Missing Men and the Biolgical Clock

[NonTimendum]

Dumb, submissive, and pretty… that seems to sum up certain posters’ “ideal” woman. Sad.

Ahh yes, the old elitist bigotry that condemns all of us “morons” who didn’t attend college. Anyway what is the problem with submissive and pretty?

Except it’s all in theory–they can never find one that’s dumb, submissive and pretty enough.

(Pro-tip: you don’t actually want a dumb wife carrying around your credit cards, checkbook, dealing with tradesmen on your behalf, and raising your kids. One of my close male relatives has a wife he doesn’t really respect intellectually, and he has spent a substantial portion of his life explaining things to her and her not getting it. It looks and soundsexhausting.)

I suddenly understand your positions on these threads much better. Also, that wife is now your family too, you’d think you would have s little more charity toward her. But we all have to feel superior in some way I suppose.

 

[Xantippe]

That is quite judgmental and untrue. **Many, if not most, married couples in large sections of the country manage just fine without being high earners, and dual income high earners are rare in even larger sections of the country.
**
Besides that, what is wrong with public schools? Most Americans attend public schools. I dare say that the majority of high income earners are the product of public schools. And quite a few went to the not so great public schools at that.

Yes, but they typically manage with 2.0 kids who go to public school.

I think public schools can be awesome, too–but a lot of people on CAF (and in the conservative Christian world generally) think that sending children to public school is out of the question. Hence, I’m pointing out that in the case of the hypothetical 25-year-old low-income cafe manager who is just barely getting by, he either needs to a) have a high-income wife b) use birth control or c) send kids to public school. It really isn’t doable for the average person to have a large and growing family, two full-time working low-income parents (one of which is pregnant a lot), and an effective homeschool program.

The choices are

a) unlikely
b) immoral

and

c) taboo, but the least bad option.

So if the 25-year-old cafe guy gets married and starts a family, he needs to accept upfront that in all likelihood, his kids are going to public school.

 

[ThePCWife]

That is quite judgmental and untrue. Many, if not most, married couples in large sections of the country manage just fine without being high earners, and dual income high earners are rare in even larger sections of the country.

Besides that, what is wrong with public schools? Most Americans attend public schools. I dare say that the majority of high income earners are the product of public schools. And quite a few went to the not so great public schools at that.

Most married people with kids under 18 make 75k+, and most married couples have both parents working. There is a substantial minority of SAHMs and part-time working mothers. There are low-earning married couples with children, but they are a small group these days.

To a fairly shocking degree, the top 20% of American household incomes goes to married couples with kids. There’s a real hi-low divide now, and the low-earning respectably poor married couple with children is increasingly rare. Poor kids are just a lot less likely to have married parents, or even two parents these days. There isn’t all that much cohabitation.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m glad that I dropped out of this whole romantic nonsense. When ‘my happiness’ (individualism) trumps all other values/sense of collective society, you have a very messy clash of ambitions between everybody (nobody wants to be a commoner when anybody can be king, right?)

And allow me to answer the question ‘who will take care of me when I’m old?’ Well I won’t possibly grow old because all the alcohol and tobacco will catch up eventually, sparing me too long life.

That sounds kind of individualistic to me.

 

[Xantippe]

I suddenly understand your positions on these threads much better. Also, that wife is now your family too, you’d think you would have s little more charity toward her. But we all have to feel superior in some way I suppose.

That wife has always been part of my family.

Again, I’ve listened to her husband explaining things to her for years (decades, even).

Guys who want a stupid wife don’t know what they’re asking for.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

She has been to dinner with my wife and I, telling us that she doesn’t need a “husband or marriage or worse…children”. I simply offered if she was much older and gets sick, who would take care of her which she had no reply.

Having a spouse or kids because you expect them to “take care of you” when you get sick is a terrible reason to have either. There are MANY situations where if a spouse or parent got sick, the other family member would not be able to provide care, for reasons ranging from being ill themselves, to predeceasing the ill person, to (especially in the case of children) having physical or mental disabilities themselves, having other commitments to their own children, to the military, to the priesthood, to having to keep a job that is necessary to feed a family or provide insurance coverage.

And in the worst cases, you may very well end up estranged from your family members through no fault of your own. Spouses and kids are not always able to be good caregivers, or the medical condition that a person might have may be far beyond their ability to cope or care.

I also know quite a few people who were single, had no kids and were past the age of having parents living who became ill with cancer or mental problems or some other chronic condition, and were helped by a number of their supportive friends who were not related to them. Not marrying or having kids does not mean you are going to be alone forever with nobody to help you, especially if you are the type who goes out and gets involved in your community.

What you said was, to put it as nicely as I can put it, wrong headed thinking and in very poor taste. She probably didn’t say anything because she was flummoxed that you would be so rude.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m glad that I dropped out of this whole romantic nonsense. When ‘my happiness’ (individualism) trumps all other values/sense of collective society, you have a very messy clash of ambitions between everybody (nobody wants to be a commoner when anybody can be king, right?)

And allow me to answer the question ‘who will take care of me when I’m old?’ Well I won’t possibly grow old because all the alcohol and tobacco will catch up eventually, sparing me too long life.

This post made me like you a lot, Klemens

 

[Sarcelle]

Looking back on that course, there was a subconscious layer of feminism there. I know a friend of ours well who is 35years old, a “sophomore” in college, majoring in journalism and Japanese culture. She is also a career waitress. Has no husband, children, or ownership of anything. Not even a car. She has been to dinner with my wife and I, telling us that she doesn’t need a “husband or marriage or worse…children”. I simply offered if she was much older and gets sick, who would take care of her which she had no reply.

