Breast Cancer Statistics 2010

hi, everybody! my name is stefan molyneux.i'm the host of freedomain radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world. this is the truth about single moms. yes,it's time to get comfortable. grab your ovaries, pull up a cushion because this is going tobe lengthy but i promise you, it's going to be fascinating, mind-blowing and life-changingfor you. full disclosure, i was raised by a singlemother. my parents divorced when i was an infant and my father moved to africa. i grewup in england and canada and i have now been very happily married for 13 years. i'd beena stay-at-home dad because nothing succeeds like potential overcompensation so i sortof viewed it from both sides of the lenses.

this is going to be heavily data-driven butfirst we need to talk about the underlying conflict in society and within really thehuman condition, i would argue. you know how we always want to rest but rest is bad forus. we always want more calories than we need but excess weight is bad for us. these arefundamental aspects of being carbon-based biological entity and one of the most fundamentalconflicts in society which really shows up in this single mom situation, this explosionof single motherhood in the west over the past 40 or 50 years is the relationship betweenrisk and security. so think of insurance. so if you have a houseand you buy insurance against being robbed. well, if you never get robbed then you'reout a lot of money for no purpose but the

point is you don't know ahead of time whetheryou're going to be robbed or not. if you don't take out insurance and you do get robbed,you're out even more money. now the reason that people take out insurance against beingrobbed is because people get robbed and if they get robbed, they don't get paid. that'ssort of the fundamental driver of these things. and there's no right answer, it's just constantbenefits. there's no right answer to this. some people -- ambrose peters made this pointthat some people will choose to buy insurance and clearly they are paying more than theirgeneralized risk; otherwise the insurance company couldn't make any money. but they'repaying less than their specific risk like if they get robbed. some people say, "forgetit, it's a sucker's game. the odds of getting

robbed are very low and so i'm not going tobuy insurance" and a lot of those people do fine and a lot of those people don't. it's sort of like when you were a kid, you'vegot a test coming up and you want to really go and ride your bike rather than study foryour test. well, you can go ride your bike and maybe you'll be fine on the test. maybeit will be easier than you think, maybe the teacher will get sick, or maybe somethingwill happen and you don't have to take the test on that day. so you're doing that kindof risk and reward where if you don't ride your bike, you study for the test, you'llprobably do better on the test. so what's the right answer? well, it's hardto say. but i think most people who study

for their test would not want some of theirmarks taken away from them and given to the kids who didn't study for their test. in the same way, like in the united states,a lot of laws went into place in health insurance which would say that you could not refusesomeone health insurance if they had a pre-existing condition. in other words, you couldn't refusehealth insurance to somebody who was already sick. so of course a lot of people just said,if they can't say no to me if i'm already sick, i'll wait till i get sick and then i'llapply for health insurance which is not at all how it's supposed to work in the freemarket. that's like phoning up quickly and saying to the insurance company, "hey man,i really need some theft insurance because

i'm currently being robbed." they'd say, "alittle late for that." you have to kind of do it when you don't know. so because people were not allowed to discriminateagainst people with pre-existing conditions, like you couldn't refuse insurance to somebodywho was already sick, what people did was they said, "okay. i'll wait till i get sick,i'll apply for insurance." that drives the price of insurance up enormously and thenpeople have to be forced to buy insurance because the incentive is to wait until you'resick to buy insurance and then you end up with obama care. this is just how the snowballsgenerally work. when you start messing with the risks and rewards of human society, it'sa big challenge, a big problem, things unravel

enormously quickly. so why is there single motherhood these days?well, i mean there's probably lots of reasons but the most fundamental one is that the costto single motherhood have been shifted from the families of single mothers, the parentsof single mothers, to society as a whole. you can look at democracy plus taxation asa form of after the fact insurance where you have taxation, you replace insurance. so certainlywhen you have socialized medicine like you have in canada here, then you don't reallyhave much of a market for health insurance. there's still a little bit for the stuff that'snot covered. but taxation replaces insurance. now there's also one i want to mention too,there's another kind of insurance called being

really well-liked in a particular community.i was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years ago and i had to flee canada because the healthcare system here was just not working, misdiagnosed me for a year and wouldn't give me the operationi needed so i went to the states. i put the message out through this show and people steppedup and because they like what i do and i guess like me and want me to keep doing it, theyfooted my health care bill. so there is a kind of insurance called justbeing very well-liked and that is another way that you can buffer yourself against life'svicissitudes, just the challenges and randomness that occurs within life. so in the past, it was the elders who reallytook note and care and control and to some

degree, custody of youthful sexuality. andwe're talking about really times before reliable birth control. so if your daughter got pregnant,then this was bad for you as a family. there was no sort of welfare states that you couldput your daughter on and have her bills paid for. there's always been the "welfare state"of the public educational system which is socialized day care of mind-numbing capacities. but if your daughter got pregnant, then certainlyprior to i guess 1973 when abortion was legalized in the us, you would have to send your daughteraway for six months or so. she would have the child, the child will be given up foradoption and pretty much everybody would know what was going on and then the future marriageabilityof your daughter would be significantly lowered.

like her value in the marriage market placewould be significantly diminished so that would be bad. you'd end up with a lower qualityson-in-law on average if your daughter got pregnant which meant that you'd not have asmuch money for her so you might have to kick in more so it was pretty bad and this is onereason and your family honor and so on. your parenting would be revealed as less than optimalperhaps in some ways so that's one outcome that could happen. the second outcome is you would try to getan abortion. particularly when it was illegal this was horrendous and hugely risky and dangerousand all that kind of stuff so that was bad too. or you could have the boy marry yourdaughter, the shotgun wedding. but then what

you're doing is you're inviting some relativelylow quality short-sided guy who knocked up your daughter to become but a gene pool foreverand live with you in your general environment for the next 40 years -- not exactly the mostoptimum solution of all time so there are lots of different ways. or ofcourse the daughter could simply have the baby in which you as the grandparent wouldbe responsible most likely for paying and raising and backstopping and so on. these are all highly-negative outcomes andbecause they accrue to individuals rather than to the social collective and form oftaxation, individuals really got involved in managing female sexuality and male sexualityand because prior to reliable birth control,

sexuality carried with it a virtually forcertain commitment of 20 years or more in the raising of a child. that was why you neededcommitment. before unleashing the happy demons of youthful sexuality, you needed people tobe committed. this is why there was sex after marriage because it contained within it thisimplicit commitment requirement of producing a human being who's going to need resourcesfor 20 years or more. so in the past, there was a lot of focus onchaperoning and raising kids right so that they wouldn't have too much sex or they wouldn'thave unprotected sex with someone. when the welfare state came along, this eroded thewhole thing and now parents don't have to be the enforcers, they don't have to be thetesticle-terminators of involved parents.

a lot of them of course still do but the financialdrivers are not there. so the risk of being an out-of-wedlock mom, being an unmarriedmom has gone down enormously and in some ways the rewards have gone up. and so this is kindof after the fact insurance through the forced redistribution of income under the tax system,this is the conflict that's going on in society at the moment. so that's just the general background, thankyou for your patience. i think it's pretty important stuff to have in perspective. nowwe can do the deep data dive, blow your mind with a series of hopefully not too phallicgraphs, this is the truth about single moms. now i grew up without a dad and i grew upwatching -- it was kind of retro but i watched

shows like leave it to beaver and my threesons where the dads were pretty positive. but that made me kind of resentful becauseif this positive dad role model was absent from my life, it meant that my mom basicallyhad me with the wrong guy or she was unable to keep the right guy or something like that.but something was missing and i really miss that and i mourn that growing up without adad. i could go on and on but just tiny little examples like learning how to shave. i foundit in a magazine somewhere -- this was before youtube. i don't know if there are shavinginstructions on youtube -- probably yes -- for all the fatherless kids. but given that iwasn't shaving my legs, i couldn't really ask my mom for too much help. it's like thatmichael keaton movie, "this way, not this

way." that's how you shave. but just littlethings like that. now what has replaced fathers for a lot ofthe kids, a lot of the boys in particular who are growing up without their fathers andthe daughters of course is the media, is the portrayal of fathers in the media. now thishas gotten progressively worse since the 1950s and early 1960s, it's really gotten terriblenow to the point where you almost simply cannot find any kind of positive role model in mediafathers. and that's a lot of reasons for this but i think a fundamental reason is that singlemoms don't want their kids to be exposed to very positive male role models because thenthe kids will sort of resent the single moms and like "where is this great dad that i seeall around me in the media?" so when something's

missing, we tend to downgrade it. it's calledsour grapes after that old fable about the fox who tries to grab the grapes from thetrellis, can't reach them and says, "oh, they're probably sour anyway." and so throwing derogatory statements at somethingwhich you can't have is an inevitable human impulse and this is one of the reasons why.there are so many kids growing up without positive male role models and therefore youhave negative male role models in the media. it's inevitable. i mean you can't watch tv-- i mean this is true in particular of commercials but it's also true of shows as well. men arejust like functionally-retarded mouth breathers, cant tie their shoes, can't play an importantrole in the raising of a family, they are

always out of step, they are always retro,they're always ridiculous, always bad. it's a huge epidemic. i mean if you can imagineblacks being portrayed in the way that fathers are portrayed on television, i mean al sharpton'shead will literally go full scanners explosion. in the us, 27.4 million kids are living absenttheir biological father, 1/3 of all children in the country; 17.7 million or 39% of studentsfrom grade 1 to 12th absent their biological fathers in their homes. now this doesn't meanthat they never see their dads, it doesn't mean that there aren't step dads but absenttheir biological fathers. it's not just in the us. the amount of children born outsideof marriage each year are staggering. fatherlessness is associated with a long list of negativechild outcomes. we'll look at that a little

bit later. now of course you're going to hear about thebrave hardworking dedicated heroic noble single moms but what does the data say, what is thetruth about single motherhoods? so let's just have a little bit of a lookhere. in study of sitcoms, the number of times a mother told a joke at the father's expenseincreased from 1.8 times per episode in the 1950s to 4.3 times per episode in the '90s.working class fathers are twice as likely as upper class fathers to be regarded as thebutt of the joke. now this is just one tiny, tiny sliver of how negatively men are portrayedbut it's something that can at least be measured, so 2 to 3 times higher. father made fun ofthe mother, mother made fun of the father.

so in the 1950s the father made fun of themother a lot more, you can think sort of the i love lucy stuff. and now in the 1990s, themother makes fun of the father almost twice as much as they used to in this ratio. andagain, this is because they're single moms and there are no dads around and it's painfulfor children without fathers to be exposed to positive male role models. there is justthis unconscious demand for this downgrading of masculinity. and how much are kids being exposed to this?well, a huge amount -- a huge amount. television has a huge influence on children from a veryearly age. these are statistics from kids from ages of 8 to 18 and as you can see, it'salmost eight hours of media a day. and this

is tablets, tvs and computers and so on. andwhen they're 11 to 14, it's almost 12 hours a day. it's almost 12 hours a day, it's dickensian.they must have stuff them up on chimneys with screens. it dips a little 15 to 18, 11 to23 probably for boys because of carpal tunnel from the 11 to 14 years age. men slightlymore than women, white kids, kids of white families 8 1/2 hours of media; hispanic kids13 hours of media; almost the same for blacks. so not quite twice as much but a huge amountmore among hispanic and black youth. and of course feminists constantly are railingagainst portrayal of women in television. and if you look at gamergate or anita sarkeesian'scomments about how women are portrayed in video games, she's like she makes these cases,some of the cases are disputed but nonetheless

feminists have a very powerful and strongfocus on how women are portrayed in the media. do you hear a lot about how men are portrayedin the media? i would say you don't, at least not proportional to women but to a degreeto which men are negatively portrayed in the media i argue is far outstripping how negativelywomen are portrayed. and it's not just if men are idiots, men are also just cold andviolent. you saw the james bond thing, the schwarzenegger thing that men are cold andviolent or incompetent. both of which of course are highly negative for society. so let's have a quick look at marriage anddivorce ratio. so this top red line is the marriage rate per thousand people. this isnot like 16 people get married. at every particular

year -- this is from 1930 to 2011 -- you cansee this big spike in the post-war period where all of the men came back from the secondworld war, the baby boom and so on. this is the divorce rate, as you can see it's verylow, below 2 per thousand and then rising to a high of close to 6 per thousand and nowit's settled back down. but it settled back down because marriage rates are going downso fewer people are getting married therefore fewer people are getting divorced. the orangeline is the marriage-divorce ratio so when it's higher it means that there are fewerdivorces and when it's lower in size you can see. and this is huge for kids. between 25%and 50% of the kids with divorced parents never or almost never see their fathers andthat's terrible.

