Because in the poorer parts of the world having kids is one of the few things they still can do. It's not like they are planning an annual vacation to Bali or playing golf every week-end.
Relationship Recession Going Global
- Thread starter jeff2
- Start date
In today's world being a girl I would be gay. I would only tolerate and enjoy other women.
And who is going to feed all those kids? Hence global poverty.
There are also misandrists that turn men off.
The misguided ones make me howl
.Like how some members of metoo first worshipped then hate on Margaret Atwood since she claims to be not a feminist, but a humanist, as well as believing in dual process before the witch hunt starts.
Maybe if just a few would not hoard all the money it would not be a problem to feed all those kids.
Watch out, being a straight man and saying this on an online platform will get you lynched, and perhaps even charged with God knows what for; simply for freely expressing yourself! Lmao.
Last edited:
They'd just produce even more kids to feed. End result, global poverty.
They dont live as nuclear families.
Kids possibly have a utilitarian function ensuring family wealth.
I guess the saying "it takes a village to raise a kid" is more true in those parts of the world. Quite literally.
the so called nuclear family is modern invention. people always live in extended family units before the industrial age
There might be merit in what you're saying, but when there is a divorce, the family court system and divorce laws significantly favor women.
Ah foreign aid.
List of development aid sovereign state donors - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I think certain types of foreign aid like military assistance for Ukraine need to be terminated.
The others are more humanitarian and are okay in my opinion.
No foreign aid is without strings attached after all.
I define "feeding them" as providing the majority of their food grains without which a majority of their population would starve.
What we give is mostly peanuts.
So we are helping but we aren't feeding them.
Not really. A lot men just fuck it up. Instead of staying in the home or continuing to pay the mortgage, tax and insurance, they skip off and stop. Thereby "abandoning" the home and therefore losing it.
They leave and don't pay support for the kids right away therefore making the court order it which is ordered based on income and child care time. Which most men are happy with alternative weekends. If men took their kids more, they would pay less. But taking their kids more means finding daycare and cooking dinner and doing homework and a lot of men don't want to deal with that.
A lot of men insist on the woman staying home with the kids after the woman gets pregnant. Instead of her going back to work. They see it as cheaper then hiring daycare because with the wife / it is free labour. Thereby putting the woman out of work and therefore owing in spousal support.
A lot of men get all excited when the break up happens and "enjoy freedom" while being seen as abandoning responsibility that the woman usually continues to handle from day one of the split.
I have helped quite a few men get custody out right or 50/50 split with child support being minimal and not requiring any spousal support but they did it the right way and right away after the split.
The laws are not gender specific. They are equal across the board and generally very fair but as I said, most men just fuck it up from the start of the split. Or even before with they operate. Any lawyer can tell you this.
Not really. Not anymore. The judges are being much more fair. Watching some women losing it on tic toc as they don't get preferential treatment is one of my guilty pleasures.
There has been a societal shift that we are finally seeing come to the end game. So much "me me me" has caused this. So much coddling of kids I stead of community raising and allowing adversity to happen.
Once the shit hits the fan hard it will raise another better generation.
