One in Three Women is Illiterate
Sometimes the statement men are better than women leaves me wanting a little more in the flavor of substance. It’s not often. Like all men, the shortcomings of women are something I’ve learned to accept and move on. However, occasionally we men need to re-evaluate. We need more than rational hypothesizing and logical conjecture. We need facts for the why’s and how’s.
I pose this as a formal theory. Men are better than women at everything because something like 30% of women are illiterate.
Sounds shocking doesn’t it? But really, when do women need to read? Numbers don’t count as reading, so illiteracy does not impede women from writing checks or measuring all the progress they’re not making while they’re not working out at the gym.
Before I get too ahead of myself let me quote some statistics. UNICEF and UNESCO say that two out of every three illiterates is a woman. They give the world-wide feminine literacy rate in the sixtieth percentile, while the male literacy rate towers above that number at nearly 90%. I think you’ll agree that that’s plenty of numerical majesty to spare.
Initially, when I saw the figures I thought to myself, maybe that’s why women are so shitty at everything. Just like the kid who is really shitty at baseball and then it turns out he just needed some glasses. Maybe women just need to learn how to read.
Then I realized the writing on the walls of every cluster fuck women are about to step into is only metaphorical writing. They also don’t need to be able to read to shut the hell up every once in a while and listen when something other than Oprah or an appliance that resembles Oprah is dispensing sound life advice.
Perhaps instead of Easy Bake Ovens and Barbie Dolls this Christmas, mothers should be buying their daughters Hooked on Phonics.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 34 … 18 17 16 15 14 [13] 12 11 10 9 8 … 1 » Show All
Alex said:
Abaddon_fff said:
“Why don’t you stop for a second and think about what feminism has wrought from a male perspective?”
Alex said:
If feminism has disadvantaged men under the law, that’s condemnable.
Well then, why isn’t it condemed? Why instead is it sanctioned?
Alex said:
But many of the complaints made here (treatment by courts/the police, division of government aid) are the result of a (very wrong) belief in male superiority, not feminism. If women are mindless, incapable, and can’t support themselves, then they’ll be given more advantages. I hold that women are equal, and don’t deserve preferential treatment (or lesser treatment, obviously).
I strongly disagree, for if women were equal, they wouldn’t need so much help from the government would they? You’re still in wommins studies, where everything is a construct. I like your idealism however it gets in the way of REALITY!
Dakota said:
“I defy you to name any area of the law in which women are at a disadvantage.”
Alex said:
I don’t know how much women are really disadvantaged under the law, but then again, I haven’t looked into it.
Therein lies the problem with women, they’re more willing to look at themselves then they are at other people. Can you say ego-centric? You mean to tell me that you entered into an arguement without looking at both sides of the story? Typical modern day feminism at work once again.
The disadvantages I’ve noticed are mostly societal. I get the distinct feeling that, for instance, intelligent young males are brought up believing that they can pursue absolutely any profession.
Do you understand what REALITY is Alex? I am an intelligent young male, self educated, with little college eductation. From my perspective, I was told that hard work was the key to living well. Try having children and being male before you start talking all that shit.
Alex said:
The reason they believe it is because they’re told so. No matter how prestigious or ridiculously elite the career might be, if they’re intelligent enough, they’re encouraged (almost even expected) to pursue it. I don’t think girls are similiarly encouraged. An intelligent girl is praised, and admired, but it usually ends there. Girls grow up with a feeling that there are strict limits on what they can do; they doubt themselves, even if they’re more capable than their male peers. I feel very strongly that this needs to change.
Are you reading this shit from the book? Should I call you Gloria or Betty? I think your “empathetic” powers are on the wane. However, far be it for me to say so. It’s your cycle right?
Dakota said:
“It’s not possible to have gender equality for the simple fact that the genders aren’t equal. It’s like trying to have “basketball equalityâ€? between Michael Jordan and myself. It’s simply impossible.”
I agree Dakota.
Alex said:
It’s ridiculous to say the genders are not equal. Other than in biology, and in slight personality tendencies, in what way are women inferior? (Or even different?) Yes, there is a negative female stereotype that some women fit, just as there is with men. On a whole, however, I have only seen women prove themselves to be as intelligent as men, as hard-working as men, as caring as men, and in every way their equal.
