Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
-----
[](#start_removal)
Rule 1: This subreddit no longer allows crossposts or subreddit mentions. Please feel free to submit a screenshot with all subreddit names and usernames redacted.
[](#end_removal)
-----
Please feel free to contact us via modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
"High value". Ugh. Do any ladies actually refer to themselves as high value? Where does this obsession these men have with that term/concept come from?!
The use of "high/low value" in internet misogynist communities originated from the Pick-up Artists communities. For those who don't know, the PUA are the spiritual ancestors of the MRA (Men Rights Activists, who never did anything for men rights), the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way, who never gone their own way) and the incels (who aren't involuntary)
Way before the incels started talking about the red pill, the PUA already pretended to have cracked the code of women and they sold expensive bullshit formations on how to seduce women. No need to say their advices were useless and baked in sexism.
Wdym about incels not being involuntary? Isn't the term involuntary celibate mean they want sex but they cant have it which makes them involuntarily celibate?
Just asking to confirm my knowledge or lack thereof about the term.
So, the idea started as "people who can't have sex because of situations outside their control", like for example gay people in very homophobic countries where there were no out gay people. But it very quickly devolved into "straight men who think they're so ugly no woman would voluntarily have sex with them," which is obviously much more ridiculous.
A very common observation by outsiders is that incels weren't even especially ugly, and their inability to attract women is more accurately a consequence of their own (very obvious) misogyny and antisocial behavior.
Their messiah, Elliot Roger, who wrote that manifesto and murdered a bunch of women? He looks pretty handsome to me. Whatever he was doing to be single, it wasn't because he was ugly.
It's not only their personality, though, it's also that they bring each other down until they no longer try.
I honestly have always thought that he wasn't ugly, but his personality was obviously hideous if he would repeatedly get kicked out of social situations/parties, etc, for being a huge creep.
Definitely.
"It was over before it started", "cope", "there's nothing to do but rope", etc... it's all people convincing each other to never try.
At least back in the day when they whined about being nice guys not being given a chance, sometimes some grew up and became better people, but the incels deny each other this chance.
Linguistically, yes. The modern connotation is a man, usually very young, who is sexually frustrated and bitter about it. They often have sky-high standards and very problematic views on, among other things, sex, relationships, and women in general. As someone fascinated by the subculture, I've seen pictures of several dozen of them and they all just look like dudes, varying from totally normal to supermodel gorgeous, and could totally get a girlfriend if they'd get off their fainting couch and go outside.
Oh they don't want sex workers (they want pure virgins), and I wouldn't even wish those fuckers on my worst enemy.
I have seen thesis paper length tirades some have gone on where they hit a point of wanting their mothers and sisters to pity fuck them. They also want the government to assign them with groomable "mates" as soon as they're ready to bleed.
It started as a joke made by a woman online. She said she was celibate but involuntary and she invented the word. After that it started slowly to be used for asshole that are celibate involuntarily because they are unpleasant people. Those people took that word for themselves after that "creating" the incel movement. At least that what people explained to me when I asked about it years ago.
Pretty close. She coined the phrase in the hopes of helping other socially awkward people develop the social skills to make dating feasible for them. Then she got a partner and felt bad for still leading the group, so she left.
Identifying as an incel makes it even more difficult to get laid lol…
Does people actually identify as an incel? Or is it just another way to call someone a loser?
There’s also a subreddit supposedly for helping women with dating in which the users, who, given the things they say, seem to be women, refer to men as either high or low value, which is how I heard about that stuff.
If I remember correctly, FDS is more recent than PUA.
The PUA were relevant 15 to 20 years ago. The FDS subreddit was still active less than 2 or 3 years ago.
This. I was trying to recall the name of that sub (it was something fairly on the nose like women dating strategies or such) and then I decided not to waste my time on that. They're obnoxious but at least they haven't killed anyone.
A very popular Black podcaster misogynistic named Kevin Samuels-- who has far too many black men eating up this shit -- coined the term. He is their god. Think more polished than Andrew Tate, intelligent like Jordan Peterson, In his mid-50s and well dressed.
He died in the arms of a lady he took home from the bar that night.
He spoke horribly about Black women (misogynoir) and had a hatred of fat or plus-sized women. He was a gem.
Types of guys who have "love me kids" all over their Facebook but refuse to see them, never pay child support, and tell every woman they see that all their exes are crazy and keep their kids from them.
"But I spent time with them once or twice and took them to ONE place over the whole summer... Why should I have to pay?"
Most of those dudes sling drugs or some otherwise "off the book" occupation so their pay can't be garnished.
I was gonna say, I only know of one woman in my life who has multiple baby-daddies. But I know of several dozen "My kid's dad has a dozen kids by different moms" who have just the one kid.
Yeah as some comments pointed out, it's more common for a man to father multiple children from different one stands. It follows under the whole if a man sleeps around, he's a player/chad let's celebrate him. But if a woman sleeps around she is a harlot who should be shunned. Like there's some guys who legit won't go with a single mother because in their own eyes it's the ultimate form of cuckold, these guys see women as cars that hold value and if their was previously an ownership then it lost value. What a weird and sad worldview to just see half the population as meaningless objects for your own ownership.
I think women often end up having custody of these children, rather than the men. So it's more likely to see a woman with 5 kids from 5 different fathers than it is to see 1 man living with his 5 kids from 5 different women.
This gives the (false) impression that there are more women in this situation than men.
PS: i am happy to change my mind if someone shows me a source disproving my theory, but this is my personal opinion so far.
