# Men's responsibilities



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course Adam could not do that without Eve. Adam gave the carrier of life and intelligence to Eve for her to nurture, Adam's responsibility is to care for Eve and 'his' children. Eve's responsibility was to nurture Adam's children during their formative years.

Todays women have rejected motherhood. Having a baby just to turn it over to a day care center in order to pursue a career is not fulfilling the responsibilities of a mother. 

Remember, God's command was to Adam, making it Adam's responsibility to bring children into the world. This also makes it Adam's responsibility to seek out and provide his children with an appropriate mother. If Adam does not do this, he is failing in his responsibilities. But there is another catch. No man can force a woman against her will to fulfill the obligations of a mother and stay at home with his children. Women are free agents just as men are.

Another aspect that complicates things for man is God's injunction against extra-marital sex. So, if a man cannot fulfill his obligation to bring children into the world because he cannot fulfill his further obligation to find a suitable mother, the man is then obliged to keep the law of chastity. It would be wrong for a man to give a child's life to a woman who will not herself fulfill her obligation to stay with and nurture that life. 

Today's women (for the most part) are not suitable for motherhood. Woman may object and ask: who is man to judge a woman's suitability to motherhood? I would tell men that it most definitely is your responsibility to judge of the qualifications of a woman for motherhood.

Finally: It is better for a man to remain celibate than to inflict an unsuitable woman on a child... Consider it your civic duty to reduce the inevitable single mother welfare role. With the divorce rate being what it is, men stand to lose everything... money, house, children... everything. And never mind what a man will lose. Think of the damage being done to the child. So don't put a child in that position of having a "mother" who values her career more than the child, but will still use the child as leverage against you.

Being celibate is not something to be feared. It is not that difficult. I know on the one hand women will say "stop objectifying me" and on the other hand will wear dress and make-up to make objects of themselves. Women know men's weakness for feminine beauty and they exploit it to the detriment of men who are attempting to obey God. As an observation to make my point... The television news used to be men's talking heads. Now it is women's talking legs. Women seem to have this need to make their legs the center of attention rather than the news. Men, you have avoid the siren call of feminine wiles if you are to succeed at being true to God's commands if you cannot find a suitable mother for your children.


----------



## thebirdman (Apr 5, 2014)

Crap! I left my popcorn and sweet tea downstairs. Hold on....


----------



## thread the needle (May 4, 2015)

Hahahaha


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

ether-ore said:


> This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course Adam could not do that without Eve. Adam gave the carrier of life and intelligence to Eve for her to nurture, Adam's responsibility is to care for Eve and 'his' children. Eve's responsibility was to nurture Adam's children during their formative years.
> 
> Todays women have rejected motherhood. Having a baby just to turn it over to a day care center in order to pursue a career is not fulfilling the responsibilities of a mother.
> 
> ...


Celibacy is popular with a few very spiritual men and also with man who are unhappy with their masculinity and want women to molly-coddle them and wrap their feeling of helplessness up with pseudo-spiritual, misogynistic nonsense. 

I suspect this poster is one of the latter.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

thebirdman said:


> Crap! I left my popcorn and sweet tea downstairs. Hold on....


I'm drinking wine...I hope this picks up a bit.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I fulfilled my MAN responsibility and walked my two daughters out of church to avoid nuts like this influencing them.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

ether-ore said:


> This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course Adam could not do that without Eve. Adam gave the carrier of life and intelligence to Eve for her to nurture, Adam's responsibility is to care for Eve and 'his' children. Eve's responsibility was to nurture Adam's children during their formative years.
> 
> Todays women have rejected motherhood. Having a baby just to turn it over to a day care center in order to pursue a career is not fulfilling the responsibilities of a mother.
> 
> ...



I too am a God fearing man but this is my take on your post.

Men and women are equals under God. We are physically and emotionally different but equals. Procreation.

Men are bigger and stronger to protect their women.

Women have better memories to multitask and to have children.

Back in the day, way back, this was the case.

Today, women work the same as men because of economics. One income doesn't work much anymore. So hubby and wifee both work while they have a baby sitter or drop their child off at day care.

It's expensive to live today and especially if you want to own a house. One income almost doesn't work anymore.

I'm sure if the wife's out there could be stay at home mom's, they would.

Women dress sexy because they want to show what they have while they have it. You're only young once. Men do the same thing. Going to the gym and wearing clothes to show themselves off. Both men and woman want to be sexually noticed and it makes them feel sexy, needed and wanted.

Celibacy? If you can, great. But I wasn't one of those.....:grin2:


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*As a God-loving and fearing Christian male, the status quo may have rendered me "temporarily celibate," but it is certainly not by personal choice!

If I do not have, or have failed to develop psychological, romantic emotions and/or feelings for a woman that I am rather attracted to, then I simply want to do us both an enormous favor in not wanting to touch them until such time that a firm emotional connection of that caliber has been established between the two of us!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Ha ha ha, good luck finding a woman who agrees with you. 

Your choice of celibacy is no loss to womankind.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Somehow I don't think this meme is going to reproduce, if you get my drift. >


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.


Then why are certain priests and monks celibate? Is it because they oppose God'a commandment? (or merely think that they are special and have received instruction to be "better" than that? )
And why only adam, why not the womenfolk, surely it would make sense to include them in "the big plan" since they have a fair bit to do with that whole replenishing thing...

(personally sounds like some grubby war leader coming up with a "godly excuse" be granted divine right to rape/stalk whomever he pleases.... (like so much written dogma, too easy to see it coming from a man; a no reason to think God who created the whole Universe and Eden, would need to tell adam.... But I can definitely a couple of adam's hearing their genitals telling them that....)


----------



## ExiledBayStater (Feb 16, 2013)

Mr The Other said:


> Celibacy is popular with a few very spiritual men and also with *man who are unhappy with their masculinity and want women to molly-coddle them and wrap their feeling of helplessness up with pseudo-spiritual, misogynistic nonsense.*
> 
> I suspect this poster is one of the latter.


I'm fascinated, can I ask you to elaborate or recommend further reading?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I am certain that this interpretation of God's Word and Intentions is sincere. however, it has one fatal flaw. God made both men and women and he loves both equally. He holds each person equally accountable for their personal sins and ask us not to do His job by judging others. 

