Can someone explain to me why women, on their dating profiles put in their bio things like "My kids will always come first". Yeah, no shit lady. Does it go to shed light on the immaturity of women that do this? In my opinion, if you have to broadcast that your children come first to the world, you're a shitty mom - sorry, not sorry. It's implied, any decent human being with half a brain understands that. What they DON'T understand, is when you use your kids to brush off men and then sit there and complain about how the world is full of shitty men and "WAATGM?". All the guys I know (I'm not a young guy), know how to interact with kids when they're present. Most of the guys enjoy playing catch, tag and interacting with the kids too - maybe it's cause we're a bit older and reliving our childhoods.
The question I'm asking: Is there a really a group of men that don't value; or even better - understand and respect what motherhood is in general? Are women encountering these men by the droves and have they solidified and now generalized all men?
Thoughts?
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago Stickied
It's setting up the frame.
In a traditional society, the husband comes first in the family. The wife comes second and the kids come after them. This is a reversal of the frame to make sure that she gets her way. The kids are not going to come first because if they did, she would have a proper family to guide them into becoming successful members in society. That's just something she says to use the kids to get her way.
She doesn't want to meet with you? Kids. She wants you to pay for something? Kids. She wants you to commit to her? Kids expect commitment. She wants a bailout? Kids need to be fed. She uses the kids to make sure you keep chasing her and submit to the frame she has established using the kids. Don't fall for it.
PS: All questions should be addressed to waatgm tribe in trp.red. Keep the forums for showcasing and discussing profiles only. I'll let this stand this time, but please keep this in mind for the future.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
@kevin32, @typo-magashiv, @goodmansaysfuckyou.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
@loneliness-inc, @lurkerhasarisen
Loneliness-inc LvL 99 Rogue NiceGuy™ 1y ago
My thoughts were to remove this, but then I restored it because I saw that you approved it.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
Thank you. We're new here. Let the people get used to our rules.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
Agreed. That's why I kept quiet.
That, and by the time I even saw this post, everything I wanted to say had already been said.
Fuckers beat me to it!
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
@deeplydisturbed, @woodsmoke
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 1y ago
@aldabruzzo, @sleepyweaselisawake
UpsideDB Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Because the guys they choose don't give a shit about her kids. Chad asks if she wants to bone, she says she's watching the kids, he doesn't give even the tiniest shit, he wants to bone. So if she's not willing to put her kids to bed early he's going somewhere else, he has options. She gets upset because she can't get boned because of her kids but needs to make it sound like she's in control. She's the one not fucking him because she's such a good mother! It's not that he's not fucking her because her baggage got in the way.
It's another "You can't fire me, I QUIT" women like to play.
goodmansaysfuckyou Big Dick Energy Misogynist 1y ago
Trying to understand women!
I'm sure that there are a great many opinions on why they do it. My personal opinion is that they are all just innately selfish (solopistic). They expect you as a man to conform to their life. To sacrifice everything that you are and have for their own and by extension their offspring needs/wants.
A GoodMan ^TM will do that for his wife and children. It is in our nature to sacrifice for those that we love and are responsible for. They are hoping to use that against us by attempting to virtue signal that they are 'good women' who have 'perfect little angels' as offspring.
A great deal of marriages/relationships are destroyed because the woman wants to be the center of attention from her man while focusing all of her attention on the children. She has no time, energy, or desire to attend to the needs of her husband; then gets angry, resentful, and venomous when the husband withdraws his attention to her.
@kevin32 made a pretty good argument a while back.
https://theredarchive.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/the-truth-about-single-moms-who-bring-young.347659
As @loneliness-inc is fond of quoting: "Women are human beings, Men are human doings."
https://theredarchive.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/what-believe-all-women-fat-acceptance-and-female.348272
Look through the archives at WAATGM and WATGMA. It is loaded with educated opinions on many subjects and questions.
Scorpion69_ 1y ago
Because they do NOT come first to this kind of females.
They are too childish and retarded.
mattyanon TRP Endorsed 1y ago
She is setting expectations that her kids come first. Which is basically accepting that she'll be making no compromises for you, and won't be available often, and will never fully respect you or your time.
It's great when women put their kids first. I just wish it was as true as they are pretending.
She is trying to look like a good mother despite being on a dating side, and is trying to hook a beta provider.
Sadly kids don't come first when she's fully attracted to a man.
Exaclty..... why the need to virtue signal SO HARD.
With someone else's kids though?
Honestly yes. Most guys don't realise how awful it is dating a single mother: no time, and if something comes up with her kids she will prioritise that, and not even let the guy know.
The kids become an excuse to treat everyone else like shit.
Single mothers have no time and no energy to put into a relationship. And usually they won't accept a FWB situation either, because she wants to hook a provider to pay for someone else's kids.
She prioritises good looking men with options, and then is surprised when treating him like shit gets her dumped. So she declares "me and my kids are top priority, you come last, get used to it".
One further inside: as her value decreases, her demands go UP. Women are not good at economics.
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 1y ago
"She is setting expectations that her kids come first. Which is basically accepting that she'll be making no compromises for you, and won't be available often, and will never fully respect you or your time."
I admire your succinctness. With such efficiency, you must be a professional time-motion technician.
mattyanon TRP Endorsed 1y ago
I'm a professional kitten wrangler
[deleted] 1y ago
[--removed--]
goodmansaysfuckyou Big Dick Energy Misogynist 1y ago
her: Yes, I'm on the pill, of course I don't have AIDS, no babe you need to ride it raw!
