Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner

[tod evans]

Why do men leave their families? I think men are every bit as irresponsible as women. For every child born there is a man involved and they should not be allowed to slouch out on the responsibility of a child being born as a result of their actions.

Like Brian I don't know of many, if any, men who have 'left their family'...

By and large fathers are booted out in order to improve the quality of life for mothers...

If she has a good lawyer she can soak each father for between 25% and 40% of his gross income and then move in some new swinging dick to pick up half the tab until she gets tired of him....

Plus at the very least she'll get sympathy points from the poor single mother crowd, at most she'll soak both private and government charities for housing clothing food and utilities, some churches even give those 'poor women' free cars!

[dannno]

Why do men leave their families?.

Because the women drive them away from their families?

I think men are every bit as irresponsible as women.

I think they are probably equally irresponsible by nature - however government has tipped the scales making it lucrative to leave their children's fathers.

For every child born there is a man involved and they should not be allowed to slouch out on the responsibility of a child being born as a result of their actions.

Well they wouldn't be driven away so hard if the women knew they had to depend on them - and if women knew they had to depend on them, they would have sex with men who were more dependable.

[otherone]

Like Brian I don't know of many, if any, men who have 'left their family'...

By and large fathers are booted out in order to improve the quality of life for mothers...

Most of the divorce situations that I've encountered typically involve an early-forties woman who decides one day she married an a$$h0le that is "holding her back". Usually when the kids are in HS or college. It's as if women conflate motherhood and wifehood. Once the kids don't need them, they cut the strings of their marriage.
Marriage is a bad deal for men.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

The good news is that this woman probably won't be reproducing any more.

YAY!

[helmuth_hubener]

Why do men leave their families? I think men are every bit as irresponsible as women. For every child born there is a man involved and they should not be allowed to slouch out on the responsibility of a child being born as a result of their actions.

Actually, they tend to not.

Good biological reasons for this. Anyway...

A woman becoming single is the woman's fault.

Of course, indirectly, it's men's fault, collectively, because men are the ones who make the rules and run societies. Men have done a very lousy job of that lately. Our whole society right now is set up as an incubator -- a nice, warm, fuzzy, comfy incubator -- for single motherhood. Casual sex, lack of social ostracism, lack of even disapproval, and of course vasty trillions of loot to gobble, both direct from the male chattel via "child support" and also funneled through the "welfare" dole system.

We live under the Single Mom State.

[bunklocoempire]

But I couldn’t reach out to him anymore. He was too new, too unfamiliar.

Oh yeah. Totally the election's fault.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

they tried black/white,

now man/woman,

they really trying to create that schism.

[Suzanimal]

I not only have the strength to keep it together mentally and emotionally

Oh please, she had a breakdown over a presidential election. That doesn't sound like someone who's emotionally or mentally stable.

[lilymc]

Why do men leave their families? I think men are every bit as irresponsible as women. For every child born there is a man involved and they should not be allowed to slouch out on the responsibility of a child being born as a result of their actions.

Amen.

[lilymc]

they tried black/white,

now man/woman,

they really trying to create that schism.

I've noticed that too. It does seem like they're working overtime to purposely create division between just about every combination of groups.

I hate it when people allow it to actually work for them. :-/

[lilymc]

Our whole society right now is set up as an incubator -- a nice, warm, fuzzy, comfy incubator -- for single motherhood. Casual sex, lack of social ostracism, lack of even disapproval, and of course vasty trillions of loot to gobble, both direct from the male chattel via "child support" and also funneled through the "welfare" dole system.

We live under the Single Mom State.

Very true. Big Daddy Government has replaced the father in the home... especially in certain communities. And that's by design imo.

But that doesn't mean that men are innocent. The wrongdoing goes both ways. And it's a vicious cycle which is why it continues generation after generation.

[Weston White]

In August, I went on six dates in one week.

Single mother with two young children and a troubled dog, and we are able to do six-dates in a week!?!?!

I had decided that I was ready to look for a partner.

You mean look for yet another partner, yea? Because I highly doubt those children came from immaculate conceptions.

Enough of this dating unavailable men a half-decade younger than me.

They’d never seriously consider a relationship with me, my two children and our needy dog. ...

A man who wouldn’t feel the need to step in and rescue me.

So you want a man at least 5-years older than you are, because otherwise they would not consider a serious relationship with you, but yet they would want to "rescue" you? DAFUQ! (Watching Jerry Maguire much?)