Is this really a good reason to get married and have kids?

So someone can take care of you when you’re old?

 

[Sarcelle]

Having a spouse or kids because you expect them to “take care of you” when you get sick is a terrible reason to have either. There are MANY situations where if a spouse or parent got sick, the other family member would not be able to provide care, for reasons ranging from being ill themselves, to predeceasing the ill person, to (especially in the case of children) having physical or mental disabilities themselves, having other commitments to their own children, to the military, to the priesthood, to having to keep a job that is necessary to feed a family or provide insurance coverage.

And in the worst cases, you may very well end up estranged from your family members through no fault of your own. Spouses and kids are not always able to be good caregivers, or the medical condition that a person might have may be far beyond their ability to cope or care.

I also know quite a few people who were single, had no kids and were past the age of having parents living who became ill with cancer or mental problems or some other chronic condition, and were helped by a number of their supportive friends who were not related to them. Not marrying or having kids does not mean you are going to be alone forever with nobody to help you, especially if you are the type who goes out and gets involved in your community.

What you said was, to put it as nicely as I can put it, wrong headed thinking and in very poor taste. She probably didn’t say anything because she was flummoxed that you would be so rude.

 

[Xantippe]

Is this really a good reason to get married and have kids?

So someone can take care of you when you’re old?

I have to say, not wanting a husband or children is an awfully good reason not to get married.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The title of this thread sounds like a mystery thriller

 

[Xantippe]

The title of this thread sounds like a mystery thriller

Yes!

 

[Sarcelle]

I have to say, not wanting a husband or children is an awfully good reason not to get married.

I honestly cannot fathom why some people I have met get so wrapped around the axle when at my age am not a wife and a mother.

I have been asked if I was gay so many times and disbelieved when I replied in the negative.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

That sounds kind of individualistic to me.

I won’t deny that it is. All I can say is that I’m adapting to an environment that I have no control over. Imagine that you want to buy something in a store. You have the money and you really want to buy. But, when you go to the store, there’s nothing there. So, while you’re willing to buy, you’re prohibited from doing so by higher forces. Same idea with my life choices.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

This post made me like you a lot, Klemens

 

[bitterhope]

Yes, but they typically manage with 2.0 kids who go to public school.

I think public schools can be awesome, too–but a lot of people on CAF (and in the conservative Christian world generally) think that sending children to public school is out of the question. Hence, I’m pointing out that in the case of the hypothetical 25-year-old low-income cafe manager who is just barely getting by, he either needs to a) have a high-income wife b) use birth control or c) send kids to public school. It really isn’t doable for the average person to have a large and growing family, two full-time working low-income parents (one of which is pregnant a lot), and an effective homeschool program.

The choices are

a) unlikely
b) immoral

and

c) taboo, but the least bad option.

So if the 25-year-old cafe guy gets married and starts a family, he needs to accept upfront that in all likelihood, his kids are going to public school.

It really seems most Americans regardless of income only have 2 children so that really isn’t telling much.

 

[twf]

Most married people with kids under 18 make 75k+, and most married couples have both parents working. There is a substantial minority of SAHMs and part-time working mothers. There are low-earning married couples with children, but they are a small group these days.

To a fairly shocking degree, the top 20% of American household incomes goes to married couples with kids. There’s a real hi-low divide now, and the low-earning respectably poor married couple with children is increasingly rare. Poor kids are just a lot less likely to have married parents, or even two parents these days. There isn’t all that much cohabitation.

Are you saying that the majority of American families with kids at home have household incomes of $150k +? That doesn’t sound right.

 

[bitterhope]

Most married people with kids under 18 make 75k+, and most married couples have both parents working. There is a substantial minority of SAHMs and part-time working mothers. There are low-earning married couples with children, but they are a small group these days.

To a fairly shocking degree, the top 20% of American household incomes goes to married couples with kids. There’s a real hi-low divide now, and the low-earning respectably poor married couple with children is increasingly rare. Poor kids are just a lot less likely to have married parents, or even two parents these days. There isn’t all that much cohabitation.

Where do you get that income level from? I can tell you it must be regional because that isn’t reflective of most areas I have lived in. Also, nearly 50% of poor children have married parents. That’s a lot of married couples making under $75,000 a year having kids. Approximately 32% of all kids with married parents are low income. Low income tends to be quite a bit less than $75,000 a year. So if 32% of all kids with married parents are low income but the majority of children have families making $75,000 or more, I guess it’s the couples with incomes between $35,000-$74,999 who are not having children today. They are not the poor people. No they aren’t the high earners either.

 

[bitterhope]

Are you saying that the majority of American families with kids at home have household incomes of $150k +? That doesn’t sound right.

Exactly. It’s not possible. There would be no families with children living in the southern US.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Where do you get that income level from? I can tell you it must be regional because that isn’t reflective of most areas I have lived in. Also, nearly 50% of poor children have married parents. That’s a lot of married couples making under $75,000 a year having kids. Approximately 32% of all kids with married parents are low income. Low income tends to be quite a bit less than $75,000 a year. So if 32% of all kids with married parents are low income but the majority of children have families making $75,000 or more, I guess it’s the couples with incomes between $35,000-$74,999 who are not having children today. They are not the poor people. No they aren’t the high earners either.

Well, there are those studies that come up with $14k or so as the annual cost of a kid. 2 kids makes $28k, then you still have two adults and taxes. It seems impossible