Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Jessica Olen is More Important Than Her Child

There's not much I can say about this "article," that already hasn't been said over at Dalrock and GLPiggy. However, I will point out one point that was missed:

Children need both fathers and mothers to be brought up effectively in this world. And I get really sick and tired of single parents deciding to have children on their own because THEY want to have children, immediately evidencing how much more important they view themselves over their yet-to-be-born children. I don't like children, but by god, they are innocent little kids and they at least stand a shot before some greedy (or just outright stupid) morons bring them into this world for their own selfish purposes.

Maybe I'm flying at a higher altitude and can see this clearly, but does anybody else see how this is directly tied to the cheap nursing homes that are going to be very popular in the future?


Aynsley said...

Are you kidding? There is no such thing as an innocent little kid. They're all evil.

Ryan R. said...

The NYT article that Jessica Olien links to is even more telling. Various women interviewed from some town outside of the Mistake by the Lake (at this point the question is which mistake?) talk about having to buy cigarettes for their children's father or how he had already sired several others so he didn't bother helping.

These women all share common traits. They didn't finish college. They have a false sense of self-sustainability but rely heavily on government benefit programs and last but not least, they don't seem to learn from their mistakes as many have more than one child.

I don't see how Jessica Olien can ignore the fact the Captain has pointed out before that 73% illegitimacy rate for blacks and 59% rate for Hispanics hasn't worked out so hot in terms of economic output or crime.

I marvel at how quickly the system unravelled. The Boomers popularized divorce, their children grew up in single parent homes and now being adults themselves have come to the brilliant conclusion that one parent households are preferable. I don't intend to be in the US to find out what today's infants decide is the best course of action for raising their children.

In Vasectomy we Trust. Amen.

Nightclub Guest List said...

Hey i don't agree with the above comment.

Ping Jockey said...

"...single parents deciding to have children on their own because THEY want to have children, immediately evidencing how much more important they view themselves over their yet-to-be-born children..."

I think that, by 'single parents' mentioned in the above context, the majority of the afore-mentioned are SINGLE WOMEN: there is probably no other creature so psychotic, short-sighted, and delusional as an unmarried/unattached single woman who is 'on the wrong side of thirty' who hears the ticking of the 'oven timer' on it's countdown to zero when it will shut down for good.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Apparently, CostCo is now offering Rationalization Hamsters in Supersize.

Theodore Dalrymple is largely correct in his argument that much of what is destroying society today is the social elite imitating the worst behaviors of the underclass, and the under- and middle class then aping the bad behavior of the elite, forming a destructive spiral.

Kids do better with two parents, preferably where one is at least a partial stay-at-home. Ask school teachers about this.

That's an inconvenient fact though. Apparently, we're being taught that a kid needs a man, like a woman needs a bicycling fish.

It is hard not to turn into a flat out misogynist given the full extent of feminist stupidity, and the damage these selfish, narcissistic bitches are wreaking on their kids and on society. I have to keep reminding myself, it's not all women, it's not all women... But they do want to impose their agenda on all women.

Pakkinpoppa said...

I don't disagree with the "single parent" thing being bad.

However, I do speak from the opposite side of that coin.

I'm a single father. The "donor uterus" as she was called by one of my friends, decided she wanted nothing to do with our (okay, now mine) son. Granted, I'd stumbled into the love match of a Jerry Springer and Maury Povich show drunken night, but that's beside the point.

Golf ball and garden hose references aside, I stuck it out for the boy. I was hoping that she'd just leave.

I have sole custody. She has no visitation. Does part of me wish I'd not stepped into fatherhood? No, but I do wish I'd found a quality woman and not thought with the wrong head. Only can use one of them at a time, at least effectively.

Ryan R said...

I must add to this and say that I work with a gal that is a case study in this kind of behavior.

She's aggressive, loud, brash, obnoxious, very masculine really, yet as soon as someone tells her where the rubber meets the road she wants to play the "little girl in a big, bad world" card.

She recently bred with a male of equal caliber and gave birth to a daughter. I was having a conversation with her when she confided that she was planning on leaving him and that it was going to be a shock to him.

She told me she felt sorry for him as the courts would make him pay greatly in child-support. Then she said "But I won't make him pay all of it, just some to teach him a lesson" as if she were a creature of high nobility, denying her only child "some" of her fatherly support.

I left that conversation with a renewed respect for the treachery perpetrated in this country.

Captain Capitalism said...

All I can say is this: