The Manhood Trap

[Toni]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

The victims do present their side to the school. They are not required to go public.

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Lawyers in these cases tend to get paid by the billable hour, so I think you are naive.

No, we are talking about suing the school. That's normally contingency.

So the expulsion is not ruining anyone’s life.

Once again, you throw out derails when faced with something you can't answer.

Getting thrown out of school like that is going to be a serious setback in life. You have the student loans but no degree.

There was no derail.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

Yeah, so what? Every job comes with a set of expectations and obligations. A school Admin is expected and obligated to keep the campus safe and ensure the financial survival of the school.

And herein lies the heart of the problem.

The interests of the school in keeping the people safe are not the same as the interests of being fair to the people.

Most people who are accused of a crime are guilty. Should we dispense with trials as simply throwing them in jail would make the population safer?

A few years back, Hoverboards were the must have Christmas present. There was no ruled concerning Hoverboards or any other similar devices. When LSU started the spring semester there were two dorm fires caused by Hoverboards being charged. The immediate reaction was to ban Hoverboards on campus. That's an easy call, without regard to anyone's personal right to legally possess a Hoverboard, or the protest, "I don't leave my Hoverboard unattended on a charger." The Amin can't leave a known hazard in place, no matter how unlikely it is to reoccur.

Such actions are about liability, not safety. The same issue with charging applies to all secondary lithium batteries. Ban on size/ban on brand (but how do you identify the chinesium stuff??), don't ban on what it's in.

Life is full of judgment calls and you can't please everybody. If nothing else, expelling one student because of a plausible accusation of sexual assault will likely reduce the incidence of such things.

So trials are superfluous.

It's been a long time since I've spent a lot of time on a college campus, but I know one thing for certain. In those days, sexual assault, date rape, PYL, etc, was very common. Any time I heard about it, I never doubted the accusation. The standard response to the woman, if she bothered to report it was, "You'll know better next time." Expelling the man involved is basically applying the same remedy to him.

So trials are superfluous.

You are confusing actions a university can take with the actions the legal system can take. They are not the same thing.

A university cannot bring criminal charges. It cannot bring any accused person to trial of any sort. It cannot bring legal charges but it can and occasionally does expel or suspend students for violations of its student code of conduct. One such potential charge that can result in suspension or expulsion is cheating on an exam. This is not something which is illegal but it can result in a failing grade, suspension, loss of scholarship ( where applicable) or expulsion.

If you are arguing that criminal charges should be brought when sexual assault is alleged, you will get no argument from me. I think criminal charges should be brought for cases of assault, including but not limited to sexual assault and for murder. University is unable to bring such charges. However it does have an obligation to do its utmost to provide a safe and harassment free environment for all of its students. A student who deliberately sets his dorm room on fire surely should be removed from campus and arson charges should be brought. A student who beats another student should be charged by local law enforcement enforcement —and removed from proximity from his victim. Even if that inconveniences the accused.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Victims may be reluctant to come forward because misogynist assholes refer to them as ‘victims’. And much, much worse.

Their ‘side’ would never be presented by the accused’s lawyers. Hell, we do not even know the accused’s side. We only know his attorney’s well crafted for public consumption storyline.

Lawyers for defense clients take cases of their clients or their clients’ parents can pay.

What is with everyone not getting it about contingency fees? This isn't about defense, this is about suing the school over what happened.

What kind of contingency fee do you believe would be collected in such a case? Why and who would pay?

Contingency fees raise the stakes for defense attorneys to craft a narrative that makes their client appear blameless while the victim is pained as a lying, scheming harlot who is probably mentally ill and mixes meds with too much booze.

You're getting this so utterly wrong.

The link was him suing the school for expelling him via kangaroo court. Plantiff, not defendant. Defense is never contingency fee!

So, the ‘evidence’ you brought was even flimsier -and still relies only on the narrative his lawyers were putting forth—so that they could win a settlement and get paid.

Money, not truth is the motive.

But as someone else pointed out, you are not reading carefully.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

It seems far less severe than how you view a young black man accused of raping a young woman, with neither of them being college students.

What's that supposed to be related to??

I'm saying that you shouldn't have substantial punishment without a reasonable ability to present a defense. Competitive marketplace, ok, A doesn't like you, go to B. Non-competitive marketplace, you need recourse. And while binding arbitration looks like a good idea it ends up favoring the side that brings the most business.

