Red Pillers aren’t exactly big fans of single mothers, whom they blame for assorted social pathologies and generally refuse to date. But what about the missing fathers? Are they to blame for deserting the mothers in the first place?
According to Red Pillers, not so much.
In one recent Red Pill subreddit discussion of the issue, a Red Piller called aDrunkenWhaler offers what we can only call a eugenic defense of deadbeat dads.
Just saw a clip of a mother stork picking up her perfectly healthy baby and throwing him from the nest, to his death. The reason is to increase the chances of survival of her other 2 baby storks. Nature is cruel in that way.
Of course, we’re not animals. But let’s say you have a baby with a screwed up piece of shit woman that goes far and beyond to destroy your life and sanity, and uses your child against you without caring [s]he’s fucking him up in the process, explain to me, since you have no posibility to change anything, why is it the ultimate cowardice to walk away?
Because you’re the father of the child and bear equal responsibility for their life?
Why is it beta to not let yourself sucumb to a life of neverending drama and arguments, if not way worse? … Why not focus on other things, like having a good life, building a family with a good woman and raising good kids that actually have a chance in the world?
So you’re basically sacrificing the life of the kid you had with the single mother, treating it the same way the stork treated her “extra” baby?
Also, another food for thought, if your kid that turned out fucked in the head because of his mother commits some fellonies, maybe even kill a couple of people, and you could help get him released if you would burn some evidence, would you do it? If yes, why? Just because you shot some sperm on a one night stand at some point in your life?
Sort of telling that the closest thing to an act of nurturing this guy can come up with is … helping your hypothetical son get away with murder.
I just hope aDrunkenWhaler always wears a condom. No kid deserves to have a father like him.
Follow me on Twitter.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
What are we then, plants? The far right has a weird obsession with animal-related evopsych, but then seems to think humans are not animals, producing interesting cognitive dissonance.
Replace “woman” with “man” and you get an accurate description of a red pill man.
Look, I get that the whaling industry is down, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to kill and/or abandon children, Mr. aDrunkenWhaler.
@Naglfar
Come on, you can’t tell me that, as a fellow woman, spending your mornings on a widow’s walk isn’t romantic. ??
Given the current state of affairs, I might go with fungi, but that would be an insult to all the fungi out there that was making the world a better place by breaking down dead things, and returning nutrients to the soil.
@Moogue
I have anxiety, so I don’t think I’d find it all that romantic. That said, if I were married to a red pill guy like aDrunkenWhaler, I probably would be hoping for him not to return.
No, no, see, the proper division is “animal, vegetable, mineral”. Humans are 70% water, and since water isn’t an animal or vegetable, humans are actually minerals. ?
@Moogue
“Now don’t you weep my bonny lass
Though you be left behind
For the rose will bloom on Greenland’s ice
Before we change our minds.”
(Quote is from “The Bonny Ship The Diamond“, a cheerful tune whose author died horribly in the grip of Greenland’s ice, which came early that year)
@Snowberry
Well, ice is technically a mineral when it occurs naturally, but most of us don’t have much ice naturally occurring in us. If you do find ice forming within you, seek medical attention.
This reminds me of an anecdote: when Mary Roach, a popular science author, was researching for one of her books she tried to gauge public knowledge, and for part of that she googled the phrase “humans are x percent water” and counted how many hits she got for each value of x. Although the correct answer is about ~65%, she was able to find websites claiming anywhere from 10% to 98%. If someone was 98% water, I think they’d just be a gelatinous blob.
*sings Simon and Garfunkle’s “I Am A Rock”*
First you explain to me how and why it is that you can’t change anything about the situation.
Again, this is a roundabout way of saying that fatherless children exist because women often dump their husbands/boyfriends for no reason and then drive them further away with abusive behavior. It fits neatly with the common stereotype that criminals and other misfits are raised by single mothers, and their problems are caused by having a shitty mother and no father.
Incidentally, being a de facto estranged father is socially pretty normalized, even if the ex-partner isn’t presumed to be abusive. The label “deadbeat” is mainly reserved for those who also refuse to pay child support. This RPer doesn’t say it outright, but you can smell the insinuation that it’s unfair to have to pay child support if your children are going to be “wrecked” anyway and you can’t be raising them yourself.
As for saving your kids from abusive ex-partner, I hear it’s not entirely uncommon for men to sue for primary custody and actually win the case. Of course then you probably have to allow the ex-partner some visitation rights, which can be a pain if she’s abusive. Again, I hear women often deal with a similar situation.
Funny thing, most fathers in anything like that situation would actually try to protect their child. Maybe try to get custody or at very least work to undo any damage caused. I know that that’s what I’m doing , given that my ex-wife isn’t exactly doing a stellar job of parenting.
