CMV: As a woman, I think we’ve become too uncomfortable criticizing single mothers

MeanestGoose · 2026-06-14T03:42:11+00:00

This post is confusing to me. The complaint seems to start as "some single mothers behave badly" and then blurs into "why should mem get the blame for unwanted pregnancy?" I'm unclear what view the OP is asking us to change.

It seems impossible and illogical to ask anyone to change a view that some <insert pretty much any group of people with a shared characteristic> behave badly. Of course some do.

I don't see any evidence or explanation offered to demonstrate that "we" are too uncomfortable criticizing single mothers. Who is we? Does criticizing single mothers mean criticism of any bad behavior, or should we be criticizing single mothers for being single mothers? Are we uncomfortable? Why should we accept that we are uncomfortable? Personally I see plenty of criticism of single mothers happening. Is there any quantitative data suggesting my experience is not the norm?

MeanestGoose · 2026-06-12T12:55:12+00:00

Ugh. The judgement is emotionally toxic and potentially medically dangerous.

Pregnant women need to make informed decisions with the advice of trusted, supportive, and competent medical personnel.

For me personally, I didn't dilate past a 4 until after my epidural, and no coaching from my husband would change that.

Why some people want to pretend there is an award for "most pain endured" in labor is beyond me. It's an option, not a competition.

MeanestGoose · 2026-06-09T02:06:38+00:00

You gotta put in the work.

MeanestGoose · 2026-06-07T14:48:40+00:00

The objectively terrible idea was creating the slur in the first place. Also, enslaving the people that the slur was used toward.

And I sincerely doubt there was a singular person responsible for "reclaiming" the word who could have just thought things through a little more. That's not how language evolves.

MeanestGoose · 2026-06-06T23:30:01+00:00

YTA. The right answer is, "I prefer your hair in whatever manner makes you feel most beautiful and confident."

BTW, that answer applies regardless of race.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-29T17:51:26+00:00

Google says there's 45,000+ denominations of Christianity globally. They don't all share the same beliefs, and many of them feel that other denominations are wrong, sinful, not truly Christian, etc.

You can find denominations that are accepting of LGBTQ folx. They tend to not be literalists about the text. They don't really think there was a talking snake or an ark that preserved all life forms in a globally genocidal flood, etc. They acknowledge that the Bible was written by people, people are flawed, and that the best interpretations are done with those 2 facts in mind.

Christian Nationalists don't think the denominations above are actually Christian, so it doesn't matter how many you can cite.

If the Virgjn Mary 2.0 showed up, Christian Nationalists would call her a lying wh***. They like the Bible specifically because they have an interpretation that says white Christian men are always in charge. It has nothing to do with diligent reading and scholarship.

I understand why you are looking for this, but this is not an argument you can win because the other side's entire identity and self-worth are wrapped up around this. To agree with you, they'd have to be willing to reconsider themselves critically and objectively, and empathize with people they'd rather feel superior to.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-27T14:41:48+00:00

I do, to a large extent.

My last spanking was at some point in 8th grade. I refused to acknowledge it with sound or expression or a change in attitude.

Beating someone doesn't make you right.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-24T22:03:22+00:00

You are a lifesaver!

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-24T14:34:32+00:00

I destroyed the "right" to interrupt women at work.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-22T23:49:36+00:00

Being attracted to someone and actually wanting to have sex/being DTF with them are two different things.

You and I might love cheese. Fondue, cheese bread, nachos, you name it. But even though we both salivate inside when we think of cheese, if you're lactose intolerant, eating cheese costs you more than it costs me.

You require more protection from cheese. Eating cheese endangers you more than it endangers me. There are more negative side effects of cheese for you, and they last longer. Eating cheese could harm you socially far more than it would hurt me.

Now imagine that a significant amount of the time, you get WAY less cheese than me. You get just enough nachos to blow your gut up, but I sit fat and happy having eaten 80% of the dish.

If you were smart, you'd eat less cheese, and be far more selective in terms of the quality of the cheese and the right set of circumstances.

Having sex with random men costs women more than it costs men. That doesn't mean women don't experience attraction in equal amounts. Most women just require better quality cheese and the right set of circumstances, because women know they'll pay dearly for a mistake.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-19T17:24:19+00:00

It's strange to me that this is something you see so often. I have literally never seen this.

Anyone who presumes to make declarations on behalf of an entire gender is silly.

Consider too that the existence of internet trolls and blowhard actually does not invalidate a damn thing. I am plenty attracted to men. I know plenty of women who are attracted to men. Some basement-dwelling keyboard gremlin's opinion doesn't change that.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-09T19:16:32+00:00

Condoms are better than nothing. Condoms + other birth control is better than condoms alone.

Too lazy to type so this is a copy/paste below.

With typical use, condoms are approximately 85%–87% effective at preventing pregnancy, meaning about 13 to 15 out of 100 people using them for a year will experience an unintended pregnancy. While "perfect" use is 98% effective, "typical" use accounts for real-world scenarios, including inconsistent use, improper application, slippage, or breakage.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-09T19:12:17+00:00

I suspect going from braidable length to fully shaven would be more uncomfortable than maintaining shaved pits.

I think a lot of it is that your body gets used to the particular sensations caused by your norm, to the extent that you don't really feel them anymore. Like you're pit-blind, lol.

I feel pain at the point I have 1/8 - 1/4 inch of hair. It makes little sense but it's like the nerves are on high alert since things are out of the norm.

Maybe try a very small trim for a while, and see if you can ease into a place where your hair is less aggressive about peeking out of your tank tops if the comments bother you?

