Motherhood is misogyny Anonymous 73037
I refuse to have children. Why should women be forced to go through so much suffering in bearing and raising infants just for the selfish needs of men who want to create their progeny? Women have nothing to gain from this.
I want kids of my own though, I'm not being forced. :(
I wish I had a baby but forcing another consciousness to exist to cruel.
Why ? I am glad I exist. The cruelest thing is to never give a chance to your future baby. Given the demographics of this site you are probably sufficiently well-off to give him a good education and childhood. I would rather be conscious that being nothing
stop projecting your self-ejecting nihilism on the rest of us
Nature can't be misogynist because it has no intent, biases or preferences. It's not a conscious person.
Breeding is unethical in general. >uwu it's natural
Nature is shit too. I unironically recommend people to watch some Inmendham videos.
You're retarded, your cognitive bias is too strong to understand the world around you, just like most animals.
If you want kids just don't get a trashy father who wont raise the baby with you. Don't tolerate guys who make you do all household chores while working a fulltime job.
If it's not your thing just don't have kids. What is the issue here? Don't listen to people who want to push this on you. They don't get to tell you how to be happy.
i agree. i had to basically raise my younger brother and i've seen the hell of my cousin taking care of her six kids, which indirectly caused my aunt to die of stress. i love kids, and will end up in career where i work with them, but i don't want one.
>>73060>stop trusting nature and your biological needs, start trusting this psycho looking internet creep instead
>>73042>The cruelest thing is to never give a chance to your future baby.
You cannot be cruel to someone who doesn't exist.>>73059
Women who don't have children are as much a part of nature as those who don't. Anon is clearly talking about the societal pressure on women to be babymakers as misogynistic, not the actual mechanism by which cells fertilize.
Well, in my opinion our biological needs make us retarded and nature full of creatures eating each other alive can't be good.
Also, try to refute efilist arguments instead of judging someone's looks. Why are normies so shallow?
yes based. We don't consent to being born, but even ignoring that, the worst things that could happen to our children are worse than the best things are good. No moment of happiness can compensate for someone being tortured and raped to death, so even if the risk of that ever happening is small, imposing it on someone feels wrong.
I do understand how much meaning children bring, so especially in the West where quality of life is usually good, I wouldn't judge other people who have kids.
Something something, raccoon moids who will take care of everything, something.
motherhood can be rewarding for a lot of women, though i wont ever pursue it because ofnthe thought of having to love with a disgusting moid and breed with him deters me. maybe ill attempt to adopt, because id like to have kids, though i doubt itll happen.
>>73042>cruel to the unborn baby.
Umm… you mean; babies. You could pop out 30 of them if you start young enough. Is it cruel to the 29 other babies too? Where's the limit? How many unborn souls are we to be responsible for? 2? 10? 15?
Because I want my children to be cuties.
Literally thats all. I would LOVE this. I want this.
>tfw only started having motherhood daydreams when considering future with a woman
Please don't give conservatives anymore ideas.
>>73037>I refuse to have children. Why should women be forced to go through so much suffering in bearing and raising infants just for the selfish needs of men who want to create their progeny?
Because it's also her progeny. It isn't really that hard. It turns out some women want children too.
I just want to birth something better than me.
Then learn to code. Motherhood is a crapshoot. Maybe you'll get something trainable, or maybe you'll get a useless drooling retard whose existence in the world is a net loss like my mom did.
>>73209>learn to code
look websites and AI are cool n all but I'm NOT literally going to discard the power I got as a women over trannies. "Learn to code" is tranny nihilist dead end, wretch of life advice for doomed sterile women wannabe mentally ill moids that honestly deserve nothing and will die alone either by their own hand or in an asylum forgotten, I will die surrounded by family I made.
Do I look like a super mutant disgusting bug tranny to you? I'm fertile I want to use it one day. Trannies mad they didn't enjoy existence due to their stupid reality denying mental illness. I'm breeding one day and thats final.
P.D. I'm pro abortion, but I want kids one day 100%.
>>73209>like my mom did
Don't talk about yourself like that.