But I knew deep down that was only partially true.

...Or just bat-$#@! crazy.

I’ve been on my own with my kids for most of the past decade.

You have been alone with two-children for at least 10-years, yet one of them is 2-years old, which makes the other one at least 10-years old. ... ... ...Okay then.

Of the six first dates I had in August, ... We dated for a few weeks before he admitted he wasn’t ready for something serious. Two days later, the other of those good dates called me out of the blue. ... But two weeks later, the election happened.

How exactly did we get from August to November 8th already?

The world felt that precarious to me. . . . I hugged her, a little scared to send her to school, out into the big sky country of the red state where we live.

And the drama queen of the year award goes to...

My radiator was cracked in two places, right at the top.

Completely Trump's fault!

I not only have the strength to keep it together mentally and emotionally but I also have the strength to carry my daughter home.

Somehow, my intuition tells me this is not really so much so.

He, too, had been feeling a lot of the same emotions I was experiencing: hopelessness; fear; uncertainty about the future; panic over having to talk to my 9-year-old about anything that might come up at school, or what to do in the instance of sexual assault. But I couldn’t reach out to him anymore.

Oh darn so much for wanting "an equal," you were so close too!

“I can’t,” I told him. “I just can’t.”

Not even after eight-years of Obama? Bummer.

The future is uncertain. I am not the optimistic person I was on the morning of Nov. 8

Ah, finally the righteous proof that democracies are the root of all evil! Muahahahahaa!

...wearing a T-shirt with “Nasty Woman” written inside a red heart.

Well now that certainly explains much...

There is no room for dating in this place of grief. Dating means hope.

You mean I was wrong all this time in my thinking that dating meant companionship and that Obama meant hope?

I’ve lost that hope in seeing the words “President-elect Trump.”

Sorry, Jimmy I can't see you anymore, I really, really dislike our new president. So this is goodbye I guess.

[RJB]

I am wondering how this change came about. In the 1990s, if someone referred to their "partner" they were either gay or in the FBI. Now I see straight people refer to their boy/girlfriends or husbands/wives as partners and gay people refer to their partners as their spouse.

[tod evans]

I am wondering how this change came about. In the 1990s, if someone referred to their "partner" they were either gay or in the FBI. Now I see straight people refer to their boy/girlfriends or husbands/wives as partners and gay people refer to their partners as their spouse.

Too much of 'Teh Newz' on Tee-Vee.

People who don't watch that damn thing don't generally speak or think in off the wall ways.

It's much easier to pick out manipulative techniques in print than if some bimbo is droning on and on...

[Athan]

Holy $#@! two kids and a dog. What a real loss to the dating world lol

[Danke]

Holy $#@! two kids and a dog. What a real loss to the dating world lol

And she comes with a lot of tattoos also.

[Anti-Neocon]

Except for she says specifically that she imagined having a partner that could fix cars:


Which I was going to say is kinda sexist of her to assume those roles on her imaginary partner.

And also cook and read books in silly voices.

Doesn't seem sexist at all, just seems like stuff she feels deficient at or would rather not be doing, like she said in the previous sentence: "we'd both bring the thing we have to offer and place them on the table".

That's what many feel an ideal partnership (which would include marriage) has: both people covering up for the weaknesses of the other. Finding the "missing piece" to your puzzle.

If you are a straight man who hates to cook, wanting to marry a woman who likes to cook, is not sexist. If you are a straight woman who hates to cook, wanting to marry a man who likes to cook, is similarly not sexist.

If what you desire in your partner is someone with the skill sets expected of their gender, that is not sexist unless you have some idea of "that is what men should do" or "that is what women should do", which is a collectivist attitude that I like to stay far from. In many cases the ideal partner for someone does fit into gender roles. In many cases he/she does not.

[Athan]

And she comes with a lot of tattoos also.

Not modest enough clearly.

[helmuth_hubener]

...unless you have some idea of "that is what men should do" or "that is what women should do", which is a collectivist attitude that I like to stay far from.

No: it is a traditionalist attitude. An old-fashioned attitude, if you will.

An attitude, the courageous and conscious adoption of which will save our civilization.

[specsaregood]

And also cook and read books in silly voices.

Doesn't seem sexist at all, just seems like stuff she feels deficient at or would rather not be doing, like she said in the previous sentence: "we'd both bring the thing we have to offer and place them on the table".

That's what many feel an ideal partnership (which would include marriage) has: both people covering up for the weaknesses of the other. Finding the "missing piece" to your puzzle.

