Search Results: who should i choose

This question was taken from a response made by a 39 yr old male.

"Once you hit late 30s and beyond when even the last-minute panicky female leftovers are pairing off the power dynamic shifts 180 degrees and a man who is single and by all signs should be 'partnered away' because he is fit, trim, well-groomed, still has most of his looks, well-spoken, is working (not necessarily killing it but at least has some income), has hobbies, etc etc. He... will be met by women constantly trying to get him to settle with a leftover female: divorcee, handicapped woman, single mom, or some other similar aging female specimen.

A decent older man who maintains an air of carefree bachelorhood will be met with very hateful attitudes from women... ironically for different reasons than the hateful attitudes he experienced from them in his youth. Young, women enjoy it when the second- and third-tier males are 'put in their place' in the male pecking order as they view these guys as their fall-back options or 'plan B' if you will if they can't snag their dream man in time. They want these guys to experience a 'female drought' that would make them amenable to toe the feminine imperative of keeping an amply supply of thirsty back-up plans ready to put in the blood sweat and tears to get a taste of what the top dogs got for free.

But when those mid-level males become eligible for the 'female draft' so to speak (35+ on average) yet refuse to play the game (as it's dictated by female directives)... it pisses women off. Mightily. Especially when they see these older bachelor guys enjoy their hobbies, motorcycles, travels, etc etc, obviously relishing the single life. They'll do everything in their power to 'straighten him out' by saddling him with some aging cow to set an example to other would be mid-level male miscreants."

In recent weeks, with the looming possibility (now reality) of Roe v. Wade being overturned, I have read countless comments from women saying that men should do more to support women in their fight for reproductive choice. But I've not seen any of them supporting men's right to reproductive choice. Not one.

The argument women use is one of "bodily autonomy", but studies show the vast majority (96%) of abortions are for reasons like not being emotionally ready to become a parent, not wanting a child to interfere with education or career plans, not being in a stable relationship or not having the financial means to support a child. In other words, all the same reasons men might not be ready to become a parent.

https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/

So the bodily autonomy argument is disingenuous at best, but they have to use it because the true reasons women choose abortion are the same ones men have to not want to become a parent, but don't have the right to exercise like women had before Roe v. Wade was overturned. It's about personal autonomy, not bodily autonomy, and both women and men should have equal rights to personal autonomy.

I'm talking about men having the right to a "paper abortion", which means signing away all their parental rights and responsibilities early enough in the pregnancy that the mother could still choose to have an abortion. That would require that women must notify the father she is pregnant, but today men don't have the right to know they have a child, born or unborn. A woman can have a man's child and never tell him, or she can choose to tell him years later and demand child support having already robbed the father of many years with his son or daughter.

So guys... if women were more supportive of YOUR right to "personal autonomy" and to know you have a child in the world, would you be more likely to advocate for women's right to personal autonomy (i. e., abortion)?

Large number of orphaned and foster kids in the USA alone, let alone the world. Some additional number of parents are not useful and detrimental.

Many people have good homes, successful, sufficient land and resources and skills to raise kids. We all have extra space and capacity, most of us... if we opened our minds a bit.

Would you be more likely to take in.. adopt, sponsor, become parents or mentors of young children... who go house to house begging for such support?

Children come with a govt identity card indicating critical information, trust is ensured. Children would be given a list of homes where there are decent, successful people assumably, driven around by volunteer good semaritans, and provided volunteer case working to protect their interests.

Children could choose which parents they feel comfortable with, should the new parents accept them. If doesn't work out, they are returned to go look for new parents.

At minimum... people can provide resources...$, food, clothes, knowledge, good will.

Or would you rather have them hidden out of sight and ignore the reality of these people who lack support and resources, relying on the government to take care of them?

Your job would be to take them on, yes you have to pay for them, maybe the govt helps some. There's no free lunch...

someone is going to argue... adopt? We'll, maybe you want to... but maybe some real life marketing would get you moving...