A woman in a coma can support pregnancy. Retarded women can give birth. It's just a biological function and it literally makes us weaker and more vulnerable to male abuse and exploitation. I can't with this breeder cope lmao
Obivously his/they/xis mom hurt him/them/xer. Read the posts above.
I dont know and I dont care, not all parents are the same.
This. I love the idea of having many children, each of them having their own progeny and all of them being similar to me in some way. That must be so heartwarming and satisfying
>>73227>if you're against breeding with males for political and philosophical reasons you must be a tranny
I honestly hate hetties
And everybody here hates you
I'm a bisexual supremacist 100%. Hetties come in 2nd place to me but very close, the power of breeding is strong it opens options and more importantly it is optional. At least bis and hetties don't die alone forgotten in an asylum, they die alone forgotten in their homes but like for a month tops, point is you can avoid the asylum by having children and raising them, depends on how grateful they are ofc but if you do your job as a parent well, they will.
Gay people can have biological kids, many lesbians have them, they can also adopt etc. But that's not the point. I'm bisexual myself and that doesn't change anything. Breeding is inherently immoral. Humanity will go extinct anyway, like every other species. You aren't winning anything by letting your genes last a little longer. The game was over before it started.
>>73252>Breeding>inherently immoral>a person that was bred thanks to heterosexual sex is saying this
you should be thankful heterosexual sex exists. You exist because of it.
So? No one consents to be born. Existence was imposed upon me. I would've preferred not to be born. >inb4 kill yourself then lol
At least try to be original instead of posting the same old "arguments" that antinatalists and efilists exposed many times, because breeders don't see the difference between the prevention of creating life and killing the life that already exists.
>motherhood is misogyny
I think that most misogynists are perfectly fine with feminists not having children since they believe that feminists aren't mother material anyway.
>>73258>most misogynists are perfectly fine with feminists not having children
Not really. It's just something they say in internet arguments because they think it will hurt feminists's feelings. They prefer it when women are paired off and bred out. They won't do a thing to talk a woman who isn't "mother material" out of having children if she wants them anyway.
Here is the difference between your anti natalist ideology and feminism tho.
your ideology: breeding is bad waah. you claim an absolute, which is inherently dumb af never claim absolutes for like 90% of arguments you ever make honestly you are just gonna end up losing them.
feminism: its good to have options for women, if you want to do something or not & not being opressed by a system on "whatever the choice for oneself". period.
Why would anyone think that agreeing with someone would hurt their feelings?
>>73259>They won't do a thing to talk a woman who isn't "mother material" out of having children if she wants them anyway
This. Same with abortion. They want to punish women for having sex without children so even when they hate a woman and think she would be a shitty mother, they will force her to give birth anyway
There are different kinds of feminism. Looks like you only know liberal third wave feminism.
Do whatever the fuck you want, but doing literally what men want from you (like breeding and marrying men) will never be empowering. Maybe according to liberal feminism, where porn, bdsm and prostitution is also feminist (because "choice").
lol what men want overall aint my concern my concern is my fucking own if I want to breed thats because I want it so yea it might not be empowering to x or y cult out there and there are many retarded religious/political mindsets out there but it empowers me, because I happen to be a woman that wants kids.
Now marrying I literally NEVER spoke about that shit, that one I think is retarded spooks / pure ideology bullshit institution that just makes you waste money on a religious sect instead for saving them for the future children like a rational fucking animal. I disagree with marrying (except civically because this reinforcement on the deal might be useful in the future for inheritance and such but those are state affairs not religious, I'm not religious at fucking all and will never be but I want kids simply because of potential future usefulness and because I care about my own biology continuing, if you dont relate thats not my problem).
Ok breeder, continue to create new people who will just consoom resources and products made by thirdworlders. Also, remember that free will doesn't exist and you're just doing what evolution programmed you to do. Defending it as your "choice" is futile.
You know that the majority of adult children don't take care of their aging parents anyway, right?
>Have some personal problem that prevents you from doing XY.
>XY is either what you actually really want to do just for the sake of itself or because it comes with some social benefits.
>Everyone who does what you cant do it is [insert moralistic bullshit reason here]
Oh boy I wonder why everyone hates you…
I hate breeders and I hate antinatalists too
Same. Only efilism makes sense.
Antinatalism doesn't make any sense as a philosophy, there is a reason nobody that possess a brain as ever written about it. The reason being that they consider lives to be bad because more bad things are happening than good things. But to try to make happiness or even fulfillment into something quantifiable is absolutely retarded. Nobody that is remotely interested in philosophy ever thought that this was something that made sense. Trying to do utilitarianism in a mathematic way as been understood since day one to be brain-dead. So for their other "argument" that consciousness is forced on you. This is beyond dumb : consciousness is not "forced" upon you because you do not even fucking exist before conception. Antinatalism is a dumbed down version of gnostic theory about immortal souls incarnating themselves in a flawed world were they suffer. But there is a reason everybody is laughing at gnostics since 2000 years. You are not forced upon consciousness : "you" is, by definition, conscious. This really reeks of some good old lacanian desire to return to childhood were you are seen as less conscious and more happy. All in all the only good thing that ever came out of the antinatalism debate is that you can out very quickly the ones that bases their ideology on edgy memes. Procreation is neither ethical nor unethical, it depends on human nature : you do not say human should not possess 2 legs, it is a part of what a human is. Hell it is even part of what a living being is : a creature that is, among other things, reproducing.
Philosophy/ideology that can't be sustained throughout multiple generations is a death cult.
funny how I've always thought that - on the contrary - givina a life to someone (who literary never asked for it) is the cruelest thing
Breeding is death cult, brainlet.
>>73311>this thing is dumb and stupid because it's unpopular and not many people agree with it!
God, it's you again. Of course it's unpopular; it goes against the programming evolution put in your brain, anon. The ideas that inspired antinatalism are older than gnosticism btw
Also, I'm not even an antinatalist, but an efilisthttps://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Efilism_Wiki
It is ok to feel like that anon. Luckily, you have the choice not to have children. For me, motherhood is the pinnacle of my existence as a human and I look forward to it. The way I see it, it's a privilege men can never have, nature's consolation for all the other suffering we're subjected to. Through motherhood we have the most power in any society, too.
If being a parent gave someone the "most power in any society" men would be sitting at home with kids, and women would be doing politics, economy, architecture, science and art, and yet throughout centuries it was the other way around. Men always controlled the resources, and women were one of those resources. I bet motherhood would make you too "powerful" to get kidnapped and raped by a man from a different, stronger tribe kek
Is this the opposite day?
Ok.. You are a well adjusted, sane person that won't die alone and forgotten by everyone.
Everything will die one day, doesn't matter.
>>73335>I bet motherhood would make you too "powerful" to get kidnapped and raped by a man from a different, stronger tribe kek
yes actually, because I'd breed with a strong male like I'm supposed to, making him responsible to protect me and my kids before his own life. And what could you do? Are you planning on fighting a deranged male with your own hands? Do you think a random dude you fuck now and then would give his life for yours?>politics, economy, architecture, science and art
every single man who has done these things was shaped by a woman in body, mind and soul. also women of high social status have always done these things. the ones of lower status, like lower status men, haven't. You know what we never had to do? Be cannon fodder, because we're needed for other things.
lol what the fuck. you are actually insane.
Yes, submitting to rape makese you powerful anon.
I can't with the delusion in this thread lmao. It's the libfem "porn/prostitution/BDSM/make up makes me powerfull" all over again, except impregnation edition.>also women of high social status have always done these things
can't tell if moid bait or ultra handmaiden
If somebody is talking about strong men and alpha and stupid shit like that it's a moid.
But I think you OP are still insane af for thinking literally breeding, giving life is a death cult lol. Take your meds schizo. Motherhood ain't misogyny either, it's a choice thats for true. Good for you that you don't want to, don't care. I'm still becoming a mother one day.
Just checked your link and holy shit it's hilarious ! Nature is the worst vilain ? DNA is an error code ? OMG this is so edgy I expected it to have anime quotes pinned. But for your information trying to retroactively apply ethical concerns on things doesn't make any sense. Ethics are a human creation to judge humans, not the universe. You don't say that gravity is evil,that's retarded. All in all this is just some teenage edgyness, it will be gone in a few years once you have actually started to read philosophy
If humans created evil that means if humans died there would be no more evil
I'm sorry you're too much of a simpleton to read and understand a wiki article.
Damn you talk like a naruto character
>>73368>everyone I disagree with is a moid
anon asked me what I'd do if I were to get raped by some man from a stronger tribe, she brought it up, not me. I simply told her I'd be much safer than a lonely woman.
Ah ok. Sorry for dropping a label on you. OP has a few casquets loose.
And I brought that up because it proves women have no power in society. Most of them will surrender to rapists from a different tribe in order not to get killed. You said motherhood gives women the biggest power in society which is ridiculous lmao If you have to breed with a rapist in order not to get killed you don't have any power. I'm tired of the handmaiden delusion.
>>73401>And I brought that up because it proves women have no power in society. Most of them will surrender to rapists from a different tribe in order not to get killed.
In a primitive super close to animal society no, they dont have much power because it's based on physical prowess only. Or in any other almost anarchic (minarcist) shitty society without law-enforcement that protect women from harm.
But they definitely can have power in something else, women have been emperors and have even had their male harems. Wu Zetian for example. When they are of noble birth or acend the social ranks quickly through machiavellian genius they do get powerful in such a society.
A state law basically consists on moids suppressing moids at its base though this is true, absolutely true for law. Moids who are inherently physically more powerful, violent, retarded with proper law they are put to work for the "greater good" aka the "well being of the majority, of the nation, of the polis" so they can oppress other moids who want to be powerful, violent and retarded but selfishly. Rights, a right to life for example or the law that defends you from being raped has to be backed by phsyical punishment if it gets violated so yes I agree with you. In essence politics are about power. Since moids exist you will always need moids using their power to shit on moids who want to use their power wrongly and that dont want to behave. This is no rocket science.
If you want to be able to compete against moids or even surpass them in physical prowess my advice is to honestly just get a semi-automatic pistol. Weapons are equalizers.
>>73325>fandom wikia for a philosophy standpoint
Why is this so funny to me?
Regardless, EFILism seems to anthropomorphise DNA by attributing it traits such as "evil" while simultaneously describing it as "a machine". It's so close to actually making a point about what the implications of a purely material realm, yet falls short of realizing attributing "evil" to something is inherently a value judgement.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be prescriptive at all concerning what one should
do with this knowledge. It's like the edgy kid at school carving a swastika into a bathroom stall. Manufacturing outrage, but not actually making a meaningful statement. Which is funny because this type of philosophy and moral statement is close to what the Columbine shooters profess to be their reasoning for shooting up their school. If EFILism does deny and defy any meaning attributed to consciousness, then I can only infer that it denies any importance to consent as well. With this premise, it can be judged that the most moral action is to kill all life on earth. As opposed to the Anti-natalist view that one should just abstain from procreation.
Yeah it's ridiculous meme tier shit, its funny but its meme tier shit that shouldnt be taken seriously.
"Boohoo life is inherently bad you know why!?!?!?! life has to kill and consume life to keep going! Did you know that! Animals have to assassinate other animals or eat plants that are alive to extend their life spans! thus killing them thus becoming killers!!" Yeah, we know. Who cares. Stupid Efilism posters.
Efilism is literally schizo shit peddled by a moron who looks like a Neanderthal and fancies himself a philosopher. Just ignore on sight.
Since the FDS migration this chan is full of them it's so tiring.
Good and evil do not exist outside the system that humans have created but since humans exist good and evil do exist even if they are conflicting from a relative standpoint.
I do agree the philosophy if translated politically would result in denying everyones rights eventually but in reality the human condition would thwart it becoming an actuality regardless it is silly to actually try hold it as anything more than a personal opinion since whilst it may be best for life to cease existing once we die our world perishes as well so who cares how many more suffer unless you think you reincarnate etc.>>73418
You are not even properly criticizing the philosophy at all.