@Lumipuma
Yep. I know of several cases.
Hell, my own parents admitted when I was a kid that custody of my was spelled out in their updated prenup to fall to whoever was less “at fault” based on what they listed as reasons for divorce (cheating, abuse, and hurting me, the latter added after I existed). Whoever was less at fault also got dibs on the house and dog, tho mom joked later in the talk she could never take that dog from my dad even if they’d had the dog longer than me. I think mom was open to this because her own mother had been abusive, so she felt the idea of auto custody for the mother was dumb, especially if she fell down a similar path (never did, still together, still adorable, still love me and our present dogs)
This came up when I was confused when one of my friends’ parents got divorced when we were like nine. Both of them were still hugely involved in her life and since they stayed in the same town she was joking by middle school that she had two houses with two bedrooms and two big closets (she owned an insane amount of jeans, folks).
I had another friend whose folks tried to stay together way too long. It helped that the husband wasn’t home much, but in hindsight a LOT of shit had been going on from both ends (which is why I was called into to babysit friend’s brother, aka the ‘try and make it work with a baby” baby). Friend was in college when they finally split (he begged them to, for his little brother’s sake–he also hated his dad by then) and brother was split custody after an initial year with mainly mom since dad took that long to sell the old huge house and figure out how to make his work schedule work around taking care of a middle schooler. By high school they seemed to get along okay again. Frankly my friend’s not too fond of either parent these days and most hangs with his paternal aunt and uncle a few towns over to help with their shop. His mom finally got some mental help (she had some issues) and his dad’s fallen off the radar for me since only mom was my mom’s pal (as was her sister, who we hear from a lot more–from friend I mostly just hear about the shop or that he came out).
I actually had a creationist dingus try and assert that humans are not animals.
I point blank told him that if human beings are not animals; than that leaves humans as being plant, mineral or fungus and asking him bluntly which of those humans are by his absurd thesis; which of course: humanity doesn’t meet the criteria to be categorized under as plant, mineral or fungus.
It was frankly interesting see him become more ruffled than a grouse and as red in the face as a stoplight at that as he tried to twist himself in knots trying to come up for excuses why humans are not in fact the animals that we scientifically and in reality: are.
Though the fact he was a pseudoscience pruponent who claimed that science was somehow a religion probably says something about how out to lunch he was in the logic department.
@Kat:
Especially since the act of abandoning and refusing to support your own child is in itself creating massive changes in the situation, none of them good.
Classic manosphere thinking: “If I am not 100% in control of any situation then it means I’m totally powerless and bear no responsibility for it whatsoever, so I’m entitled to just walk away from it and it’s all somebody else’s fault.”
(And what a bizarre notion that your relationship with your child’s mother should be the determining factor in whether or not you engage in a criminal conspiracy to conceal your child’s felony. So if your hypothetical murdering son was born of a “one night stand” then you have no responsibility to illegally help him evade the consequences of his crime, but otherwise you do? WTF?)
@Kimstu
It’s not just the manosphere, either. A lot of other conservatives seem to think that if white cishet men don’t control something 100% they are completely powerless. Hence things like GamerGate or ComicsGate when a few women or minorities gaining power in a group immediately led white men to cry that they were being oppressed. Because in a conservative’s mind, any time when anyone else has any amount of power is oppression.
I agree with the analysis where conservatives considers that they are powerless if they are not 100% in control.
I believe it’s also because they tend to stretch any reasonable hypothesis until that stretch support them. It’s reasonable to be more willing to do unlawful things for your near family than for anyone else, but when stretched to “criminial conspiration, but only for sons” it’s rather problematics.
Same thing with the base of the post. The idea that sometime your partner is less than ideal and you need to separate is reasonable, but it’s stretched to absurdity here with a strawwoman who would make Circe look like a reasonable wife. Partly because reality-based griefs would not be enough to justify abandoning an infant.
@Ohlmann
The far right obsession with straw man/straw woman arguments is probably mainly because otherwise they’d have to deal with reality, which usually doesn’t align with their beliefs.
It’s also a consequence of their black-and-white world view. They can’t imagine any position other than the most extreme in any direction, so they create bizarre caricatures of people that don’t resemble reality (i.e. claiming Barack Obama was a communist).
What the hell is this tosser even on about?
This dipshit’s actually made me angry.
Almost all right-wing “thought” is about figuring out a way to rationalize special pleading. Personal responsibility is for women and minorities.
@Naglfar
Ha! Yes! I had read it that way when I read through the article! I had really processed the line as being about a –
I thought to myself when misreading it, “well that is a very fair description of him”!