← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jay

Well - looks like I'm gettin a divorce

Thread ID: 19156 | Posts: 95 | Started: 2005-07-15

jay [OP]

2005-07-15 03:46 | User Profile

Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

I know divorce is wrong, and frankly, not looking for sympathy. But I would like input on what a guy should do in such a situation. I grew up with 5 siblings and that's a mandatory aspect of marriage to me. It's certainly a struggle resolving what I should do, w/what I want.

Typical white woman today: wants the guy earning the jack in the suburban nice neighborhood, but she says she really loves her "career". What a joke our women have become. If I disagree, I go childless.

OPERA96

2005-07-15 04:03 | User Profile

Do you love her? Does she love you? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then seek professional counseling and try to work it out. If you still feel,after counseling, that kids are mandatory and she is still opposed to the idea, you have a decision to make; do you want to spend the rest of your life resenting her for the fact that you don't have the family you so desperately want, or do you love her enough to overcome that huge obstacle? If it were me, I'd go to split city. To my way of thinking, it would appear that her career is more important to her than you. You're young and we're not running out of women. Divorce is never a picnic but to me, spending my life in a loveless marriage where I am at the bottom of the list of her priorities is worse. Please believe me when I say that there definitely [B]is[/B] someone out there for you.

Angeleyes

2005-07-15 04:39 | User Profile

Annulment may be an option. Maybe some counselling, with a pastoral clergyman, can help you both find a path together.

Or, you may have hit irreconcilable differences, and annulment is the best option.

Best of luck.

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

Happy Hacker

2005-07-15 04:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

Her career? That is the big reason why whites only have about half the needed replacement level of children. Not only am I against divorce, but as a practical solution, I think it's a big crap shoot.

I'm not one who should be giving advice. I'm not above a little manipulation. Feed her donuts every day. Tell her it's because she's so sweet. When she gets fat, she'll probably be a little more cooperative. Tell her that no one would want her and that you have no family with her and so you have no reason to stay. Her insecurity will make her cave. See, that's why I shouldn't give relationship advice.

She probably does want children, she just wants her career more. Tell her you'll stay home and raise the children if she's doesn't want to (imply she's too selfish, see, manipulation again). Maybe after a child is born, her motherly instinct will kick in and she'll agree to stay home. She has put you in a touch situation.

Best of luck.

Okiereddust

2005-07-15 05:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all".......

For the X-ians: is it wrong to abandon a marriage when the woman refuses children, despite enthusiastically agreeing to it prior to the vow? What is the Biblical stand? For non-Xians, what would you say?[/QUOTE]I agree with Opera regarding counseling, but I disagree with regard to the outcome if it doesn't easly resolve the situation. Each partner's devotion in the marriage should be firstly to one's spouse, over anything else, including the kids. That's the way it works. To make marriage work you have to have your priorities straight. If you don't have your priorities straight, and that devotion to your spouse, you won't be a good parent to your kids.

There are a lot of issues here, that obviously I don't understand. Kids are a a very monumental decision actually - they change your life. But I'd have to suspect there are probably deeper issues involved, including power issues. Issues like this very often boil down to these types of issues. You don't realize they're there until difficult issues come up, like this, that unmask the deeper conflict.

And of course practically there are a lot of practical issues, for working women especially - who as studies show, usually bear the brunt of child raising responsibilities. Especially for a young marriage, that can be quite a shift. Especially one I suspect in some areas may be a shaky one already, from the way you make it sound.

I'd just ask you Jay too, how much is it really important? Who does the housework right now? Have you offered to change your work schedule to help with the child rearing?

I don't know much about your situation, and I don't want to sound to egalitarian wimpy-soft like I probably am, but I'd just have to take a look in myself in the mirror deeply, sit down, and mediate, (and pray) before you do anything. Because the way it sounds right now it doesn't sound quite right to me. The woman may not really be thinking "I never want to have kids" but "do I want to have kids in this situation, when I've only been married two years and it already looks like a shaky marriage"? Because the decision to have kids is only the start of a long line of decisions you will have to make together. If you have difficulty making this first decision, the other ones may be even more difficult, and more painful to get out of.

Think and hopefully pray about Jay. Sounds like you need a lot of good advice, a lot more than I can give here. Get it.

il ragno

2005-07-15 05:15 | User Profile

No offense, Jay, but a message board of politically like-minded strangers (well-meaning, but strangers nevertheless) is not the best place to troll for advice.