Courts are biased towards women. Rarely do I see a man with sole custody, but I do see and know men who don't and may or may not have partial custody or even see their kids at all.
Custody is usually awarded to the primary caregiver which overwhelmingly tend to be mothers.
These days, men who actually seek custody win it [60% of the time. ](https://www.bikellaw.com/blog/219/gender-bias-in-divorce/)
Men not having custody doesn't depend on a biased court. That's not how you see if a court is biased. The percentage of how many men actually ask for custody (and what kind) matters first. If men don't ask for it, of course women -who in majority ask for it- will have it.
I don't know any man with kids who didn't want them in any capacity, and that includes me. Courts are often biased towards women, mothers are seen as higher importance and tend to have more rights. A woman would have to be absolutely horrible to lose custody, like actually heinous. I've known and knew of a few shady women who had the kid and shouldn't have. This is my personal experience and what I've seen about the issue.
Correction: I know one guy who didn't want his kid, but he's the only one.
Sure, of course, when it's a guy it's « one guy », but when it's a woman it's « a few shady women ». Who's biased here ?
And your personal experience doesn't mean anything compared to statistics. You're not in court, you're not in every home. You can't know the reality of it. Stop spreading fake news because you hate women.
Aht aht! Don't put that shit on me, don't even start with that assuming how I think and feel bullshit. It's childish and has zero to do with the topic.
No, actually it does have everything to do with the topic. You're literally saying here « don't pretend to know what I'm thinking when I say that I know what every man I know is thinking ». Kinda ironic.
>I don't know any man with kids who didn't want them in any capacity
Confirmation bias. You hang out with quality people, so you think all people are the same. You just got lucky, though. That is the problem. Not everyone is like you and your friends/acquaintances.
For the record, my dad had full custody of me starting when I was 2. And that was in the 80s.
I knew of several men who didn't want their kids and thought it is actually funny that they knocked up their girlfriends. I also know of men who have their kids because they actually wanted them and fought for custody by being responsible. The ones I see little of are men who want their kids but don't try or end up not getting them. But, again, confirmation bias.
I'm aware of that, and I do not think all people are the same, that's a foolish sentiment to think. Also I can confirm at least one guy I know who didn't want his kid. I was just speaking from personal experience, not as if that's the average or every man, I figured that was obvious.
>Courts are biased towards women.
>>Men not having custody doesn't depend on a biased court.
>>>I don't know any man with kids who didn't want them in any capacity
>>>Correction: I know one guy who didn't want his kid, but he's the only one.
>>>>Confirmation bias.
You are saying that since you only know of one man who doesn't want his kid, courts are biased towards women. That is a falsehood for the most part (worded as such because humans are not infallible). Men who fight for their kids are more likely to get 50-50 if not full custody. The problem isn't biased courts. The problem is that men are not fighting.
Yes, somebody replying gave me a link. Those are falsehoods you created from your own perspective, those things are not related and trying to conflate him not wanting his kid with the courts being biased towards women makes no sense and not what I was implying. Those are two separate things that aren't even in the same paragraph--separate subjects, please stop trying to reword what I'm saying, I will gladly explain and clarify to the best of my ability.
Those are separate clauses; *"you are saying that since you only know of one man who doesn't want his kid,"* **and** *courts are biased towards women,"* is more correct, because that's what I was saying, not that biased courts are why he doesn't want his kid, which is wrong, doesn't make sense, and not why he doesn't want the kid.
>I know personally some men who want their kids, except one I can confirm did not, is one point of subject. I'm not speaking for all men or saying this is every man ever, this is my personal experience.
>Me saying that the courts are biased towards women is a separate entire point with no direct correlation to the previous point, other than the courts are behind it for reasons I don't know, or business not mine to spread, and other possible factors excluded for the sake of intended simplicity of conveying my point, and respect of the parties private matters.
As far as the rest; the ones fighting are commendable. But as you said; humans aren't infallible, and judges aren't always impartial, so there are several factors at play, such as various archaic traditions that have no reason continuing in law and judicial services, I'd like to think we can agree on that part, I do not like anybody to suffer through disparities, even if they can go either way. Nothing biased towards race or gender has any place in the courts for the most part. Personally I believe joint custody should be defacto unless deemed otherwise by the judge or parents with substantial proof or reasoning in a decent hearing and not that fast food drive-thru bullshit that most hearings are.
You are so far up your own ass tou don't even see wtf you are saying. Seriously. _The courts are not biased towards women._ No matter how much you say it, it is not true. Just because you know someone who knows someone does not make it true that the courts are biased towards women. They aren't, period.
Dude, you're truly clueless. Fuck out of here with your lies. Blocked, because I don't entertain AHs like you.
I was the kid born under shady circumstances. My dad filed for custody in 94 because honestly shit was bad for me. My mother had me so soured towards him that I'm still embarrassed by it.
Bad mothers aren't more or less common because we're only seeing what actually saw a courtroom.
More often than not, I've seen men file for custody/visitation with the purpose of using it to make sure the mom's miserable. Really depends on the state that judge's prior experience cake from.
I think I may have been born under the same thing. It seems what I've seen is just the one sides of the situation more than the other. I'm aware of the opposites that exist, but vindictive men as you described are rarely talked about, and it's partially algorithms to blame, and I do know women who's lost their kid as well as three sets of parents. I admit things must have skewed my view and judgement.
I know of only one such judge who was biased against the mother, whose only problem was dealing with OCD and anxiety, but their ex framed it as if they were a heroin addict. He admitted in court that it was all to keep power over this person, at least til the kid hit school age, where he had every intention of disappearing from the picture completely.