so this is a chart of births outside marriagein the united states. and as you can see, back in 1940, only 4% of children were bornoutside of marriage and as you can see, by 2010, it's 41%. so it is a massive, massiveincrease from 1950. it's a tenfold increase since 1950. now according to the flynn effect, james flynnwho has been on this show just pointed out that iq is going up every generation and sothese are more intelligent people having more children outside of wedlock. and i would onlyassume this is the great tragedy is that people aren't being given the facts about how difficultand in fact, dangerous it is for both people and society for children to be born outsideof marriage. and by marriage i don't necessarily

mean formal government legal institution,i simply mean sort of public commitment with contractual obligations. it doesn't have tobe government-based but marriage predated government. so let's look at the births outside marriagesby states. this is the "best" states in the us and this is broken down by major racialgroups. the other probably includes native americans, asians and so on. but as you cansee here in tidy widy utah, only 18.7% of births are outside of wedlock down to washington32.5%. it's a great challenge of talking about us statistics is that racial characteristicsplay a lot into how the data goes. so if you can see here the highest rate, 54.7% is inmississippi and 63.6% of those are in the

black community; new mexico of course highin hispanic, 20.1% is most likely native americans in new mexico; district of columbia, 77% ofthe out of wedlock births for the black community and so on. although race is a challenge totalk about, it really needs to be in here to explicate some of the data. it's not just an american problem. us is 41%births outside marriage, canada 27%, mexico 55%, australia 33%, new zealand 49%. in westerneurope all the way from the high of 56% in france to the low of 28% in italy, no doubtas the result of the intense catholic pressures on sex and marriage. it is a western europeanproblem as well. looking a little bit further around the world, israel 5%, turkey 3%, hungary45%.

so in the russian and ex-russian federationsor ex-soviet bloc counties, much higher and of course communism took a direct assaultagainst what they consider to be the bourgeois family after the revolution of 1917 and particularlyafter the incorporation of eastern europe after the second world war there was a massiveattack on the family which we have a presentation on which we can link below to. sub-sahara in africa from a low of 6% in nigeriato a high or 63% in south africa. and again, fascinating though it would be to delve intothe whys, that would make a lengthy presentation even more lengthy. hard not to spot the outlier,births outside marriage in india only 1%. so it's not human nature or it's all humannature, all these stuff. and the philippines

of course was a us satellite for quite sometime, there's still 300,000 americans, a lot of christians in there. so indonesia 3%, japan2%, south korea 2%, taiwan 4%. you can look if you want into r versus k reproductivestrategies which have been differentiated by some thinkers among the races if you wantto look into more of that. births outside marriage central and south america, argentina13%, columbia a jaw-dropping [0:21:04] leg-opening 84% and quite high outside of the argentinianoutlier. births outside marriage over 40% from theus and 41% down to peru at 76%, columbia at 84% and again i'm going to run through thesepretty quickly, you can pause the video. and remember, this is a long presentation butjust close your browser window for the most

part, when you open it back up to this presentation,you can pick up where you left of or you can listen to the audio. lots of different waysto consume this stuff. we will also put the powerpoint or at least a pdf of the powerpointbelow in case you want to use any of the stuff. so single motherhood was disapproved of significantlyand was associated with the socialist attack. there's actually a book from the early 1900scalled something like absent fathers and socialism. sort of a goal of socialism is to carve outthe dad, to downgrade the dad which makes the women more dependent on the state, allowsfor the growth of state power according to some thinkers. so this is the percentage of adults who approveof a woman who wants to have a child as a

single parent but doesn't want to have a stablerelationship with a man. for those my age or slightly younger i suppose, there was amurphy brown series of episodes with candice bergen where she as the character decidedto have a child out of wedlock. dan quayle criticized this and then all of the savageharpies of feminism and the left descended upon his jugular like so many drill bit-wieldingvampire bats. and although a lot of people -- it's like the patrick moynihan report onthe black families from the 1960s, a lot of people have realized in hindsight that therewas value in having the discussion, that with the time the reaction is always very strong. so germany which has a very low single motherhoodalso has low approval of single motherhood;

spain very high. these values do translateinto outcomes. most people navigate not according to any objective or rational philosophy butaccording to what is socially approved of by those around. in other words, most peopleare destined to win, what can i get away with, and that's what they do. do children need two parents? here's a survey.germany of course with low single motherhood has a very high number people, almost 9 outof 10 who say "yeah, kids need two parents." sweden with a massive socialist redistributionstate is down at 47%. you can see the numbers here. so where are kids growing up? so here youcan see this is us children by family structure.

almost 60% are married parents; cohabitingparents 3 1/2%; married parents and step-parent 5.1%; unmarried cohabiting parent and step-parentsingle mom 21% almost; cohabiting mom single father very low 2.7%; cohabiting father andother 3.9%. now we've talked about this before, it can'treally be repeated often enough that if you look at sort of the bright green here, moderateabuse and serious abuse number of children per thousand, the safest place for childrenby far is married biological parents. now i understand and i will say this for thenth time in these presentations, you cannot ascribe automatically causation to correlation.so it could be that people who are nicer get married more and therefore marriage and notabusing their children is a byproduct of them

being nice. correlation and causation is trickyotherwise space aliens would come down and look at the world and say "aha! the humanbeings are slaves to dogs because they pick up their poop." but nonetheless this is importantto understand that are able to get married and stay in a stable relationship then youare significantly more likely to abuse your children. again, these numbers are low but the incidentsof multiple, as you can see from moderate abuse, it's almost ten times as likely thata single parent with a partner is going to have her children abused usually than if marriedbiological parents. so non-marriage is bad, very bad for children in terms of raisingthe incidents of abuse.

child abuse by parents, we've talked aboutthis before and you can go to bombinthebrain.com for more information on this. child abuseby parent almost half of children who are abused are abused by mother only; both parents21%; father and other 1%; father 22%; mother and other 7%. now one of the real very interesting factsthat i have learned in doing these kinds of presentations is most people have an automaticcompulsion to rush to the defense of women. this is incredibly sexist. this diminisheswomen's moral responsibility, moral capacity and that is horrendous. women are equal tomen and if you hear a negative statistics about a man and don't rush to men's defense,then don't do it for women. and if you do

it for women, then at least do it for menbut let's not have this disparity where we immediately try to find excuses for immoralitieson the part of women. and people say "well you see but moms or womenare exposed to children a lot more because they're primary caregivers so of course there'llbe more child abuse." this is not particularly valid. like if i retire and then end up beatingup my wife and say "well officer, i used to work. now i'm home with my wife a lot moreso of course i beat her up more." he wouldn't be like "well, that sounds legitimate to me."continual exposure does not excuse these kinds of things. i work around diamonds, whoa, stealthose things…. so again we're going to break this down alittle bit by race. children living with both

parents from 1960 to the present, only inthe present. it's really astonishing to think that in white communities, 96.9% of childrenlive with both parent in 1960. what's even more astonishing in some ways given the currentdisintegration of black families is that almost 66% of black children live with both families.these numbers have been declining and one of the reasons we put this up here is thereis a general, again, knee-jerk explanation for problems in the back community -- racism,slavery; slavery, racism. however in 1960, blacks were much more subjected-- this was four years before the civil rights act. in 1960, blacks were more subject tosocial racism and lack of opportunity but family stability was much higher. so it cannotbe when blacks are further away from slavery