What is your evidence that the university did nothing to investigate the veracity of the charges? Where is your evidence that Student A accused Student B of rape and the university just expelled Student B on the word of Student A?

 

[Bronzeage]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

Yeah, so what? Every job comes with a set of expectations and obligations. A school Admin is expected and obligated to keep the campus safe and ensure the financial survival of the school.

And herein lies the heart of the problem.

The interests of the school in keeping the people safe are not the same as the interests of being fair to the people.

Most people who are accused of a crime are guilty. Should we dispense with trials as simply throwing them in jail would make the population safer?

A few years back, Hoverboards were the must have Christmas present. There was no ruled concerning Hoverboards or any other similar devices. When LSU started the spring semester there were two dorm fires caused by Hoverboards being charged. The immediate reaction was to ban Hoverboards on campus. That's an easy call, without regard to anyone's personal right to legally possess a Hoverboard, or the protest, "I don't leave my Hoverboard unattended on a charger." The Amin can't leave a known hazard in place, no matter how unlikely it is to reoccur.

Such actions are about liability, not safety. The same issue with charging applies to all secondary lithium batteries. Ban on size/ban on brand (but how do you identify the chinesium stuff??), don't ban on what it's in.

Life is full of judgment calls and you can't please everybody. If nothing else, expelling one student because of a plausible accusation of sexual assault will likely reduce the incidence of such things.

So trials are superfluous.

It's been a long time since I've spent a lot of time on a college campus, but I know one thing for certain. In those days, sexual assault, date rape, PYL, etc, was very common. Any time I heard about it, I never doubted the accusation. The standard response to the woman, if she bothered to report it was, "You'll know better next time." Expelling the man involved is basically applying the same remedy to him.

So trials are superfluous.

Who said anything had to be fair? No one ever guaranteed either you or I a fair deal in life. This is when Dennis O'Leary said, "Life is hard, wear a helmet".

After spending entirely too much time of my life being responsible for the safety and well being others, many of whom saw it as an infringement on their personal freedom, I've gone slightly deaf to nitpicking the rules(I'll put the safety glasses on if the sparks bother me). You keep conflating a university with the Justice system and hope I won't notice. The school does not have the power to put anyone in prison, so, "Equal protection under the law" is a category error."

The school does have to power to sometimes demand higher standards than the law, which means there may be consequences for failing to 'be my brother(or sister)'s keeper.' Having sex with an unconscious or impaired person is poor keepership. Self impairment is not an excuse.
Since the school does not have a court or a judge, there is no trial. Someone has to be given the task of assessing the situation and making a decision in the best interest of the school. Someone might be going away, but not to jail.

I notice a complete absence of candle light marches by young men who demand an end to spurious accusations of sexual assault.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

Yeah, so what? Every job comes with a set of expectations and obligations. A school Admin is expected and obligated to keep the campus safe and ensure the financial survival of the school.

And herein lies the heart of the problem.

The interests of the school in keeping the people safe are not the same as the interests of being fair to the people.

Most people who are accused of a crime are guilty. Should we dispense with trials as simply throwing them in jail would make the population safer?

A few years back, Hoverboards were the must have Christmas present. There was no ruled concerning Hoverboards or any other similar devices. When LSU started the spring semester there were two dorm fires caused by Hoverboards being charged. The immediate reaction was to ban Hoverboards on campus. That's an easy call, without regard to anyone's personal right to legally possess a Hoverboard, or the protest, "I don't leave my Hoverboard unattended on a charger." The Amin can't leave a known hazard in place, no matter how unlikely it is to reoccur.

Such actions are about liability, not safety. The same issue with charging applies to all secondary lithium batteries. Ban on size/ban on brand (but how do you identify the chinesium stuff??), don't ban on what it's in.

Life is full of judgment calls and you can't please everybody. If nothing else, expelling one student because of a plausible accusation of sexual assault will likely reduce the incidence of such things.

So trials are superfluous.

It's been a long time since I've spent a lot of time on a college campus, but I know one thing for certain. In those days, sexual assault, date rape, PYL, etc, was very common. Any time I heard about it, I never doubted the accusation. The standard response to the woman, if she bothered to report it was, "You'll know better next time." Expelling the man involved is basically applying the same remedy to him.

So trials are superfluous.

Who said anything had to be fair? No one ever guaranteed either you or I a fair deal in life. This is when Dennis O'Leary said, "Life is hard, wear a helmet".

