don't fault men at all for wanting a support system that values masculinity. The issue is that the red pill movement exploited and victimized men and has continued to convince them that they know what's best for them. It's exactly what the feminist movement eventually ended up doing to women as well.

 

[HomesteadWife]

Why do you think so little of marriage that you've reduced it to what someone else can do for you financially?

I am not reducing it to that. I am saying that women treat the government as a husband in provision for them.

Women aren't asking for handouts though, like 75% of single mothers are employed, and the majority of those women work full-time. If you actually look at the stats, low income MARRIED families are the ones receiving a large chunk of government benefits. Benefits are based on poverty and income, not on marital status. Which is another reason why paying people a fair wage is so important.

This is statistically inaccurate. Single-parent families, particularly those headed by women, receive significantly more government assistance than two-parent families.

I genuinely don't understand why the majority of the blame for these situations is always put on women. Only about 25% of single mothers even receive child support, which means the majority of single women are out there working, contributing to the economy, paying taxes, and also raising children on their own.

Yet you're choosing to harp on women who are in these tough positions because they choose to vote for policies that benefit them. You do realize that the men who contributed to making these women single mothers, the men who literally walked away from their families, and abandoned their responsibilities, would still retain their right to vote.

Statistically women initiate approximately 69% to 70% of divorces. Almost 50% of single women receive some form of government support. A lot of women have to chose between child support and government assistance so that equates to potentially 70 + % of women receiving some form of spousal or government support. There are also many church, community, and family members (outside of the spouse) who end up helping single women. This concept of single women raising children "on their own" really doesn't carry the all the weight you propose.

When 70% of divorces are initiated by women I don't call that men walking away from their families. Many women choose these tough positions.

I can't believe so many people still buy into this 1950s b*******, lol. Women throughout history have worked outside of the home, it didn't just start with feminism. Our grandmother's, our great grandmothers, and our great great grandmothers, all worked outside of the home. What are you even talking about? Even scripture references women who worked outside of their homes, people love to reference the Proverbs 31 woman as an example of this, but look at Mary, Joanna and Susanna, they literally left their homes to travel with the ministry, and if I'm remembering correctly they even supported it financially?

Until the industrial revolution women didn't work outside of the home in terms in terms working outside of:

Family Business
Agricultural Labor: Women on farms worked the fields alongside men, performing tasks such as planting, weeding, and harvesting, often continuing through pregnancy and immediately after childbirth.
Domestic Service: In urban centers, a significant portion of working women were employed as servants, living and working in other households to perform cooking, cleaning, and childcare. (Note that these domestic employments often employed multiple family members or whole families.)
Cottage Industry: Many women participated in home-based trades like spinning yarn, weaving cloth, and brewing beer, selling their products in local markets under the "putting-out" system.
Skilled Trades: Women operated businesses such as inns, worked as midwives, healers, seamstresses, and laundresses, and some wealthy women managed household economies that functioned as small enterprises

And outside of domestic service women operated solely under the headship of their husband. They didn't have a boss who was now at odds with the relationship hierarchy between the husband and wife. Where she had to choose which master to serve.

As far as the women supporting Christs and his apostles ministries in the bible. They either were operating from under their husbands headship and approval or were unmarried.

You keep speaking about these biblical orders and roles, like it's some general mandate that all men are positioned above all women in everyday society. Nearly every verse referencing headship and submission in that regard is confined to the covenant of marriage, and even if you look at that order within the marriage covenant, the way that order is practiced is ultimately subject to the husband, not to you.

I agree. But what happens when a woman has a boss and a husband. And they have conflicting orders or priorities to her time. Which master does she serve?

You're literally inserting yourself into other people's marriages, removing the husband's headship right, and inserting your own definition of what their marriages should look like to you.

