> Every year when there was a new crew at the base, she'd show up at the local watering hole and scout out the tallest, blondest, smartest serviceman she could find, and you can guess the rest.
Did she give them an IQ test before inviting them to her place? How did she determine which one was the smartest? This reminds me of an article I read a while back about chinese women who were desperate to use US/EU sperm banks. But that may have been to use their children to get US/EU citizenship than raising blonde children.
> She never wanted anything else from those men, and her expenses were covered by welfare which paid for the kids.
That was decent of her. She could have sued these men for child support and possible ruined families and these men's lives. Not sure she was very nice to her fatherless children or to the taxpayers though.
>How did she determine which one was the smartest?
Same how the Roman army did it when drafting. Having lively eyes and a witty sense of humor/banter, meant you were in the intelligent camp. Humans have had an evolutionary ability to quickly detect stupidity/intelligence in an individual. You can tell women are especially good at quickly probing/sensing this after a short conversation, if you've been dating a bit, which is why some men have gotten good at faking or compensating for it to up their odds (overconfidence, machoism, etc.).
I already know about the list but I'm not one to take advice from someone like ann landers.
> I have no idea if she was a good mother or not, but it's unfair to presume she wasn't.
A mother who intentionally deprives her children of their fathers and intentionally brings her children into a life of poverty? I'd say she's the definition of a bad mother.
I bet if you consider it in the light of your personal experience with people, you'll find it has merit.
Welfare in America means free food, free housing, free medical care, and free education. With loving parents, that's what one needs. I agree that an absent father is deleterious, though.
At Caltech, a good friend of mine lived in an apartment next to campus. He could only cook one dish, chicken wings, and was rightly famous for them. Once a month, he invited all comers for chicken wing night. His poor little apartment would get stuffed with students stuffing themselves.
Except for one. A middle-aged man would come in, get some wings, and just sit quietly in a corner. After seeing this a few times, I went over to ask him who he was, and why he was here. After all, he must be bored stiff listening to our prattle.
He said he was the apartment manager, and far from bored, he was fascinated to just sit and listen to the conversations. He said he'd never heard anyone talk like that before, nor had he heard anyone talk about the topics we did.
And no, the conversations were not about football, drinking, or sex.
> far from ideal
You've changed the goal posts from "what one needs" to "ideal".
> She could have sued these men for child support and possible ruined families and these men's lives.
If the men had families, then they the men would be the ones ruining their lives. Seems like they escaped accountability for infidelity and left the costs to the tax payers.
Did she give them an IQ test before inviting them to her place? How did she determine which one was the smartest? This reminds me of an article I read a while back about chinese women who were desperate to use US/EU sperm banks. But that may have been to use their children to get US/EU citizenship than raising blonde children.
> She never wanted anything else from those men, and her expenses were covered by welfare which paid for the kids.
That was decent of her. She could have sued these men for child support and possible ruined families and these men's lives. Not sure she was very nice to her fatherless children or to the taxpayers though.