0:48  |  11 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

FEMINISM - single mothers and civilisational decline

Lex Dras, author of "It's Mama's Fault!"

http://www.mamasfault.com/

appears to be directed solely at African Americans. However, since many non-blacks have adopted the worst of black culture - The Simpsons after all behave like blacks, according to George Bush - it is time that we ask ourselves whether condoning unmarried single parenthood and refusing to confront it in the name of tolerance (of low standards) is necessarily a good thing.

**********************

"WHAT is your definition of a Slut or a Whore?

WHY do women attract crap in the first place (guys as well as in life)?

HOW do guys view women in various social scenes?

WHAT type of guy will marry a woman with kids and WHY?

WHY and HOW are single mothers producing psychologically and emotionally weak males?

WHEN does the destruction of the African-American Race begin and WHERE must we start to stop it?

CRIME AND HIGH SCHOOL DROPUTS EMANATING FROM SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS

The painful truth is that 71% of all African-American births, in 2007, were to unwed mothers and single Black women. That is an increase of 56% since 1980; translation, it is getting worse!

Now, compare that to 50% of all Hispanic and 28% of Caucasians births out of wedlock. If there is anyone who cannot see the long-term dire effects of this trend on the African-American race and the adverse consequences, this will cause to our futures, that person is a moron! If you know a woman that falls into the category of an unwed mother, well, I’m sorry but they did that!

Not the drug dealer, not the economy, not the schools, not the neighborhood, not the loser she hooked-up with … the female who gave birth did that! You prevent the birth of a child (born into such environments) (p.71), you will prevent that child’s statistical probable future. PERIOD!

By the time a child is 13 years old, their psyche is approximately 85% "crystallized!" What this means is that you are knocking up a brick wall if you are trying "soft" measures to change this child’s mindset.

Outside a traumatic event, turning that child’s world upside down and shattering that old psyche, in order to rebuild it, you may as well just chalk-that-kid-up as lost! "Soft" measures do not work! Those are the realities of the matter but again, it all goes back to people not willing to swallow the painful truth and then doing something about it!

Frankly, if we as a society, and definitely the families of such a child, do not allow "hardcore" measures to be instituted then we as a society, or they (the families), deserve whatever happens. If you want to prevent the need of taking a "hardcore" approach then you must kill the monster while it is little, as a mentor of mine would tell me! Now before everyone pulls out their guns and knives on me, this could mean several things:

First, this means that you must get inside the child’s head long before there are any signs of the downward cycle. Good luck with this approach!

Who’s going to perform this daunting task, the people in the toxic environment from which the child came? Yea, right! That’s why the kid is here!

The other is to stop giving birth under such circumstances that will inevitably lead to "that" type of kid. To those who question "…circumstances that will inevitably lead to ‘that’ type of kid."

Let’s look at some numbers to back this up. Now before you go over board B*tching & Moaning about how this is not true, no matter what stats you look at, they are all appalling (p.51)! To address drop-outs and jail:

Children from single-parent families, account for 80 percent of all prison inmates as stated in the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators.

As a side note, African-Americans account for 45-50% of the entire prison population but only 13% of the in the United States. Does anyone see a problem with these numbers?

In deep contrast, the Asian population accounts for approximately 45% of the Ivy League population but only 3% of the United States population. I guarantee you that vast majorities of Asian kids are not born to unwed mothers. Taking a wild guess, which population will fare better, in the United States and global economy, given these facts?

The Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes are nine times more likely to drop out of high school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison then a two parent household. Two percent of the kids born to African-American single mother households make it to adulthood and become productive members of society (have never gone to prison and are TAX paying citizens). There is a reason for why these things occur and until we start taking off the blinders to what those reasons are, we will continue to produce the results we see today!

With all of this in mind, what are the steps we need to take to create National Programs that will turn this tide and begin to make a generational shift in thinking? National Programs that:

Install Foundational Fundamental Principles™ at the preschool level.

Change how a child views single parenthood.

Introduce very young children to success principles.

Change how children envision their future."

***********************

Of course, this is the "softcore" solution. The "hardcore" solution is to socially ostracise these people and openly call them sluts, slags and slappers.

It's the only language these women will understand, especially women like Mary F Pols, who wrote ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE: A ONE-NIGHT STAND, MY UNPLANNED PARENTHOOD, AND LOVING THE BEST MISTAKE I EVER MADE (Penguin £7.99)

She has a blog at http://maryfpols.com/blog which neither accepts nor displays comments, and glamorises her life as a single mother.
Vote: Should we make the connection between feminism, female promiscuity, family breakdown, the welfare state, national decline and confront it?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 71% No 29%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

1in10 1-May-2010 15:21
At the end of the day its the fault of men for allowing feminism. Western men have renounced responsibility for individualism; they just want women to be prostitutes and that is what they have got. If you want to bring feminism to an end then men need to take responsibility. Men will always be promiscuous and women will always accept that, that is human nature. But to reverse societal decline we need to make men solely responsible for their children - either the man looks after the child as part of a family, or he pays another person to look after the child, or he kills the offspring so as not to put a burden on his fellow men.
Andromeda 26-May-2009 8:4
Perhaps GWilliy will elaborate on the nature of "feminazi" response which would be "swift, vicious and everlasting".

I am not suggesting that ALL single parents would necessarily be inadequate or that ALL singly-parented children will turn out badly.

All I am saying is that the odds are against them. I am talking about the generality of the population, the average single mum, the average singly-parented child, not the exceptions to the rule.

Just because there are exceptions does not mean we should dismiss the likely outcome for the majority.

Singly-parented children are more likely to be low-achievers and criminals, and that is a statistical fact.

We must therefore legislate for the majority, ie the good of the greatest number.

