People like to help little girls.

When people see that a little girl has a problem, they like to step in and fix the problem for her. Without any explanation on what they did to fix the problem, and no advice beyond the most vague of generalizations, they fix the issue and leave the little girl to her own devices.

Men like to say this is a privilege.

It's not.

The thing is: These girls are going to have to solve their own problems eventually. Adult women don't get anywhere near the amount of help and support that men think they do. If girls receive nothing in the way of guidance in regards to resolving their issues, they're going to hit a brick wall when they grow up and are expected to solve their own problems with zero foundation.

The result of how society treats little girls is insane amounts of learned helplessness and flailing about to fix things that otherwise should be easy to solve. Do most of them eventually figure things out? Sure, but usually after going through tons of pain, rejection, and being treated like a moron for not manifesting their developmental milestones out of the ether.

Meeting your partner at places where you don't intend to find a partner is not unreasonable and not unheard of. People meet each other by existing in a shared space, and it's not unreasonable to get to know one another over time and develop interest.

Example of what could happen in an ideal world:

>Man goes to gym

>Man lifts and exercises regularly over the course of months

>Over time, he recognizes the regulars that show up when he does.

>He makes light conversation, and builds a rapport with the people

>One of them is a woman he particularly enjoys talking to

>She seems to enjoy talking to him too.

>They both start up conversations with one another, when they're near one another and not in the middle of exerting sets

>He's single. It turns out she's single.

>He asks her out.

>Whether or not she accepts, it was an understandable sequence of events, and neither party holds any ill will from it even if it's a rejection.

What instead happens:

>Man goes to gym

>Scans the floor for babes.

>Sees a woman he'd fuck.

>He immediately starts hitting on her

>She shuts that down, pissed that some rando is hitting on her while she's trying to work out.

>He gets huffy about it.

>He thinks women are such snooty bitches, and doesn't have the self-awareness to know why what he did was stupid.

Unfortunately, the latter situation happens often enough that women have to be on guard when a guy starts talking to them. Which is a shame, because small talk with new people is great. But men trying to speedrun getting dates out of non-dating spaces ruined it for everyone.

If a man wants is going to want a paternity test to verify that he's the father of his child, then it is his responsibility to inform his wife (or babymama) that he is going to want a paternity test before he knocks her up.

If he conveniently waits only until after she's pregnant to tell her that he want a paternity test, he's a bad, dishonest person.

It's reasonable to presume that, if a man and his partner are choosing to intentionally bring new life into this world, that they trust one another and that the child is his. If you tell your partner you want a paternity test, it implies that you think your partner is the type of person to cheat on you, lie about it, and lie that the resulting child is yours. It is very reasonable for her to be furious about that.

To hide that he wants this until until after his partner is knocked betrays that this men is willing to be dishonest in order to get a child. Most women will be insulted and angry if you demand a paternity test (and for good reason). If you tell a woman you want a paternity test before she gets pregnant, it's very likely she'll reconsider actually having that kid.

And it also shows that he doesn't care about having an intact family. If you are upfront with your desire to get a paternity test, you'll only have kids with a woman who gave it the okay. If you wait, your child will likely grow up in a broken home. The men who demand a test only after a baby is on the way, therefore, clearly don't have any intention to be a proper father (and instead would rather sit smug in the knowledge that they "won" - that they tricked a woman into being the primary caregiver for their child through their dishonesty).

"B-but what if I only started suspecting her after she got pregnant???"

Then you better have proof. Because otherwise, you're obviously just looking for the right set of words that'll let you get away with calling your wife a cheating whore in the eyes of those around you.

"B-but what if I do it in secret behind her back???"

Then you better hope she doesn't find out. And you're still a bad, dishonest person.

"B-but what about [insert xyz edge case here]"

You don't actually care about these edge cases. You just want an excuse to derail the debate.

The work that stay-at-home mothers perform is labor.

Unfortunately, it unpaid labor. There are no benefits. There is no pay. There is no time off. Not only is it a few steps away from indentured servitude, you don't even gain any marketable skills from it.

Therefore, SAHMs should unionize.

Striking would be as simple as leaving their house to stay somewhere else until they receive some form of compensation. Either their partners can fork over money, their partners can figure out being a single working dad, or the government can start providing benefits to these women for the work they do in raising the next generation (which, you know, is actually necessary for society to continue functioning on a long-term scale).

This should be obvious, but men aren't the decisionmakers on what is considered reasonable standards for a woman to have in a partner.

(Straight) men aren't the ones choosing a man to be their partner, and don't have to deal with the realities of living with a man as a romantic partner. If living with a man, by default, is an incredibly bad deal and likely to get you screwed over, it's only logical to look for traits that indicate that you'll be less likely to be screwed over.

Men, unfortunately, don't put thought into vetting even their own female partners. It is therefore laughable that they would think they know what reasonable standards are for a woman to have for men. Having no standards at all is a bad idea, for starters.

Since men have few, if any, actual expectations of them in regards to being parents, their ability to parent is often underestimated.