One small portion of I Corinthians is often quoted as an admonition to women while ignoring the rest. Did you know that this is also a passage from I Corinthians - "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." The primacy of love is repeated again and again in the Bible and is meant for all of mankind. 

Read the passages in the Bible that offer guides to your personal actions, behaviors and thoughts. Individual women will be judged fairly for their deeds so don't worry. Follow Him, that's all you have time to do in this life.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

ExiledBayStater said:


> I'm fascinated, can I ask you to elaborate or recommend further reading?


Not really. It is just my impression with no real weight behind it. NMMNG makes a passing reference to it. Being celibate is a good way of avoiding being hurt and will appeal to men who are very sensitive to their own feelings.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> Ha ha ha, good luck finding a woman who agrees with you.
> 
> Your choice of celibacy is no loss to womankind.


Well that was an all-around letdown.

I was expecting something a bit less... tame.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Did you miss chapter 31 in the book of Proverbs? 

That woman owned a business making cloth, she bought and sold land, had employees, and did a lot more than just run after children. Among her servants were most likely nannies to watch over her children while she took care of her money making businesses.

Your beliefs about a woman's role are not Bible based.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Genesis chapter 1-
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
*male and female he created them*.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm confused, I thought that Adam having to provide for his wife and family was a curse.

Likewise Eve having to bare children with labor was also a curse.

I mean originally before the fall, Adam didn't have to provide **** for anyone, am I wrong.

So, all this working, busting babies out your belly, is actually God's curse.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Well that was an all-around letdown.
> 
> I was expecting something a bit less... tame.


From me or OP?

I try not to disappoint. ....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> Another aspect that complicates things for man is God's injunction against extra-marital sex. So, if a man cannot fulfill his obligation to bring children into the world because he cannot fulfill his further obligation to find a suitable mother, the man is then obliged to keep the law of chastity. It would be wrong for a man to give a child's life to a woman who will not herself fulfill her obligation to stay with and nurture that life.
> 
> Being celibate is not something to be feared. It is not that difficult. I know on the one hand women will say "stop objectifying me" and on the other hand will wear dress and make-up to make objects of themselves. Women know men's weakness for feminine beauty and they exploit it to the detriment of men who are attempting to obey God. As an observation to make my point... The television news used to be men's talking heads. Now it is women's talking legs. Women seem to have this need to make their legs the center of attention rather than the news. Men, you have avoid the siren call of feminine wiles if you are to succeed at being true to God's commands if you cannot find a suitable mother for your children.


I don't normally thump, but when I thump, I source


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

gouge_away said:


> I'm confused, I thought that Adam having to provide for his wife and family was a curse.
> 
> Likewise Eve having to bare children with labor was also a curse.
> 
> ...


You are correct. Adam and Eve ate veggies and fruit right from the garden. They didn't have to work (cook, clean dishes, etc.)

Eve probably would have had easy births, with little pain, just like animals do.

God never told anyone it was only the man's job to work, and that only the wife was to take care of _his_ children. That division of labor probably developed on its own after they ate the apple and were kicked out of Eden.

Now that they had to work hard to feed themselves, it would have been stupid for a man to take a nursing baby with him while he was hunting for food, now that he couldn't just pick it from a tree or a plant. The wife would have stayed behind to nurse the baby and care for the young children, and perhaps farm a bit while the man was free to go hunt since the baby didn't need him for nursing.

OP is making up his own religion, or following someone's, but not God's from the Bible.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Doesn't matter. This is CLEARLY a troll thread that is going to be closed shortly.


----------



## ExiledBayStater (Feb 16, 2013)

OP, what do you think of the kibbutz movement?


----------



## HeartbrokenW (Sep 26, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Somehow I don't think this meme is going to reproduce, if you get my drift. >


And that's a GOOD thing!


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)




----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Religion...

Meh


----------



## November (Nov 28, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> Doesn't matter. This is CLEARLY a troll thread that is going to be closed shortly.


Yep
We've all seen this kind of poster. Makes one controversial post and then disappears. Why waste our time.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

ether-ore said:


> This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course Adam could not do that without Eve. Adam gave the carrier of life and intelligence to Eve for her to nurture, Adam's responsibility is to care for Eve and 'his' children. Eve's responsibility was to nurture Adam's children during their formative years.
> 
> Todays women have rejected motherhood. Having a baby just to turn it over to a day care center in order to pursue a career is not fulfilling the responsibilities of a mother.
> 
> ...


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

There is no mandate to modern man to get married and make babies. There's no indication in the Bible that Jesus did either. I don't believe any of His disciples did, either. If a man chooses to be a husband and a father, there are specific instructions for him. If a woman chooses to be a wife and a mother, there are specific duties for her as well.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

CuddleBug said:


> I too am a God fearing man but this is my take on your post.
> 
> Men and women are equals under God. We are physically and emotionally different but equals. Procreation.
> 
> ...


I'm not receiving notifications in my e-mail, so sorry for the slow response, I never expected much agreement, but I give it as my opinion that the economic necessity for women to work is because women are in the work place. In other words, if women stayed home to raise their families, the economy would adjust accordingly.

All the other stuff you said about sexuality is true now because of a decadent culture. I think it is up to moral Christian men to behave better than that.

As far as celibacy goes... I never said it should be desired. What I said was that I believe it to be man's responsibility to find an appropriate woman to mother his children. I further said, that if he cannot find one, he is obliged according to God's law to abstain from sex until such time as he can find a suitable mother.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

And you know this... how?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

ether-ore said:


> I'm not receiving notifications in my e-mail, so sorry for the slow response, I never expected much agreement, but I give it as my opinion that the economic necessity for women to work is because women are in the work place. In other words, if women stayed home to raise their families, the economy would adjust accordingly.
> 
> All the other stuff you said about sexuality is true now because of a decadent culture. I think it is up to moral Christian men to behave better than that.
> 
> As far as celibacy goes... I never said it should be desired. What I said was that I believe it to be man's responsibility to find an appropriate woman to mother his children. I further said, that if he cannot find one, he is obliged according to God's law to abstain from sex until such time as he can find a suitable mother.