If a man chooses to let his wife work outside of the home that is up to him. I have not told any man what decision he can make for his household or marriage. I was specifically addressing you, another woman with what my opinion was. Working outside the home very easily goes against biblical order. But it is the husbands decision on that. A woman choosing to work outside of the home, prioritizing a career over family, especially when her husband prefers otherwise is pushing her own will and going against biblical order. And there are women who do choose career over family.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

I am not reducing it to that. I am saying that women treat the government as a husband in provision for them

This is statistically inaccurate. Single-parent families, particularly those headed by women, receive significantly more government assistance than two-parent families

No, you're not looking at the total payouts, you're looking at who qualifies at a higher rate. The actual funds from government assistant goes to married couples in higher amounts.

Statistically women initiate approximately 69% to 70% of divorces

Being the person to physically file the legal paperwork does not mean you were the one who walked away from the marriage first. Think about it for a second, how many men abandon their families physically and financially without ever filing the legal paperwork first. They have no reason to file the paperwork to begin with, because filing the paperwork is going to force them to pay support for the children they abandoned.

Almost 50% of single women receive some form of government support

And the majority of those women are actively working, despite the claim that you made earlier about men being the ones who aren't afraid of more work. Women just happen to work and qualify for government assistance based on low wages. If you don't like the fact that working class taxpayers qualify for government assistance due to low wages, then stop voting in politicians who constantly vote down pay increases, or tell your husband to.

A lot of women have to chose between child support and government assistance so that equates to potentially 70 + % of women receiving some form of spousal or government support

If a woman receives child support and she's still under the food stamp and medicaid threshold she will still receive those benefits, she doesn't have to chose between the two. If she wants to apply for welfare programs and childcare assistance then the state requires her to pursue child support from the father. The state will then recover its own costs from the father.

There are also many church, community, and family members (outside of the spouse) who end up helping single women. This concept of single women raising children "on their own" really doesn't carry the all the weight you propose.

Lol... Now you're suggesting that single motherhood isn't as difficult as people claim because a woman can go to a church once a month to get a box of food, or have a community program pay her utility bill once every 6 months, or because a family member babysits.

Until the industrial revolution women didn't work outside of the home in terms in terms working outside of:

Family Business
Agricultural Labor: Women on farms worked the fields alongside men, performing tasks such as planting, weeding, and harvesting, often continuing through pregnancy and immediately after childbirth.
Domestic Service: In urban centers, a significant portion of working women were employed as servants, living and working in other households to perform cooking, cleaning, and childcare. (Note that these domestic employments often employed multiple family members or whole families.)
Cottage Industry: Many women participated in home-based trades like spinning yarn, weaving cloth, and brewing beer, selling their products in local markets under the "putting-out" system.
Skilled Trades: Women operated businesses such as inns, worked as midwives, healers, seamstresses, and laundresses, and some wealthy women managed household economies that functioned as small enterprises

And outside of domestic service women operated solely under the headship of their husband. They didn't have a boss who was now at odds with the relationship hierarchy between the husband and wife. Where she had to choose which master to serve.

As far as the women supporting Christs and his apostles ministries in the bible. They either were operating from under their husbands headship and approval or were unmarried.

So husbands were just going around issuing permission slips to their wives? I'm amazed at how much insight you continue to have into other people's marriages and lives, absent of any actual proof to your claims.

 

[HomesteadWife]

No, you're not looking at the total payouts, you're looking at who qualifies at a higher rate. The actual funds from government assistant goes to married couples in higher amounts.

There is a difference in tax credits on returns for married vs. single parent. That difference is approximately 10% on tax credit so its not an astronomical difference and there is an additional person in the household in the equation. None of these statistics weigh in how many children are involved in these family units either. A married couple is likely to have more children involved before they phase out of the threshold for income assistance.

Being the person to physically file the legal paperwork does not mean you were the one who walked away from the marriage first. Think about it for a second, how many men abandon their families physically and financially without ever filing the legal paperwork first. They have no reason to file the paperwork to begin with, because filing the paperwork is going to force them to pay support for the children they abandoned.

Why is the man the only one being called out here? Divorce and relationships are a two sided street There are many ways a woman's actions contribute to a man wanting to no longer live with her.
Please give me statistics on your claim that more men abandon their families physically and financially first.

