2009 July 12 Sunday
Homeless Families Mostly Headed By Women

Single parenthood unsurprisingly boosts the odds of homelessness.

Women make up 81 percent of adults in homeless families, according to the report. And unlike homeless men, who are usually middle-aged, homeless women tend to be younger than 25 with children younger than 5. "The life of a homeless woman is particularly fraught with danger," said Suzanne Wenzel, a community psychologist and professor at the University of Southern California School of Social Work. "These young women are at much greater risk of being victimized when they have no stable home. It can be more difficult to obtain needed services. For anyone in this situation, it is destabilizing and extremely stressful. That's why these new figures are horrifying."

How have these women found themselves homeless with children? How'd it happen? Vicious evil male patriarchal capitalism? Nope. The women chose to put themselves at risk as single mothers. They also chose to put their children - their babies! - at risk. These are unthinking irresponsible women.

First off, women initiate 2/3rds or more of all divorces. States which have higher rates of awarding sole custody to moms also have higher divorce rates. In such states women who get divorced can be assured of getting rid of the father. Once the early feelings of love wear off getting rid of the father is attractive for many women - especially if they can be assured child care payments. But suppose dad says to hell with child care payments since he can get no satisfaction from having either a wife or kids? Well, especially in an economic downturn suddenly mom is either homeless or living on welfare.

Some might argue that it isn't the fault of women that their men turn out to be no good and that they decide that divorce is necessary. But that argument doesn't work because it doesn't explain the rise in illegitimate births where women let themselves become pregnant without even getting married in the first place.

You might be surprised to learn that in Iran women initiate most divorces as well.

In a look at the gender gap in voting patterns between men and women Roissy argues that women vote for the welfare state that allows them to ditch beta providers in favor of government aid and alpha male lovers.

There are a few predominant reasons for the gender gap, which I explained lucidly in this post. In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta. From the time of the “sexual revolution” (which was really a “sexual devolution” back towards pre-agricultural mating norms when 80% of the women and 40% of the highest testosterone men reproduced) women have been more free to choose mating opportunities based on their gina tingles and the economic and social empowerment granted, respectively, by their pointless humanities degrees and the disintegration of traditional slut shaming mechanisms. The life of serial monogamy and alpha cock hopping has never been more attainable for the average American woman, and the result has been predictable: Women are substituting the beta males they no longer want or need for marriage with a Big Brother Daddy government to help them foot the child-raising bills that their PUA, drug running and serial killer lovers won’t.

Illegitimate Nation with a big welfare state could be our future.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 July 12 11:49 PM  Cultural Wars Marriage


Comments
Aki_Izayoi said at July 13, 2009 1:54 AM:

I do not know if I like the illegitimate nation, but I hope it would be like a European welfare state. My life sucks Randall because I cannot live in a welfare state.

A.Prole said at July 13, 2009 3:23 AM:

'Alpha cock-hopping' - love it!, even in my most obscene moments I can't turn-up great little phrases like that, (as you all know my fortes is describing the editorial board of 'The Economist' as shitcunts - which I believe as the nastiest possible insult in English English - possibly British Army sland from the hey-day of imperialism that also gave us such fine phrases as 'wog', for all those interested Eric Partridge's classic 'Historical Slanf' is strongly recommended).Nice to see that modern word-smiths are just as talented as their Victorian, Georgian and Chaucerian forebears.
Anyhow, the deal has always been this, marriage is an exchange for sex in return for money.All that big government has done to let the players get their jollies with no consequence, hardly a drawback one might think.
Definitely a case of 'getting your oats'* and the eating it!

*Ancient English euphemism for the coital act.

9mm said at July 13, 2009 6:06 AM:

--I do not know if I like the illegitimate nation, but I hope it would be like a European welfare state. My life sucks Randall because I cannot live in a welfare state.--

Just go suck on a pistol already, you imbecile.