If you are a straight man who hates to cook, wanting to marry a woman who likes to cook, is not sexist. If you are a straight woman who hates to cook, wanting to marry a man who likes to cook, is similarly not sexist.

If what you desire in your partner is someone with the skill sets expected of their gender, that is not sexist unless you have some idea of "that is what men should do" or "that is what women should do", which is a collectivist attitude that I like to stay far from. In many cases the ideal partner for someone does fit into gender roles. In many cases he/she does not.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't really feel that it is "sexist" but sure enough if you reversed the roles and put it in an article that you imagined having wife that would cook, clean and sew; this woman and the author of this article would be screaming about how you were sexist to assign those roles to the woman in your relationship.

[Anti-Neocon]

No: it is a traditionalist attitude. An old-fashioned attitude, if you will.

An attitude, the courageous and conscious adoption of which will save our civilization.

You can call it what you want, but forcing people into roles based on their gender is not exactly the kind of freedom that I'd like to fight for

[helmuth_hubener]

You can call it what you want, but forcing people into roles based on their gender is not exactly the kind of freedom that I'd like to fight for

Yes, I understand. And that's very libertarian of you. High-Five!

It's very interesting to me the different ways people define "freedom." Freedom is such a crucially fundamental idea. To me anyway it is.

I think that you define freedom more expansively than me, would I think be a very fair way to put it. I define freedom more narrowly. The key word to me is "force." Now, you use that word, claiming that my attitude, the old-fashioned attitude, is about "forcing people into roles based on their gender." Not at all! You are using that word totally wrongly, according to my libertarian model. I should be more diplomatic -- you are using it totally differently.

To me, people are using force against you when they club you in the head or lock you in prison or deprive you of your full property rights. Social pressure, social norms, these are completely acceptable and compatible with freedom. Indeed, I would say, they are essential to it. Frowning at people, ostracizing them, excommunicating them, berating, condemning, and refusing to associate with them, these are all perfectly acceptable behaviors, and indeed commendable and pro-freedom behaviors.

But you disagree, and I do understand. Your view is more like that of John Stewart Mill. And OK, certainly not an all-bad view. I personally do not hold to it and do not relate to it.

Anyway, the people who succeeded in establishing your freedom were people who thought much like me on these issues, who had no problem with very strong differences between the sexes and their roles. Freedom which is in the process of collapsing and being destroyed. And destroyed by what? Largely, I would say, by the "modern" temperament. The temperament of depravity, indulgence, decadence, and brain-falling-out open mindedness. Anything goes. Follow your own whimsies. You are a unique, delicate butterfly. This corrupt and permissive attitude sounds very much like freedom, but actually, in very important practical ways, it makes freedom impossible on a large-scale societal level.

[Mordan]

When I was in my early 20s and unmarried, I was watching a nature show about lions.
It pointed out that when a pride loses its leader, a wandering male will come take over the pride.
The first thing he does is kill all the cubs.

I remember thinking, I'm glad we're not lions, but they sure got it figured out.

The reason is logical. The lion female won't be in heat until cubs are gone. The new alpha male lion wants some action

Furthermore, this cub killing behavior is evolutionary. Alpha male lions who didn't kill cubs didn't spread their genes as efficiently as those who did. Those "nice" lions simply disappeared.

[timosman]

The reason is logical. The lion female won't be in heat until cubs are gone. The new alpha male lion wants some action

Furthermore, this cub killing behavior is evolutionary. Alpha male lions who didn't kill cubs didn't spread their genes as efficiently as those who did. Those "nice" lions simply disappeared.

Being nice is not an advantage on this planet.

[specsaregood]

Like Brian I don't know of many, if any, men who have 'left their family'...

ya know, I thought about it pretty hard and I can only think of one such instance of people I know in real life and in that one instance the man left because the woman was in a family way with another mans child, (and they didn't have any of their own) so I don't even know if that counts.

every other instance was the reverse, the woman doing the leaving... and the men in the family unit were not losers, but rather hard working average men..

[Mordan]

Being nice is not an advantage on this planet.

Nice has several meaning. The word's meaning has evolved towards cuckery.

The Nice Lion is a Human Cuck who let his woman have children with other men without saying a word.

It is not bad in itself. The Nice Lion simply won't have as many cubs as the Bad Lion. In the End, it is all about the survival of the species and not the individual

Nice Lions Help Bad Lions' Cubs Survive