Whether or not this underestimation is actually warranted, the result of this is that a man with primary custody of his kids is pretty likely to have other women (such as his mother or sister(s)) step up to do the bulk of the childcare. This is in contrast to single moms, who get no such benefits and who are expected to do literally everything themselves (probably because giving women support isn't considered a matter of life and death).

Therefore, men should have primary custody by default.

It's unfortunate that the labor childrearing will be done almost entirely by women either way; but with men having primary custody by default, the kids are more likely to grow up with something resembling a village. And having a village is good for kids.

One common refrain in arguments involving gender relations is the idea that "men act, women are" - that men have to prove themselves to be recognized by the world as valuable while women's value in inherent.

But is this true?

No.

The reality is that the skills men develop and are valued for are recognized by society, while the skills women develop and are valued for aren't recognized as skills at all.

Beauty is a skill. It takes work to stay fit. It takes effort to develop your style. Applying makeup in a way that compliments your face (and especially in ways that look natural) is a skill. If women don't develop these skills, they won't get the benefits of being beautiful, and they won't be valued for it.

The ability to use emotional intelligence is a skill. No one comes out of the womb knowing what to say in different situations. Being able to tune into another's emotions and needs, and to help them in kind, takes practice and iteration. Same with all manner of care and conflict resolution. If women don't work to develop these aspects, they won't get the benefits of being emotionally intelligent, and they won't be valued for it.

Childrearing is a skill. Different modalities of raising a child will yield different results, and adjusting ones choice to their own child's temperament is a skill. To be a good mother, one has to know and apply loads of knowledge to mold their children into happy healthy thriving adults. (which isn't something programmed into the female brain). But if women don't work to develop the skills needed to be a good mother they won't get the benefits of being a good mother, and they won't be valued for it.

The fact that society takes women developing skills for granted does not mean that women are loved for who they are. It means that society thinks that the skills women develop are intrinsic to who they are as people, and are therefore in-built, and therefore not worthy of gratitude, praise, or reward. This is in contrast to men, who apparently deserve credit and recognition for any skill they choose to develop.

One common idea floating around the manosphere is that modern boys are being treated like defective girls.

Presumably this is because the way that boys and girls are raised as they grow up is getting more and more similar as the generations go on. And correlated with this passing of time, boys are doing worse in school compared to their female counterparts. And the manosphere likes to crow that boys are being treated like defective girls and that therefore boys specifically should be treated in a different way.

However, this increased floundering among boys is not because they are being treated like defective girls. It's because no one should be treated like girls are (and no one cared until boys started being treated that way too).

Maturity

Little girls are widely considered more mature than little boys.

A reasonable explanation for this is that, in aggregate, girls take fewer teachable moments and reinforcements to internalize the various life less. What takes a boy 20 instances of reinforcement to understand might take a girl 17. What takes a boy 10 might take a girl 6. And so on.

However, little girls are expected to internalize life lessons after the first time they're told - if they're told at all. They are not given any lenience, guidance, or understanding when they make mistakes and faux pas. Instead, they're treated like they're malicious entities since they're "more mature" (and should therefore already know that what they're doing is bad), and therefore know exactly what they're doing.

This is a terrible way to treat people, regardless of gender. And while it sucks that boys are being treated this way too now, girls shouldn't be treated this way either.

Expectations

Because little girls are supposedly so mature, they are expected to exhibit the social cognizance of fully grown adults before they hit middle school.

If a girl forgets an important date, or her homework, or that certain topics are off-limits to certain people, she's punished accordingly and given no consideration or guidance on how she can do better in the future. She has to figure it out entirely on her own, or she will keep getting punished until she does. Because she's a girl and therefore should know better.

And all kids (in the US, at least) are expected to sit down, shut up, and stare at a whiteboard for 8 hours a day. Recess is almost nonexistent, and these young animals (since humans are animals) get very little opportunity to release the pent up energy they have. This is beneficial to no one, but kids have little choice but to shut up and do what they're told.

But since little girls are less disruptive in class than little boys, and are less likely to make their issues everyone else's problem, society has declared that these little girls are not only not floundering, but are instead thriving! Which is an insane conclusion to draw, but not surprising since it's only male-leaning metrics that are considered when determining how well a kid is doing.

But of course, these expectations are completely unreasonable to put on kids, regardless of sex.

Dysfunction

As should be surprising to no one, holding little girls to unreasonable expectations, treating them like they're horrible people for making honest mistake, and expecting them to act like adults with no actual training on how to do so leads to a lot of emotionally dysfuctional women.

However, rather than recognizing that this emotional dysfunction is a result of treating them terribly, this dysfunction is considered a feature of being a woman. And since this dysfunction is considered inherent to being a women, it's not considered something that can be changed.

But when little boys develop the same emotional dysfunction, it's suddenly a problem that needs boy-specific solutions. Which is unfortunate since many of the proposed solutions aimed at helping boys now that they're struggling (like extra recess or starting school a year later) are things that could help girls too.

Treating kids the way we treat little girls will often result in dysfunctional adults, regardless of what gender that adult is. Little boys being treated the way that little girls are treated doesn't mean that boys are being treated like defective girls - it means that they're being treated poorly. And all kids need to be treated better - not just boys.