You Can't Tell She'd Make a Good Mother

If you're looking for "the one," and you shouldn't be, you might ask "Will she make a good mother?"

Now, there are some red flags that indicate she definitely wouldn't be a good mother. But just because you don't see certain red flags (yet) and think she's compatible with you and on the same page when it comes to parenting does NOT mean she will actually be a good mother.

There really isn't any way to know for sure.

In the good ol' days, she didn't have much choice. She'd better do things your way. Things are very different now, with a culture that undermines parenting.

She might SAY she wants to raise children, but just like you, she really has no clue. Being an older sibling, or babysitting someone else's kids can cause someone to legitimately realize they don't want children, but they're not a good way to decide that one DOES want to parent. How can things work that way? Because if children irritate, annoy, exasperate, or otherwise bring you down, that's enough to know you shouldn't raise any, but even if you enjoy being around them, that's far different from being their parent, who is financially, socially, morally, and legally responsible for them 24/7/365 for 18 or more years.

Having a dog isn't being mom to a human child.

There are some definite signs, other than not liking kids in general, she's not mother material. She wouldn't make a good wife. Her career comes first or she has a highly demanding career (long/odd/extra days, frequent travel, instability/having to hop from company to company, emotionally draining/stressful, leaves her exhausted); she's misandrist; she's impatient or easily angered; she needs everything neat and orderly; she's unhealthy; she's mentally ill; she's a substance abuser; she's irresponsible; she's abusive; she isn't nurturing or affectionate.

Other things are harder to discern.

If she already has children, you shouldn't be with her, let alone making more with her or bringing your kids around her and her kids.

You can't tell with reasonable certainty a woman will make a good mother, and frankly, you probably shouldn't marry.

So you probably shouldn't have kids, or if you are going to have kids, you might want to consider not having a wife and keeping control by using a donated egg and a surrogate for gestation.

You Can Be Right or You Can Be Married

Have you ever heard that saying I used as the title of this entry?

Have you seen the exchange written in the picture to the left, or anything like it? Or experienced something like it?

When I got engaged, someone gave me a graph depicting a man's chances winning and argument. It starts at 50%, then goes to 25% when he gets engaged, then to 0% when he married.

How many times have you heard men told that the key to a happy marriage is to learn to say "Yes, Dear."?

Consider this letter from a listener to Dr. Laura:

Winning Isn't Everything

I have been married for 27 years, and I have a few thoughts to share about working through arguments with your loved one.

1.You should listen enough to at least let the other person articulate their issue or point of view.

2.Do not force the other person to listen if they don't want to!

3.Listen to YOURSELF so that you are not ever speaking too loudly, with harshness or even a hints of sarcasm.

4.It doesn't matter who wins - it's how both parties feel afterwards.

Sometimes being a good loser makes you both winners.

The letter is really good right up to the underlined part.

I realize that letter is to be considered by both husbands and wives, but the bulk of these things are directed at husbands. We're told in many ways that we're supposed to simply accept and/or announce that we're wrong even when there hasn't been a logical explanation that even demonstrates the possibility that we are. We're supposed to cater to unjustified or even irrational hostility, demands for apologies, and her claim of control, except where she has inconsistently and temporarily (and often silently) ceded some power back to us.

Men and Women Do NOT Need Each Other

No, Dennis Prager, men and women do NOT need each other.

Pathological as he is, Dennis Prager raised the issue again during the weekly "Male/Female Hour" on his program, on December 6, 2023.

He said he doesn't know (heterosexual) men who say men don't need women. He must be ignoring or selectively forgetting some of his mail.

A man can live his entire life and thrive without a woman. A woman can live her entire life and thrive without a man. There are people who are doing this right now. There are people who've done it.

No individual person needs to reproduce. But yes, both a man and a woman are needed for reproduction ...for now. Science is rapidly ending that.

