Among the most popular myths perpetuated by the divorce industry is that the ditz who married a doctor and stayed at home to raise children gave up a great career. After all, since women can do everything better than men, it is only logical to assume that absolutely everyone of them would have ended up as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, if only the patriarchy had allowed them to pursue their dreams. In this context, we only ever hear about the alleged sacrifices womyn make. Pointing out that not having to work, not having to commute, not having to deal with b.s. from at least 9 am to 6 pm isn’t much of a sacrifice won’t improve your popularity with those people, though.
What is normally completely ignored in this context are the sacrifices men make in a serious relationship, once they decide that they do want to have a family. For one, a single guy can live ridiculously cheaply. If you were hardcore, you could work for ten years and then simply retire. Of course, you’d have to have a rather frugal taste, but it’s certainly doable. While that is an extreme case, the general point stands: without the responsibility of having to provide for a family, you could work a fairly relaxed job and get by just fine. You’d essentially be a male single mom without kids, but, hey, in a big city you’re likely to find enough peers who picked a similar lifestyle.
If you are more ambitious, you could be ballin’. With the money needed to raise a family and afford a wife, you could engage in a life of luxury: nice clothes, good food, exotic travels are not an issue at all with a decent middle-class income, if you’d only use it for yourself. On a related note, I think that one of the reasons homosexuality is being promoted so much is that faggots, just like single women, are better consumers: they have no kids, and no responsibilities.
From a purely financial perspective, a man who decides to have a family sacrifices some of his financial stability as well as his freedom. However, there’s more: men who have settled down also sacrifice career opportunities. This depends on your chosen careers, but in some fields, geographic immobility is a kiss of death. Any role that involves significant amounts of travel would become unsuitable, any field in which you may have to change jobs quickly in order to accelerate your career would become a lot less attractive. At the very least, you would have to forego certain career opportunities.
In summary, it’s easy to say that a stay-at-home ditz could have become a high-flying executive, like the diversity CIO at Equifax, albeit it’s a downright ludicrous statement. On the other hand, the claim that men make enormous sacrifices when raising a family is hardly ever made, but in their case you could much more plausibly quantify the sacrifice they give up on.
Nice article.
Here’s a similar one that points out that being a “stay at home parent” isnt necessarily as hard as ppl think:
http://www.johntreed.net/stayathomedad.html
Another very interesting topic.
About this: ‘On a related note, I think that one of the reasons homosexuality is being promoted so much is that faggots, just like single women, are better consumers:.’
Indeed, gays can be surprisingly big spenders in my experience, even those with average jobs. They are typically good employees as well: no nights of missed sleep due to a crying baby, no need to stay at home for a sick child.
That being said, I find ‘faggots’ extremely derogatory and also surprising, given that you frequented Berghain – essentially a gay club.
I don’t consider “faggot” that derogatory. Plenty of gay men refer to themselves this way, for instance.
We much more prefer the term androphile, and can be very manly, even when guzzling cum.
I dress in black leather and except for my Harley, am an anti-consumerist.
Thus, an “androphile” is nothing more than your garden-variety slut. Using Greek words doesn’t help very much to disguise the true nature of something. The pedophiles have been trying the same.