REALITY:
Always assume that they are lying or too ignorant to take their pills correctly.
She might have herpagonasyphilaids but won't ever tell you that.
Only hit that strange raw if you want your dick to fall off or you have an extra $200k to pay in child support.
[deleted] 1y ago
[--removed--]
aldabruzzo No busted Pillsbury biscuit cans 1y ago
It's really just virtue signaling, in my opinion. It's really women simply trying to show the world that they're "good moms" when they're anything but.
It's also telling men to "know their place" in relation to them and to their kids. It's an attempt by women to tell men to "get in line" and "fall in" and "do what I want, how I want, and start paying my bills". It's women making clear their expectations are that any man who "deals with" them get his checkbook out and start paying. These women don't want men. They don't want husbands. They want stepfathers and billpayers. They want major appliances that work for them.
They would prefer that the men they deal with not even be human because they certainly won't treat their men as such. They would prefer that these men just shut up, pay, and obey.
It's also false. When a woman like this says her "kids come first", she doesn't mean it. If she really did put her kids first, she would have chosen their father(s) more carefully and she would have stayed with him (them). If she really did put her kids first, she wouldn't deal with men other than her kids' fathers. If she really did put her kids first, she wouldn't be advertising herself to you.
If she really did put her kids first, she wouldn't hook up with very attractive men (and we all know they do).
Which is why when you see women like this, run the other way.
EDIT: Adding this one for your perusal.
https://theredarchive.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/psa-the-meaning-of-my-children-are-my-world.346844
aldabruzzo No busted Pillsbury biscuit cans 1y ago
Another thought:
I love my kids. I care about my kids.
I have no use whatsoever for anyone else's kids. I don't love or care about other people's kids.
But women really do think that, because they love their kids, everyone else is required to love their kids. They really do think that because they think their own kids are great, well, then, everyone else will think their kids are great.
No. You might love your kids, but I don't have to love your kids. You might think your kids are great. That doesn't mean they are great. It also doesn't mean that I will think your kids are great. And, no, I don't think your kids are great. Nor do I care.
I don't have to give a shit about your kids. I want you to keep your kids as far away from me as possible. I don't love your kids, I don't like your kids, I don't care about your kids, and I don't have to give a shit about your kids.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
There's not a lot to add to what's already been written, but I may have a tidbit or two to contribute.
In a relationship involving a man, a woman, and children, authority is the inverse of priority. The needs of the children take precedence over the needs of the woman, and the needs of the woman take precedence over the needs of the man. Conversely, the man has authority over the others, while the woman has authority over the children (within the boundaries the man set for her - she doesn't get to overrule him when it comes to the kids he's responsible for). Authority matches responsibility, and it works both ways. If I'm responsible for you I have authority over you. If you have authority over me then you're responsible for me.
It's really not complicated.
What's missing is the conflation of the needs of the various parties and the priority of the relationships between those parties. Like Einstein said (I'm paraphrasing), "It's all relative." ☺ The most important relationship is not the one based on needs, but the one based on authority. In other words, the relationship between the man and the woman is more important than the others, including the relationships either adult has with a child.
If you're not married none of this matters much. If I were single and dating a woman with children i would expect her to prioritize those relationships initially, although not to the point of treating me badly. I would also expect that to shift if we were moving toward marriage (not that i would recommend that unless she was a virtuous widow - I'm talking about a theoretical here). Before I signed on the dotted line of the marriage license she would have to know - and unhesitatingly agree - that although the kid's legitimate needs come first, the core relationship would be between she and I. Sexytime > story time, for example. Want to raise well-adjusted kids? Start by showing them what a good marraige looks like... and that they are not the center of the Universe.
Edit (I can edit on my phone!), to link this to what @moorecom wrote: when women write that sort of thing on their profiles they're doing that conflation I mentioned. They're basically saying that because the needs of children get priority over the needs of adults, the relationship she has with you will also receive her lowest priority and least amount of effort. It allows her to both exercise ultimate authority and have justification to allocate according to her priorities. Don't fall for it.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
For starters, parenting books and other parents say clearly that kids don't always come first and shouldn't for their own good. Even as toddlers, they need to learn to respect the needs of others. Only infants can be selfish brats treated as if they'll die if not catered to at all times. My wife sometimes tries that with our daughter and she gripes how exhausting it is to serve a little empress all day long. I'm not that way. "No" is a word children need to hear OFTEN.
As others pointed out below: When a single mother says "my child comes first", it's her way of reminding the beta male his needs come last and using the child to rationalize it.
I think I have a way to crack the code. Ask her this: "So, if the child comes first, then your needs come after theirs, yes? I can accept that, but note that if I'm in your life, and making your, and the child's life better, then you should put YOUR needs below MINE in that I'm helping your child and therefore, you should be happy to accept that help at the expense of your own ego just as a man goes to a job he hates, and pleases his boss, to put food on the table for the family he considers more important than himself."
When a man goes to work to provide for his family, would he say during a job interview "My family comes FIRST ahead of this job!" Well, sure, if a child is sick he'll call in late for work but he won't lead with that but instead what he offers. He wouldn't lead with saying all the problems he has that he's going to dump on the employer.
OPPTRP 1y ago
This reminds me of that meme Parents be like - I put a roof over your head etc
Ain’t that what you supposed to do?
[deleted]
whytehorse2021 Jr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Most people get this wrong. It's the same as the "no hookups" line. In reality the Kill to Party phenomenon is in effect. Her children are a hindrance to her sexual strategy. In order to rationalize this she says her kids come first. So she needs a beta to babysit while she parties with an alpha.