I agree that the form it takes is cringe but the actual philosophy is MUCH older than the people you thik made it and it is valid we really should just kill everything however that is not realistic so is meme tier in that way but it is not any more funny than actually being idealistic it is just less accepted as pessimistic.
Women like you are why I am an anti-suffragette.
>“We are not merely against feminism, but for the family.>We cannot reconcile feminism and the family.”- Mrs. Martin
Every time that quote pops into my head when I read something like this. How narcissistic and self-indulgent do you have to be, unironically? You're literally anti-woman. And in the modern day I can't even be sure you're actually a woman and not just some trans-freak trying to further erase the lines of womanhood. Utter disgust, I feel. You think life is unfair because you're subject to suffering. Oh I'm sorry, how bad you must feel to be born in a time where people live the longest, things are the safest they've ever been, or the chance of your dying prior to the age of 16 isn't nearly 50%! It must be so hard for you.
>>73565>you're anti-woman because you have the nerve to question whether motherhood or giving birth truly benefits women in the long run
anyways, while i hold a childfree stance and personally don't want to have children and i don't think it really benefits women, i think it's possible to raise children without the need of a father (which means to me that you have enough funds and support to take of yourself and your child) who will most likely do half of the work a mother does while raising them. i stumbled upon a japanese talent (a personality/celeb) that is very popular in korea named 'sayuri'aka sayuri fujita. she's well known for being very blunt and speaking her mind. she wanted a child, but wasn't in a relationship, so she decided to stop waiting around and get a sperm donor from japan, since giving birth while being unmarried is illegal in korea. she decided to become a single mother by choice and raise her child by herself by choice. she's well off due to her career so she is different from the average person, and i find it very interesting as someone who was raised by a single mother. she's documenting everything on her youtube
channel in linkrel
>>73567>you're anti-woman because you have the nerve to question whether motherhood or giving birth truly benefits women in the long run
>no one is born, no women exist>can't be anti-woman if no women exist
>>73568>there is an expectation for women to children all over the world>met with weird looks or asks of "why" if you say you have zero desire to have children>constantly think about the risks of pregnancy that aren't strictly told to women>over 107,918 children in the foster care system in my country>see relatives suffer in marriages as mothers while the father of their children does half of what the they do and has the gall to even cheat behind their backs, then dumps their own children on an aunt or grandmother instead of taking care of them when asked and still expect a hot plate at the end of the day>raising a child is expensive in my country
i don't get why people can't see what OP is trying to say. while that whole nihilism thing is weird i think that women should know that it's okay to not have children and they should question what motherhood really is why the way motherhood is portrayed is so vastly different from reality. i promise that there are zero shortages of children or women in the world
>>73569>over 107,918 children in the foster care system in my country
YEAH, AND GO LOOK UP HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN ABUSED, ARE MENTALLY DISABLED, HAVE A CRIMINAL PAST, OR WILL STATISTICALLY GET ADOPTED AND ABUSED OR STILL DO CRIME OR END UP HOMELESS BECAUSE AS IT TURNS OUT CHILDREN AND ADULTS DO NOT PAIR-BOND THE SAME WITH THOSE WHO AREN'T OF THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD.
Newsflash: The vast majority will be one or more of those things.
You are taking literally the most sacred thing a woman can do and just disregarding it, and it boils my blood. Literally what differentiates those trans from women at this point? Is there ANYTHING else that a woman has? Do we just not exist anymore? Is there a specific point? Are women women so long as they have the ABILITY to have kids even if choosing not to, and if so then at that point surely trans-freaks aren't meaningfully, functionally different than that definition of a woman? Or is it around menopause when women stop being women? What fucking difference does being a woman make if there are no standards then for being a woman? These are not just words, they mean something.>i don't get why people can't see what OP is trying to say
I get perfectly well what OP is saying, and it doesn't matter. It screams female erasure. I do not think she is sophisticated for undermining what it means to be a woman.