After spending entirely too much time of my life being responsible for the safety and well being others, many of whom saw it as an infringement on their personal freedom, I've gone slightly deaf to nitpicking the rules(I'll put the safety glasses on if the sparks bother me). You keep conflating a university with the Justice system and hope I won't notice. The school does not have the power to put anyone in prison, so, "Equal protection under the law" is a category error."

The school does have to power to sometimes demand higher standards than the law, which means there may be consequences for failing to 'be my brother(or sister)'s keeper.' Having sex with an unconscious or impaired person is poor keepership. Self impairment is not an excuse.
Since the school does not have a court or a judge, there is no trial. Someone has to be given the task of assessing the situation and making a decision in the best interest of the school. Someone might be going away, but not to jail.

I notice a complete absence of candle light marches by young men who demand an end to spurious accusations of sexual assault.

Careful: I’m pretty sure that vigils by young men demanding an end to spurious allegations of sexual misconduct ( and aren’t all of us women just uptight bitches who feel guilty every time they have sex like the harlots we truly are?) will become a parade of men bearing torches to light the kindling piled up around the woman who dared cry rape and who is now tied to a stake in the town or university square.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a school is not fairly investigating the aspects of the situation that pertain to their purview, they are not in compliance with Title IX.

The problem is there are conflicting demands.

Be fair. But put your thumb on the scale.

 

[laughing dog]

If a school is not fairly investigating the aspects of the situation that pertain to their purview, they are not in compliance with Title IX.

The problem is there are conflicting demands.

Be fair. But put your thumb on the scale.

What metaphorical “thumb” and “scale “ are you jabbering about?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A university cannot bring criminal charges. It cannot bring any accused person to trial of any sort. It cannot bring legal charges but it can and occasionally does expel or suspend students for violations of its student code of conduct. One such potential charge that can result in suspension or expulsion is cheating on an exam. This is not something which is illegal but it can result in a failing grade, suspension, loss of scholarship ( where applicable) or expulsion.

Yes, but in these cases they weren't conducting a remotely honest investigation, let alone a competent investigation. So trivially easy, just say you're afraid of retaliation and the school won't tell the accused what they supposedly did, making a defense a complete impossibility.

If you are arguing that criminal charges should be brought when sexual assault is alleged, you will get no argument from me. I think criminal charges should be brought for cases of assault, including but not limited to sexual assault and for murder. University is unable to bring such charges. However it does have an obligation to do its utmost to provide a safe and harassment free environment for all of its students. A student who deliberately sets his dorm room on fire surely should be removed from campus and arson charges should be brought. A student who beats another student should be charged by local law enforcement enforcement —and removed from proximity from his victim. Even if that inconveniences the accused.

I think criminal charges should be brought and the school should defer to the professionals. And, likewise, all business should be required to defer to the legal system.

The school is risking being found liable if they fail to act and there's another victim. But they won't get found liable if they expel an innocent. Total recipe for a kangaroo court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're getting this so utterly wrong.

The link was him suing the school for expelling him via kangaroo court. Plantiff, not defendant. Defense is never contingency fee!

So, the ‘evidence’ you brought was even flimsier -and still relies only on the narrative his lawyers were putting forth—so that they could win a settlement and get paid.

Money, not truth is the motive.

But as someone else pointed out, you are not reading carefully.

I'm understanding it fine, I'm just not fine with kangaroo courts.

The lawyer took what is almost certainly a contingency case in an uphill battle. That means the lawyer almost certainly saw the evidence and concluded that he was likely right. Lawyers will always try to make the numbers look bigger, but they're not likely to take a case they don't think they'll prevail in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

It seems far less severe than how you view a young black man accused of raping a young woman, with neither of them being college students.

What's that supposed to be related to??

I'm saying that you shouldn't have substantial punishment without a reasonable ability to present a defense. Competitive marketplace, ok, A doesn't like you, go to B. Non-competitive marketplace, you need recourse. And while binding arbitration looks like a good idea it ends up favoring the side that brings the most business.

What is your evidence that the university did nothing to investigate the veracity of the charges? Where is your evidence that Student A accused Student B of rape and the university just expelled Student B on the word of Student A?

When you expel B without telling him what he supposedly did wrong there is no way there could have been a fair investigation.

 

[Politesse]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

It seems far less severe than how you view a young black man accused of raping a young woman, with neither of them being college students.

What's that supposed to be related to??