While I am not a Christian, I believe you have stated the Christian case fairly well. I also agree that the influx of women into the workplace has affected family life negatively in more than one way, although of course there are also positive effects. In any event, this is a societal issue that cannot be blamed on the individuals who must adapt to it.

By the way, you might find https://dalrock.wordpress.com/ a more appropriate place to post and read, as both Dalrock and most of his readers are much more attuned to Christianity than most of the posters here.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

Wolf1974 said:


> I fulfilled my MAN responsibility and walked my two daughters out of church to avoid nuts like this influencing them.


What... exactly... are you projecting that my influence would be? If you had read what I said, you might realize that I said it is up to the man who is considering marriage to evaluate the suitability of a given prospect for motherhood. It would be absurd for a man to go around trying to influence in an arbitrary way some man's daughters if no marriage is even contemplated.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

lifeistooshort said:


> Ha ha ha, good luck finding a woman who agrees with you.
> 
> Your choice of celibacy is no loss to womankind.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm sure, but don't care. I may be in a distinct minority, but the idea is not to make mothers of modern-day "womankind". I hope to convince 'some' men not to do their children a disservice by giving them a bad mother. As I said, I think modern women make bad mothers.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

technovelist said:


> Somehow I don't think this meme is going to reproduce, if you get my drift. >


Is it your opinion then that no consideration should be given to the kind of parents people would make. That attitude certainly explains the welfare roles and orphanages.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

ether-ore said:


> Is it your opinion then that no consideration should be given to the kind of parents people would make. That attitude certainly explains the welfare roles and orphanages.


Yes, of course it is important to consider the kind of parents people would make.

But those who are planning to remain celibate won't have very much input on this important topic, for what I hope will be obvious reasons.

Especially on this board, whose members are, in general and as far as I have seen, not very interested in Christian parenting. That's why I suggested Dalrock's blog, where that issue is much more on-topic.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

technovelist said:


> Yes, of course it is important to consider the kind of parents people would make.
> 
> But those who are planning to remain celibate won't have very much input on this important topic, for what I hope will be obvious reasons.
> 
> Especially on this board, whose members are as far as I have seen not very interested in Christian parenting. That's why I suggested Dalrock's blog, where that issue is much more on-topic.


Correct, I'm not interested in Christian parenting. Also, I'm not interested in a judging God. So basically, I'm not interested in this thread...I'm gonna go. :nerd:


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

technovelist said:


> Especially on this board, whose members are as far as I have seen not very interested in Christian parenting. That's why I suggested Dalrock's blog, where that issue is much more on-topic.


Speak for yourself @technovelist. There are definitely Christians on this board, who are very interested in Christian parenting, even if we disagree with ether-ore's approach.
@ether-ore. What would you do if you married a woman who was virtuous and willing to be a SAHM and do a good job at it in every way, but you find out after trying to have children that she can't have them? Is she still a suitable wife and parther, even though she can't fill your requirement of being a mother?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> Speak for yourself @technovelist. There are definitely Christians on this board, who are very interested in Christian parenting, even if we disagree with ether-ore's approach.
> 
> @ether-ore. What would you do if you married a woman who was virtuous and willing to be a SAHM and do a good job at it in every way, but you find out after trying to have children that she can't have them? Is she still a suitable wife and parther, even though she can't fill your requirement of being a mother?


I'm sure there are Christians on this board who are interested in Christian parenting.

So as usual, my comments should be considered as general, not specific to any one person, and I have added qualifiers to that effect.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

technovelist said:


> I'm sure there are Christians on this board who are interested in Christian parenting.
> 
> So as usual, my comments should be considered as general, not specific to any one person, and I have added qualifiers to that effect.


Rather than try to run ether-ore off the board through your not so veiled generalized statements, you and everyone who dislike ether-ore's ideas have the right to ignore his thread and let it slip down the page and disappear.

I'm not defending ether-ore's statements or beliefs, but his right to post on TAM.

(I also strongly disagree with ether-ore's misrepresentations of what God actually said in the Bible. If I knew ether-ore in person, I would warn my daughters what he is about and they would steer clear of him. I want them to be more than someone's masturbation tool, baby factory, nanny and maid, which is what I believe ether-ore is looking for in a wife, based on his post.)


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> Rather than try to run ether-ore off the board through your not so veiled generalized statements, you and everyone who dislike ether-ore's ideas have the right to ignore his thread and let it slip down the page and disappear.
> 
> I'm not defending ether-ore's statements or beliefs, but his right to post on TAM.
> 
> (I also strongly disagree with ether-ore's misrepresentations of what God actually said in the Bible. If I met ether-ore in person, I would make sure my daughters never got to know him, because I want more for them than to become nothing more than someone's masturbation tool, baby factory, nanny and maid, which is what I believe ether-ore is looking for in a wife.)


First, I'm not trying to run him off the board, just telling him that there are other boards where I think he would be more at home.

Second, you are quite vehement about your disagreement with him.

So who dislikes his ideas and is trying to run him off?


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

I do disagree with him. Vehemently? I don't know on what basis you chose that adjective.

I have not told him that TAM is generally non Christian and that he should post elsewhere. 

I post my perspective because he does not represent all Christians, and I know that some non Christians on TAM might like to hold him up as the poster child for Christians because his beliefs are so extreme.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> As I said, I think modern women make bad mothers.



With all due respect - who really cares what you think?

I happen to think that many (MANY) "modern-day" men make terrible fathers, as evidenced by all the deadbeat dads out there who don't even financially support their children, let alone emotionally support then. Yet I don't go around starting threads about it and insulting ALL men in the process.

I'm a professional woman who raised 3 kids (almost single-handedly) who turned out to be better than amazing. Without exception. So your painting with a broad brush about how modern women make bad mothers is just horse hockey. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't try to push it off on everyone else as fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> I do disagree with him. Vehemently? I don't know on what basis you chose that adjective.
> 
> I have not told him that TAM is generally non Christian and that he should post elsewhere.
> 
> I post my perspective because he does not represent all Christians, and I know that some non Christians on TAM might like to hold him up as the poster child for Christians because his beliefs are so extreme.