At its basis it is just some edgy philosophy for teenagers, but I agree that it could have very hard consequences for the feminist movement in the long term. This is a deconstruction of the female identity, of its history and of its culture.
A meanl, science says women are happier with children, and who wants to work? I would happily not work so I can raise the ultimate super human.
>>73477>Good and evil do not exist outside the system that humans have created but since humans exist good and evil do exist even if they are conflicting from a relative standpoint.
While I understand your premise, from the perspective that EFILism takes any morality and anything else related to conciousness are just by products of the "DNA Brainwashing". Furthermore, this even takes on a kind of spitirual tone to it. If all thinking is a product of DNA than EFILism must also be a product of DNA, unless you argue something else (i.e. "the soul") has transcended the physical constraints of the body. This completely flies in the face of the stated premise though.>I do agree the philosophy if translated politically would result in denying everyones rights eventually but in reality the human condition would thwart it becoming an actuality regardless it is silly to actually try hold it as anything more than a personal opinion since whilst it may be best for life to cease existing once we die our world perishes as well so who cares how many more suffer unless you think you reincarnate etc.
The fact that, practically, this philosophy can never be fully or properly be put into practice is not a refutation of the natural results that break off from it. It is not silly, it is how you evaluate whether or not something is morally acceptable. You don't get to say "properly criticize the philosophy" and "it's just a personal opinion" in the same post. If an EFIList wants to take a hot philosophical stance, they should expect to get hot comebacks.>>73569>i don't get why people can't see what OP is trying to say.
This>think that women should know that it's okay to not have children
and this stance, are not the same. OP firmly takes the stance that there are zero benefits for having children. It is plainly stated in OP.>Women have nothing to gain from this.
If OP didn't mean this, she shouldn't have said it. I don't think anyone in this thread is going to argue that women should be required to have children, but it is something that, inherently by it's very nature, is feminine. To deny any benefits whatsoever to an experience that is 100% uniquely feminine is anti-feminine by it's very nature. Not because if enough people subscribe to it the world population will die or something. While I admit it should be fine being leery of motherhood, and motherhood isn't inherently good. To take the stance it has no benefits is outrageous.
i understand what you're saying
i'm just trying to say women are more than babymakers anon, wtf. i know the ability to give birth is an important part of being a woman. but what makes us women is our sex. some of us are infertile and can't have children despite wanting them. i have a menstrual cycle, discharge, a vagina and XX chromosomes as well as a female body structure. that makes me a woman. there is a difference between women and troons, that's why they have to get painful surgeries and inject themselves with hormones to even remotely look like us. they will never function or look like actual women do.
I know I'm coming off as a vicious bitch, but I am tired into my bones about this. Women have been attacked through various means for what seems like decades. I know it is not the most popular train of thought, but I don't see how women are made to have more value when they are treated interchangeable from men. Women ARE better than men, and that is almost entirely because we can have children. I'm sorry to hear about your issues, but I'm not sorry for what I have said.
Stop replying to the moid. He'll never be a real woman and it's NOT because he can't shit babies.
>>73589>Say that the women that want to have babies should and that it is a basic component of feminity>You're a moid
The absolute state of this board, this is pathetic
>>73570>YEAH, AND GO LOOK UP HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN ABUSED, ARE MENTALLY DISABLED, HAVE A CRIMINAL PAST, OR WILL STATISTICALLY GET ADOPTED AND ABUSED OR STILL DO CRIME OR END UP HOMELESS BECAUSE AS IT TURNS OUT CHILDREN AND ADULTS DO NOT PAIR-BOND THE SAME WITH THOSE WHO AREN'T OF THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD.
how does that prove your point? those children were born by a woman and abandoned by one or both parents. not everyone is fit to be a parent, let alone not every single woman. you talk just like a scrote.
Then the people who suck at parenting = dont have children. And those who can be good parents = have children.
That's it. Everything you say sounds like a personal problem.