And you probably already know this.... but I dunno if I'd try to change her mind with "But honey - your career is a big reason why whites only have about half the needed replacement level of children!"

One thing I'm curious about is how long the two of you knew each other before you tied the knot. Time is what creates bonds, so if you'd been dating, or just friends, for years beforehand I'd say hang in there and work it out. Lookit, if she 'changed her mind' once she can change it again...particularly if you both know, deep down, that this is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

Marriages undergo pressures unique to the tenor of the times around them. You're the only one who truly knows if withstanding those pressures will be worth it. But I'll say this much as someone who got luckier than most on his second go-around: unless it was a disastrous mistake from the get-go, nothing and nobody can replace what you feel in your heart for your first wife, no matter how much of it you recoup with your second.

CornCod

2005-07-15 05:57 | User Profile

From a Christian standpoint I would not counsel divorce at this time. By refusing to have children she is committing three sins, (1) She is disobeying her husband who is the God-ordained head of the household (2) She is disobeying the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" and (3) she is lying by going back on her word. However, her being a persistant sinner in this regard is not reason, in and of itself, to "put her away." The Bible appears to permit only two kinds of divorce, based either on adultery or abandonment. Even then, the innocent party may forgive the guilty party. If, in the long run, she refuses to have sex with you, you might have a case of "constructive abandonment" which admittedly rests on rather shaky and subjective theological grounds.

I will say a prayer for you both. Repentance is a beautiful thing, let's hope for the sake of her soul it happens sooner rather than later. If she is a Christian, try gently to get her to repent.

il ragno

2005-07-15 06:07 | User Profile

Oh, yeah, one other thing.

Whatever you do, DO NOT show her this thread. Don't even ALLUDE to its existence. Unless you're looking for a very quick, butcher-block resolution to this matter.

Walter Yannis

2005-07-15 10:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

Well, if she is adamantly refusing to have kids then the deal is off. In fact, since she probably harbored thoughts about not having kids all along, the deal probably never really closed in equity. This sound like an anulment - the recognition that the marriage never happened - much more than a divorce.

Assuming that's correct (and only you can answer that), then in my capacity as your Cardinal I say dump her sorry ass, Jay. You have my personal dispensation. :alucard:

Then find yourself one of those sweet little fertile things, you know the kind that if you look at her crosswise she gets pregnant. Mmmm . . . :wub:

skemper

2005-07-15 10:36 | User Profile

Sorry to hear about this, Jay. I hope she changes her mind. Is she getting close to 30 also, then if she is a red- blooded woman then her clock will start ticking. That is what happened to me except in my case it was my husband that did not want children and was the one who changed my mind when my clock started ticking. Bring her in the company of children. Also, would she need to work after she has children? I am with Corncod on this one. Pray and get counseling from your clergyman.

I can also tell you another reason why she may like her career more. She gets respect and affirmation when she discusses it from others and has noticed that wives and mothers are ignored. Being a housewife and mother does not get the same respect in our society today. I noticed this rather quickly when I started defining myself a homemaker rather than a Chemist, which I had practiced for a number of years. This is no excuse of course but a reason.

Quantrill

2005-07-15 11:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Well, if she is adamantly refusing to have kids then the deal is off. In fact, since she probably harbored thoughts about not having kids all along, the deal probably never really closed in equity. This sound like an anulment - the recognition that the marriage never happened - much more than a divorce.[/QUOTE] Adultery and refusal to have children are the two iron-clad, absolutely justifiable reasons for divorce (or annulment) in the orthodox Christian tradition. That said, dissolving a marriage should never be taken lightly, so I would urge you to try your best to work things out. If you have a trusted clergyman who can counsel you, that would be ideal. She may need a little time to think things over. Give it your best shot. However, if it becomes clear that she has absolutely, unilaterally decided that your bloodline dies with you, then be rid of her, and do it with a clear conscience.

BlueBonnet

2005-07-15 14:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

[/QUOTE] Jay ask her if she NEVER, EVER wants kids or if she is not ready to have kids yet? Maybe she just wants a little more one on one time with you before jumping into the making the big family pool. Maybe she feels she needs to accomplish something before starting a family. I would at least go for marriage counseling before throwing in the towel.

formerfreeper

2005-07-15 14:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

Sorry to hear the news---I think thaty if a vow is broken, the marriage is off. Some might call it cold, but I'm big on promises. I do, agree with BB that you might wish to see if that is the "final Answer". Counselling is a good idea in that case. If it is indeed a final answer, the above applies.

I'll PM you later, as I'm off to the Doctor--and a something I went through myself, I hope it might help.