Sex? Clearly sex isn't a NEED, because many husbands are living without it. And many people say people should wait until they marry to have sex, and some of those people also say people shouldn't marry before they are 28. So sex may be a very strong WANT, but it isn't a need. And again, science/technology and art are making better and better masturbation aids, to the point in which it may become difficult to distinguish it from sex. Also, people can and do have sex without living together or being in an ongoing relationship that involves anything other than sex. I'm sure that's not what Dennis is talking about.

The government needs people to pay taxes, especially for their ponzi schemes. But male taxpayers don't need any of the taxpayers to be women, and vice-versa.

There are still some jobs for which it is very hard to find women to do them. But again, technology is making that less and less the case, and for now it means that women need men, not "a" man to herself. For this, men don't need women.

Dennis can’t even say men, or, more precisely, boys, need women for breastfeeding, as he has been a staunch denier of the need for breastfeeding.

People CAN live happy fulfilled, productive, honorable, worthwhile lives without ever living with the opposite sex, without working with them, and without having any as friends.

Men and women don't need each other.

Comment Here on Dating (or not) Women With Minor Children

There are so many comments that have been left on my blog's most popular entry that I'm encouraging people to comment here instead, so your comment doesn't get lost in the shuffle. The topic: I discourage men (and women, for that matter) from dating women with minor children. You might disagree with me. Maybe you have stories to tell. This is the place!

I urge people not to add chaos to their child's life. Don't date single mothers, or mothers of minor or dependent children!

And before you ask again, here is something I wrote to a widowed mother.

Disagree? Agree? Do you have success stories? Horror stories? Comment below! BUT PLEASE DO NOT USE PROFANITY (CUSS WORDS) in your comment or I probably won't publish it. This is acceptable: "That's bull****!" Writing out the word in full is not acceptable. No F word. No C word. No S word. No D word. You get the idea.

Does Marriage Require A Bride, A Groom, and Jesus?

In discussions about marriage, divorce, and how to keep marriages together, there will often be comments from people who insist that for a marriage to work, it has to have three people: a bride, a groom, and Jesus. Sometimes they will be less specific and say "God" instead of "Jesus" (orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit).

Now, I'm a Christian. I wish it was true that being Christian would make marriages successful. And yet the divorce rate, including in "Evangelical" churches, indicates that isn't the case.

A good reply to that is "Well, not everyone who attends church is truly a Christian, and if people consistently applied Christian principles in their marriage, their marriage would last."

I can grant that.

There's still a problem though.

Don't we all know people who have been married for decades, some until one or both die, who aren't Christian? Even some who haven't placed God at the center of the marriage; indeed, neither may have any faith in God? And yet they've lasted.

The only possible answer to that I can think of is that the person who makes the original assertion would say that the marriage isn't real or isn't successful, no matter who cute or adorable the couple seems to be, how they treat each other in front of others, and how the children they raised together have turned out.

Things like that immediately diminish the credibility of such believers in the understanding of certain unbelievers.

Today's legal and social marriage have very little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible. But let's say applying Christian principles to marriage is one way that will make a marriage successful. The problem with this is that the only perfect practitioner of Christian principles is Jesus. No matter how devout, there will be times one or both spouses will screw things up. Then all it takes is for one of them to go to a divorce lawyer during a time of temporarily screwing things up, and the ball gets rolling downhill.

Also, we don't truly know someone else's heart and future, even a woman we date for years.

Men can have Jesus at the center of their life without signing a terrible state contract. Men can have Jesus at the center of their life without ever having a wedding ceremony, or living with a woman, or raising children with a woman.

Guys, being a Christian, no matter how faithfully, will not guarantee you a successful marriage. Sometimes, the only way to win is to not play.

And for anyone who says Christians are called to sacrifice - Yes we are, but not foolish sacrifice. Men can apply one of the ultimate Christian principles and stay unmarried, like Jesus.

Was It Really Wasted Time?

There are women who look back on a marriage or relationship that ended and they say something like "All those years, wasted!"

Especially if she was happy, enjoying herself, or feeling that her needs were met for most of that relationship, what does she mean that those were "wasted" years?