>>73641>Then the people who suck at parenting = dont have children.>>73570>You are taking literally the most sacred thing a woman can do and just disregarding it, and it boils my blood. Literally what differentiates those trans from women at this point?
I think this will increase in the future, along with women co-parenting with each other in a non-romantic context. A lot of women aren't really against having children, it's marriage and heterosexuality that are the problems they don't want to deal with anymore. If countries want to increase their birth rates they should start experimenting with these new family structures because a lot of women are just done with scrotes. I'm not surprised a woman living in Korea is doing this, Korean society sucks for women.
Children need fathers as well, having a good paternal figure is basic and very important for boys and girls. Would anyone really question that?
But that wouldn't make them their paternal figure. Sometimes when certein people try to act paternal with children (paternalistic) they are coming too close to them and taking a peper it's not for them. A paternal figure is something exclusive, one or very few people in your life can be that one. Just like you can't have a real maternal figure in every older and caring women you find in your life, you can't expect the paternal figure to be filled with a bunch of people you aren't really close with. If you don't have a stable healthy maternal/paternal figure you'll probably try subconciouly to find it in the wrong places: partners, teachers, etc…
That's like saying men with gender dysphoria are women. No, women can be motherly and men can be fatherly, ther's no other way around.
>>73679>That's like saying men with gender dysphoria are women.
It's not. Most fathers aren't even involved much in their children's lives and their kids still turn out fine if they have a good mother.
No lol. The more you post the more you reveal yourself as tranny. Fuck off tranny.
The point is that the fatherly or motherly dinamic is essentially the same: acts like a tutor to you, is caring, loving, patient but doesn't spoil you, etc… At least that's what ideally should be. Being a mother or father figure to someone depens on your sex: having that kind of bond with your daughter, son, niece, grandchildre… as a women would make you their mother figure, and if you're a man that would make you their father figure.
>Most fathers aren't even involved much in their children's lives
That's very vague and I can't agree with that.> and their kids still turn out fine if they have a good mother.
From personal experience I'd say that's not true.
Anonymous Admin 73686
This post has been reported a few times now and I checked the poster's history extensively; it's a long-time user and I have no reason to suspect a male behind it. I understand the skepticism regarding what was said in the quoted post, but it looks to be just a differing opinion, not a moid.
honestly i grew up without a father in my life, and i think i turned out pretty well. he was an asshole and abusive to my mother while she was pregnant with my brother. we had went on trips with him when we were younger but we were always mistreated by my stepmom. of course not everyone turns out well and my situation isn't the same. i wish my mother didn't have to struggle raising me though because my dad barely paid child support and pretty much stopped paying it a few months before i turned 18
>>73674>Would anyone really question that?
Yes. The reason loss of a father is damaging is because fathers take the money with them. Poverty is what's damaging, not losing a scrote.
This. The only reason why men are statistically better single parents is because of the wage gap.
I doubt that. I suspect most single fathers are widowers, so it's not like there's as much instability in their lives. Whereas I'd bet single fathers whose wives abandoned them are probably no better or worse than single mothers in the same boat.
>>73699>>73702>to be a good parent all you need is money
I see. In my case, I lost my father at a very young age (7) and while he wasn't the greatest husband to my mother he was a very good father and I know my siblings and I have issues related to the fact he is missing. It sort of depens on the situation, of course, but I deep down I feel people that have strong/healthy maternal/paternal figures on one side but the other parent is not there as it should there will be consequences (that can surely vary in degree). What I don't agree with is the belief that for instance a couple of gay man could raise emotionally a girl. I don't know. I would feel the need of a maternal figure, no matter how '''''femenine'''' one of those gay parents could be.
Did your mother shit you instead of giving you birth?
Imagine going so deep in the tranny delusion you try to say that 500 years of psychological research on the importance of the father are invalidated due to your opinion. At this point you are literally flat-earther
Is a shitty abusive father better than none?
>>73720>only options are shitty abusive father or no father
>>73711>things nobody said>>73715>500 years of psychological research
…by moids, written to enforce moid control of women. And what does this have to do with trannies? Tranny dads are definitely worse than no dad.