and further away from more institutionalizedracism that the black family has disintegrated more. therefore we can't say that the causeis slavery and racism which is not to say that they have no effect but they cannot havea weaker effect almost half a century further away from slavery and institutionalized racism.this can't have more of an effect now than back then so it has to be something else orsomething in conjunction with the lingering effects of slavery and racism but this isreally important. more blacks were getting out of poverty in the post-war period up untilyes, the welfare state. the welfare state which many people wrote at the time wouldcause a disintegration of the family and of course many people said, "oh, don't be ridiculous"and now the data is causing them to put pepper

mayonnaise on their words for a nice tastyregret sandwich. children living with father only -- bit ofa scatter graph i understand. bit of a random walk here. divorced, separated, widowed andnever married. i want to sort of point this out too. a single mom does not mean widowed,doesn't mean father died. that's called widowed. single mom is single, either never marriedor got divorced. single by choice, not by accident. so a bit of a random walk here and we're comparingthis with… so children living with mother only 1960, 8% all the way up to 2012, 24%.these numbers are a bit more coherent insofar if you look at never married went from downto 5% or 6% in 1968 to almost half now and

that's quite important. you see the widowedhas gone down considerably if you look at so 21%, 22% in 1968 down to 3% now. so thereason there are single moms is not because they're widowed, not because their husbanddied. they're much, much lower than that now. so what's causing it basically is either notgetting married, never married here going up, or divorced or separated. separated evenis going down. so it's a lot more to do with choice than it is to do with accidents orcircumstances. children living with mom only. let's lookat the black population. so almost half now but back in 1960 it was only 20% of blackkids live with their mother only. and you could see it creeping up from 5% or 6% in1960 for whites to 18.5% now. but again now

here we see that black families, we cannotlook at the disintegration of black families and say "slavery, racism." that is a non-answerand it defies the data. so the fact that children living with mother only, the black communityhas more than doubled since 1960. if you're going to say slavery and racism then we haveto say that the facts of slavery and racism are greater now than they were in 1960, morethan twice as high. that can't be remotely sustained rationally. births outside of marriage by race this isfrom 2012 in the us. white kids 29%, hispanic kids 54%, black kids 72%. again, this hascrept far higher than it was in the 1960s. children living absent their biological fathers.white kids 21%, hispanic kids 31%, black children

58%. this is one reason why blacks and hispanicstend to vote more on the democrat side because the democrat like you can look on paper whathappen when republicans get in power, social spending actually goes up. but on paper tothe voters the democrats are like "here, some free goodies" and basically it appeals tosingle moms which is why women, single moms in particular, and hispanic and black singlemoms even more in particular tend to vote democrat. interestingly enough, women who are marriedtend to vote republican because they tend to be reliant on their husband's income andrepublicans tend to promise lower taxes and so on. so if you like, at least on paper,a smaller government and more free market

then you need to promote marriage as a socialinstitution. now who are having these births outside ofmarriage? the murphy brown scenario where there's some woman in her late 30s who decidesto have a kid on her own, very unusual. 19 years and under 20%, 24 years almost 37%,25 to 29 years 23%, unchanged. so this is women who can afford for the most part, atleast able to afford the expenses associated with being a parent. how can they afford thesechildren? well, because of the welfare state to some degree, to a live degree. this is interesting. underage children ofsingle parents per 100,000. so underage, are you still a single mom if your kid is 30?well, not really. you were but government

welfare tends to cut off when the kids turn18. well then it shifts to student loans which we'll do another presentation on. but underagechildren of single parents per 100,000 us government welfare spending. i've made thecase before that the welfare state is the single mom state. it is the marriage disintegratedstate and this is not of course the only form of welfare out there. there's corporate welfare,the military industrial complex and so on which we'll do another presentation on butat this point, look at these numbers. as the unraised children go up, lockstep governmentwelfare spending goes up. if you look here, right through the chart, in the early '90s,clinton tried to reform welfare. all that happened was the rate of increase slowed ofwelfare didn't actually decline significantly

or at all. and a lot of these came out ofcharles murray's losing ground book which is well worth a read. but what's interesting is that when the government,if you look at welfare spending which slowed and declined slightly in the '90s, so didthe underage children of single parents. as the welfare goes down, there are fewer singlemoms and then naturally under bush started to go back up again, another slight dip andthen it just goes up. but it is interesting to see how when welfare spending declines,the number of kids of single moms declines. these are all in constant 2009 dollars. thisis very important. this is very important. again, the welfare state is the single momstate or the non-two parent family state.

so this graph from 2000 to 2014, a subsectionof welfare, temporary assistance for needy families and this has decreased from 2.2 millionto 1.5 million but what's really important here, look over on the right hand side. thetwo-parent family is a tiny, tiny proportion of this form of welfare spending. no parentfamily is raised by grandparents or cousins or aunts or something like that. one-parentfamily, but two-parent families it's almost unheard of them to need this kind of welfare.like if you could imagine two-parent families become the norm, welfare spending will godown enormously and that's just important. it would be taxes, debts, inflation, moneyprinting, all of the economic instability that comes out of that.

working moms and the age range of the youngestchild. under three years in 1975 only 34% of working moms had a kid that young. nowit's almost doubled to 60%. it is the youngest children in many ways the most vulnerablewho've seen the greatest increase in moms not being there. like kids put in day carefor 20 hours or more a week exhibit all the same symptoms of kids who've been literallyabandoned by their mothers. so symptoms of maternal abandonment, being in day care asa baby and onwards for 20 or more hours a week is maternal abandonment. if you're goingto work full time and your kid is six months old or a year old, they're likely to exhibitsimilar characteristics. so working moms by age range of the youngestchild and as you can see under three years

from 1975 has gone up enormously and undersix years has gone up as well. what happens if you don't have a father or a husband toprovide for you as a mom with kids? the bills don't stop coming. you just have to find otherways to get them. working mothers children under one year oldin 1940, this includes all working married moms with children under six years old, that'sjust the data that we could find. but it's only 6%. now in 2013, children under one yearold 57.3% of moms are working. this is tragic. it's not tragic because i'm against womenworking, i think it's great. it's tragic for a variety of reasons -- maternal bonding,maternal presence. i worked at a day care as a teenager for a number of years and wehad two adults. i was an assistant. but myself

and another adult, we were in a room withlike 25 kids aged five to ten, sometimes more, kids. and you can't give that kind of individualizedattention. also it's really tough to breastfeed if you're working full time. you can pumpand dump and all of that but it is really hard to breastfeed when you are working thatmuch. and children who are breastfed for at least 12 months have an iq of four-point tier.four-point tier! this is pretty significant. so if you only breastfeed for less than amonth you're going to get a four-point drop in iq versus breastfeeding for 12 months.and if you breastfeed for 18 months or so which is the recommended, the results areeven better. so this is costing children iq points.