MadScienceType

2005-07-15 15:47 | User Profile

Sorry to hear the news, jay.

I second the idea that this is not the ideal place to seek advice, so I will make a few observations and refrain from suggestions.

Could this possibly be about something else? I've noticed that women, bless 'em, are not often direct about their objectives.

For instance, the classic "Do I look fat?" is often a cue for you to notice and exclaim, emphatically and with great vigor, just how pretty she is (yes, dear SB, you do look very pretty, by the way). :biggrin: Or, it could be that she's just asking if she looks fat. There is no certainty when dealing with the fairer sex, sorry. I was a lot happier once I realized that.

Perhaps this bombshell is a way of gaining information about how committed you are to her in the face of trying circumstances more than an actual declaration of intent to remain childless. I think it's a rather risky way to go about finding out that information, yes, but it's possible. Logic, women and matters of the heart are not often found wrapped up together in a neat package. However, I wasn't there, and can't get a feel for it, so it could in fact be for real.

Still, I find it somewhat surprising that a woman would be absolutely firm on this point, given that women usually have at least a modicum of maternal instinct and to be so final is to me, a bit of a point to notice. As others have noted, people change their minds (it being a prerogative for women, you know). I myself was sure I would remain childless to the end, but I've come around 180 degrees on that.

I hope you stick it out in the short term and try to get a better feel on how serious this "Declaration of Diaper Independence" actually is before taking the irrevocable step of dissolving the marriage and if it still goes down, at least you'll know you did your best to make it work and taking a tiny amount of comfort in the fact that at least you found out you weren't ultimately compatible before there were any children involved. We've got enough kids effectively without dads (thanks to the family court system) running around out there as it is.

Good luck jay.

xmetalhead

2005-07-15 15:50 | User Profile

Jay, before you do anything explore why she "changed her mind, I don't want kids after all". Push her to give a complete and truthful answer to your questions of "why?". And "pursuing a career" is not an acceptable answer....there's something else that needs to be addressed.

Hang in there buddy, God works in mysterious ways.

Gregz

2005-07-15 16:56 | User Profile

[B]Jay [/B]

Re: Well - looks like I'm gettin a divorce

You and I are of similar age and are both facing the same dilemma. I have been with my present girlfriend for the last few years and she just like your wife is dead set on not having a family or even for that matter marrying. I like you however also believe that my long term happiness rests on having a family sometime in the future.

My girlfriend would in my opinion dearly love to use the "I want to focus on my career" excuse with me if she only could. The problem however is that I'm a skilled professional and easily earn twice what she takes home in addition to keeping a roof over her head. Indeed only thing that that my girlfriend contributes toward in my household is half the food bill. Her ace card however is that she is extremely beautiful, well read and highly cultured and I would be lying if I said that she did not have a hold on me and that I loved her.

Our women it seems have been completely brain washed by egotistical, liberal feminist poison and seem to believe that by opposing mens will and other wise being difficult. That this somehow mystically simultaneously both frees and empowers them from all manor of obligations and duties.

Feminist poison, exhibit A:

[I]MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. 'The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.' MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ... TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."' -- from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985 [/I]

The demographical trends are clear and whilst people of our political perspective certainly do have a duty to our people to sire more children. A women who does not wish to have children would proberly not make a good mother and at the end of the day clearly has every right not to children if she does not wish to.

That said I would not be at all surprised in your case if you wife had no intention of ever having children and has being deceiving in this regard all along. Women often complain that men try to tie them down or prematurely escalate the level of a relationship. Perhaps you married to soon, with out knowing you personally it's imposable to say.

I am sure that you love your wife and don't want to annul or divorce your marriage unless you absolutely have to and I suppose you could always wait a few more years and see what happens. After all no one likes the idea of starting again. My advice is to insist upon marriage counseling and try to sort this issue out, as this in it's self if nothing else will send a clear warning signal to your wife that you feel very strongly and are serious about this issue.

Good Luck :thumbsup:

xmetalhead

2005-07-15 17:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gregz] Women often complain that men try to tie them down or prematurely escalate the level of a relationship.[/QUOTE]

Man, have I heard those complaints from tons of women over the course of my life! Even my own wife mutters those complaints sometimes however, not at me, since I cannot possibly exert that much energy to 'keep 'em in a cage'. If a women doesn't voluntarily tie herself down to a man, then it's absolutely hopeless that any man will convince her to do it.