You obviously don’t have children, it seems to me that you are in college, working on your womens studies degree. Women are inferior because they need all of their “entitlements” “custody” “empowerment” and government sanctioned monies just to survive. Many Men live without those, thats why we die a lot earlier. To provide for women.. Typical.
Strength and Honor
Oh boy. Or if you prefer, “Oh girl”. You haven’t looked into it. You get the “distinct feeling”. Wonderful! That’s factual! What you said was certainly true in the 1950’s and probably the 1960’s. While exceptional women have been able to pursue whatever career they want for over 100 years, for all but the last 30 or 40 it was an uphill struggle for them.
Wow. The classist arrogance you exude is quite stunning. Maybe you aren’t a Marxist but merely a typical elitist modern liberal.
It’s the job of a good educational system, to encourage highly intelligent people to pursue a worthwhile career if they’ve the aptitudes for it. Someone IQ 150 really can’t be a doctor? Or a lawyer? Or a professor of Womyn’s Studies? The word “prestigous” (and “elite”) suggests to me that you’ve got a great deal of social elitism wafting about you — a desire to keep the intelligent “lower classes” down. Typical modern liberal.
Your feelings are lovely, but quite irrelevant. I can assure you, from my own experiences in schools, those of siblings, friends, that there is no question: if anything, girls are encouraged more than boys these days.
Here we have the heart of your elitist, arrogant pomo thinking. Exuding a staggering ignorance of simple mathematics and logic, you posit that “A is B”. Aristotle would be sad. Inequality need not imply inferiority or superiority; surely you know enough of logic and reasoning to grasp that.
Matrix A — or even complex number a — may differ from Matrix B (complex num b); they are not equal. Is Matrix A inferior to or superior to Matrix B?
Leave aside inferiority: Other than being larger, older, and at the bottom of the ocean, in what way is the Titanic different from the QE2?
No doubt you’d say not at all. Or “That’s not what I meant”.
When I was your age I thought the same thing. Life experience, reading, communication, observation and thought have taught me otherwise.
-wolfe
Great. We welcome you joining us in condemning feminism.
Oh let’s start with false rape charges — probably somewhere between 50 and 70%. (Sure, there are real rapes that aren’t reported, but a 50-70% rate of false rapes? Disturbing).
Let’s move on with the grotesque sham of the divorce, custody and child-support industries.
Now let’s look at affirmative action. We’ve swung all over the place here, with women generally being given preferential treatment until university, then women resuming with preferential treatment. 1. Why should men get preferential treatment for admissions into colleges? 2. Why should girls get preferential treatment from K to 12, and 3. women get preferential treatment for post-college careers?
I know Alex will yet again say “I didn’t mean that” or “That doesn’t happen” until we come back with stats after stats after stats. Then she’ll say “Well that’s not what I meant, but if it were happening it would be bad”. I’m tired of the weaseling.
The sad thing is that Alex is neither evil nor stupid; she may be quite a nice person for all I know. Certainly the fact that she’s attempting (albiet badly) to rationally argue her positions and sometimes admit when she’s wrong is a plus sign. But the incredibly narrow parochialism of those views; the blinkered antipathy to looking beyond her own privileged existence… it’s sad.
Anyway, we’re still waiting for your condemnation of feminism.
Except that’s not what you said. You said women deserve more governmental support because they are poorer. When I pointed out that men live less long, and the same argument would hold that we spend more on men’s health (and inevitably less on women’s health) until this is equalized, you pretended not to understand and then to make ridiculous charges about this site.
-wolfe
Aaaah, irony. I misworded the last section, and implied women are inferior in biology and tendencies. Here’s what I meant to say:
It’s ridiculous to say the genders are not equal. Other than in biology and slight personality tendencies, how women different than men? (Let alone inferior?)
“to see an ideology (Feminism) unwilling to accept half of the population as its equals”
…That’s not true at all. I absolutely hold men to be my equal, it’s this website that doesn’t hold women equal to men.
“Why don’t you stop for a second and think about what feminism has wrought from a male perspective?”
If feminism has disadvantaged men under the law, that’s condemnable. But advantages for women under the law in terms of custody of children, lesser jail sentences/better treatment by police, more government aid, etc., have been around for longer than feminism. They, in fact, are inspired by idea that men are superior to women, which directly opposes feminism. If women are mindless, weak, and incapable of supporting themselves, obviously they’ll be given advantages, because they “need” them. I hold that men and women are equal, and women shouldn’t be given preferential treatment (or lesser treatment, obviously). I fully believe joint custody should be mandatory, government aid should go to whoever needs it, jobs should go to whoever has the better credentials, etc.