so 2001 to 2011, children living with female-headedhouseholds with no spouse present have a poverty rate of 48% which is over four times the ratein married couple families. you could virtually eliminate poverty if people will just getmarried before having children. no matter what your views on marriage, the data doesn'tlie. but if you're going to have kids, it just makes more sense at every level to getmarried. and again, not necessarily talking about government-regulated or instituted marriageand so on but that kind of public commitment. so you can have a look at the data here, thisis the average poverty rate in yellow. married couple poverty rates and female-headed householdsas you can see it's catastrophic. and the kids still need dental care, they still needhealth care, they still need additional food,

you need larger living quarters, you probablyneed a car. all of these things used to be paid for by the husband and now they're paidfor in a weird way, by the kids through national debt. what are the negative outcomes in terms ofpoverty rate? so married white families have a 3.2% rate of poverty, non-married 22%, hispanicfamilies 13.2% versus 37.9%. black families who are married have only a 7% poverty rate,just a little over twice white families, but if they're not married 35.6% rate. tragic. so married women are less likely to experiencepoverty and marriage also reduces the rate of poverty for both employed and unemployedsingle moms. women who had their first birth

outside of marriage 3.6 times more likelybelow the poverty line, 4.5% more likely to be receiving food stamps than women who'vehad their first birth within marriage. the likelihood of unemployed single moms beingin poverty drops 65% if they married the father of their children. marriage more than doubledthe family income of these mothers and their if you want to get rid of poverty, get married.or keep sucking at the tit of the state and destroying the economy and the opportunitiesof your children. among single mothers who are employed part-time, marriage decreasedpoverty rate from 55% to 17%. marriage increased the household income by 75% and would raise83% of such households above the poverty level. and as usual, again, you find all of the sourcesbelow in the window below the video or attached

to the notes of the podcast. among moms who were employed full time, marriagewould boost the incomes of nearly 2/3 of such households to 150% of the poverty level. marriageincreases the medium family income of moms by between 10,200 and 11,400 per year, reducethe probability that mothers would live in poverty by at least 2/3. so fatherlessness. so fatherless homes againdoesn't mean you never see your dad, doesn't mean your dad was abducted by space aliens.it just means he does not live with you, does not live with the mom. so in 2009 a study showed 1.5 million childrenexperienced homelessness in a year. and only

10% of those came from homes with a father,90% of them came from homes with no father. and that is again pretty important. almost78% of those in homeless families are women and these are some pretty tragic statistics. fatherless children have more trouble academically,scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics and thinking skills. in children grade 7 to12 who've lived with at least one biological parent, youth that experience divorce, separationor non-union birth reported lower grade point averages than those who have always livedwith both biological parents. now again, correlation causation is a challengewhich is that maybe smarter people tend to stay married longer and there is strong correlationbetween marital success and education level.

like the more educated you are, which is anindication of intelligence, then the more likely you are to stay married. now married people who are intelligent aremore likely to give birth to more intelligent children. the correlation between the geneticas far as i understand, the genetic correlation between an offspring's intelligence and theparent's intelligence is 0.5. so it's not 0 which is no correlation, it's not 1 whichis a perfect correlation. kind of half between, there's a regression to the mean around iqor intelligence. and so it could be that less intelligent people tend to get divorced moreand less intelligent people would tend to have less intelligent children.

so i understand all of that. however, however,the flynn effect says people are getting more intelligent therefore stable marriages shouldbe increasing. however non-marital situations are increasing instead. so there's no waythat all of those people can be less intelligent. father involvement in schools is associatedwith a high likelihood of student getting mostly as. true for fathers and biologicalparent families, for stepdads and for fathers heading single-parent families. so if you'rea dad, even if you're just a dad with no mom around, your kids are more likely to get mostlyas. children living with their married biologicalfather tested a significantly higher level than those living with their non-biologicalfathers. so stepdads, "you ain't the boss

of me, you're not my dad", those things don'tjust work as well. not that they don't work at all but they don't work as well. kids from father-absent homes are more likelyto be truant from school, be excluded from school and leave school at age 16. they'reless likely to retain academic and professional qualifications as adults. researchers foundthat father showed sensitivity to their child in the transition to school and encouragetheir child's autonomy. it predicted a much better relationship between the child andtheir teachers. we'll talk another time about the really fascinatinggeneral differences between male and female parenting. but in general women are more cautiousand more protective and men are more rough

and tumble and encouraging and both are necessaryand important for children to flourish. high school dropouts. only 29% of high schooldropouts come from a fathered home; fatherless homes account for 71%. in 2012, more than 305,000 teenage girls gavebirth across the country in us, 30% of teen girls who leaves school says it's due to parenthood.only 38% of mothers who have a child before the age of 18 earn their high school diplomaby age 22. less than 2% earn a college degree by age 30. children who exhibit behavioral disorders,15% of them come from fathered home, 85% come from fatherless homes. and remember becauseof the way the educational system works in

the west and in most countries, these kidsare all jammed together. so your decision to have a child outside of wedlock and potentiallyrisk higher rates of dysfunction, well my kids are going to be exposed to that in theneighborhood, in the school, in the mall. there could be bullying, there could be adrug culture, there could be drinking -- all of these things flow out from children sothey're not contained within the household. they flow out into society. the study examined the prevalence and effectsof the mother's relationship changes between birth and age three on their children's well-being.children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than childrenborn to married mothers. living in a single

mother household is equivalent to experiencing5.25 partnership transitions, breakups and makeups. disengaged father-infant interaction as earlyin the third month of life predicts early behavioral problems in children includinga higher rate of aggressiveness. the effects which are greatest for male infants remainedregardless of the mother's behavior and were observable at one year old. i did have because i do these shows, takethese exciting bullets for the course and accept donations which if you enjoy thesepresentations, there's no commercials, it is at freedomainradio.com/donate to help usout. i was able to stay at home with my daughter

and spend a huge amount of time with her whichwas a real blessing and a wonderful thing. i was able to sing to her before she was bornand play with her from birth onwards and so on. she is very assertive but not aggressive.affectionate and playful and engaging interactions between fathers and their children are predictiveof later popularity among peers and within the school environment. it is estimated that among children underthe age of 13, those living with single mothers spend 12 to 14 fewer hours with their parentsper week compared to children living with married parents. the challenge of jugglingmultiple responsibilities can result in heightened stress levels and insufficient child-rearingpractices among single parents.