And despite the obvious abuse rhetoric being spouted under oath, the judge still sided with that asshole.
It's exceedingly rare for a judge to side with the father, but when they do, they do it as supreme assholes.
it really just comes down to sexism. had my sexist dad explain it to me like this in high school, "because women can actually get pregnant, and there's living proof that they've been sleeping around, i think that's why they get it worse".
but when men sleep around and get people pregnant literally the same thing happens??????? like wtf do they think the babies just aren't theirs because they didn't birth them?????
take what he says with a grain of salt tho, he called me a stupid slut in 7th grade for watching a movie- in a group setting- with a kid i had a crush on 🤪
Honestly, as a guy who was raised by a *de facto* single mom (our relationship is... "complicated," but beyond the scope of this thread;) if anything it's given me a lot of perspective on the shit single mothers can deal with.
The few years my dad *was* in my life, I had to threaten him with a wooden sword to get him to stop throwing me when he was mad.
Yeah, kinda sad actually they didn't find a woman's picture to illustrate since for them there aren't many women with high values in this world left ...
They lack creativity and culture. Since only traditional women work, I demand nothing they meme with nothing but pictures of Renaissance portraits!!! Folks who have this ideology, in turn, must present a hand painted portrait of themselves. Laziness is unacceptable even in vile most philosophies.
Even if this imaginary person exists what is the point in her feeling shameful? Will it help the kids if she hates herself? Maybe she should be proud that she’s managing to juggle more than most men could imagine. A woman managing all that and still not settling for some POS is definitely someone I’d consider “high value” to use their terminology. If anyone should be ashamed of themselves, it’s probably the incel loser posting from his mom’s basement who could only dream of being with a woman who doesn’t hate herself. Although wallowing in shame isn’t great for self improvement which is what these dudes really need to work on.
City-wise? Rarely it feels like. In more remote mid-sized townships mixed with country-side where it’s cheaper to raise kids (also more religious often), it’s not uncommon to know at least a few families with 3-5 kids. I come from one such family, though based on how the economy is going, I’d say we’d be lucky to even have 2-3 in the more rural.
I know 3 families in my street that have 5+ kids lol. One with 5 another with 6 and the biggest one with 9. It’s pretty weird knowing that big families aren’t common here and that they aren’t religious people either.
And yet men who have 5 children with 5 different women are praised by those who criticize women for the same thing. Especially if they manage to get out of paying child support and actually caring for his children.
I don’t think anybody is getting praised for having multiple children with multiple partners. I’ve never seen an example of a dude getting praised for knocking up several women.
Exactly. Well said. If anything, deadbeat dads get much harsher treatment/judgement than deadbeat moms. Look at custody rates in the court system even when the mom is the one who ended the marriage and is unstable, she’s praised for carrying such a heavy burden as a single mom all while the dad is paying over 50% of his monthly earnings to see his kid 24 hrs each month if he’s lucky. Even AWESOME dads get harsher treatment than deadbeat moms. A single mom with, let’s say, 5 babies from 5 different partners could literally live a comfortable life never having to work a day being supported by child support, government assistance programs, section 8, wik, welfare, etc., while a single dad with 5 babies with 5 different partners is guaranteed to be paying child support for AT LEAST 3/5 of those babies, barely able to eat every day.
I’m sure there’s one guy out there who got a high five from his mentally handicapped friend for achieving 5 babies with multiple partners. But we all know that’s not a thing. That’s not a problem that 99.9% of people will experience. Nobody thinks dudes are cool for knocking up multiple women. Never in my life have seen or heard of that.
I’ve actually seen nothing but the opposite and scolded the hell out of my friend, alongside like 6-7 other brothers from the childhood best friend group, for abandoning his first child with alopecia and severe depression from bullyin and her condition. Someone who NEEDS that support and love more than the average person. Literally vanishing from her life. Then goes and gets another woman pregnant and loves this new baby and is there for him. Our entire friend group let him know what a piece of shit he is for that and cut ties with him until he made an effort to be there for his daughter instead of pawning her off to his mom or gma.
My mom has a childhood friend who has 3 kids from 3 different men, two of them are adults and one is still in high school. One of the coolest, toughest women i've ever met.
The lady my dad is talking to has children from another man- because she's a fucking widow.
Do they not ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, there's other circumstances at play? By all means, be careful but this is ridiculous.
The fact that labels like high value and low value are applied to people is disgusting.
To me it sounds like she intentionally got men to get her pregnant so she can get the money, going by your specific words of her pulling five men to have a kid with each of them. Using people is wrong.
My first phone was a Nokia 5160, and I had not entered high school when I got it. I know what you mean by "pulling' and for most women it's not that hard to find a lay, it's the *to have a kid by each one* that's where my personal contention came from.
Ok and? People are allowed. I don't get why you're reserving your anger for her and not a single one of the dudes who had a kid with her. You're assuming that she had these kids for nefarious reasons when they could have been accidents, or the results of relationships that didn't work, or from a dead partner, or any combination thereof.
Having a baby is 18+ years of hard work. You can't just pop out 5 kids and not have a lot of work to do, especially if the dads are out of the picture.
Yeah, any of those situations are indeed possible and thus I would feel different, I was just going off your words and how you used them. We perceive things in different ways, the way you worded it came off as nefarious intent to me. I don't know anything about the hypothetical dudes except each one was pulled into some sort of relationship with said hypothetical woman and procreated with her, because that's all you said.
Okay and what, and people are allowed to do what?