A man has little reason to file for a divorce in general because he has everything to loose. Including his house and his childfen. Women have much more to gain from a divorce.

Pulling back to single women (divorced or otherwise) and personal accountability
As a woman there is biological imperative to choose who you have sex with wisely. There is always, even with birth control, the possibility of becoming pregnant.
As a general rule nowadys woman choose who they have sex with, conceive with, and marry. Since there are no arranged marriages anymore the weight of these decisions fall on the individual woman.

And the majority of those women are actively working, despite the claim that you made earlier about men being the ones who aren't afraid of more work. Women just happen to work and qualify for government assistance based on low wages. If you don't like the fact that working class taxpayers qualify for government assistance due to low wages, then stop voting in politicians who constantly vote down pay increases, or tell your husband to.

Pay increases aren't going to fix this disparity. That's not how the economics of this works.

If a woman receives child support and she's still under the food stamp and medicaid threshold she will still receive those benefits, she doesn't have to chose between the two. If she wants to apply for welfare programs and childcare assistance then the state requires her to pursue child support from the father. The state will then recover its own costs from the father.

Lol... Now you're suggesting that single motherhood isn't as difficult as people claim because a woman can go to a church once a month to get a box of food, or have a community program pay her utility bill once every 6 months, or because a family member babysits.

The majority of single women have government assistance. A good number also have some support from family, friends or community. The things that you mentioned aren't small things when someone is in a low income bracket. Almost no single mothers are going it completely alone without any resources. I'm not saying its not difficult. I am saying that single mothers aren't islands.

So husbands were just going around issuing permission slips to their wives? I'm amazed at how much insight you continue to have into other people's marriages and lives, absent of any actual proof to your claims.

I'm not claiming that is how it worked. I gave you some historical precedence for women's work pre industrial revolution. There is actual historical evidence to back up that is how women worked to contribute to the household outside of the home and mens legal and societal ability to control it. Survival and economic circumstances in society had lower class households with men utilizing women's skills for helping provide for the household in the ways I mentioned. May I see your historical proof of the opposite?

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

A married couple is likely to have more children involved before they phase out of the threshold for income assistance

Yes, which is exactly why they qualify and receive more funding. Your argument that single women take more from the system than married couples is financially untrue.

Why is the man the only one being called out here? Divorce and relationships are a two sided street There are many ways a woman's actions contribute to a man wanting to no longer live with her.
Please give me statistics on your claim that more men abandon their families physically and financially first

No you copy and pasted some stuff from Google, lol. And, I don't have the exact stats on that, my entire point is that you don't either... You have a general stat that you're using to fit this extreme narrative that you're putting out. My purpose wasn't to entirely blame men, it was to show you what it looks like when it's done from the other side. The very same thing that you're doing to women. I threw out some extreme anecdotal arguments from the other side, to show you how foolish is it looks when someone makes such baseless extreme arguments without any substance based on stats only.

A man has little reason to file for a divorce in general because he has everything to loose. Including his house and his childfen.

And you just proved my point... That's exactly what I said, it literally proves why more women are likely the ones to file the paperwork.

Pay increases aren't going to fix this disparity. That's not how the economics of this works.

Higher pay would push more women out of the qualifying range for government assistance. Which is why the red states consistently take more federal aid, the pay and minimum wage is far lower in our states. If you want women off of government assistance, with the current system we have in place, Republicans need to stop voting down better pay for common folks. Instead, the red states have brainwashed poor people into thinking they don't deserve a livable wage, and that if they take from the government they're paying into, then they're doing something wrong.

Almost no single mothers are going it completely alone without any resources. I'm not saying its not difficult. I am saying that single mothers aren't islands

What you mean is there's a network of other women around single women who help support them. Which is ironic in itself because you're the same crowd who argues that a single mother is doing her children a disservice by not having men around.