so let me sort of give you an analogy here.in terms of like intelligence and causality, we've got a video called the truth about spankingwhere we make the argument with data that spanking results in a sort of 4 to 5-pointdrop in iq. don't spank your children and breastfeed them, that goes from the differencefrom 100 to 110 in iq almost and that's pretty significant. and people say "ah, yes but yousee children who are less intelligent are more likely to be spanked." it's not thatspanking produces lower intelligence, that's just proven by the data but it's an understandablething. but let me sort of give you an analogy here.so it's true data-wise that kids without fathers are more aggressive and more dysfunctional-- on average, not all of them. and people

say maybe they come from dysfunctional chaoticpeople, it's genetic and so on. here's a problem though. let me sort of give you an analogy. let's say a smarter kid who grows up in japanwill learn his native tongue faster. he will. but all kids pretty much will learn theirnative tongue to some degree. however if you're really not exposed to japanese, it doesn'tmatter how intelligent you are, you're not going to speak it. so intelligence doesn'treplace a lack of exposure to something. and so if you grew up without a dad, you're simplynot going to have those interactions. therefore it's not a matter of intelligence, it's amatter of exposure. juveniles in state-operated correctional institutions,this is controlled for income and all other

factors that can be imagined. youths in father-absentfamilies, so mother-only or mother-stepfather and relatives or other, had significantlyhigher odds of incarceration than those from mother-father families. 30% of them come fromfathered homes, 70% from fatherless homes and again, your taxes and your negative lifeexperiences by being exposed to these sorts of potential criminals is significant. adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers,29% come from fathered homes, 71% from fatherless homes. the us department of health and humanservices reports that "fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drugand alcohol abuse." among rapists who are motivated with displaced anger, 20% of themcome from fathered homes, 80% come from fatherless

homes. now we've got a video which you should reallywatch or a podcast and you could go to fdrpodcast.com if you'd rather get the podcast through afeed, called the truth about rape culture which is really, really important to understand.the best way particularly for these kinds of rapists, the best way to reduce prevalenceof rape in society is to have women marry husbands, have boys raised by fathers. women are part of the cycle of violence asi continually point out and we've got the truth about violence again. i don't mean topimp all these presentations but i'm just touching on a lot of information that we'vegot now over the years. but women are part

of the cycle of violence through hitting theirchildren, spanking, abuse through choosing bad men or men who disappear and so on. theyare part of the cycle of violence and men have been hammered a lot and rightly so aboutmen's role in the cycle of violence. i'm trying to actually work on the root cause of at leasthalf the problem by reminding women that their choices have a lot to do with the kind ofsociety they're going to grow old in. researchers have estimated between 60% and80% of rapists, sex offenders and sexually-aggressive men were sexually abused by a woman in theirchildhood. this is part of the cycle of violence and rape. a study from 1989 found that maleadolescent incest offenders abused by females only targeted female siblings 93.3% of thetime compared to 32.5% for offenders abused

only by males. a metaanalysis, analysis of studies have foundthat 17 studies, sex offenders were 3.4 times were more likely to have experienced sexualabuse in their childhood compared to non-sex offenders. in other words, child with sexualabuse were significantly correlated with becoming a sexual offender later in life. as we sawearlier, rates of abuse can be up to ten times higher in non-marital families, non-marriedfamilies. so if we want to have fewer sex offenders, more people need to get and staymarried. that's what the data says. don't shoot the messenger. youth suicides, children with single parentsshowed increased risk of suicide, fathered

homes 37% of suicides, fatherless homes 63%.after adjustment for factors such as socioeconomic status or ses, parents addiction or mentaldisease, children in single parent households were twice as likely to attempt suicide andrisks with alcohol-related disease were also doubled. the risk of childhood narcotic abusewas increased three times among girls and four times among boys living in single-parenthouseholds. single mothers and crime. so violent crimerates per 100,000 you can see were still significantly higher than we were more, more than twiceas high probably as we were in 1960 but the peak which was the late '80s and early '90swere declining from there. a couple of reasons for that that have beenargued. i can't speak to the validity of all

of them but some of the arguments put forwardare the banning of lead in paint and lead in toys. various states within the us havebanned these at various times and you could see a fixed amount of time period later thatcrime rates go down relative to when it was banned so there's some effect. lead exposurehas been shown to increase aggression in children. abortion of course is an argument that's beenmade a number of times. as you saw abortion became legal in the united states in 1973and now huge amounts of babies are being aborted. so fewer unwanted children we assume to mostlysingle parents results in you can see sort of a decade-and-a-half later less violentcrime. also of course the media revolution that occurred in the 2000s would i think furtherdecline crime. kids get out their aggressions

and violent video games, they want to stayhome more, they're less bored and so there's less crime but there's some interesting correlationsabout all of these. compared to peers and intact families, adolescentsand single parent families and step families are more likely to engage in delinquency.this relationship appeared to be driven by differences in parental involvement, supervisionmonitoring and parent-child closeness between intact and non-intact families. the study using data from the national longitudinalstudy of adolescent health explored the relationship between family structure and risk of violentact in neighborhoods. the results revealed that if the number of fathers is low in aneighborhood, then there is an increase in

acts of teen violence. the statistical datashowed that a 1% increase in the proportion of single parent families in the neighborhoodis associated with a 3% increase in adolescents' level of violence. in other words, adolescentswho live in neighborhoods with lower proportions of single parent families and who report higherlevels of family integration commit less crime. this is true. when i was growing up and igrew up dirt, dirt. dirt poor like eviction notices, not enough to eat kind of poverty.and mostly married families, partly it's due to income, but mostly married families don'twant to live around single parent households and partly it's due to the aggression of thekids and what kind of kids you want in your kids' circle of friends and in your kids'school and all that kind of stuff. so 1% increase

in single parent households, 3% increase inadolescents level of violence. so anyway we talked about teen bullying andteen aggression and teen violence, we're talking again the shadow behind the statue which we'dreally need to look at is single parenthood and really fundamentally single motherhoodis behind a lot of these dysfunctions and it's hard for us again. there's this weirdthing where we want to be equal and responsible but it's like pushing two opposing magnetstogether sometimes to get people to connect to female responsibility in terms of shapingand framing society because there's this women as victims narrative and so on. and the ideathat women's bad choices or bad reproductive choices could be driving a lot of social dysfunctionsis kind of alien to a lot of the propaganda