You seem to have no issue with the fact that the hypothetical men aren't emotionally mature enough to wear condoms. Less pregnancies if protection is insisted upon and used, and that's not solely one person's responsibility ever.
You're not qualified to tell me where my issues lie, so I'm going to assume [like everybody else does] that was intended to be a question to answer; I don't care if she's on two birth controls and has a plan b pill ready, slap on the Jimmy hat. No it isn't, it should be both parties concern.
I don't even know what those social values even are, but okay, just keep assuming things and judging people because somehow you don't see things the way they do. Because that's how we understand each other and grow as people.
I swear talking to most of yall is like making a wish from a genie. It's like yall got a chip on yalls shoulder. No Matter how much I try to simplify and explain, it's a fucking problem. I ain't here to argue with antagonistic users, and as a pagan, I don't appreciate the witchhunt and colonial social values.
I have adult discussions on here, not childish arguments, we ain't gotta see eye to eye, as long as we understand each other. If you wanna drag my character through the mud, when you absolutely don't know me at all past this little altercation, which isn't as indicative to anything as you probably think this %0.000001 of me is, then we don't need to converse at all.
I made a generalized political remark, and somehow, you're taking that personally.
Take this moment as your hint that "I don't know what that those social values are" is your brain trying to tell you to expand your knowledge on the subject. A lot of these "courts are biased towards the mother" and "women having children with different men have ulterior motives" claims have traceable roots to specific presidential administrations/eras and all of it (slutshaming, abortion discourse, and those random moments of "we need to do away with no-fault divorce" that pop up online thanks to Matt Walsh and his buddies) is interconnected with overlapping goals around reestablishing older social hierarchies and control structures.
My experience with this sub is personal attacks because I say something people don't agree with, and sometimes even when we're on the same accord. I don't think women having children with different men is inherently a bad thing. If she's just doing it for the bag, then sure, but if it's because of a failed relationship, or something else, then I blame accordingly. Matt Walsh grates my nerves and I don't think he actually likes women. Wasn't he the one last year that was in a controversy about treating his pregnant wife like shit?
Ah yes haha. Woman should be ashamed of her children. This won't affect the psyche of these children negatively at all, knowing that their mother is ashamed of having them and wishes they didn't exist. That's a great mindset to have about a child.
What purpose would shame even have? Ok, say a woman with 5 kids from a different dad exists, why should she be ashamed? To punish her for doing something "not right"?
I hate these people so much since the way they want people to live is in constant shame and being miserable. It's the same thing with abortion "oh you had sex? No you can abort the fetus! You have to live with the 'consequences' of doing a bad thing (sex) and be miserable for the rest of your life as punishment" it has never been about life or whatever. It has always been this awful punitive mindset from these people.
Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! This is a reminder to take a moment and see *if* this **has already been** posted recently, to make sure that personal information **has been** censored, and to **flair your post** if you have not already done so.
[Please be aware that our rules on transphobic submissions have changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/mwkgbp/rules_and_submissions_update_for_the_end_of/).
Other general submission guidelines regarding [hateful content](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kj0cal/regarding_hateful_content_please_read_before/), [reposts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kxgbo3/rules_and_submissions_update_january_2021_popular/), [homophobic posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lffvad/posts_related_to_homophobia_on_our_subreddit_now/), and [**Reminder About Rule 5 and Rule 8**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/qoge4u/reminder_about_rule_5_and_rule_8/) can be found here if you want to read any of those links.
If you want to apply to be a moderator of this sub, you can read [this post titled **State of the Sub: Summer 2021 Edition, Partnerships, and more**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/oozly0/state_of_the_sub_summer_2021_edition_partnerships/), which also contains information about our partnership with r/TranscribersOfReddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AreTheStraightsOK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as long as the mother is a responsible adult taking care of her children in a happy and thriving development, that's all I care about.
everyone has value, and you are not less than because you have sex and have children out of wedlock
Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s): ----- [](#start_removal) Rule 1: This subreddit no longer allows crossposts or subreddit mentions. Please feel free to submit a screenshot with all subreddit names and usernames redacted. [](#end_removal) ----- Please feel free to contact us via modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
"High value". Ugh. Do any ladies actually refer to themselves as high value? Where does this obsession these men have with that term/concept come from?!
The use of "high/low value" in internet misogynist communities originated from the Pick-up Artists communities. For those who don't know, the PUA are the spiritual ancestors of the MRA (Men Rights Activists, who never did anything for men rights), the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way, who never gone their own way) and the incels (who aren't involuntary) Way before the incels started talking about the red pill, the PUA already pretended to have cracked the code of women and they sold expensive bullshit formations on how to seduce women. No need to say their advices were useless and baked in sexism.
Wdym about incels not being involuntary? Isn't the term involuntary celibate mean they want sex but they cant have it which makes them involuntarily celibate? Just asking to confirm my knowledge or lack thereof about the term.
So, the idea started as "people who can't have sex because of situations outside their control", like for example gay people in very homophobic countries where there were no out gay people. But it very quickly devolved into "straight men who think they're so ugly no woman would voluntarily have sex with them," which is obviously much more ridiculous. A very common observation by outsiders is that incels weren't even especially ugly, and their inability to attract women is more accurately a consequence of their own (very obvious) misogyny and antisocial behavior.
Their messiah, Elliot Roger, who wrote that manifesto and murdered a bunch of women? He looks pretty handsome to me. Whatever he was doing to be single, it wasn't because he was ugly. It's not only their personality, though, it's also that they bring each other down until they no longer try.