If her only goal was to have the man be with her into old age and then for him to die on her or outlive her, sure, it was wasted, if you dismiss that being with him helped her prepare to be with someone else - someone she wouldn't meet or wouldn't have dated before.

Or, if her only goal was to have children and she didn't because he couldn't, wouldn't, or she didn't think he'd make a good father, and now she's too old, sure, it was wasted, if you think she definitely would have had children with another guy, which we can't know with certainty.

But what about the companionship? The attention he gave her? All of the good times they had together? Things he did for her? For that all to be a waste, it means she didn't and doesn't value those things. Men, stop spending time, energy, and money on a woman who doesn't appreciate it!

The "wasted years" comment, upon careful consideration, sounds like ingratitude in most cases. An exception would be if we know for certain (and how can we) that she would have had a better time with someone else. It makes sense if she's saying "Bob, who I'm with now, wanted to date me, but I was busy with that jerk Joe!" Understand though, that her statement that she "wasted" those years is about her, not Joe. It was her choice.

Guys, if you're looking for an ongoing relationship, be very careful about a woman who says a past relationship was "wasted" time, unless she can explain how without sounding like she doesn't value affection, experiences together, gifts, etc. If you're just looking for dates and not a relationship, then be one of those guys she will say she wasted time with... just don't waste too much of her time. Keep the dates are short as you can!

Women, are you wasting your time? Does the journey matter, or only the destination?

No, Men, Your Standards Are Not Too High

Are you an unmarried man who's been told that your standards for a wife are too high? [This an entry from October 2015 I'm bumping up. It still holds up.]

They're not.

At least, they're not if you're self-sufficient.

Don't get theological on me. I know we're all dependent on God – I'm talking about self-sufficient in being able to pay your bills, finance your future, and otherwise meet your obligations and maintain your domicile.

If you're self-sufficient, and not sickly or disabled, your standards for a wife are not too high, no matter what they are.

Marriage is entirely voluntary. Marriage isn't necessary to live a productive and full life. As a man, getting married means taking on certain obligations and serious risks legally, financially, and socially. Every benefit a marriage might bring a man is provided at the voluntary generosity of a an irrational creature who can rescind her generosity without any penalty for doing so, and those things can all be obtained without marriage. (The exceptions are: 1. If a man believes unmarried sex is fornication and wants sex without fornicating – but getting married is no guarantee of satisfying sex, or sex at all, and 2. If a man wants to raise children within a marriage.)

Your standards are not too high.

You don't need to, and you should not, spend a couple of years paying for a woman's meals and entertainment and buying her gifts on those "special occasions" scattered throughout the year.

You don't need to, and you should not, buy her overpriced jewelry to wear on her finger.

You don't need to, and you should not, pay for a series of expensive parties that are mostly about her.

You don't need to, and you should not, take on children a woman has had by other men.

You don't need to, and you should not, take on debts a woman incurred before she even met you.

You don’t need to, and you should not, sign a legal document that ensures at least half of everything you'll ever earn will be hers and that you will support her should the relationship end and that you'll be the legal/financial father if she conceives children by another man.

If you're going to make someone your default beneficiary and give them power to make medical decisions for you, or if you're going to be sharing a home and a bed with this person, then your standards are NOT too high.

If a married person tells you your standards are too high, ask them if that means they had low standards when they married.

I'm still waiting for just one good reason for a man to marry and if you're thinking about getting married, you should also try this exercise.

Having a Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Matt Walsh, who I agree with some on some really big things, is back [this entry is being bumped up] to beating the drum to marry and pop out kids. He starts off his column at The Daily Wire citing comments by former First Lady Michelle Obama. [This entry bumped up from January 2021.]

The former First Lady was interviewed by "Blackish" star Tracee Ellis Ross and the women together lamented the fact that girls "still dream of weddings" and "Prince Charming." The two agreed that some women (Tracee Ellis Ross included) can sacrifice family for the sake of a career and be "happy as a clam." In fact, it would seem that Mrs. Obama — who is married with two kids — thinks this path is preferable, given that she considers it a problem when girls aspire to marriage. Ross provided compelling evidence to prove that her decision to forgo family life was the right call: "Look where I'm sitting," she declared. Yes, the summit of all happiness is to sit on a stage with a former First Lady. Truly, this is the eternal bliss for which we were designed.