And I've been thinking deeply about those complaints made by women and I have absolutely, completely and decidedly come to the conclusion that the exact opposite is true. I've seen it and lived it; women use the art of manipulation to tie down and restrain men whilst making the man believe that he's the one holding down the woman. It keeps him off balance and then apathy and self doubt sets in. Unfortunately, women's minds have been debased from decades of feminist brainwashing and view their fathers, brothers, uncles,husbands and boyfriends as enemies of the feminine species.

Remember, behind every great man there's a great woman.

mwdallas

2005-07-15 21:22 | User Profile

Walter and Quantrill have it exactly right.

Good luck whatever you do, Jay.

Faust

2005-07-15 21:40 | User Profile

jay,

I am very sorry to hear about your problem. I would say it is a violation of the covenant of marriage so I am not sure one can be blamed for leaving in such a case. I will say have seen a number of cases where it was the husband who did not want children and wife was the one with your problem.

Ponce

2005-07-15 22:52 | User Profile

With each of my wives and or girlfriends I only had two simple rules 1= don't get fat and 2= no kids.

Because the life that I lead going from country to country I never knew if I was going to come back and I didn't want to leave a couple of kids without a father, by the time that I decided to settle down I was to old to have kids but both of my x's they each have now 2 kids with their new love of their life and I am very happy for them.

Don't mind telling you that I am still inlove with my first wife and that she is the only person (besides my dad) that I ever cared about.

jay

2005-07-15 22:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]And you probably already know this.... but I dunno if I'd try to change her mind with "But honey - your career is a big reason why whites only have about half the needed replacement level of children!"

Never crossed my mind.

[QUOTE]One thing I'm curious about is how long the two of you knew each other before you tied the knot. [/QUOTE]

3 years.

Marriages undergo pressures unique to the tenor of the times around them. You're the only one who truly knows if withstanding those pressures will be worth it. But I'll say this much as someone who got luckier than most on his second go-around: unless it was a disastrous mistake from the get-go, nothing and nobody can replace what you feel in your heart for your first wife, no matter how much of it you recoup with your second.[/QUOTE]

Il, that's the first time I've ever heard someone say that. And I think it's a really interesting point. I think there's a lot of validity there. She said, "I'll never find a guy i love more than you".....as she walked out to get an apartment.

Right around the corner from me. Unreal.

jay

2005-07-15 23:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Well, if she is adamantly refusing to have kids then the deal is off.

That's what all my friends & family say.

[QUOTE]In fact, since she probably harbored thoughts about not having kids all along, the deal probably never really closed in equity. [/QUOTE]

She miscarried after getting pregnant on our honeymoon. But after that, she was really negative. I asked her to get counseling w/me, but she kept saying, "Nope - I really don't think I ever wanted them anyway."

[QUOTE]This sound like an anulment - the recognition that the marriage never happened - much more than a divorce.[/QUOTE]

I talked to a lawyer who said the same thing you did.

[QUOTE]Assuming that's correct (and only you can answer that), then in my capacity as your Cardinal I say dump her sorry ass, Jay. You have my personal dispensation. :alucard: [/QUOTE]

Thanks!

Then find yourself one of those sweet little fertile things, you know the kind that if you look at her crosswise she gets pregnant. Mmmm . . . :wub:[/QUOTE]

A nice, cute, church-going girl who wants to have kids and RESPECTS my authority as the man of the house. Are they still out there? My mom & sisters are, but they're off the block obv.....ha!

jay

2005-07-15 23:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=OPERA96]Do you love her? Does she love you? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then seek professional counseling and try to work it out. If you still feel,after counseling, that kids are mandatory and she is still opposed to the idea, you have a decision to make; do you want to spend the rest of your life resenting her for the fact that you don't have the family you so desperately want, or do you love her enough to overcome that huge obstacle? If it were me, I'd go to split city. To my way of thinking, it would appear that her career is more important to her than you. You're young and we're not running out of women. Divorce is never a picnic but to me, spending my life in a loveless marriage where I am at the bottom of the list of her priorities is worse. Please believe me when I say that there definitely [B]is[/B] someone out there for you.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the note. We went to a counselor....some beattie-eyed little feminist (replete with the big eyeglasses, etc)

She kept asking me about my behavior....At one point in the discussion, I said: hey, she moved out and filed for divorce. Does that seem to be sinking in with you?