“I defy you to name any area of the law in which women are at a disadvantage.”
I don’t know how much women are really disadvantaged under the law, but then again, I haven’t looked into it. The disadvantages I’ve noticed are more societal. I get the distinct feeling, for instance, that intelligent young males are brought up to believe they can pursue absolutely any profession, that idea is instilled in them by parents and teachers, and it is not similarly instilled in intelligent girls. No matter how ridiculously elite and prestigious the career might be, young men are taught they can pursue it (they’re expected to pursue it, almost.) Girls, however, have a sense of being limited, even if they’re more capable than their male peers. I feel strongly that that’s something that should be changed.
“It’s not possible to have gender equality for the simple fact that the genders aren’t equal. It’s like trying to have “basketball equalityâ€? between Michael Jordan and myself. It’s simply impossible.”
It’s ridiculous to say that men and women aren’t equal. Other than in biology and slight personality tendencies, how are women different than men, let alone inferior? Yes, there’s a negative female stereotype and some women fit it, but the majority don’t. As a whole, I’ve only seen women prove themselves to be as intelligent as men, as hard-working as men, as caring as men, etc.
“Why don’t you stop for a second and think about what feminism has wrought from a male perspective?”
If feminism has disadvantaged men under the law, that’s condemnable. But many of the complaints made here (treatment by courts/the police, division of government aid) are the result of a (very wrong) belief in male superiority, not feminism. If women are mindless, incapable, and can’t support themselves, then they’ll be given more advantages. I hold that women are equal, and don’t deserve preferential treatment (or lesser treatment, obviously).
“I defy you to name any area of the law in which women are at a disadvantage.”
I don’t know how much women are really disadvantaged under the law, but then again, I haven’t looked into it. The disadvantages I’ve noticed are mostly societal. I get the distinct feeling that, for instance, intelligent young males are brought up believing that they can pursue absolutely any profession. The reason they believe it is because they’re told so. No matter how prestigious or ridiculously elite the career might be, if they’re intelligent enough, they’re encouraged (almost even expected) to pursue it. I don’t think girls are similiarly encouraged. An intelligent girl is praised, and admired, but it usually ends there. Girls grow up with a feeling that there are strict limits on what they can do; they doubt themselves, even if they’re more capable than their male peers. I feel very strongly that this needs to change.
“It’s not possible to have gender equality for the simple fact that the genders aren’t equal. It’s like trying to have “basketball equalityâ€? between Michael Jordan and myself. It’s simply impossible.”
It’s ridiculous to say the genders are not equal. Other than in biology, and in slight personality tendencies, in what way are women inferior? (Or even different?) Yes, there is a negative female stereotype that some women fit, just as there is with men. On a whole, however, I have only seen women prove themselves to be as intelligent as men, as hard-working as men, as caring as men, and in every way their equal.
I agree with Dakota.
It shouldn’t. It’s pretty standard: very few states mandate joint custody. I haven’t checked, but I bet you can count them on one hand.
Men are at a disadvantage in all areas of the law compared to women. I didn’t realize precisely how bad it was until I was divorced.
Women get the gold mine and men get the shaft. It’s that simple.
It will never change as long as women remain a major voting bloc. Women understand that they’re at an advantage and feel entitled to it. That’s how they vote, and since politicians need votes to stay in office, that’s how politicians make laws.
I defy you to name any area of the law in which women are at a disadvantage.
In fact, the law generally treats financial capability as a separate issue from custody. States have formulas dealing with how finances are to be shared — based, unfortunately, on custody.
I invite you to peruse Lisa Scott’s Real Family Law. It’s a site written and maintained by a male-friendly female divorce lawyer. It’s satire, but like all good comedy, it’s funny because it’s true.
I wish the articles on it were anything more than slight exaggerations. They’re not.
It’s not possible to have gender equality for the simple fact that the genders aren’t equal. It’s like trying to have “basketball equality” between Michael Jordan and myself. It’s simply impossible.
What we have now is a legal system that is totally, 100% skewed in favor of women. Small wonder that women should now consider it “close to equality.”