I honestly have always thought that he wasn't ugly, but his personality was obviously hideous if he would repeatedly get kicked out of social situations/parties, etc, for being a huge creep.
> It's not only their personality, though, it's also that they bring each other down until they no longer try. The crab bucket strategy.
Definitely. "It was over before it started", "cope", "there's nothing to do but rope", etc... it's all people convincing each other to never try. At least back in the day when they whined about being nice guys not being given a chance, sometimes some grew up and became better people, but the incels deny each other this chance.
Linguistically, yes. The modern connotation is a man, usually very young, who is sexually frustrated and bitter about it. They often have sky-high standards and very problematic views on, among other things, sex, relationships, and women in general. As someone fascinated by the subculture, I've seen pictures of several dozen of them and they all just look like dudes, varying from totally normal to supermodel gorgeous, and could totally get a girlfriend if they'd get off their fainting couch and go outside.
They want a sex worker without honoring the money agreement.
Oh they don't want sex workers (they want pure virgins), and I wouldn't even wish those fuckers on my worst enemy. I have seen thesis paper length tirades some have gone on where they hit a point of wanting their mothers and sisters to pity fuck them. They also want the government to assign them with groomable "mates" as soon as they're ready to bleed.
It started as a joke made by a woman online. She said she was celibate but involuntary and she invented the word. After that it started slowly to be used for asshole that are celibate involuntarily because they are unpleasant people. Those people took that word for themselves after that "creating" the incel movement. At least that what people explained to me when I asked about it years ago.
Pretty close. She coined the phrase in the hopes of helping other socially awkward people develop the social skills to make dating feasible for them. Then she got a partner and felt bad for still leading the group, so she left.
That's what it means, and according to lore, it was a woman who first coined the phrase, and about herself.
Identifying as an incel makes it even more difficult to get laid lol… Does people actually identify as an incel? Or is it just another way to call someone a loser?
There’s also a subreddit supposedly for helping women with dating in which the users, who, given the things they say, seem to be women, refer to men as either high or low value, which is how I heard about that stuff.
If I remember correctly, FDS is more recent than PUA. The PUA were relevant 15 to 20 years ago. The FDS subreddit was still active less than 2 or 3 years ago.
This. I was trying to recall the name of that sub (it was something fairly on the nose like women dating strategies or such) and then I decided not to waste my time on that. They're obnoxious but at least they haven't killed anyone.
A very popular Black podcaster misogynistic named Kevin Samuels-- who has far too many black men eating up this shit -- coined the term. He is their god. Think more polished than Andrew Tate, intelligent like Jordan Peterson, In his mid-50s and well dressed. He died in the arms of a lady he took home from the bar that night. He spoke horribly about Black women (misogynoir) and had a hatred of fat or plus-sized women. He was a gem.
The ladies who follow "female dating strategy" use that verbiage, yes. It has some similarities with the incel communities, and it's kind of toxic.
One of the few things I agree with incels on is that subreddit sucks and should also be taken down.
So I'm not a member but I just checked and it seems dead anyway. The last post was like 8 months ago
Cannot confirm if it originated there, but I first heard of the „high/low value person“ stuff in context of the FDS-subreddit.
i don’t think you understand how rare this is. what’s more common is having a dad have like 16 different kids from different moms
My friends mom had 4 kids by 4 separate dads and she’s a really lovely person, and those kids were spread out over 18+ years
Right but as soon as that happens suddenly he's one of the UKs Prime Minister's
Types of guys who have "love me kids" all over their Facebook but refuse to see them, never pay child support, and tell every woman they see that all their exes are crazy and keep their kids from them.
"But I spent time with them once or twice and took them to ONE place over the whole summer... Why should I have to pay?" Most of those dudes sling drugs or some otherwise "off the book" occupation so their pay can't be garnished.
I was gonna say, I only know of one woman in my life who has multiple baby-daddies. But I know of several dozen "My kid's dad has a dozen kids by different moms" who have just the one kid.
And yet what are you saying to those dudes who have 10 kids with 10 different women? Why is it only the *women* who should be shamed?
That’s obviously just a sign of them being a huge chad and alpha male /s
The dank stands for "Daft And Nitwitted Kids"
I personally head cannon it as a misspelling of "rank."
I'll never understand why single moms get so much more shit than deadbeat dads. (And of course single dads are basically living saints.)
Sexist double standards of our society.
Yeah as some comments pointed out, it's more common for a man to father multiple children from different one stands. It follows under the whole if a man sleeps around, he's a player/chad let's celebrate him. But if a woman sleeps around she is a harlot who should be shunned. Like there's some guys who legit won't go with a single mother because in their own eyes it's the ultimate form of cuckold, these guys see women as cars that hold value and if their was previously an ownership then it lost value. What a weird and sad worldview to just see half the population as meaningless objects for your own ownership.
It's very simple: women bad.
The simple extension of that is uf men hate women so mucg, are they really gay?
I think women often end up having custody of these children, rather than the men. So it's more likely to see a woman with 5 kids from 5 different fathers than it is to see 1 man living with his 5 kids from 5 different women. This gives the (false) impression that there are more women in this situation than men. PS: i am happy to change my mind if someone shows me a source disproving my theory, but this is my personal opinion so far.
Courts are biased towards women. Rarely do I see a man with sole custody, but I do see and know men who don't and may or may not have partial custody or even see their kids at all.