This is why I chose "vehemently":



IMFarAboveRubies said:


> (I also *strongly disagree* with ether-ore's misrepresentations of what God actually said in the Bible. If I knew ether-ore in person, *I would warn my daughters what he is about and they would steer clear of him.* I want them to be more than someone's *masturbation tool, baby factory, nanny and maid, which is what I believe ether-ore is looking for in a wife*, based on his post.)


If you wouldn't categorize that disagreement as "vehement", I wonder what you would consider vehement disagreement.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> Women know men's weakness for feminine beauty and they exploit it to the detriment of men who are attempting to obey God. As an observation to make my point... The television news used to be men's talking heads. Now it is women's talking legs. Women seem to have this need to make their legs the center of attention rather than the news. Men, you have avoid the siren call of feminine wiles if you are to succeed at being true to God's commands if you cannot find a suitable mother for your children.


This creeped me out.



> So, if a man cannot fulfill his obligation to bring children into the world because he cannot fulfill his further obligation to find a suitable mother, the man is then obliged to keep the law of chastity.


I agree. All men who think like you should actively practice chastity....not that you're going to have much of a choice.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

If women were treated as equals from day one, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Women today work, to help support their families because of economics.

Example, when my Dad got his degree, he was the only provider while Mom raised the both of us.

If I got a degree today, you wouldn't be making as much money and the standard of living for everything has gone through the roof.

Having one income today doesn't work anymore, unless you like living in poverty.

I know if ladies could be stay at home mom's, they would chose to do so, but they know how tough it is today to make ends meet.

Gone are the old days of man works, wife stays home, raises kids, cleans house and not much else.

If families were forced to have one income, wife always at home, most families would live in poverty, only rent and the hubby would be working so many long hours, he's rarely spending time with them. She'd get lonely and have an affair.

Women and men today and way back, have always dressed sexy to get attention. Roman Empire times there were open orgies, while being married and having sex with servants and kids. Worse back then.

If I could kill my high sex drive, I would, but I know that is basically impossible because us men are wired to be horny and want sex.

It's like telling a woman not to be emotional.


Modern example.

Today, were I live, if you want to buy a newer big house, you'll be paying around $500,000 to $600,000.

Most wages range from min wage to $20 hr range.

To buy a newer big house, you'd need TWO FULL TIME INCOMES AND A TENANT.

One income is literally impossible and you'd be renting a small place your entire life.

So having the man work, wife stays home raising kids and house work, is a pipe dream.


This is reality today.


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

Can you show me in the Bible where the "law of chastity" is outlined or stated?


----------



## Adelais (Oct 23, 2013)

technovelist said:


> This is why I chose "vehemently":
> 
> 
> 
> If you wouldn't categorize that disagreement as "vehement", I wonder what you would consider vehement disagreement.


One person's strong opinion is another's vehement opinion I guess.


----------



## NotLikeYou (Aug 30, 2011)

ether-ore said:


> This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course Adam could not do that without Eve. Adam gave the carrier of life and intelligence to Eve for her to nurture, Adam's responsibility is to care for Eve and 'his' children. Eve's responsibility was to nurture Adam's children during their formative years.
> 
> Todays women have rejected motherhood. Having a baby just to turn it over to a day care center in order to pursue a career is not fulfilling the responsibilities of a mother.
> 
> ...





lifeistooshort said:


> Ha ha ha, good luck finding a woman who agrees with you.
> 
> Your choice of celibacy is no loss to womankind.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





GusPolinski said:


> Well that was an all-around letdown.
> 
> I was expecting something a bit less... tame.




Perhaps LiTS just wasn't poked properly, and so didn't achieve "peak response."

Allow me.

Ether-ore, those are some fascinating thoughts you outline. As long as we're discussing this, I would absolutely LOVE to hear your additional thoughts on WOMEN'S responsibilities.

I bet all the ladies reading would like to know, too.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

intheory said:


> Peter
> 
> "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." -Matthew 8:14


Ok, there's one out of 12.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

ether-ore said:


> What... exactly... are you projecting that my influence would be? If you had read what I said, you might realize that I said it is up to the man who is considering marriage to evaluate the suitability of a given prospect for motherhood. It would be absurd for a man to go around trying to influence in an arbitrary way some man's daughters if no marriage is even contemplated.


I hope my daughters do find love and marriage one day. Just not your limited and warped view of it


----------



## MerlinsBritain (Jan 3, 2016)

Blessed are the cheesemakers.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

CuddleBug said:


> If women were treated as equals from day one, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
> 
> Women today work, to help support their families because of economics.
> 
> ...


The reality is that most people have tremendously higher expectations today than 60, 80 or 100 years ago. In 1920 the average single-family house (in the United States) was ~800 square feet. The average home today is much larger at 2,600 square feet. 

People had more kids, with less stuff and less space.

The idea that you need 2 incomes is ridiculous. Most intact families could downsize a lot, drop all the stupid doodads and weird "keeping up with the Jones-es" attitude and live quite fine with 1 income. You need 2 incomes if you want extra comforts that 2 incomes provide.

What destroys so many folks is taking out a loan for everything. When you borrow to buy a car, and borrow to buy clothes and borrow to take that vacation and borrow again and again.... they end up enslaved to their creditors, and deserve the miserable existence they have shackled themselves with.

You don't need a $600,000 home, you want one. You don't need that brand new car, you want it. We could keep this up ad nauseum.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Kivlor said:


> The reality is that most people have tremendously higher expectations today than 60, 80 or 100 years ago. In 1920 the average single-family house (in the United States) was ~800 square feet. The average home today is much larger at 2,600 square feet.
> 
> People had more kids, with less stuff and less space.
> 
> ...




You have no clue what you are talking about.


I live in Canada, BC. 

Renting in my city is extremely expensive. 800 sqft you pay about $1200+ month on average. To rent a bigger place, you pay more.
For a 1000 sqft place, rent is around $1400+ month.

Buying a used house here is around $400,000 to $500,000

A newer house, $500,000 to $600,000+

Wages here are min wage to the $20 hour range.

Do the math.