I'm saying that you shouldn't have substantial punishment without a reasonable ability to present a defense. Competitive marketplace, ok, A doesn't like you, go to B. Non-competitive marketplace, you need recourse. And while binding arbitration looks like a good idea it ends up favoring the side that brings the most business.

What is your evidence that the university did nothing to investigate the veracity of the charges? Where is your evidence that Student A accused Student B of rape and the university just expelled Student B on the word of Student A?

When you expel B without telling him what he supposedly did wrong there is no way there could have been a fair investigation.

That cannot occur under the protections of Title IX.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After spending entirely too much time of my life being responsible for the safety and well being others, many of whom saw it as an infringement on their personal freedom, I've gone slightly deaf to nitpicking the rules(I'll put the safety glasses on if the sparks bother me). You keep conflating a university with the Justice system and hope I won't notice. The school does not have the power to put anyone in prison, so, "Equal protection under the law" is a category error."

They were acting at government instruction. The government should not be allowed to outsource judgment to avoid the Constitution. Both sides have been very guilty in this regard.

The school does have to power to sometimes demand higher standards than the law, which means there may be consequences for failing to 'be my brother(or sister)'s keeper.' Having sex with an unconscious or impaired person is poor keepership. Self impairment is not an excuse.
Since the school does not have a court or a judge, there is no trial. Someone has to be given the task of assessing the situation and making a decision in the best interest of the school. Someone might be going away, but not to jail.

You are making the same mistake as Toni of assuming the allegations are true. Unfortunately, reality shows that many times they are not.

I notice a complete absence of candle light marches by young men who demand an end to spurious accusations of sexual assault.

Because we hush them up.

 

[Toni]

A university cannot bring criminal charges. It cannot bring any accused person to trial of any sort. It cannot bring legal charges but it can and occasionally does expel or suspend students for violations of its student code of conduct. One such potential charge that can result in suspension or expulsion is cheating on an exam. This is not something which is illegal but it can result in a failing grade, suspension, loss of scholarship ( where applicable) or expulsion.

Yes, but in these cases they weren't conducting a remotely honest investigation, let alone a competent investigation. So trivially easy, just say you're afraid of retaliation and the school won't tell the accused what they supposedly did, making a defense a complete impossibility.

If you are arguing that criminal charges should be brought when sexual assault is alleged, you will get no argument from me. I think criminal charges should be brought for cases of assault, including but not limited to sexual assault and for murder. University is unable to bring such charges. However it does have an obligation to do its utmost to provide a safe and harassment free environment for all of its students. A student who deliberately sets his dorm room on fire surely should be removed from campus and arson charges should be brought. A student who beats another student should be charged by local law enforcement enforcement —and removed from proximity from his victim. Even if that inconveniences the accused.

I think criminal charges should be brought and the school should defer to the professionals. And, likewise, all business should be required to defer to the legal system.

The school is risking being found liable if they fail to act and there's another victim. But they won't get found liable if they expel an innocent. Total recipe for a kangaroo court.

Again: you only have a single version, professionally crafted, for profit, version of the events in the account you linked. No investigation report. Just the side of the guy.

 

[Toni]

You're getting this so utterly wrong.

The link was him suing the school for expelling him via kangaroo court. Plantiff, not defendant. Defense is never contingency fee!

So, the ‘evidence’ you brought was even flimsier -and still relies only on the narrative his lawyers were putting forth—so that they could win a settlement and get paid.

Money, not truth is the motive.

But as someone else pointed out, you are not reading carefully.

I'm understanding it fine, I'm just not fine with kangaroo courts.

The lawyer took what is almost certainly a contingency case in an uphill battle. That means the lawyer almost certainly saw the evidence and concluded that he was likely right. Lawyers will always try to make the numbers look bigger, but they're not likely to take a case they don't think they'll prevail in.

You’re more than fine with kangaroo courts: you accept only the carefully crafted version presented by paid attorneys.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

It seems far less severe than how you view a young black man accused of raping a young woman, with neither of them being college students.

What's that supposed to be related to??

I'm saying that you shouldn't have substantial punishment without a reasonable ability to present a defense. Competitive marketplace, ok, A doesn't like you, go to B. Non-competitive marketplace, you need recourse. And while binding arbitration looks like a good idea it ends up favoring the side that brings the most business.

What is your evidence that the university did nothing to investigate the veracity of the charges? Where is your evidence that Student A accused Student B of rape and the university just expelled Student B on the word of Student A?