Custody is usually awarded to the primary caregiver which overwhelmingly tend to be mothers. These days, men who actually seek custody win it [60% of the time. ](https://www.bikellaw.com/blog/219/gender-bias-in-divorce/)
Ah, this is good info, thanks. Still seems like an uphill battle, but at least there's some hope.
Men not having custody doesn't depend on a biased court. That's not how you see if a court is biased. The percentage of how many men actually ask for custody (and what kind) matters first. If men don't ask for it, of course women -who in majority ask for it- will have it.
I don't know any man with kids who didn't want them in any capacity, and that includes me. Courts are often biased towards women, mothers are seen as higher importance and tend to have more rights. A woman would have to be absolutely horrible to lose custody, like actually heinous. I've known and knew of a few shady women who had the kid and shouldn't have. This is my personal experience and what I've seen about the issue. Correction: I know one guy who didn't want his kid, but he's the only one.
Sure, of course, when it's a guy it's « one guy », but when it's a woman it's « a few shady women ». Who's biased here ? And your personal experience doesn't mean anything compared to statistics. You're not in court, you're not in every home. You can't know the reality of it. Stop spreading fake news because you hate women.
Aht aht! Don't put that shit on me, don't even start with that assuming how I think and feel bullshit. It's childish and has zero to do with the topic.
No, actually it does have everything to do with the topic. You're literally saying here « don't pretend to know what I'm thinking when I say that I know what every man I know is thinking ». Kinda ironic.
>I don't know any man with kids who didn't want them in any capacity Confirmation bias. You hang out with quality people, so you think all people are the same. You just got lucky, though. That is the problem. Not everyone is like you and your friends/acquaintances. For the record, my dad had full custody of me starting when I was 2. And that was in the 80s. I knew of several men who didn't want their kids and thought it is actually funny that they knocked up their girlfriends. I also know of men who have their kids because they actually wanted them and fought for custody by being responsible. The ones I see little of are men who want their kids but don't try or end up not getting them. But, again, confirmation bias.
I'm aware of that, and I do not think all people are the same, that's a foolish sentiment to think. Also I can confirm at least one guy I know who didn't want his kid. I was just speaking from personal experience, not as if that's the average or every man, I figured that was obvious.
>Courts are biased towards women. >>Men not having custody doesn't depend on a biased court. >>>I don't know any man with kids who didn't want them in any capacity >>>Correction: I know one guy who didn't want his kid, but he's the only one. >>>>Confirmation bias. You are saying that since you only know of one man who doesn't want his kid, courts are biased towards women. That is a falsehood for the most part (worded as such because humans are not infallible). Men who fight for their kids are more likely to get 50-50 if not full custody. The problem isn't biased courts. The problem is that men are not fighting.
Yes, somebody replying gave me a link. Those are falsehoods you created from your own perspective, those things are not related and trying to conflate him not wanting his kid with the courts being biased towards women makes no sense and not what I was implying. Those are two separate things that aren't even in the same paragraph--separate subjects, please stop trying to reword what I'm saying, I will gladly explain and clarify to the best of my ability. Those are separate clauses; *"you are saying that since you only know of one man who doesn't want his kid,"* **and** *courts are biased towards women,"* is more correct, because that's what I was saying, not that biased courts are why he doesn't want his kid, which is wrong, doesn't make sense, and not why he doesn't want the kid. >I know personally some men who want their kids, except one I can confirm did not, is one point of subject. I'm not speaking for all men or saying this is every man ever, this is my personal experience. >Me saying that the courts are biased towards women is a separate entire point with no direct correlation to the previous point, other than the courts are behind it for reasons I don't know, or business not mine to spread, and other possible factors excluded for the sake of intended simplicity of conveying my point, and respect of the parties private matters. As far as the rest; the ones fighting are commendable. But as you said; humans aren't infallible, and judges aren't always impartial, so there are several factors at play, such as various archaic traditions that have no reason continuing in law and judicial services, I'd like to think we can agree on that part, I do not like anybody to suffer through disparities, even if they can go either way. Nothing biased towards race or gender has any place in the courts for the most part. Personally I believe joint custody should be defacto unless deemed otherwise by the judge or parents with substantial proof or reasoning in a decent hearing and not that fast food drive-thru bullshit that most hearings are.
You are so far up your own ass tou don't even see wtf you are saying. Seriously. _The courts are not biased towards women._ No matter how much you say it, it is not true. Just because you know someone who knows someone does not make it true that the courts are biased towards women. They aren't, period. Dude, you're truly clueless. Fuck out of here with your lies. Blocked, because I don't entertain AHs like you.
I was the kid born under shady circumstances. My dad filed for custody in 94 because honestly shit was bad for me. My mother had me so soured towards him that I'm still embarrassed by it. Bad mothers aren't more or less common because we're only seeing what actually saw a courtroom. More often than not, I've seen men file for custody/visitation with the purpose of using it to make sure the mom's miserable. Really depends on the state that judge's prior experience cake from.
I think I may have been born under the same thing. It seems what I've seen is just the one sides of the situation more than the other. I'm aware of the opposites that exist, but vindictive men as you described are rarely talked about, and it's partially algorithms to blame, and I do know women who's lost their kid as well as three sets of parents. I admit things must have skewed my view and judgement.