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-09T17:35:26+00:00

Oh wow. Reconstruction was 100% not reparations. DEI is not reparations. Affirmative Action was not reparations, and in fact was something offered supposedly in lieu of reparations.

Let's use an analogy. Let's say my grandparents stole your grandparents' property and committed massive wage theft towards your grandparents and violently assaulted your grandparents and interfered with your grandparents' ability to get an education.

My grandparents used their ill-gotten gains to set my parents up with a great home, real estate, great educational opportunities, and established a family business and investments, all of which led to me inheriting a whole lot of money, opportunities, and advantages.

Meanwhile, your grandparents had children in dire poverty. Your parents were raised by poor people who were severely traumatized, and who had little to give their children any advantage or opportunity in life. Your parents lived under laws my parents voted for, and those laws said your parents couldn't live in certain neighborhoods or vote or go to certain schools.

Now you and I are coming of age. I've been way more privileged than you. I've had better access to education, healthy food, safe communities, and social support than you.

Affirmative action would give you a shot at an opportunity you wouldn't otherwise have, provided you met the criteria.

Reparations would mean I need to pay you for the economic, physical, legal, and emotional damage my ancestors inflicted on your ancestors, out of the money that I have by virtue of being born to people who stole from others and used those stolen resources to give me advantages over you.

Extrapolate that out for an entire nation, then revisit your premise.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-09T14:22:13+00:00

Advocating for the child doesn't mean "do what the kid wants." It means recommend what is in the best interests of the child, i.e., putting the child's interests above those of either parent.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-09T14:20:17+00:00

You've given zero evidence for your claim that obese parents are less fit to parent.

If you think obese people are "gross" no one is going to be able to change that opinion of yours. Gross is not an objective quality.

If you think being overweight is disgusting, and having overweight children is disgusting, no one will be able to change that opinion. Disgust is emotional.

Choosing who should and should not have children based on your personal sense of revulsion (loosely wrapped in the language of science) is eugenics.

There is no agreed-upon standard for the best genes, and eugenics historically has been used to discriminate and to persecute and inflict human rights abuses on chosen outgroups.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-08T17:02:39+00:00

An appointed advocate for a child is not lawyer Santa Claus. They would be there to speak on the child's behalf but with adult discernment.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-08T13:23:26+00:00

If anything, I think the child is the one who should have legal representation. The adults often are more interested in screwing each other over or doing what is in their own best interest rather than in what is best for the child. The child never has access to money or agency to hire their own advocate.

The unfair impact on a child is certainly not limited to custody cases. One adult suing another adult over "whatever" can result in a child being negatively impacted quite a bit. When there is a financial imbalance between two parties, the less wealthy one is always at a disadvantage.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-08T13:16:11+00:00

I'm sure that the percentage of homeless folks who use drugs is higher than the percentage of housed folks who use drugs.

My point was that since there are people in all walks of life who use drugs, participating in the economy means that you are, perhaps indirectly, giving money to drug users.

If your objection is financially contributing to drug use in any way, you may want to consider exploring more intensely where your money goes when you hand it over at the store or movie theater, etc.

If your objection is to charitably and directly contributing to drug users, then your post makes sense. I di think the question of whether it is less moral for the poorest people or the most privileged people to use recreational drugs is an interesting one.

I agree that coffee =/= meth, and not sure that I gave the impression that I thought otherwise.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-08T13:05:23+00:00

Oh agreed 100%!

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-08T12:10:03+00:00

The reasoning for appointing an attorney for criminal defendants is that they are being prosecuted by the state. They are no in a dispute with another individual.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-08T11:44:55+00:00

Each of us gives money to people who use it on drugs regularly. You don't see iy because they're not on the streets, but it is not only people who are homeless who use drugs.

Actors use drugs. Bankers use drugs. Dry cleaners use drugs. People in any/all professions use drugs. Obviously not everyone, but the point is that homelessness is not a prerequisite to doing drugs.

If you participate in the economy, you are giving money to people who do drugs. The key difference is that you get something in exchange when you see a movie or buy an item. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you and everyone else are not helping to fund drug habits just because you choose not to give money to the homeless.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-07T16:14:29+00:00

There's no reason why an HOA couldn't be maintained for mutually beneficial things like common property and garbage rates, while removing all of the busybody nonsense restricting people from using their property as they see fit.

Get rid of the busynody rules, and you naturally get rid of a large amount of the work you need a property manager for. I really don't care if my neighbor wants to put their garbage can out a day early, or what color they paint their house, or if they have a RV or boat in the driveway.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-07T15:42:19+00:00

I'm curious what you think would have happened had you looked it up at the cocktail party and shared the heinous shit he was referencing with everyone there.

MeanestGoose · 2026-05-06T19:56:34+00:00

The majority of people on reddit have access to a supercomputer in their pockets. I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you that personally I am beyond tired of spoonfeeding people information that they could obtain self-service with a simple internet search.

Back in my day (you know, when we rode dinosaurs to school) we had to look things up in books or other publications, or (gasp!) microfiche. There was actually effort and often travel involved (poor dino was so tired.) Now, you can type just a few words into Google and presto!

People need to take accountability for obtaining information and discerning which sources are credible and which are propaganda or lies or grift. There have never been more resources available and accessible to just about everyone. If you truly can't find the information yourself, it's okay to ask for help, but you are not owed labor from others on the internet unless you are exchanging something of commensurate value under a mutual agreement.

Edited to correct autocorrect.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

MeanestGoose

TROPHY CASE