You need two full time incomes renting or owning here.

For a new house, you need two full time incomes and a tenant.

The Lower Mainland and Vancouver are even worse.....

No one with a family would rent or own an 800 sqft place. That's big enough for ONE person. 1000 sqft TWO people. For a family, 2 kids to have rooms and space to play, obviously more.

There aren't a lot of play grounds and parks either. You going to play in the streets? That isn't safe for kids.


A friend of mine just found a bigger place to rent. Its an old house that needs work, and he and his family rent half of it. $1450 month. Only one income because his gf just had their 2nd child and is now a stay at home mom. One income at $21 hour supporting his gf, two kids, rent, food, car expenses, utilities, clothes, etc, etc, etc,. He's basically living from paycheck to paycheck. And you wonder why two incomes are needed today???

My wife's sister and her family also rent half a house. Older house for $1450 month. They BOTH work (Full and Part Time) while the kids are in elementary school. They couldn't do it otherwise.

Another friend bought a house a few years ago. He and his wife both work full time and have a tenant. I'd guess his mortgage in the $2000+ range. So one income pays for the mortgage, taxes, utilities and the other income pays for everything else. $500,000+

Another friend bought a house a few years ago and also has two full time incomes. They don't have a tenant but they need both full time incomes. $500,000+


Cars. Most of my friends do not buy brand new vehicles. They either trade their vehicles in for something else but again, not brand new or a sports car.

And finding a place to rent here is very tough or you pay a very high rent.


Your comments show me you aren't in touch with reality and today.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

I've been having computer problems, so I haven't been able to respond. A lot of comments have been made that need responding to, but I'm just going to hit a few points.

I never said that celibacy is preferable or even desirable. Quite the contrary, I have indicated that marriage and family are ordained of God for the benefit of all His children, both men and women.

Society, culture and government have moved in attack on the nuclear family in numerous ways.

My feeling is that men could do something to reverse the trend against the family by ceasing to participate in its corruption for as long as it takes. Government and women have effectively told men through usurpation of men's familial roles that they are no longer necessary. That there are some still left who may think otherwise is in the greater scheme of things, irrelevant. There exists a mass of thought and attitude who's inertia cannot be overcome so easily. Men refusing to participate for a time may stand a chance of doing so. Women cannot do it because they will see any attempting to get government out of the family and taking over the man's role as contrary to their interests. But either way, men have been reduced to the level of sperm donors. Seeing as how there is very little benefit for men in a marriage, where he stands to lose his money, his home and his children, he may as well go on strike.

Of course, I'm speaking in general terms and there are always exceptions, but as I said, social inertia is against men.

A couple of other points:

As I said, this not just about men. Men do have a say in who assists them in bringing life into the world. Men have a responsibility in insuring his children have a good mother. That a woman can do it all is not the issue. If the man does not want to interrupt a woman's career... fine... but don't make a mother of her. Her needs are not the sole consideration here. The man must consider the needs of his children. Career women as a rule do not make good mothers. Would a man be foolish enough to marry the first woman that came along? Should he marry solely on sexual compatibility? I'm just saying that he should consider motherly desires and capabilities as well as other things. And please don't tell me that a man should not judge a potential mate. 

Just because you may disagree with me, doesn't make me a troll. Attempting to assign that appellation to me is only an attempt at silencing an opposing point of view and it is also a strike at free and open debate.

Lastly... someone suggested that he needed to keep his daughters from my influence. Since I have been talking about morality and not having sex with women and therefore, I would not even consider going anywhere near another man's daughters... his comment is not only insulting, but it shows a complete ignorance of my position.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

@CuddleBug

I did qualify my post with "in the US"; but I'm willing to gamble I'm correct in Canada. I'm gonna go with the Victoria area in BC (median house $445,000). The 2nd most expensive market for housing in all of Canada. I still found several houses for under $100,000 with 2+ bedrooms.

Here's another thought:

Buy some land, build a small house. Or buy a couple of "tiny houses" and place them together. I've linked you 3.23 AC for sale, which you could ask the seller to subdivide into a .25 AC parcel. Or you could buy it and subdivide. I don't have much access to your local MLS, so I'd bet there's cheaper options. 

If it's that expensive, you could go outside of town, buy cheap land, build a bunch of cheap houses, and rent them for $$$. I'd do it, but I don't live in Canada.

Median house price in the United States: $188,000. Median Rent in the US varies by source; US gov places it at $799/month. That means half of all US houses / rents are below those two numbers. 

Median individual income in the US is $28,757; while the average is $42,789.

I'm thinking you're the one out of touch with the rest of the western world here, if you're living in one of the most expensive markets in a country that has an overpriced market. And if it is so untenable, you may consider moving to a place where the burden of mere survival is drastically less.

I fully understand we can't have everything we want. We have to balance things out. A smaller home. A more affordable home. Lower expectations.

As I stated above, in the US, in 1920, the median house size was ~800 SF (750 SF if I recall correctly) while the household size was ~4.5 persons. The average house size today is 2,600 SF in the US while the average household has 2.5 persons. People not long ago had much lower expectations; and, if you struggle to try, you and your children probably can too.

*We are attempting to purchase 3.5 times the house our great-grandparents did; simultaneously, we expect to be able to afford this massive home as easily as they did. This is insanity.*


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Kivlor said:


> @CuddleBug
> 
> I did qualify my post with "in the US"; but I'm willing to gamble I'm correct in Canada. I'm gonna go with the Victoria area in BC (median house $445,000). The 2nd most expensive market for housing in all of Canada. I still found several houses for under $100,000 with 2+ bedrooms.
> 
> ...



I dare you to come to my city and try and find a place to buy for $100,000........

I dare you to try and find a place to rent that's not tiny 800 sqft and for $1200 month rent or less.......

I've lived in my city my entire life. BACK IN THE DAY, say 40+ years ago, what you are saying is true. You could buy a house and it was around $100,000 and a good size too. Standard of living wasn't as high either and wages were keeping up. Today, not in a million years.

I am talking about today. I am talking about the present, 2016.

What you say does make sense in my parents time, 40+ years ago, but again, today, not in a million years.