MM said at July 13, 2009 9:41 AM:

Another example of the state acting to make it easier for adults to live with bad decisions. The state has removed the choice of living in subpar financial-security settings from mating habits and allowed for it to be overriden by the pure caveman-woman lust choice. People in Western states have greater freedom of why they pick a mate now. This should be considered a good thing unless of course the public cost of providing such safety nets overwhelms the utility of it and forcing people to be responsible for their bad decisions once more. Whomever started the idea that the rest of us should look after someone who mated with thugs and low lifes? Is their a particular politician or social scientist we can point the finger at and curse?

kurt9 said at July 13, 2009 9:44 AM:

I have never understood why any woman right in the head would consciously choose to become a single mother. Everyone knows that single motherhood sucks big time. That they never have any money, nor do they have any kind of social or other life.

My understanding is that the recent rise in non-married childbirth is not among teenagers, but is among adult women in their 20's. Why would any woman actually want to become a single mother? Are these kind of women so completely lacking in future time orientation? Is there any other plausible explanation for this?

Thras said at July 13, 2009 11:56 AM:

kurt9--

"Are these kind of women so completely lacking in future time orientation?"

Read Schopenhauer "On Women."

Randall Parker said at July 13, 2009 7:53 PM:

Aki_Izayoi,

What is it about a welfare state that you feel deprived of? Are you materially poor or suffer from a feeling of insecurity? What exactly? I'm very curious to know.

TangoMan said at July 14, 2009 12:07 AM:

Roissy's hypothesis sounds plausible, but it fails an empirical test. There aren't enough Alphas to service all of the women who prefer government as a Beta provider.

Kurt, plenty of people can buy into irrational ideologies and as they live true to the principles of these ideologies they come to experience the unyielding burden of reality. Women choose to become single mothers because they come to believe in the normative position that single motherhood is just as beneficial a family choice as is having a mother and father raise children. They believe that a mother can provide the same emotional involvement in a child's life that a mother and father can provide. All of these "empowering" beliefs are the result of immersive indoctrination that characterizes the environment many of us experience.

Nobody said at July 14, 2009 6:33 AM:

"There aren't enough Alphas to service all of the women who prefer government as a Beta provider."

Of course there aren't. But women think there are or that they will be chosen...

kurt9 said at July 14, 2009 9:06 AM:

TangoMan,

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about whats best for the kid. I'm talking about how single parenthood sucks because you never have enough money and you have essentially no social life as well. Everyone who has been around single moms knows that the life just plain sucks. What perplexes me is why so many young women are so incapable of learning from the experiences of their older sisters about how the single mom life sucks so hard and would, therefor, seek to avoid it at all costs. You really give up a lot of personal freedom in having kids. It is simply incomprehensible for anyone to want to give up that freedom for anything less than ideal circumstances.

Of course, I lived as an expat in Asia for 10 years after I lived in SoCal (and helped to create the transhumanist movement). So, perhaps I place a greater premium on personal freedom than most others and am, therefor, not capable of understanding the motives and desires of most other people, especially young women who actually want to become single mothers.

averros said at July 14, 2009 9:37 AM:

kurt9 -- the real explanation for the single mothers is very simple: they don't think at all. They do it because they *want* it, because that's what instincts tell them. (This is the same reason why they fall, repeatedly, for the bad guys - their provocatively antisocial behavior tells the reptilian part of brain that they must be alphas, or something, because they can afford this kind of behavior).

Any student of ethology cannot help but be amazed how much of everyday human life is driven purely by instincts. In most cases, reason only acts retroactively, to invent rationalization for emotional (i.e. instinctive) decisions.

kurt9 said at July 14, 2009 2:26 PM:

Averros,

You must be right. No other explanation makes sense to me.

Randall Parker said at July 14, 2009 5:58 PM:

A.Prole,

Roissy is a very talented writer. I highly recommend him as a strong dose of reality and great with the English language.