Maybe Ross is happy? I'm not aware of Walsh having psychic abilities.

If You Marry, You WILL Have a Prenuptial Agreement

The question is, will it be the default agreement put together by strangers (state law, left up to interpretation and application by a judge), or will it be customized to the two of you?

The state prenuptial agreement is TERRIBLE for breadwinning men.

You might think "I don't really have much." Maybe not. But with hard work and smart moves, that'll change. Don't cheap out! If you "cant' afford a prenup," you can't afford a wife.

Guys, you should NOT be marrying at all, but if you are going to legally marry or even just cohabitate, you need a customized prenup, and you need to do it right. Judges have thrown out prenups. Here's how to minimize the risk of that happening.*

1. The agreement has to be signed and notarized/filed/whatever BEFORE a wedding date is set, before there's a pregnancy, and before you live together. You do not want her to later claim she was in any way pressured or coerced or signed under duress.

2. She will need her own attorney and so will you. The attorneys will go over the agreement before it is finalized.

3. Along with your attorney, line up a professional videographer and a (retired?) judge to go over the finalized agreement with both of you and your attorneys, signing and dating it on-camera. The judge should confirm your date, time, location, identities, that you are of sound mind, that you're entering into this agreement willingly (no wedding date has been set yet, etc.), that you have your attorneys present and that you are satisfied with them, that you understand English, and go over each clause of the agreement to explain what it means and whether or not you consent to it. The idea is to make it virtually impossible for the agreement to be challenged later by claiming there was pressure or that something was unfair or not understood.

4. Make sure you have discussed with your attorney how to keep the agreement in effect. Certain things you might otherwise say or do could end the effectiveness of the agreement, and you want to be sure to avoid that. Don't let her pressure you into doing those things!


The specifics of the agreement will be up to the law and what you two and your attorneys work out. She might ask for a sunset so that if she stays with you a certain number of years, the state's agreement comes into effect. Avoid that! All that does is give her a countdown. Things that might be in the agreement might include, but certainly not be limited to, access to financial accounts, the conditions of any joint accounts, provisions for insurance, what each of you owned and owed at the time you entered into the agreement, the process for amending or changing the agreement, who will pay for what, what happens if there is a separation/divorce/incapacitation/death, what will happen with property purchases and sales, etc.

You want to protect any property or assets you would be bringing into the marriage. Have your own business? Plan to start one? What if you create something like a work of art or a game? These are things that need to be considered.

If you own a home, you'll probably need her to sign a quitclaim deed and you'll probably have to refuse to allow her to "help" with paying for or maintaining it.

In most places, inheritance is NOT community property. If anyone is leaving anything to you, they should leave it only to you, NOT including her, and you should keep whatever you get separate. For example, if it's cash, it would go into an account she has nothing to do with.

If there is a divorce, you're not going to be able to get away with paying her nothing. You're going to have to pay her something, but if you spell out what in the agreement, it can be far less than what you'd have to if you went with the state default.

Again, you most likely shouldn't be marrying (or living together) in the first place. But if you're going to take that risk, mitigate it somewhat with a customized prenup. If she won't agree, DO NOT MARRY HER.

Keep in mind, having children provides an end-run around a prenup. She can get a court to order you to pay "child support" well above what it takes to raise the children. No man should be conceiving children unless he sincerely wants to be a father.

*I'm not an attorney. Do not so much as share a residence, let alone marry a woman, without consulting a family law attorney.

Dennis Prager Doesn't Understand Putting Financial Stability Before Getting Married

On the Male/Female Hour of his show today (Wednesday, February 3, 2021), Dennis Prager again took the opportunity to try to sell people on marrying by bringing up how people, especially men, will say they don't want to marry until they have financial stability, and claiming he's never heard a good explanation for that. [This entry us bumped up because it is still relevant.]