If Mrs.CuddleBug and I, today, decided to try and buy a place for around $100,000, in my city, you will get ZERO hits.

Even mobile homes in trailer parks are $150,000+

When I was a kid, my teen years, our house in my city was around 2000+ sqft and we had a good sized front and back yards. Lots of lawn cutting.:grin2:

I think houses then were $110,000+ or around that range if I recall. That's about 40 years ago......1975.

"Average Canadian house price today is........$455,000." And that's not a new huge house either.

Western half of Canada is very expensive but that's half of Canada.

Have you tried to buy a house in England today??? It's not just Canada.

The reality is, two incomes are required to buy a house today. If you came here and tried to buy a house by yourself with one income, not happening in a million years. You'd be renting a small apartment or own a mobile home.

800 sqft condo costs......wait for it.......about $225,000+ today in my city.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

CuddleBug said:


> I dare you to come to my city and try and find a place to buy for $100,000........
> 
> I dare you to try and find a place to rent that's not tiny 800 sqft and for $1200 month rent or less.......
> 
> ...


This is correct. Right now me and my husband are house poor because too much of the income goes to the house. If we tried to sell the house we would lose so much money. The home doesn't cost what it did when we bought it and we put a lot of money into it. 

The house owns us. It's very modest. It was built in the 50's.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

CuddleBug said:


> I dare you to come to my city and try and find a place to buy for $100,000........
> 
> I dare you to try and find a place to rent that's not tiny 800 sqft and for $1200 month rent or less.......
> 
> ...


I just gave you a link to several for sale in Victoria, the 2nd most expensive housing market in all of Canada. I don't know where you live in BC, but a quick search shows 75 such houses for sale in Vancouver -- Langley on Canada's Realtor site.  That is the most expensive housing market in all of Canada.

And as I stated, it is quite possible to buy land and build on it. It would be easy to buy a bunch of land, break it up and make a glut by selling houses for way less than the market rate of $445,000. Maybe you should do that, if such housing isn't available. It would certainly sell.

If you want to stay in a very affluent area, or buy in a heavily developed one you will have to pay a premium. Or you can leave move a little outside that place and pay less. Take the money you saved by not paying for a tremendous mortgage by moving outside the city, or buying one of the 75 houses I linked, and after a while, use it to build a house. Sell that house. Build another. Sell it. Rinse and repeat. Apparently you're market is insatiable. I'd wet my beak.

The problem is that this would require a mindset that believes this:

"I don't deserve a nice house; I'm going to earn one some day."

Average house price in my market is ~$120,000. I paid $61,000 for my 1500 SF home. And I paid about $10,000 more than I wanted to for a house, but it was a heck of a bargain. If life's so bad, move out here. You'll be able to make it with a lot less stress.

It's possible for most intact families to live with 1 income in the West; but everything comes with a cost. It means living with less money, in a smaller home, with less stuff and maybe lower quality (or generic instead of "brand name") products. You have to ask this: Are you willing to pay the price of living with just 1 income? My guess is no. Me, I'd take it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Kivlor said:


> I just gave you a link to several for sale in Victoria, the 2nd most expensive housing market in all of Canada. I don't know where you live in BC, but a quick search shows 75 such houses for sale in Vancouver -- Langley on Canada's Realtor site.  That is the most expensive housing market in all of Canada.
> 
> And as I stated, it is quite possible to buy land and build on it. It would be easy to buy a bunch of land, break it up and make a glut by selling houses for way less than the market rate of $445,000. Maybe you should do that, if such housing isn't available. It would certainly sell.
> 
> ...


This is stupid.

This is some clueless person searching on the internet about an area they have NO CLUE about and believing everything they receive in response. 

YOU don't know anything about the area that this person is from. YOU can't say that the lower-priced options your search came up with are relevant. If I did that same search in MY area, I would get options that would not even be remotely relevant because they are in areas where the crime rate is astronomical and the school districts are horrible.

As for your "suggestions" about buying land and building on it - really? Is that REALLY your suggestion that EVERYONE should take, to get away from elevated housing costs? Do you even GET that buying land and building on it has all kinds of consequences, and if that were even a relevant option, it would be happening in that same market and therefore the house prices would be out of range in the same way that existing houses are?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> Doesn't matter. This is CLEARLY a troll thread that is going to be closed shortly.
> 
> 
> November said:
> ...


We have been punked November. The topic of gender roles and religion is too appealing to pass up no matter the source or OP content .:surprise:.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

guspolinski said:


> well that was an all-around letdown.
> 
> I was expecting something a bit less... Tame.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Ha!


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Hope Shimmers said:


> This is stupid.
> 
> This is some clueless person searching on the internet about an area they have NO CLUE about and believing everything they receive in response.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand me. Everything has a cost. If a family wants to have a SAHP and a working parent, it is possible pretty much throughout the Western world. It comes with a price. That price may be living in a higher crime, lower income neighborhood. 

We all want to have a 5,000 SF home on 30 acres in the middle of Manhattan for $500 / month. We can't. We make trade-offs. Everything you desire comes with a price tag. You have to be willing to pay the price though.

Or do all the single moms and single dads of the world not exist? You think there aren't any in Victoria or Vancouver? They're paying the price of living in a single-income family.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

This argument back and forth about the cost of living is both interesting and telling. It shows what people are assigning the most importance to. While it may for a while (until the economy adjusts) for people to live on the man's income alone, it can be done if the couple seeks out a place within the nation where it can be accomplished. For a woman to refuse to attempt this, demonstrates where her priorities are. She places being a mother in a secondary or even tertiary role for her life. This is her choice. She is a free agent, but she should not be a mother. This woman is placing her comforts (even luxuries) and her career above having children. She might be able to juggle these things, but only to the detriment to the children.

The idea that "I want it now" rather than building up comforts over one's lifetime is also indicative. Our grandparents accumulated stuff over time. Modern people want it now and any visit to a mall would illustrate who is targeted and spends the most money and on what. 95% of all stores cater to women. It may used to have been that a man's house was his castle, but now, a man will be lucky to have any say over the basement. Any court will demonstrate the house belongs to the woman, and she will spend all kinds of money 'now' to decorate it the way she wants it. If the woman cannot get the money from the man, she will get the government to get it for her, and the government will do it because they want her vote. This is also the force behind abortions. Modern woman will kill the unborn child before she will give up the other 'things' that she wants.