I'm not claiming that is how it worked. I gave you some historical precedence for women's work pre industrial revolution. There is actual historical evidence to back up that is how women worked to contribute to the household outside of the home and mens legal and societal ability to control it. Survival and economic circumstances in society had lower class households with men utilizing women's skills for helping provide for the household in the ways I mentioned. May I see your historical proof of the opposite?

The reason I mentioned the women traveling with Jesus is because ministry is work, and these women left their homes to do that work. It's an example of how your so- called "biblical roles" were violated, and it wasn't the end of the world.

So you've gone from women didn't work until feminism, to women did work, but only because men let them and only because men let them do specific jobs? Which still doesn't prove a massive mandated biblical order, it just shows a male dominated heiarchy.

 

[HomesteadWife]

Yes, which is exactly why they qualify and receive more funding. Your argument that single women take more from the system than married couples is financially untrue.

Less married who are larger in size receive government assistance.
Single women utilize the system in a majority percent. The payout amount is not the point. The amount of single women who rely on it is.

No you copy and pasted some stuff from Google, lol. And, I don't have the exact stats on that, my entire point is that you don't either... You have a general stat that you're using to fit this extreme narrative that you're putting out. My purpose wasn't to entirely blame men. I threw out some extreme anecdotal arguments from the other side, to show you how foolish is it looks when someone makes such extreme arguments without any substance based on stats only.

The stats actually exist though. It is fully supported that women file for divorce in an exponentially higher level. With stats that high women choosing to leave their husband for selfish reasons and to the detriment of their families is much more likely statistically than the supposition you put out.

And you just proved my point... That's exactly what I said, it literally proves why more women are likely the ones to file the paperwork.

Men are more likely to try and make things work and stay because they know their wife will divorce them if they abandon the family. At the very least they try to make it work for the kids and to keep that stability in their lives. Women care less about the kids outcome if they file more. Single parent families statistically have worse outcome for kids with single female mothers at the bottom of that list. This is a choice many women make.

Higher pay would push more women out of the qualifying range for government assistance. Which is why the red states consistently take more federal aid, the pay and minimum wage is far lower in our states. If you want women off of government assistance, with the current system we have in place, Republicans need to stop voting down better pay for common folks. Instead, the red states have brainwashed poor people into thinking they don't deserve a livable wage, and that if they take from the government they're paying into, then they're doing something wrong.

Higher wage also pushes the price of everything up. Higher wage is not the solution you claim.

What you mean is there's a network of other women around single women who help support them. Which is ironic in itself because you're the same crowd who argues that a single mother is doing her children a disservice by not having men around.

The network doesn't make up to the children or family unit for the lack of the father. The point I was making is that its not the single mother against the world. She is often choosing a model that is not biblical based to live her life within.

The reason I mentioned the women traveling with Jesus is because ministry is work, and these women left their homes to do that work. It's an example of how your so- called "biblical roles" were violated, and it wasn't the end of the world.

Single women don't have a husband or children they are leaving for ministry work. Widowed women also have different standards due to their circumstances. And if a women is operating under her husbands headship none of it is out of biblical order.

So you've gone from women didn't work until feminism, to women did work, but only because men let them and only because men let them do specific jobs? Which still doesn't prove a massive mandated biblical order, it just shows a male dominated heiarchy

Women have always worked because survival and the family unit functioning depend on it.
Working outside the home in the modern post industrial form it has taken means that you have a boss. This boss now has competing headship with your husband for your time, talent, and ability to raise your children up. Often this causes a situation Where a woman has to choose if she is a helpmeet to her husband or her boss. This is why having a job outside the house, and out from under her husbands headship, can lead to an overturn of the biblical order.

 

[steve]

I will just say that stats changed rapidly after government funding incentivized a mother being alone without a man.

 

[MemeFan]

Women always vote in their own personal self interest to the detriment of their children and future generations.. Men as patriarchs of their families have the responsibility to vote for the well being of their lineage and not just for their current/personal self interest.

So women can't do anything in their own interest which is good for society long term.