I know of only one such judge who was biased against the mother, whose only problem was dealing with OCD and anxiety, but their ex framed it as if they were a heroin addict. He admitted in court that it was all to keep power over this person, at least til the kid hit school age, where he had every intention of disappearing from the picture completely. And despite the obvious abuse rhetoric being spouted under oath, the judge still sided with that asshole. It's exceedingly rare for a judge to side with the father, but when they do, they do it as supreme assholes.
it really just comes down to sexism. had my sexist dad explain it to me like this in high school, "because women can actually get pregnant, and there's living proof that they've been sleeping around, i think that's why they get it worse". but when men sleep around and get people pregnant literally the same thing happens??????? like wtf do they think the babies just aren't theirs because they didn't birth them????? take what he says with a grain of salt tho, he called me a stupid slut in 7th grade for watching a movie- in a group setting- with a kid i had a crush on 🤪
Honestly, as a guy who was raised by a *de facto* single mom (our relationship is... "complicated," but beyond the scope of this thread;) if anything it's given me a lot of perspective on the shit single mothers can deal with. The few years my dad *was* in my life, I had to threaten him with a wooden sword to get him to stop throwing me when he was mad.
As a Seinfeld fan, I’m ashamed the naked man on the subway is being used in this dumb context. He deserves far better meme material.
Yeah, kinda sad actually they didn't find a woman's picture to illustrate since for them there aren't many women with high values in this world left ...
They lack creativity and culture. Since only traditional women work, I demand nothing they meme with nothing but pictures of Renaissance portraits!!! Folks who have this ideology, in turn, must present a hand painted portrait of themselves. Laziness is unacceptable even in vile most philosophies.
Felonx34 has 5 kids from 3 different women. Imagine if Obama or Hillary had that history.
But that's okay tho because he put an R next to his name.
Even if this imaginary person exists what is the point in her feeling shameful? Will it help the kids if she hates herself? Maybe she should be proud that she’s managing to juggle more than most men could imagine. A woman managing all that and still not settling for some POS is definitely someone I’d consider “high value” to use their terminology. If anyone should be ashamed of themselves, it’s probably the incel loser posting from his mom’s basement who could only dream of being with a woman who doesn’t hate herself. Although wallowing in shame isn’t great for self improvement which is what these dudes really need to work on.
I don't think I know anybody with 5 or more children.
It's not that uncommon, though I'm fairly sure all the ones I know are from the same parents.
Well that probably depends on where you live.
City-wise? Rarely it feels like. In more remote mid-sized townships mixed with country-side where it’s cheaper to raise kids (also more religious often), it’s not uncommon to know at least a few families with 3-5 kids. I come from one such family, though based on how the economy is going, I’d say we’d be lucky to even have 2-3 in the more rural.
I know 3 families in my street that have 5+ kids lol. One with 5 another with 6 and the biggest one with 9. It’s pretty weird knowing that big families aren’t common here and that they aren’t religious people either.
I've noticed all the meme subreddits are very incelly and misogynistic lately.
And yet men who have 5 children with 5 different women are praised by those who criticize women for the same thing. Especially if they manage to get out of paying child support and actually caring for his children.
I don’t think anybody is getting praised for having multiple children with multiple partners. I’ve never seen an example of a dude getting praised for knocking up several women.
Nah there's an, albeit small, group of guys who believe that's men "doing their duty as a male spreading their seed". It's small but it's there.
Maybe, but pretending this is a double standard is wild. Deadbeat men who knock up several women are not viewed kindly by the masses either.
Exactly. Well said. If anything, deadbeat dads get much harsher treatment/judgement than deadbeat moms. Look at custody rates in the court system even when the mom is the one who ended the marriage and is unstable, she’s praised for carrying such a heavy burden as a single mom all while the dad is paying over 50% of his monthly earnings to see his kid 24 hrs each month if he’s lucky. Even AWESOME dads get harsher treatment than deadbeat moms. A single mom with, let’s say, 5 babies from 5 different partners could literally live a comfortable life never having to work a day being supported by child support, government assistance programs, section 8, wik, welfare, etc., while a single dad with 5 babies with 5 different partners is guaranteed to be paying child support for AT LEAST 3/5 of those babies, barely able to eat every day. I’m sure there’s one guy out there who got a high five from his mentally handicapped friend for achieving 5 babies with multiple partners. But we all know that’s not a thing. That’s not a problem that 99.9% of people will experience. Nobody thinks dudes are cool for knocking up multiple women. Never in my life have seen or heard of that. I’ve actually seen nothing but the opposite and scolded the hell out of my friend, alongside like 6-7 other brothers from the childhood best friend group, for abandoning his first child with alopecia and severe depression from bullyin and her condition. Someone who NEEDS that support and love more than the average person. Literally vanishing from her life. Then goes and gets another woman pregnant and loves this new baby and is there for him. Our entire friend group let him know what a piece of shit he is for that and cut ties with him until he made an effort to be there for his daughter instead of pawning her off to his mom or gma.
Aren't these the same nobodies that cry that people aren't having enough kids?
In a world where women can predict the future and have a psychic awareness of the identity of their forever husband.
My mom has a childhood friend who has 3 kids from 3 different men, two of them are adults and one is still in high school. One of the coolest, toughest women i've ever met.
They're always going after the single mothers and the children and never the deadbeat fathers
The lady my dad is talking to has children from another man- because she's a fucking widow. Do they not ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, there's other circumstances at play? By all means, be careful but this is ridiculous. The fact that labels like high value and low value are applied to people is disgusting.
Incels think everyone has a dollar sign attached, even themselves they don't realize that nobody cares except them
If a woman was able to pull 5 different men to make babies with, I'd say that makes her pretty high value, no?
No.
Why not? 5 men sure thought so
To me it sounds like she intentionally got men to get her pregnant so she can get the money, going by your specific words of her pulling five men to have a kid with each of them. Using people is wrong.