that we get particularly in television wherewomen are usually victims. there's a reason why they call it television programming. children age 10 to 17 living with 2 biologicalor adoptive parents were significantly less likely to experience sexual assault, childmaltreatment, other types of major violence and non-victimization type of adversity. theywere also less likely to witness violence in their families compared to peers livingin single parent families and step families. so this is important as well. people preyon children who have non-attachment or less attachment to their parents. you prey on somekid who's got a great relationship with his mom and dad, he runs to his mom and dad andsays "this guy preyed on me", bingo bango

bongo, your life becomes horrible and rightlyso very quickly. but if the kid is alienated and has no connections, they're going to behungry for adult attention and they're not going to have the kind of connection thatallows them to discuss difficult things like being victimized and so on. so that's important. what about negative outcome by something asinteresting and simple as family dinners per week? so if you have 5 to 7 family dinnersper week as opposed to 0 to 2, you're significantly less likely to use tobacco, to use alcohol,to use marijuana as kids, have friends who drink regularly for instance who use marijuanaregularly and likely to use drugs in the future. and so these are really important things tounderstand. it's not like oh, we just force

everyone to have family dinners but familydinners are where you have conversations, you ask about the day, you keep up with whatyour kids are doing and having these family dinners per week is indicative of a familybond which is a shield against a wide variety of dysfunctions. now this will blow your mind. it blew my mind.girls are increasingly reaching puberty earlier. between 2004 and 2006, twice as many caucasiangirls showed breast maturity at age 7 as compared to 1997. it's a very, very big change. earlypuberty has been associated with a higher probability of developing breast cancer andreproductive cancers later in life. it sort of burns out the engine.

so this is from dr. jay belsky from birkbeckuniversity. an evolutionary biology perspective says look, the thing that nature most caresabout with respect to living things, humans included, is disposing genes in future generations.that's under those conditions in which the future appears precarious where i might noteven survive long enough to breathe tomorrow, then i should mature earlier so i can mateearlier before that precarious future might get me. the body, from the moment of conception onwardsand even genetically before that, the human body is scanning the environment even withinthe womb to figure out "am i living in a peaceful world or an aggressive world?" now if yougrow up in a father-absent environment, it

seems that you're going to produce what'scalled an r reproductive strategy which is have lots of sex and just not really carethat much for your kids and just hope that they make it to adulthood. also known as thefrog approach, the spray and pray approach. if your father is around, it means you'reless likely to be in a war-based or violence-based society. it's going to be more trade, it'sgoing to be more negotiation so you can look for win-win negotiations and you sexuallymature later. more time living without the biological fatherin the household is associated with earlier puberty in girls. it programs the very bodyitself thus raising future cancer risks. studies have even shown that younger sisters in biologically-disruptedfamilies reach puberty earlier than their

older sisters did. no such trend emerged inbiologically-intact families. so if you're four when your father leaves and you haveolder sisters, the older sisters will reach puberty later than you did. the quality of the father's involvement withdaughters was the most important feature of the early family environment in relation tothe timing of the daughter's puberty. so a lot of researchers believe that this influencemay be chemical in nature. so fathers emit pheromones -- and farts -- but let's justtalk about pheromones for the moment. these are air-born chemical signals that triggerbehavioral and physiological effects. animal research has shown that male pheromoneshave different effects on young females. exposure

to the pheromones of biological fathers appearsto slow down puberty in girls while exposure to the pheromones of unrelated adult malesspeeds it up. and again, if there's not a father around who's going to sort or takecare of you, you need to find another man quickly and so you're going to have earlierpuberty and so on. a recent australian study found that havingolder brothers can also delay the onset of puberty in girls. the more older brothersa woman has, the older she is when she gets her first period. the protectors you couldsay. again, biologically speaking. interestingly enough, boys whose fathers areabsent are more likely to reach puberty at a later age -- the opposite of girls. despitereaching puberty later, they are more likely

to become fathers at an earlier age. and we're talking about the hyper sexualityof youth particularly amongst girls. well, moms who choose dads for their children whoaren't going to stick around are programming their daughters to have earlier puberty andbe more sexualized. so this is tens of thousands of kids who areat grade 8 to 12. after accounting for a set of parental involvement variables, adolescentsliving with two biological parents were significantly less likely to transition into sexual activitywhen compared to adolescents from all other family structures. adolescents from otherfamily structures were between 40% and 198% more likely to enter into sexual activitythan adolescents living with two biological

parents. and so the yellow here is a virgin and non-virginand as you can see, if you don't feel at all close to your dad, you're much more likelyto be a non-virgin. if you feel very close to your dad, you're much more likely to bea virgin at these times. adolescents from intact families are lesslikely to have ever had sexual intercourse, have on average fewer sexual partners, areless likely to report sexually transmitted diseases and are less likely to have everexperienced a pregnancy or birth compared to peers from non-intact families. now this is nothing negative to say aboutsexuality, enjoyment of sexuality and so on

but it's the best environment for childrento be in an intact married family and it's certainly the best environment for regularhappy sex as well. so it's actually sex-positive to talk about this stuff. it's not anythingnegative or hostile toward sexuality. for adolescent females, each year spent ina single parent household from birth to 11 years old increased the likelihood that theywould engage in sexual intercourse during adolescence by approximately 8%. teenage girlsliving with two married biological parents during their 8th grade, roughly 50% less likelyto give birth before the end of 12th grade even including high school dropouts. females between the ages of 15 to 19 whoseparents were married at the time of their

birth were 42% less likely to report sexualactivity when compared to those whose parents cohabited at birth. for adolescent males, each change in parentalmarital status between the ages of 6 to 11 increased the males odds of engaging in sexualintercourse by 37%. when comparing 14 year old boys, those living with a single motherhad almost doubled the odds of having impregnated a girl compared to those who live with bothbiological parents. what about infant health and infant death?studies have also found that a father's involvement with the pregnant mother pre-birth loweredthe risk that that infant would die before its first birthday. the father being absentraised the odds of infant death in the first

year by nearly 4 times, so 400% compared towhen the father was involved. if fathers were not involved during pregnancy, babies sufferincreased odds of being born prematurely or at a lower weight. the risk of poor birthoutcomes was highest for infants born to black women as even after adjusting for socioeconomicfactors, black infants were seven times more likely to die in infancy than babies bornto either hispanic or white women in the same situations. there's also an increased likelihood of maternalcomplications that could impact the infant's health including high blood pressure, anemia,eclampsia, placental abruption and more if the father is not around during the pregnancy.expectant mothers in the father-absent category