Alex said:
Wolfe said:
“And men die many years younger than women do. Why don’t we freeze all spending on women’s health care and put all increases into men’s only health services? Same argument as women getting more government aid. In fact, let’s cut spending for women’s healthcare in half, and put the savings into men’s healthcare. Or is what’s sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander, Alex?”
Alex said:
I’m unsure as to what you’re even saying here. Those in poverty need assistance, no matter what their gender, so assistance is given to those in need. If more males than females were living in poverty, I would certaintly advocate alloting more aid for males.
Do you live in a fairy tale world Alex? In many cases this isn’t so . Much of the money allocated is already taken by the women w/ children. Why is it that women recieve money, housing and custody for having children (their “choices”)? Meanwhile Men usually recieve a notice (if even that) and a bill for all of it without any guarantee of custody or help of any sort? Is this truly equality? Here’s a suggestion, call up your local HUD and tell them that you are single, male and childless, then ask them if there’s any housing availible for your poor ass. Chances are you will be sleeping in the park tonight, or the local homeless shelter.
Wolfe said:
“Well biology will dictate a number of differences. As will choices made by people in the relationship. But I’m sure the evil feminists will make their dark choices in an effort to further destroy civilisation. On the plus side, if they take it far enough, Muslim theocracy will probably sweep away all their gains, and, while that won’t be pleasant, it will be nice to see them under the deluge.”
I agree with the idea that Muslim theocracy will sweep them away. Its disturbing to me, to see an ideology (Feminism) unwilling to accept half of the population as its equals, AND at the same time unwilling to see that they’re their own downfall due to their hypocrisy.
Alex said:
No. Let’s assume that when I said “career”, I meant careers that don’t violate any laws.
However, if they do violate those laws, rest assured they’ll get a lighter sentence than a man would in the same situation. A man should “know better” while a woman is “disturbed” or “mentally ill” or under a lot of stress or has PMS. There are a variety of reasons that women have been let off or given lighter sentences for a variety of crimes simply due to their sex.
Wolfe said:
“Yeah this is typical of the incredibly stupid gender feminist attitude.
Where physical strength is relevant to the job then it should be a serious standard that’s not watered down for women. Inevitably the naive and evil idiocy that people like Alex promulgate result in needless death and destruction in the name of a vacuous and vicious ideology.”
Alex said:
Again, I agree. When I said women should be held to different standards in terms of physical tasks, I meant exactly what you said. Women are typically not as strong, so that is the only case where women can be rightly at a disadvantage. If a woman wants to pursue a career that requires physical strength, she has every right to, but she has to meet the established standards. The standards should not be changed.
I agree as well, standards reflect what is required for the job, they shouldn’t be lowered just because someone cannot perform them and bitches about it.
Alex said:
I’m not advocating any huge revolution. I just think certain things should be readdressed and reevaluated.
Personally, I don’t think that you’re advocating a huge revolution, however you’re a part of one and as a member of said revolution, you are individually responsible for the actions of said group. Why don’t you stop for a second and think about what feminism has wrought from a male perspective?
Alex said:
This includes areas where men are at a disadvantage, such as custody laws. Obviously the stereotype that men can’t care for children as well as women can is not always true, so policy should reflect that.
That is refreshing to hear from a feminist, however how about this one? There are some “people” that cannot care for children, irregardless of their gender, and MAYBE just maybe policy should reflect that in a non “gender specific” manner. Why hasn’t that happened either?
There are stereotypes about women that also don’t hold true (yet still affect policy), and those also need to be looked at as well.
What would those be? I would like to know.
Also, please explain why equality of men and women is an evil or destructive concept.
Communism’s a great “concept”. However when put into practice its a horrible thing. Would you like to know why? Because it doesn’t take HUMAN NATURE into effect. You cannot “quantify” human nature. Gender isn’t a social construct, you cannot “quantify” being Male just as you cannot “quantify” being Female.
Strength and Honor
… I completely agree with you, I said in one of my entries that I think there should be mandatory joint custody:
“The custody laws in your state really surprised me; I agree then that custody laws are one area where men are at an unfair disadvantage, and that that needs to change, just as when women are at a disadvantage. Mandatory joint custody just makes sense, as long as neither parent is abusive, unable to support the children financially, etc.”
“And men die many years younger than women do. Why don’t we freeze all spending on women’s health care and put all increases into men’s only health services? Same argument as women getting more government aid. In fact, let’s cut spending for women’s healthcare in half, and put the savings into men’s healthcare. Or is what’s sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander, Alex?”