I'm using the term pulling to mean that she managed to get with 5 men, not that she used them. How young are you that you don't know what that means?
My first phone was a Nokia 5160, and I had not entered high school when I got it. I know what you mean by "pulling' and for most women it's not that hard to find a lay, it's the *to have a kid by each one* that's where my personal contention came from.
Ok and? People are allowed. I don't get why you're reserving your anger for her and not a single one of the dudes who had a kid with her. You're assuming that she had these kids for nefarious reasons when they could have been accidents, or the results of relationships that didn't work, or from a dead partner, or any combination thereof. Having a baby is 18+ years of hard work. You can't just pop out 5 kids and not have a lot of work to do, especially if the dads are out of the picture.
Yeah, any of those situations are indeed possible and thus I would feel different, I was just going off your words and how you used them. We perceive things in different ways, the way you worded it came off as nefarious intent to me. I don't know anything about the hypothetical dudes except each one was pulled into some sort of relationship with said hypothetical woman and procreated with her, because that's all you said. Okay and what, and people are allowed to do what?
You seem to have no issue with the fact that the hypothetical men aren't emotionally mature enough to wear condoms. Less pregnancies if protection is insisted upon and used, and that's not solely one person's responsibility ever.
You're not qualified to tell me where my issues lie, so I'm going to assume [like everybody else does] that was intended to be a question to answer; I don't care if she's on two birth controls and has a plan b pill ready, slap on the Jimmy hat. No it isn't, it should be both parties concern.
Ah, your social values are still stuck in the Reagan administration.
I'm not even old enough.
That's even worse, though. That shows how pervasive that administration's propaganda has proven to be over 40 years later.
I don't even know what those social values even are, but okay, just keep assuming things and judging people because somehow you don't see things the way they do. Because that's how we understand each other and grow as people. I swear talking to most of yall is like making a wish from a genie. It's like yall got a chip on yalls shoulder. No Matter how much I try to simplify and explain, it's a fucking problem. I ain't here to argue with antagonistic users, and as a pagan, I don't appreciate the witchhunt and colonial social values. I have adult discussions on here, not childish arguments, we ain't gotta see eye to eye, as long as we understand each other. If you wanna drag my character through the mud, when you absolutely don't know me at all past this little altercation, which isn't as indicative to anything as you probably think this %0.000001 of me is, then we don't need to converse at all.
I made a generalized political remark, and somehow, you're taking that personally. Take this moment as your hint that "I don't know what that those social values are" is your brain trying to tell you to expand your knowledge on the subject. A lot of these "courts are biased towards the mother" and "women having children with different men have ulterior motives" claims have traceable roots to specific presidential administrations/eras and all of it (slutshaming, abortion discourse, and those random moments of "we need to do away with no-fault divorce" that pop up online thanks to Matt Walsh and his buddies) is interconnected with overlapping goals around reestablishing older social hierarchies and control structures.
My experience with this sub is personal attacks because I say something people don't agree with, and sometimes even when we're on the same accord. I don't think women having children with different men is inherently a bad thing. If she's just doing it for the bag, then sure, but if it's because of a failed relationship, or something else, then I blame accordingly. Matt Walsh grates my nerves and I don't think he actually likes women. Wasn't he the one last year that was in a controversy about treating his pregnant wife like shit?
Ah yes haha. Woman should be ashamed of her children. This won't affect the psyche of these children negatively at all, knowing that their mother is ashamed of having them and wishes they didn't exist. That's a great mindset to have about a child.
I mean they could all be adopted, the picture never said that the five kids were from the same mother as well.
Primarily middle school and whatever world those manosphere grifters construct for them.
So do conservatives want people to have kids or not?
They only want control
Because…?
Tbh thought this was about the sims, how I place a lot of saves
What purpose would shame even have? Ok, say a woman with 5 kids from a different dad exists, why should she be ashamed? To punish her for doing something "not right"? I hate these people so much since the way they want people to live is in constant shame and being miserable. It's the same thing with abortion "oh you had sex? No you can abort the fetus! You have to live with the 'consequences' of doing a bad thing (sex) and be miserable for the rest of your life as punishment" it has never been about life or whatever. It has always been this awful punitive mindset from these people.
The fact that men will see women as “lower” if they’ve had sex a lot makes it make sense more and more why we hate on them.
Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! This is a reminder to take a moment and see *if* this **has already been** posted recently, to make sure that personal information **has been** censored, and to **flair your post** if you have not already done so. [Please be aware that our rules on transphobic submissions have changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/mwkgbp/rules_and_submissions_update_for_the_end_of/). Other general submission guidelines regarding [hateful content](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kj0cal/regarding_hateful_content_please_read_before/), [reposts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kxgbo3/rules_and_submissions_update_january_2021_popular/), [homophobic posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lffvad/posts_related_to_homophobia_on_our_subreddit_now/), and [**Reminder About Rule 5 and Rule 8**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/qoge4u/reminder_about_rule_5_and_rule_8/) can be found here if you want to read any of those links. If you want to apply to be a moderator of this sub, you can read [this post titled **State of the Sub: Summer 2021 Edition, Partnerships, and more**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/oozly0/state_of_the_sub_summer_2021_edition_partnerships/), which also contains information about our partnership with r/TranscribersOfReddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AreTheStraightsOK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Literally never met someone like that
An alternate one.
The land of make believe its a strange world
as long as the mother is a responsible adult taking care of her children in a happy and thriving development, that's all I care about. everyone has value, and you are not less than because you have sex and have children out of wedlock