I was hoping for some callers would do what I recommended here. One sounded like he might.

I wish I could call in, but I can't. At least not yet. 

Most men shouldn't marry at all, but if they are going to do something so foolish, they should definitely not marry until they have financial stability. There are many reasons this is so. In no particular order, here are just some reasons as to why:

• Marriage is difficult enough. It is even more so when you're poor. Finances are one of THE most common reasons spouse fight and people get divorced. 
• People trying to reach financial stability have less time and energy to spend on a spouse.
• Men who are better off financially can get a more attractive wife.
• Why should you take on another person's debts? Why should they take on yours?
• Wealth acquired before the marriage can be more easily protected from divorce than wealth acquired during the marriage.
• Most women want to marry a man who can support them.
• If kids are a possibility, it is best they have a parent raise them, not have both parents unavailable and tired out from working jobs.

Rather than further repeat myself more, see what I wrote here and go ahead and look through the Dennis Prager tag on this blog. 

Dennis Prager, being unmarried is the default. MEN DO NOT NEED A REASON TO AVOID MARRIAGE. Instead, they need a good reason TO get married, and most men don't have one!

"Why Can't Men Be Upfront and Honest?" - Part 3

Part 1 of This Series

Part 2 of This Series

Women usually know within the first five minutes of meeting a guy whether or not they'd ever have sex with him. But it isn't like they'll tell the man. That would be upfront and honest.

Unless they are asexual or something is wrong with them, men want sex. Depending on their morals, religion, strategy, etc., they might be willing to wait for sex. They might want sex AND [fill in the blank... marriage, family, etc.]. But we all want sex. If we didn't, we likely wouldn't have asked the woman to date, meet us, or let us come over.

"But women want sex, too" you might object.

Yes, most women do want sex, at least for part of their life. But the average woman doesn't want sex as much as the average man. The average man also wants sex with a wider variety of women than the variety of men women want to have sex with. The worldwide history of humanity demonstrates this. It is beyond the scope of this posting as to why that is. But it IS the case. A man would have sex with just about every woman he sees who isn't absolutely hideous.

So... in general, it is the man's role to pursue the sex, as he is more likely to want it, and intercourse doesn't happen if he isn't turned on. (Please note, I'm referring to the initiation of the relationship. Once a sexual relationship is established, of course it's great with most men if the woman takes the initiative sometimes.)

The man wants sex. Otherwise there wouldn't be a date. The woman may or may not want sex. She might be going on the date for freebies, attention, to affirm to herself or signal to others that she's desirable, leverage, or many other reasons instead of wanting sex with the guy. If he runs game, he will either smoke her out as not wanting sex with him, or he'll get to the sex with less effort/time/money/emotion than the man who doesn't run game.

She might want sex upon meeting him, but if she finds out something about him - and it depends on the woman what those things might be - she might not agree to sex. So, for the man who is primarily looking for sex, the less he reveals about his true self, the better. That's the case for most men. There are exceptions (very wealthy men, for example). She doesn't need to know any more more about him because he's not there to live together, get married, and have children. He's there for sex. If she finds him attractive enough to have sex with him, between his physical appearance, his behavior with her, and what she thinks she knows about him, he doesn't want to say or do anything to change that.

But if she doesn't want to have sex with him, he wants to find that out as soon as he can so he can stop wasting time, money, and energy. She can be upfront and honest and tell him that right away.

Why would a man have an obligation to spend more effort/time/money/emotion than it takes for him to get what he wants? In these sorts of relationships, it is up to the individuals to seek out what they want, to initiate what they want, and to either agree to, or decline, what the other person initiates. These are not marriages. They are dating relationships, hookups, booty calls.

