“The instant that a woman is abandoned or widowed — she is the ‘single mother’ who we hate and blame for everything.”
-The favorite strawman of many among those who are briefly benefitting from the doomed social-experiment of single-mother enabling.
Meanwhile, the obvious targets of those rejecting the degenerate “single mother” cult—are the proud, vain, penis-envying hypocrites whose mantra of, “I don’t need a man,” is more accurately stated: “I don’t need any individual man, because men collectively (i.e. the government) will protect and provide for me, no matter how unlikeable—even insane—I become.”
Hence, more than “self-respect” now routinely compels sane men to reject pawns of the single-mom cult: it is, more and more obviously, a matter of self-preservation.
After all, if a woman is allowed to murder children for convenience; to concoct her own alibi to shield herself from conspiracy to commit murder; to leverage, on a whim, “guilty until proven innocent” against any man and be taken seriously—then obviously it is a bad idea to place any faith whatsoever in the single-mother cult.
Men generally understand at least some part of this, regardless that book-smart, brain-dead, feminist (id est stupid) researchers infest the academic harems of universities in the West (at the behest of weak, dying squatters who pretend to lead such institutions), selectively ignoring research into politically inconvenient aspects of reality—so that “no studies conclude that [patriarchy permits feminists to be patently insane].”
For now, despite trite strawmen, a fair approximation of single-mothers’ mindset is: “I will have my way—and government’s eunuchs will kill or cage anyone who gets in my way.”
And the simple response from all but the weakest, foolishest men: “No thanks.”
 In the 1970’s, seven old white men in black robes, posing as Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, decreed their groundless political invention: that women have a human-right to murder children. See Roe v. Wade (1973).
 See Jessica Prince, R. v. Ryan: The Supreme Court fails to protect abused women and their children (Ontario Bar Association Women Lawyers forum, 2013); see also Maclean et al., Battered women under duress: The Supreme Court of Canada’s abandonment of context and purpose in R. v. Ryan (Social Science Research Network)(citing Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 2017).
 See Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos, Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford duel with tears and fury (New York Times, 2018); See also Jennifer Weiner, How do I explain Justice Kavanaugh to my daughters? (New York Times, 2018); and see also Anya Kamenetz, How to talk to young people about the Kavanaugh story (NPR, 2018).(explaining the importance of sublimating due process for the sake of “beliving women,” i.e. their accusations).