I’m unsure as to what you’re even saying here. Those in poverty need assistance, no matter what their gender, so assistance is given to those in need. If more males than females were living in poverty, I would certaintly advocate alloting more aid for males.
“Why? Surely her (and his) qualifications and capabilities should determine whether or not we consider her viewpoint to be valid. A male truckdriver’s viewpoint on whether or not to shift to more caesarian sections over vaginal births is probably not very useful, nor is a female lawyer’s who’s never had a child. A female (or male ob/gyn) might have a much better viewpoint than either of the first two cases.”
I agree completely. My point was that a person’s viewpoint shouldn’t be inherently more or less valid based on their gender.
“Well biology will dictate a number of differences. As will choices made by people in the relationship. But I’m sure the evil feminists will make their dark choices in an effort to further destroy civilisation. On the plus side, if they take it far enough, Muslim theocracy will probably sweep away all their gains, and, while that won’t be pleasant, it will be nice to see them under the deluge.”
Why would biology make women have a lower (or higher) stance in a relationship? I simply meant that both people in a relationship should treat each other with an equal amount of respect. In the past, men typically had the upper hand in relationships. Wives were expected to cater to their husbands, and it was acceptable for men to not even consider their wife’s wishes or needs. I was simply saying that that was wrong, and that if there’s traces of this left today, it should change.
“Does this include prostitution? Armed robbery? Hit-man?”
No. Let’s assume that when I said “career”, I meant careers that don’t violate any laws.
“Yeah this is typical of the incredibly stupid gender feminist attitude.
Where physical strength is relevant to the job then it should be a serious standard that’s not watered down for women. Inevitably the naive and evil idiocy that people like Alex promulgate result in needless death and destruction in the name of a vacuous and vicious ideology.”
Again, I agree. When I said women should be held to different standards in terms of physical tasks, I meant exactly what you said. Women are typically not as strong, so that is the only case where women can be rightly at a disadvantage. If a woman wants to pursue a career that requires physical strength, she has every right to, but she has to meet the established standards. The standards should not be changed.
“On hearing nonsense like this, I start to think that Christian’s views are not just sensible but mild mannered. Typical neo-Marxist wanting to pursue a nasty, destructive, soulless agenda. Just a little more social tweaking, a few more laws, a few million more dead and we’ll have everything solved!”
I’m not advocating any huge revolution. I just think certain things should be readdressed and reevaluated. This includes areas where men are at a disadvantage, such as custody laws. Obviously the stereotype that men can’t care for children as well as women can is not always true, so policy should reflect that. There are stereotypes about women that also don’t hold true (yet still affect policy), and those also need to be looked at as well. Also, please explain why equality of men and women is an evil or destructive concept.
And men die many years younger than women do. Why don’t we freeze all spending on women’s health care and put all increases into men’s only health services? Same argument as women getting more government aid. In fact, let’s cut spending for women’s healthcare in half, and put the savings into men’s healthcare. Or is what’s sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander, Alex?
Why? Surely her (and his) qualifications and capabilities should determine whether or not we consider her viewpoint to be valid. A male truckdriver’s viewpoint on whether or not to shift to more caesarian sections over vaginal births is probably not very useful, nor is a female lawyer’s who’s never had a child. A female (or male ob/gyn) might have a much better viewpoint than either of the first two cases.
Does this include prostitution? Armed robbery? Hit-man?
Yeah this is typical of the incredibly stupid gender feminist attitude.
Where physical strength is relevant to the job then it should be a serious standard that’s not watered down for women. Inevitably the naive and evil idiocy that people like Alex promulgate result in needless death and destruction in the name of a vacuous and vicious ideology.
Well biology will dictate a number of differences. As will choices made by people in the relationship. But I’m sure the evil feminists will make their dark choices in an effort to further destroy civilisation. On the plus side, if they take it far enough, Muslim theocracy will probably sweep away all their gains, and, while that won’t be pleasant, it will be nice to see them under the deluge.
On hearing nonsense like this, I start to think that Christian’s views are not just sensible but mild mannered. Typical neo-Marxist wanting to pursue a nasty, destructive, soulless agenda. Just a little more social tweaking, a few more laws, a few million more dead and we’ll have everything solved!