If the woman doesn't like what he's doing, she is entirely free to stop seeing him. She can be upfront and honest and tell him that it is her intention that she's not going to have sex with him (or have sex with him anymore) unless he spends more time and money on her, agrees to an exclusive girlfriend-boyfriend relationship, or whatever. Maybe he'll agree to wait or change the relationship. Or maybe he'll carry on as he has, and she will still allow him to show up for a booty call, despite what she's said. If she stays true to her word, he can either agree to the terms or move on.

This is a dance. Men will dance in a way that gets them what they want. It's generally women who either reward the dancer or not.


Part 1 of This Series

Part 2 of This Series

Part 4 in This Series

Yet Another Example of Why Men Avoid Marriage

AT A CROSSROADS is a beaten dog who wrote  into Dear Abby:

I met my wife in college.

Bad move, unless he didn't get serious with her until later. College is great for playing the field.

We have been married for 40 years and have two adult sons.

Forty years of marriage is important to the rest of the letter.

My wife had a brief affair early in our marriage, but we have long since moved on from that.

Then there was no reason to mention it, right? Oh, but there is. If they didn't have kids at the time, he should have hit the eject button.

However, increasingly over the last 15 years, my wife (career homemaker, her choice)

Of course it was! If he left her, he'd have to pay!

has been aggressively making demands in exchange for anything she does for me -- i.e., if I don't buy her something, she won't cook dinner, do laundry or have sex.

Please send this to any guy you know who might get married.

I buy her things all the time, and I give her an allowance, roughly 70% of my take-home pay. Some of her demands I simply cannot afford, so I often cook, clean, etc., myself. As a result, we haven't had sex in more than 10 years.

This is marriage, guys. Most marriages are like this or are closer to this than being good marriages.

OK, before we get into the next part of the letter, it has already been established that he doesn't have a marriage. What he has is state-enforced slavery, with the option of physically leaving but still being financially enslaved.

Two years ago, I met a younger woman. She is also married, although separated.

How does he know that?

She still shares a home with her husband and their two children.

While it might be legally possible in some places, that sure doesn't sound like separation.

We meet as often as we can and I find her delightful and easy to get along with.

For now. She's auditioning.

Lately, she has been saying she wants us to leave our situations and get married.

Why would you ever want to remarry?!? You like things with her now. That's not marriage. Even so, wait for her leave her husband and prove it. Don't make any changes that take her into account until she has at least done that.

My concern is twofold. First, when my wife gets angry, she threatens to divorce me and take everything I've got, even if it costs her everything as well. She does not bluff.

She could and would do that even if she never said that to you. That's what happens if a wife doesn't earn income and the marriage goes on for decades.

Second, my girlfriend is so much younger than I am that I'm concerned that while things are great now, I'll be an elderly man in the not too distant future and could be a burden to her. What are your thoughts?

I have to wonder: What have you been spending on this girlfriend? How much more money do you have than her?

Never operate under the assumption that any woman will continue to be a positive presence in your life. Even if you both divorced and married each others, the odds are slim that marriage would work out well. Do not promise this woman anything, and don't limit yourself.

Your marriage is over. It has been over for a long time. But if you can keep out of the family courts for the rest of your life, and avoid paying for two legal teams, that would be great. So, if you want female companionship, run game as discretely as you can. Don't worry about pleasing your wife, but it's best she never have definitive proof you're with other women. Although statistically unlikely, the best thing for you would be for her to drop dead soon, with you outliving her many years so you can have some peace.

Unmarried guys, I hope you're seeing that that the best way to "win" at marriage is to NOT PLAY.

Dear Abby responded:

If the only thing keeping you in this unhappy marriage is fear, contact an attorney to discuss what a divorce would cost you financially.

As she has done with other situations, Dear Abby could have asked an attorney. Maybe she did, but doesn't want to print the results.

This guy is SCREWED. If he were to divorce, he'd lose at least half of everything, and on top of that, he'd have to pay for both legal teams AND likely pay significant ongoing alimony for the rest of his life. His wife and the attorneys would stretching things out as long as they could, milking his paycheck. HE... IS... SCREWED. THAT is the crappy family law we have.

Stay free, men.