Men need to go on strike and stop making mothers out of modern women.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

There was a time, a little over ten years ago when I had a PhD and worked as an research scientist in the biotech industry. 40% of my post tax wage went on a room in an apartment in a working class area. I did not have a car, went to the pub about once a week and saved about $300 per month.
If you can find a woman happy to bring up a child on that excess, I congratulate you. 
Now I could comfortably afford to bring up a wife and child on my income. However, a SAHM is far more socially isolated now than before. She sees the world going on around her and will be aware of what she is missing out on like never before, but at the same time lives separately from her neighbours and family, meaning boredom is a big issue. We see plenty of cases of marital problems coming after one gives up work.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Kivlor said:


> You misunderstand me.


No, I don't misunderstand you.



Kivlor said:


> We all want to have a 5,000 SF home on 30 acres in the middle of Manhattan for $500 / month. We can't. We make trade-offs. Everything you desire comes with a price tag. You have to be willing to pay the price though.


Nobody with any brains "desires" a 5000 square foot home in 30 acres in the middle of Manhattan for $500 a month. People are just trying to make a living where they ARE.



ether-ore said:


> For a woman to refuse to attempt this, demonstrates where her priorities are. She places being a mother in a secondary or even tertiary role for her life. This is her choice.


I placed my marriage first - something I would never do again. I was the breadwinner. I'm a physician; my husband at the time was a student. I wanted more than ANYTHING to be a SAHM. He would not allow me to. 

I didn't marry him knowing he was planning to go back to college and that I would be the breadwinner for all those years. And when my first son was born, I wanted more than ANYTHING to stay at home with him. It would have been difficult, but my ex-H could have done it. I was supporting him; we lived in an (old!) trailer, which was fine with me, as long as I could stay home with my son. My now ex had just sold his house (that he had before we got married) but instead of using that 20K and choosing for me to be a SAHM with my first child, he bought a Harley Davidson.

So, my son went to daycare at 6 weeks old. Because he was premature, he weighed exactly 5 pounds the first day I dropped him off. Ask me how I felt about THAT. 

Really? Just f*ck your opinions about mothers and what they want. Until you are one, you have NO clue.


----------



## Lilac23 (Jul 9, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> This is for those men who believe in God. Adam is your archetype. Adam received a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Of course Adam could not do that without Eve. Adam gave the carrier of life and intelligence to Eve for her to nurture, Adam's responsibility is to care for Eve and 'his' children. Eve's responsibility was to nurture Adam's children during their formative years.
> 
> Todays women have rejected motherhood. Having a baby just to turn it over to a day care center in order to pursue a career is not fulfilling the responsibilities of a mother.
> 
> ...


All I have to say is....:lol: :rofl: :banghead:  :moon: :soapbox: :wtf:   :bsflag: :nono: :rofl: .... my work here is done.


----------



## Lilac23 (Jul 9, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> This argument back and forth about the cost of living is both interesting and telling. It shows what people are assigning the most importance to. While it may for a while (until the economy adjusts) for people to live on the man's income alone, it can be done if the couple seeks out a place within the nation where it can be accomplished. For a woman to refuse to attempt this, demonstrates where her priorities are. She places being a mother in a secondary or even tertiary role for her life. This is her choice. She is a free agent, but she should not be a mother. This woman is placing her comforts (even luxuries) and her career above having children. She might be able to juggle these things, but only to the detriment to the children.
> 
> The idea that "I want it now" rather than building up comforts over one's lifetime is also indicative. Our grandparents accumulated stuff over time. Modern people want it now and any visit to a mall would illustrate who is targeted and spends the most money and on what. 95% of all stores cater to women. It may used to have been that a man's house was his castle, but now, a man will be lucky to have any say over the basement. Any court will demonstrate the house belongs to the woman, and she will spend all kinds of money 'now' to decorate it the way she wants it. If the woman cannot get the money from the man, she will get the government to get it for her, and the government will do it because they want her vote. This is also the force behind abortions. Modern woman will kill the unborn child before she will give up the other 'things' that she wants.
> 
> Men need to go on strike and stop making mothers out of modern women.


Oh dear! I spoke too soon and I missed this one! PLEASE, PLEASE, deny the all the wh*res of babylon the gift and honor of receiving your stellar sperm.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

Kivlor said:


> And as I stated, it is quite possible to buy land and build on it. It would be easy to buy a bunch of land, break it up and make a glut by selling houses for way less than the market rate of $445,000. Maybe you should do that, if such housing isn't available. It would certainly sell.


That's called being a developer and it's _very_ expensive and quite risky. heck of a lot more to it than just "buy, subdivide, build, sell on spec"


----------



## optimalprimus (Feb 4, 2015)

Hope Shimmers said:


> No, I don't misunderstand you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't usually 'like' aggressive posts but this one demanded an exception!

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

From religion to housing!


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Hope Shimmers said:


> No, I don't misunderstand you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you are taking this personally. My posts were not personal attacks. Each person, and each family has a near infinite number of decisions to make, each one piling on the other. It is quite possible for most people to choose a single-income family and a SAHP in most of the western world. The problem is that this comes with a steep price. You have to be willing to pay that cost if it is what you want. We may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.

Don't discount your own agency in your life. Your XH didn't choose this for you; you had your fingers in those choices, and that's okay. Not every family is going to be a single-income one. Not every family wants or needs or chooses that. But don't put it all on someone else. You're not an object that things just happen to, you're a living breathing person that makes choices, good and bad, with limited information. We all are. 

I don't blame anyone for what has happened to me in my life. I always had a choice, even as a kid. I made my bed, and I get to sleep in it; I own my decisions, even the ones I deeply regret. 
@spotthedeaddog

I actually develop RE from time to time; I'm quite aware. I don't like spec building much, but if you can sell a $130,000 home for $500,000 there, hell, I'd purchase a modular home, move it there and sell it. Even if it takes a year, the profit was over 3x's the cost. I'd not do more than one at a time to limit exposure.