I mentioned the Lex Dras book - It's Mama's Fault - because it was written by a Black American worried about the future of Black Americans. It may be relevant to Britain because I noticed that the BNP are fretting about racial extinction and it seems to me that single parenthood is also widespread in this country.

So how would GWilliy feel about repealing all anti-discrimination legislation?

Or withdrawing child benefit from unmarried mothers to discourage them from having their little bastards (who are statistically likely to grow into big bastards, in both senses of the word) at taxpayers' expense?

GWilliy 25-May-2009 20:4
I've always thought that the modern change in women's roles & responsibilities has been a major influence in the breakdown of the family. To me it's blindingly obvious. Of course few if any have the guts to suggest such a thing as the feminazi response is usually swift, vicious & everlasting.

This will never change as long as women are praised for divesting their traditional role (running the family home), of course if a man neglected his traditional role ie. not earn enough money to support his famly he is considered a worthless bum. Maybe if HouseHusbands became more socially accepted we could all be happy.

I believe most men now agree that women have equal rights to men, but the feminist fight to ram this down our throats seems to have caused the inbalance above.

Both my ex & I have never been married and we have a wonderful son (we were in our late 30's when he was born), I pay ALL of his financial costs & see him as often as possible, thankfully his mother agrees that having a strong Father figure around (even if we can't live together) is a good thing. My point is that it is possible to have a single parent AND avoid a negative outcome, but this takes BOTH parents not just one. If we were forced to live together in marriage then my child would experience some things that I strongly don't want him to experience.

In the UK it's obvious that many young women have children so that they can enjoy the protection of the State, traditionally they would not have Children unless they could rely on the protection of the Father. Simple as that. This is what happens when the state interferes in social morality.

In answer to the posted Questions.

Q. "WHAT is your definition of a Slut or a Whore?"

ANS. A women who charges money OR favours for sex. Women have every right to be as promiscuous as men.

Q. "WHY do women attract crap in the first place (guys as well as in life)?"

ANS. It's more exciting than a boring steady Guy.

Q. "HOW do guys view women in various social scenes?"

ANS. Same as always, with the same motives as always.

Q. "WHAT type of guy will marry a woman with kids and WHY?"

ANS. One who feels he has found his Soul Mate.

Q. "WHY and HOW are single mothers producing psychologically and emotionally weak males?"

ANS. Because they are more influenced by the most psychologically and emotionally weaker sex (of course there are exceptions, I'm talking in general).

Q. "WHEN does the destruction of the African-American Race begin and WHERE must we start to stop it?"

ANS. No Idea, I'm British.
Andromeda 23-May-2009 0:42
GWilly appears to be suggesting that a Libertarian should never ban anything or pass any laws of any sort to regulate human behaviour.

If a Libertarian is someone who wants the lowest possible taxes and the fewest possible laws for justice to subsist in society, then I do not see any contradiction between being a Libertarian and wishing to discourage single mummery in order prevent Britain from being a nation of even more bastards, which cannot be in the National Interest.

I have suggested two solution that would work:

1) to abolish child benefit for all

2) to give child benefit only to married mothers

I would be interested to know which option he prefers.
GWilliy 22-May-2009 22:20
As a Libertarian Andromeda should not be saying things like "Surely the more effective solution would be to FRIGHTEN women into NOT dropping their knickers for every Tom, Dick and Harry?"
Andromeda 22-May-2009 16:12
A Libertarian solution would be to abolish child benefit and/or the welfare state. Knowing that a life of welfare dependency is no longer available should be discouragement enough.
Wildgoose 21-May-2009 15:36
Incentives Matter.

To an unemployed single mother, more children = more money and bigger housing.

To those of us in work, more children means less money and a more crowded home environment.

The answer is simple. Give working parents an additional tax allowance for every child, i.e. more children to support means reducing their tax burden.

At the same time, add a time limit to benefits for the unemployed. That removes it as a lifetime option, because when the time limit is reached the benefits cease, which means work or starve. Harsh, but without that the problem will only continue.
Andromeda 20-May-2009 9:36
Surely the more effective solution would be to FRIGHTEN women into NOT dropping their knickers for every Tom, Dick and Harry?

Then, the men can BUY their own condoms because any self-respecting woman would reject any man who did not automatically use one, without being prompted.

This would be a founding principle of any Sex Education class I run and the best test of a man's experience and his etiquette, I would have thought.

A man should ALWAYS carry at least two in his wallet, as a sign of hope and preparedness.
mal79 19-May-2009 22:21
It is far too simplistic to attribute society's "ills" to a single root cause, in this case feminism. It is also counter-productive as, focussing on just one cause detracts from looking at the bigger picture, which under scrutiny we can find all of the answers.

The flaw in this particular argument assumes that the male population always acts in a moral and responsible way, but it doesn't. With the exception of widowing, for every single-mother, there is a father who is not fulfilling his responsibilities to mother and child.

The decision should be an easy one for both male and female - if you are not ready to accept the responsibility of parenting, then you take adequate precautions to avoid becoming a parent.

A big part of the problem is that the welfare state tends to favour single mothers, especially when allocating social housing. The obvious answer to this would be to reverse the system to favour families. For example, rather than providing houses, i)allocate hostel places, or, ii)provide only limited housing benefit and only if it is supplemented by earned income.

Society as a whole also needs to take greater responsibility to uphold what it deems right and proper. Turning a blind eye to societies failings, helps no one in the long run. But before we can act collectively to improve our nation, first we need to become a collective again. We must re-acquaint ourselves with our neighbours and champion the "glue" that holds our communities together - churches, schools, businesses etc.

Only once we start to address ALL of the issues corroding our society can we start to repair it.
Comment:
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
Correspondents
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
Community
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award
       
    Home