When you expel B without telling him what he supposedly did wrong there is no way there could have been a fair investigation.

Doesn’t happen.

 

[RVonse]

Why do I keep hearing that young men feel "left behind" when in reality, it's just the opportunity gap was finally closing (WAS). Why do men feel like they've been 'left behind'?

When you are accustomed to only seeing biological men in a given space, seeing biological women there as well is inherently and instinctively terrifying. Men, we are told, are easily startled by such changes, and often violent. Chimpanzee-like, apparently. They just can't handle it. They go bananas.

So goes the story, anyway. From my vantage point as a professor, I don't see any evidence that male college students themselves are plagued by such feelings, it's their parents who are really doing the freaking out, and the media amplifying it. Not to say that today's young men aren't dealing with a lot of real and serious problems, but I don't think "there are too many girls at college" would be first on the list for most.

The first I see on the list for men is to know whether or not their offspring is really their own. For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid. Especially someone else's kid who was conceived in stealth with their marital wife. Before contraception and genetic testing all you had in society was to enforce women to behave in strict moral code so most men could actually have offspring and those married would know the kids were actually his kids. Because of liberal courts we don't have that certainty anymore and supposedly the democrats will tell you it "does not matter" anyway. While it really does matter to the average male in a serious grave way.

It is very fitting that the OP mentions Musk's powerful behavior putting on display his superior ability to spread "his" seed to the next generation with many different women. Same as this was also accomplished with Genhis Khan many years ago.

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today. Despite advancements in genetic code those same woman rights making their lives better have also make it difficult or impractical for men to support only offspring that are theirs. Women have always erroneously felt slighted because they thought they were discriminated against in the workspace while forgetting that their real power has been and always will be the power to know that their kid is really their kid. Women need not worry about a workplace simply because they can have their own offspring (knowing it is their own offspring) whether or not they make a good living or not.

 

[RVonse]

Why do I keep hearing that young men feel "left behind" when in reality, it's just the opportunity gap was finally closing (WAS). Why do men feel like they've been 'left behind'?

When you are accustomed to only seeing biological men in a given space, seeing biological women there as well is inherently and instinctively terrifying. Men, we are told, are easily startled by such changes, and often violent. Chimpanzee-like, apparently. They just can't handle it. They go bananas.

Of course they go bananas because that is how we evolved. Like it or not both sexes evolved with one primary goal in life. To reproduce.

 

[RVonse]

If men want to solve their problems, maybe they could start by asking "what even is a 'man' and why do I even care?!?"

You should care about not wanting to get a bullet in your head.

When women get upset they may kill themselves but when men get upset other innocent people in society start dying too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do I keep hearing that young men feel "left behind" when in reality, it's just the opportunity gap was finally closing (WAS). Why do men feel like they've been 'left behind'?

When you are accustomed to only seeing biological men in a given space, seeing biological women there as well is inherently and instinctively terrifying. Men, we are told, are easily startled by such changes, and often violent. Chimpanzee-like, apparently. They just can't handle it. They go bananas.

So goes the story, anyway. From my vantage point as a professor, I don't see any evidence that male college students themselves are plagued by such feelings, it's their parents who are really doing the freaking out, and the media amplifying it. Not to say that today's young men aren't dealing with a lot of real and serious problems, but I don't think "there are too many girls at college" would be first on the list for most.

The first I see on the list for men is to know whether or not their offspring is really their own. For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid. Especially someone else's kid who was conceived in stealth with their marital wife. Before contraception and genetic testing all you had in society was to enforce women to behave in strict moral code so most men could actually have offspring and those married would know the kids were actually his kids. Because of liberal courts we don't have that certainty anymore and supposedly the democrats will tell you it "does not matter" anyway. While it really does matter to the average male in a serious grave way.

It is very fitting that the OP mentions Musk's powerful behavior putting on display his superior ability to spread "his" seed to the next generation with many different women. Same as this was also accomplished with Genhis Khan many years ago.

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today. Despite advancements in genetic code those same woman rights making their lives better have also make it difficult or impractical for men to support only offspring that are theirs. Women have always erroneously felt slighted because they thought they were discriminated against in the workspace while forgetting that their real power has been and always will be the power to know that their kid is really their kid. Women need not worry about a workplace simply because they can have their own offspring (knowing it is their own offspring) whether or not they make a good living or not.

Are these the things that keep you up late at night?