Also, it's never been easier with the advent of the internet. The cumulative knowledge of mankind is readily available at your fingertips, day and night. I don't make excuses for why I can't do something, I choose to do it, or I choose not to. It's on me.

Here's a thought on developing: You can comfortably fit a dozen trailer homes on 3 acres. The above property I linked could be purchased, and 1-2 trailers added and rented. Then, when enough cash is saved up, another added. And another. And another. I mentioned tiny-houses as well. 

I've given 3 options that don't require much construction work or knowledge. All use factory-built and shipped housing. Get creative, and look for other options--because I'm not very creative.

After reading all this and what I've typed... rents are very low where I live ($550/month market rate, with many in the $300 range), maybe I should switch to residential and develop up there. I could turn a $10,000/month property in no time.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> Men need to go on strike and stop making mothers out of modern women.


LOL. They've done that: MTGOW=Men that go their own way.

However, since men never stop and ask for directions: they've gotten lost and now are a bit clueless as to what to do next.


----------



## JukeboxHero (Mar 3, 2015)

So from religion to realty options. This thread has seriously derailed....


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Location, location, location


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Kivlor said:


> I think you are taking this personally.


Damn straight I took it personally.



Kivlor said:


> My posts were not personal attacks. Each person, and each family has a near infinite number of decisions to make, each one piling on the other. It is quite possible for most people to choose a single-income family and a SAHP in most of the western world. The problem is that this comes with a steep price. You have to be willing to pay that cost if it is what you want. We may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.


I get that you didn't mean personal attacks. My post, which was harsh, was mainly not directed at you but at the OP.



Kivlor said:


> Don't discount your own agency in your life. Your XH didn't choose this for you; you had your fingers in those choices, and that's okay.


You are correct. And if I could go back and do that over again, I would. 



Kivlor said:


> You're not an object that things just happen to, you're a living breathing person that makes choices, good and bad, with limited information.


Very true. But I was in a marriage. Trying to make it work. At all costs. Finally, 17+ years later, I threw my hands up and got out. Not soon enough. Yeah, and that's on me.


----------



## ether-ore (Jan 2, 2016)

Lilac23 said:


> Oh dear! I spoke too soon and I missed this one! PLEASE, PLEASE, deny the all the wh*res of babylon the gift and honor of receiving your stellar sperm.



The political left places a great deal of emphasis ion "the war on women". There is a war, but the left has everyone convinced that it is one sided against women. The war is not only against men either. It is also against children. Todays women, in placing their desires above everything else, are in effect sacrificing their children on the alter of self fulfillment. The only weapon men have in this war to prevent this happening to children (because women and the state have suppressed a father's influence on children) is to withholding children from the carelessness of todays women in the first place. So, you are right, I, by myself make no difference. But, I'm not by myself. There are MGTOW who believe like I do... that todays women are an anathema to children. As our numbers grow, the weapon becomes stronger. We refuse to inflict todays woman on a child.


----------



## Lilac23 (Jul 9, 2015)

ether-ore said:


> The political left places a great deal of emphasis ion "the war on women". There is a war, but the left has everyone convinced that it is one sided against women. The war is not only against men either. It is also against children. Todays women, in placing their desires above everything else, are in effect sacrificing their children on the alter of self fulfillment. The only weapon men have in this war to prevent this happening to children (because women and the state have suppressed a father's influence on children) is to withholding children from the carelessness of todays women in the first place. So, you are right, I, by myself make no difference. But, I'm not by myself. There are MGTOW who believe like I do... that todays women are an anathema to children. As our numbers grow, the weapon becomes stronger. We refuse to inflict todays woman on a child.


:rofl:


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

ether-ore said:


> The political left places a great deal of emphasis ion "the war on women". There is a war, but the left has everyone convinced that it is one sided against women. The war is not only against men either. It is also against children. Todays women, in placing their desires above everything else, are in effect sacrificing their children on the alter of self fulfillment. The only weapon men have in this war to prevent this happening to children (because women and the state have suppressed a father's influence on children) is to withholding children from the carelessness of todays women in the first place. So, you are right, I, by myself make no difference. But, I'm not by myself. There are MGTOW who believe like I do... that todays women are an anathema to children. As our numbers grow, the weapon becomes stronger. We refuse to inflict todays woman on a child.


Using your theology, wouldn't it be men who are putting their personal fulfillment above their responsibilities to their family and children? Nature and fortune have given children two resources for nurturance, a mother and father. If for some reason one does not fulfill their role, it is the moral and ethical responsibility of the other to do so. Walking away is exactly what you are accusing women of doing. 

Why not advocate a greater involvement of fathers in their children lives. That would benefit the children that you claim you are concerned about. Don't you think that your concerns center around men and their right to a women molded into a form that suits them.

If so then women have a right to mold men too. An adversarial approach will not work and is no good for family harmony. Cooperation and adjustment to todays reality is more adaptive.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Kivlor said:


> @CuddleBug
> 
> I did qualify my post with "in the US"; but I'm willing to gamble I'm correct in Canada. I'm gonna go with the Victoria area in BC (median house $445,000). The 2nd most expensive market for housing in all of Canada.


For the record, the cheap "houses" you posted are actually time-shares in a resort. Your money buys you only 1 week a month AND you have to pay fees on top of it. Also, not in Victoria, but on Pender Island, which is a different kettle of fish.

Don't forget to read the fine print before you start investing!


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

always_alone said:


> For the record, the cheap "houses" you posted are actually time-shares in a resort. Your money buys you only 1 week a month AND you have to pay fees on top of it. Also, not in Victoria, but on Pender Island, which is a different kettle of fish.
> 
> Don't forget to read the fine print before you start investing!


Actually, most of them aren't. Several are building and land, some are also leaseholds. 

Which still doesn't rule out the option of purchasing land and developing as I laid out. There are options, if you've got the desire to look, rather than throwing up your hands and claiming nothing can be done about your plight.

I also mentioned a mobile home park. Pad rent in the areas I linked is $400+/month. That's 4800/month rent on the property I linked (more if you want to A) provide the units and B) feel like putting them closer together)


----------

