Sign In or Create an Account
White guys in black bloc clothes.
Lots of merchandise left behind.
True. How many mothers-in-law does one man need?
OP is talking about having a lot of children. He is saying you need a lot of women to do that.
That's not quite true. I know traditionally religious women who have five, seven, eight kids. And they are fine. They are not destroyed in the least.
So there's that.
You ALREADY have all the polygamy you want. Who among you has slept with only one woman? You have plenty of women. Sometimes serially. Sometimes more than one at one time that don't know about each other. Lots of women. Lots.
It's not monogamy that is hampering you. It's no-kid-ism. That is the religion of the day.
Opium is now the religion of the people.
Maybe there can be a few exceptions.
A man who is a catch, who lifts weights, dresses nicely, and can do many things, usually has more choices. That's just normal supply and demand. What's better, is wanted more.
Maybe, get to know the right sort of men, and see if they have daughters or nieces.
The usual singles venues, no, never.
Can you frequent a different bunch of people, maybe just one event, to look around?
Have you offered to HELP? Babysit, kick in a little money, have the wedding in your backyard cheaply? Counsel, advise, have little barbecue afternoons at your place where they can meet each other?
Can you get off TV, have some serious conversations with a friend or two, to form a supportive group?
You are entirely right.
You have it all figured out. Especially the delusions about "later." Meaning "I will get this family thing going later. When I have had my fill of horsing around."
You also understand that men age right along with the women who are their same age. A thirty year old man is about as likely as a thirty year old woman to have children. Not.
You are an American. Can you organize a path out of this horror show? You probably can't, alone. But can you have a discussion, a meeting, exercise leadership?
Why can't you have what your grandfather had? A table. With a woman at the other end and a bunch of kids around it. If that goal is put first, and no other allowed to be more important, can it be achieved?
"... not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Having children is almost as hard as going to the moon, now. But you did get to the moon.
It is bad. But maybe there are some.
I DO remark that men really like the pretty ones. The not-so-gorgeous clerical workers, who aren't stupid but are not professionals, might be possible honorable wives and mothers. Candidly, they have little else going for them, and might be honest, clean girls. And glad to get a home.
But noooo, they aren't pretty. They may have a bit of poundage on them. Fattish. Not so chic. Not hotties.
The porn industry has taught men that that's what a woman is, and should be. Thin and hot. Uh, no.
A nation of men who prefer film to reality is not going to have an easy time forming fertile families.
A woman who is identified as good for this job - and it is a job - when young, and allowed, yes allowed, to have a lot of children fairly fast, and who never goes to an office in nice clothes where she meets other men, will be a good bet to stick around.
By age thirty, when her roving eye can start, she has far too many children to saddle her mother with, if she divorced.
She is not a hot young woman anymore. She is a dignified, mature, somewhat tired, busy, mother, and probably has a baby on her hip. What man is going to seduce her? Nobody.
Men without ENOUGH children lose their wives. The average mother-in-law can only help her divorced daughter with two children. Not more.
That's my idea of what to do about the very real problem you cite. In short, do it a lot, or don't do it at all. Start as early as possible. And a working woman is a woman meeting other people.
It is needing the woman's income.
Lots of men would rather have her income than her children.
Even a compromise, with having fewer children does not work. The biggest expense of having children is the mother's time.
"Replace children with animals." Ouch. You are so right.
It wasn't me who down voted you.
YEAH. IT'S SO DUMB.
This is cultural, not financial. American ingenuity is quite able to raise children, even on just the father's income, if it bothered.
American ingenuity could figure out how to band together, support each other, pass around used baby clothes and toys, cook from scratch, swap baby-sitting, and generally cheer on, large young families with a SAHM. Stay at home mother.
They don't use their creativity to jump out of the box.
If they cared enough, they would find a way. They have energy and brains. But they don't use their brains about this.
Yup. You get it. Thanks.
I've got enough problem people, I don't need more.
So have a baby.
He might want to sign his name on the letter. But a bank account number is private information and made public, can expose him to financial fraud.
Cool. Just block out the account number at the bottom of the check.
Here is another link about this:
And here are the original two doctors whose idea this is saying why they want this:
Marriage. Childbearing. Large families.
Yup. Well said.
I never thought enough was done to counter the brutality on the ground, where you couldn't eat a burger wearing a MAGA hat.
And there was no lawyer to call, no number to call, no attempt to push back, to defend freedom of thought and speech. For four years.
Vacuums get filled.
Oh there are whole books about anti-Jewish art made in the Middle Ages. Sculptures in churches.
That reflects on the makers of it, not the subjects of it.
Yup. It does.
That was the Saducees. Not Pharisees.
The Saducees were the Temple elite. Big shots. Rich. Long extinct group. They were the baddies you mention.
The Pharisees were the common man, the man in the street. Not elite. Poor. Had no power. Their leaders founded rabbinic system still in use today, when the Temple was gone. Their descendants are still here. Today's Judaism is Pharisaic Judaism.
The words were switched somewhere along the way, possibly by a Saducee who wanted the blame put onto a rival group, the Pharisees. Possibly a Saducee convert to Christianity. Who still had Saducee friends and relatives, and did not want them blamed. But they should have been blamed.
Instead the Pharisees have been mistakenly made to pay for the misdeeds of the Saducees. For a long time. This ought to be straightened out.
It is well known who both groups were. It is logically obvious that only the Temple elite, the Saducees, could have done those things. They had gotten very big for their britches. They disappeared two thousand years ago. Deservedly.
Picking on the Pharisees makes no sense, unless the two words were switched in the old texts. On purpose.
Let this be corrected.