So women are....mentally children? Of even worse?

 

[HomesteadWife]

So women can't do anything in their own interest which is good for society long term.

So women are....mentally children? Of even worse?

Feministvampiequeen was the one who stated that women vote for their own personal best interest. Women, or anyone, doing things for their own short term best interest will often end up with worse long term interest for themselves and those after them.

Studies show that instant or short term gratification and interest is terrible model for long term benefit or benefit of those coming after. And voting for people and policies who promise the most to you in the now is often the course of removal of freedoms and more debt for future generations.

Men when voting tend to take this into account far more than women.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

First, it was that single women are lazy and expect "handouts to the detriment of their children," and that men are the ones willing to accept more work. When I pointed out that the majority of women who receive government assistance actually work full time, you claimed that women are using the government to replace their husbands, then I showed you that households with husbands actually accept more total funding than women without. I then offered a solution to get women off of government assistance, which is paying them more and now you're suggesting that if we pay them more the cost of living is going to go up.

I've heard that nonsense since I was teenager, making $5.15 an hour, the same pay that my own father made as well, except that his rent was $200 a month and he was able to purchase an acre of land for a few thousand dollars. When I was making the same pay at $5.15, my rent was $650 per month, and the same land he purchased for 3k or less would have cost me $30,000 at that time. There was no minimum wage increase to cause that. Even years later, the minimum wage was raised to $7.25 where it has remained the same for 17 years, yet the cost of living has increased by 55%.

Sometimes I have to ask myself if people actually live in the real world.

Another example, we live in two red states, we've looked into moving to blue states with higher pay and better healthcare options. I have extensively compared the cost of everyday living between the red states with low minimum wage to the blue states with higher minimum wage. The grocery prices are nearly identical, gas prices in the blue states are between $0.30 to $1 more per gallon (depending on the area), the rent in the blue states is easier to find and lower overall, the land acreage is cheaper in many areas as well. The only significant cost that is higher in those states, comes from purchasing a home and having a mortgage. Which could be countered by the higher pay those states have to offer or by simply purchasing acreage instead. On top of that, the blue states have better access to healthcare and more healthcare options.

I will just say that stats changed rapidly after government funding incentivized a mother being alone without a man

If the government was incentivizing women to stay single why is the majority of funding given to married households that qualify for government assistance. The government doesn't care if you're single or married, government assistance qualifies a household based on income requirements.

 

[steve]

If the government was incentivizing women to stay single why is the majority of funding given to married households that qualify for government assistance. The government doesn't care if you're single or married, government assistance qualifies a household based on income requirements.

Figures never lie, but sometimes liars figure.
I’d have to see the stats and the internals in order to understand what you are claiming.

 

[MemeFan]

Feministvampiequeen was the one who stated that women vote for their own personal best interest. Women, or anyone, doing things for their own short term best interest will often end up with worse long term interest for themselves and those after them.

Studies show that instant or short term gratification and interest is terrible model for long term benefit or benefit of those coming after. And voting for people and policies who promise the most to you in the now is often the course of removal of freedoms and more debt for future generations.

Men when voting tend to take this into account far more than women.

Is that because women are ....defective?

Or maybe government will run to save women from their short term thinking? If you don't feel "consequences of future", voting short term makes sense.

And all this assume women are voting short term.

Maybe real issue is political system. Hans Herman Hoppe is right that monarchy is better than democracy because monarch hopes to leave kingdom to children, so his interest isn't to economically destry kingdom. Meanwhile president/premier is only for few years, therefore asses stripping of whole country makes sense.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

Figures never lie, but sometimes liars figure.
I’d have to see the stats and the internals in order to understand what you are claiming.

You just have to look at the basic eligibility requirements for government assistance, it's set on an income threshold, it's relative to the household size, when you have more people living under roof that threshold is raised. That means low income married couples with multiple children will get larger payouts than a single mother would. The government doesn't care if you're single or married, if you qualify then you qualify, and if you don't, you don't.