tended to be younger, more educated, morelikely to be black and had a higher percentage of risk factors like smoking and inadequateprenatal care. the fragile families and child wellbeing studyfound that fathers who were engaged with their partners before childbirth were more likelyto be involved with the children both a year later and three years later. fathers are proven to engage children in whatis called rough and tumble play more often than mothers. mothers are more inclined touse toys to play with their young children while fathers often challenge their children'sphysical limitations. a study found that infants prefer to be held by their fathers becausefathers were more likely to play with them

while mothers were likely to change theirdiapers and feed them, et cetera. according to another study, two year old childrenapproach their fathers more often than their mothers when wanting to play. when parentsplayed with infants about the same amount of time, it's found that the infants respondedmore positively to the fathers. higher father involvement in overall care is also associatedwith fewer night time awakenings by babies which means that there is a significant relationto fathers and infant sleep. given the importance of infant sleep on overall development, theimportance to this finding cannot be overstated. studies have also found that children playan incredibly crucial role even larger than the mother in the language development oftheir children. it is suggested that fathers

using more diverse vocabulary in their interactionswith their infants compared to mothers. a lot of cooing and baby talk for moms. childrenwere found to have more advanced communication skills at 15 months and more advanced expressivelanguage development at 36 months even when controlling for mother language input andeducation. these findings suggest that father languageinput when children are as young as six months may be important in understanding children'slanguage development even two-and-a-half years later. and language development of courseare very important in negotiation, very important in the development and exercise of empathy,very important in finding win-win situations. surprisingly there were no significant effectsof maternal vocabulary on child communicative

skills or language development. whose advice do mothers value? only 11% ofmothers value their husbands inputs when it comes to handling problems with their kids.teachers and doctors rated 45% and close friends and relatives rated 16%. i don't even knowwhat to say about that. imagine if this was fathers with wives, with moms. what's being studied according to a searchof pubmed? researchers studies reference mothers over six times more than fathers and maternalover 15 times more than paternal. in a review of 500 plus studies of child and adolescentpsychology for the major journals, almost half of them completely excluded fathers.some studies involve both parents while only

11% focused on fathers exclusively. the central role of fathers in healthy childdevelopment has been overlooked for decades to the detriment of children around the world.you get enough single moms and they don't want to hear it and the kids don't want tohear it. it's painful, it's painful to see what's been robbed, what's been missing, what'slost. so why am i talking about female responsibilityin this? surveys indicate men are the ones to ask women on dates between 90% to 95% ofthe time. only 5% of married hetero couples say that the woman proposed. in a study ofmore than 17,000 unmarried heterosexual men and women, 84% of men and 58% of women saidmen pay for most dating expenses even after

dating for extended period of time. so 84%of men and 58% of women, well, one set of them is lying. i would assume it's the oneopening the wallet. 44% of women said they were bothered when men expected them to helppay; 57% of women offer to help pay but 39% confessed to hoping that men would rejecttheir offer; 76% of men report that they feel guilty accepting the woman's money to payfor dating-related expenses. why is this important? it seems weird to evenhave to say this but men propose and women dispose. men ask if they can date, if theycan get married and women say yes or no. women are in the position of saying yes and no.women are the ones choosing the men. of course men are responsible for fathering childrenoutside of marriage but women are the gatekeepers.

women say yes or no. and women are responsible for the choicesof who they choose to have children with. they're responsible. and if we say "ah yes,but he turned out to be a bad and unreliable and unstable guy. who could have known thisahead of time?" oh, come on. the markers are everywhere if you want to see them. how isit that women in the past were able to choose better men and women now can't? well, to somedegree it's because they grew up without dads but that's the fault of their parents, theirmoms in particular, choosing the wrong guys to have children with. there are very few social dysfunctions thatyou can trace back to early family situations,

early family choices. a lot of those dysfunctionsinvolve bad male choices and we kind of have been combing over that for half a centuryor so. what is often missed, almost invariably missed, is the degree to which women are responsiblefor creating the conditions that are difficult and harmful for children as a whole and thesociety as a whole. if women complain that society is violent, if women complain thatsociety's dysfunctional, if women complain that there are not reliable men around, thenwomen need to look at their sisters and say well, what kind of choices are we making?what kind of choices are we making? because what's happened is we've subsidizedbad decisions. whatever you tax, you get less of; whatever you subsidize you get more of.we have tax good decisions and that we raise

taxes on married families with children, thosepeople are more wealthy and more responsible and are taxed at a much higher rate. in fact,really taxed at all because a lot of single moms don't pay taxes in any way, shape ofform. so we have taxed responsible families and we have subsidized irresponsible halffamilies. and so we have fewer stable families and we have more unstable families. now it's one thing for a woman to date a guywho turns out to be unreliable and maybe stick through with some bills or whatever. that'sbad, that's terrible but at least the choice only accrues to her own responsibilities andher own effects. what we've basically done is we have taken a sledgehammer to the baseof the stable, most stable, most child-beneficial,

most human-beneficial institution the worldhas ever seen which is the traditional marriage. we've taken a sledgehammer to the base ofthat and we have subsidized bad decisions on the part of women in general. go find yourselfa good, decent, reliable man. don't go for the alpha player, don't go for the high statusguy, don't go for the guy's abs or his lamborghini. go for a stable, reliable, decent provider.that's what is best for your children. but in the massive disruption of family lifelargely led by the left that has occurred over the last 50 years, we have subsidizedbad decisions largely on the part of women, we have indebted future generations at trulystaggering levels. we have undermined the intelligence of children by creating situationswhere high taxes lead and subsidies lead to

more women working which is less chance forchildren to develop their intelligence. we have hampered the children's development ofappropriate social skills, academic excellence, language skills, all of the things that arereally foundational to a civilized society where people use their words, not their fists.language development is essential to the development and maintenance of social peace and negotiationinstead of aggression and violence. so we have subsidized bad decisions largelyon the part of women. we have taxed and harmed the interests of women who have made gooddecisions in their partners. and all of these in general accrues to significant and escalatingharm against children. we, as a society, oh we'd do anything for our kids, we care aboutkids, kids are everything, family is everything.

okay, let's accept that. let's accept allthese hallmark sentimental statements about how we'd do anything for our kids. okay, let's do that. let's follow the data,start making better decisions about who we're having children with. men, choose the goodwomen. women, choose the good men. because in so doing, you are choosing what is bestfor your children and you're choosing the kind of peaceful virtuous undebted societythat you can grow old in with confidence and calm and serenity. if you're doing a long sea voyage and youget a few degrees wrong at the beginning, you can end up at a whole different continent.we really need to review what we have done

to the family, what we have done to the children,what kind of seeds are we sowing here and is it too late to change? i don't think so.but we have to accept the data and commit to a better path now. thank you so much for watching.