TangoMan,

Not enough Alphas to go around? There aren't enough winning lottery tickets to go around either. But that doesn't stop people from playing the lottery. A lot more women have experience going to bed with an alpha than are in actual relationships with one. They want to take a crack at landing another alpha.

The media, contraceptives, and the welfare state all cause women to lean away from staying with a beta.

miles said at July 14, 2009 11:26 PM:

I sometimes would love to SCREAM at people to MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND why we are witnessing the devolution of families.

We have simply subsidized women having children, being/becoming single, and chasing their dream men folks. Its "paid for" by the father & the taxpayers.


Many men would probably act in similar ways if the laws were reversed. Imagine if you could dump your wife, but you knew you'd get the kids at least half the time......but SHE PAID YOU CHILD SUPPORT equalling a third of her income for the next 12 or 13 years (and she was practically made to work). That affair at the office doesn't look so bad now does it? Imagine that you knew if worse came to worse, you could still get a free roof over your head via the government because you had a couple of kids, and get some AFDC checks sent to your door, and get access to some free education or retraining. Imagine if society APPROVED of you ditching your wife and told you that YOU were the "victim" in all of this...

.......also imagine that women magically became more like men in sexual promiscuity, and the top 20% of women really liked to have sex every day (when single), and didn't mind sleeping with men who were merely in the top 50% of attractiveness, so that you knew that it would be pretty easy to have sex with a couple of women who were considered "8's" every week even though you were only a "6" yourself. Does your formerly "6" wife look so good now? Imagine knowing that even though you were a "6" that you were very confident that you could go out to the bars every weekend and whisper in a female "8's" ear, "lets go back to my place for a whole night of fun", and that 75% of the time that "8" would say, "sure, lets go". Pretty nice insurance there, right?

The people who were behind the laws being passed many years ago, the real initiators who have long since pulled-off and are now unseen, knew EXACTLY WHAT THE OUTCOMES WERE GOING TO BE. Destroying the family and having a "legalized community of women" is written about in the Communist Mannifesto by Marx. Cultural Marxists can't come out and say that is what they want for society, but can merely pursue the same goals under the banner of equality and freedom (for women). Single women get indignant as hell when one merely suggests that these laws be rolled back. The same will wonder when they are older why there sons are so slow in starting families and why they dont have any grandchildren. Women do not have the same future time orientation as men and Matriarchies run themselves into the ground, but our matriarachy has thousands of nukes, a great navy, and overwhelming air power and many spy satellites (given to us by "good" guys that sluts generally find boring), so its probably not going to be conquered from the outside anytime soon. The birthrate will be below replacement, the quality of people will lessen, the social service load will continue to increase. We will find we are rewarding "thug" genes also, and will henceforth get more of them.

TangoMan said at July 15, 2009 12:49 AM:

Randall,

Not enough Alphas to go around? There aren't enough winning lottery tickets to go around either. But that doesn't stop people from playing the lottery. A lot more women have experience going to bed with an alpha than are in actual relationships with one. They want to take a crack at landing another alpha.

I'm not arguing that there aren't enough alphas to pair up with these women, I'm arguing that there aren't enough alphas to bed them all, presuming, that is, that we're not working with some very broad and generous definition of alpha.

Roissy's text states:

Women are substituting the beta males they no longer want or need for marriage with a Big Brother Daddy government to help them foot the child-raising bills that their PUA, drug running and serial killer lovers won’t.

He's talking about some form of regularized sexual relationships. Averros is hitting my point from another angle, and so are you, with your lottery comment. I don't think that Roissy's point can pass an empirical test, not as I'm reading it. If I'm misreading him and he's really arguing that they've abandoned rational decisionmaking in order to embark on the pursuit of their dream man, or someone like a alpha that they once slept with and who haunts their desires for years, or decades, afterward, then that position, like a lottery ticket, or an irrational decision, is something that I can believe.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©