-wolfe
The custody laws in your state really surprised me; I agree then that custody laws are one area where men are at an unfair disadvantage, and that that needs to change, just as when women are at a disadvantage. Mandatory joint custody just makes sense, as long as neither parent is abusive, unable to support the children financially, etc.
I found statistics on the poverty rate for men and women (albeit, they’re somewhat dated). The poverty rate for women over 18 is significantly higher than that of men over the age of 18, so that partly explains why women are given more government aid. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf (Scroll down to the 5th page or so).
I wouldn’t say we had gender equality in the 1950’s. Women were confined to jobs thought “suitable” for women, no matter what their capabilities might have been. They were thought of as dolls, almost: pretty, mindless objects, rather than people. Their opinions were often dismissed in favor of men’s, they were expected to serve men, and their opportunities were very limited. I think men and women need to be treated as equally as possible. A woman’s viewpoint should be considered as valid as a man’s, she should be able to pursue any career she chooses without facing discrimination, men and women should be held to the same standards (the exception being in anything that requires physical strength), and a woman’s stance in relationships should be equal to that of men’s. Interestingly enough, old-fashioned ideas about gender harm men as well; I’m sure unfair custody laws stem from a belief that women are more fit caregivers, which as Dakota Smith’s story shows, is not always the case. We’ve come pretty close to gender equality already, but there’s still areas that need improvement.
Indeed. Percentile was the wrong word.
I might have linked to the statistics in the article, but I didn’t because it simply would have encouraged mindless bickering over statistics.
-Dick
I have just wasted several minutes of my life looking at Megan’s link.
The headline number Dick cited is about as perfectly accurate as is reasonably possible. Yes, instead of 66.67% of adult illiterates being women, it’s more like 64.1%. Moreover, that’s using Megan’s link. I’d call that accurate.
Strictly interpreted, Dick’s followup statement makes little sense, and had any of the women had a mathematical background of even modest means they’d have seized on this point.
Obviously, he should have written “a world wide female literacy rate of some 70 percent”. Percentile’s the wrong word to choose here, but so what? Dick’s not a statistician. Several of the people on this board have taken graduate level courses in stats; we know what Dick meant. (And yes, the figure for women does appear to be 77%, not 60 some percent.)
Above, Dick says something like 30% of women are illiterate. Well, ok, it’s 23%.
But who cares? Everything he said was materially correct. And that’s why men here don’t waste time here over incredibly minor errors. Women, inevitably, seem to seize on the most trivial flaw in others (male or female) and magnify it all out of proportion, in some desperate hope that their own failings will be hidden by the fireworks display they’ve shot off at someone else. Only sometimes they forget to back off while the fuse burns down.
What a waste of time.
-wolfe
The charts prove exactly what I said. Approximately 66% of illiterates are female.
-Dick
Well Dick, if you raison d’etre is making a website about how men are better than women but ironically actually lead people to assume the opposite of that…well it is your prerogative I guess.
Just to prove I can read charts however, this is the link:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?URL_ID=5204&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTI ON=201
Third excel file down.
That last sentence was, of course, for Alex.
Alex,
I have much respect for your arguement, you present your ideas very well logically. To my suprise, it had me silenced for a good moment. I’m actually a young man myself still learning the ways of the world.
But when Dakota replied, things fell into place for me once again. What you seem to be explaining is how things *should* be, as far as law and society. If there ever was such a balance, from what I’ve learned that era was during the 50s. Western society then began to learn toward feministic views.
What you said about nurturing I completely agree with, and truth is, here in the West, and other areas I’m sure, treatment, as a whole, towards the sexes has become much, much more an “emotional” issue rather than a logical one as a result of upbringing and influences. Since women obviously are the weaker of the sexes, society feels sorry for them, and give them all kinds of unfair and illogical advantages in many different areas in life today.
Dakota, my sympathies to you, I have an older brother who had a wife, a growing business, and two sons. He’s extremely outgoing, fun, and very religious. Signs of her unstableness were there before marriage, but he was young, and she still seemed very cool.
Hell broke lose, divorce came, and guess what. The court gave her far, far more custody time then he received (he sees his sons every other weekend). His ex has also become very promiscuous, haresses him about it, and even brings over various men while the kids are at her house (they are now 10 and 13). He has seriously dated only one woman, and has definately been the better role model over his children. Things are finally improving, after years. Oh yeah, his business fell apart, and now runs a self employed smaller business.
Sure that’s only one example, but stay open and keep looking around you.