Afterwards my wife says, "She made a ton of sense, didn't she?" I said, nope, and we're getting a different counselor. Only angered the wife more.

skemper

2005-07-16 02:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Il, that's the first time I've ever heard someone say that. And I think it's a really interesting point. I think there's a lot of validity there. She said, "I'll never find a guy i love more than you".....as she walked out to get an apartment.[/QUOTE]

And she will find out eventually that a career will not fill the empty void in her life. She is lying to you and herself, by walking out she is saying that she loves her career more than you. She has deserted you, so you have grounds. From what I have read what you have posted on this forum in the past, I think that she is a big fool.

il ragno

2005-07-16 04:19 | User Profile

Ah well. Apparently this is pretty close to a done deal then. Sorry to hear it; divorce usually weighs heavy on both hearts. (Ad if you guys owned anything jointly, it will probably get ugly at some point.)

I'm in no way qualified to say this, not knowing either of you, but maybe....maybe the miscarriage mentally scarred her more than she's letting on. It's possible - certainly moving out around the corner from you is not something a clear-thinking person would do if they really wanted a complete split to happen. That's either short-sightedness at work, or complete immaturity.

Antway, having been there I don't envy you. In a divorce, there's only one definition of "closure" and that's finding someone else who so bowls you over and knocks you out that the word 'replacement' never ever enters your head. And it absolutely happens for a lot of us - but not before some very rough nights have passed. My condolences and the best of luck of you.

CWRWinger

2005-07-16 15:09 | User Profile

Jay,

If divorce is unavoidable, it is best strategically to get her to sue for the divorce, not you. Let her start the process.

IMO, and from my experience, Christian marriage counselors are next to worthless. All they're interested in is making money off of you, or they have an agenda to destroy the position of the man in the home.

If they wanted to follow Biblical principles, counselling would, in most cases, take only one session. But they make more money by avoiding the clearcut obvious, and getting into the "feelings" stuff and the micromanaging of the husband.

They hardly ever talk about the wife as the "help meet" or the wife being "submissive in all things".

There are so many evil dynamics in this world which seek to destroy the family unit. Government is a big evil which has subverted the potential of a man to supply the material needs of the family. The Fed'ral Reserve has literally destroyed the economy and the family at the same time.

Much could be written on the things destroying marriage.

jay

2005-07-16 16:33 | User Profile

From what I'm seeing from friends, marriage has been used as another assault on the male authority in society.

Dr. Laura says that women are responsible for the happiness or the misery in a marriage. And that most male infidelity comes from the wife's cold shoulder in the bedroom, or disrespectful attitude when he comes home.

So true.

White Elite

2005-07-16 16:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]From what I'm seeing from friends, marriage has been used as another assault on the male authority in society. Male authority and female authority are both trumped by moral authority.

Dr. Laura says that women are responsible for the happiness or the misery in a marriage. And that most male infidelity comes from the wife's cold shoulder in the bedroom, or disrespectful attitude when he comes home.

So true.[/QUOTE]Wives who act that way may be harboring unresolved resentment towards their fathers, or towards another male authority figure from their youth.

Either that, or their husbands are acting in a dishonorable fashion.

il ragno

2005-07-16 17:03 | User Profile

Ah yes....Dr Laura.

A ballbusting Jewess who's dumped a husband or two in the pursuit of her own career...when she wasn't flashing her snatch for the cameras.

Ponce

2005-07-16 17:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Ah yes....Dr Laura.

A ballbusting Jewess who's dumped a husband or two in the pursuit of her own career...when she wasn't flashing her snatch for the cameras.[/QUOTE]

Lollllllllll good one.

jay

2005-07-17 01:28 | User Profile

Agreed Il that she's not perfect, but on a case-by-case basis, her opinions should be rejected or accepted.

This one, I think is very valid.

Okiereddust

2005-07-17 03:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=CWRWinger]They hardly ever talk about the wife as the "help meet" or the wife being "submissive in all things". Now there's a good one. :lol: When's the last time you heard this in Church either?

Of course, the deferential wife was, or at least was properly protected and happy, part of a social contract, along with the loyal and chivolrous husband. Modern feminism and FS radical indivudualism and subversiveness seem to have basically destroyed this social contract.

Much could be written on the things destroying marriage.[/QUOTE] Indeed, and have. Don't have time to repeat all of them. It ain't our world anymore.

Faust

2005-07-17 04:25 | User Profile

jay,

Well I hope things work out for the best you whatever happens. I thought I remembered you saying she was pregnant right after you got married. That is very sad, maybe does want children she is over come by fear of losing another child and can not deal with it. I might be worth seeing if she could cool off some.

[QUOTE]She miscarried after getting pregnant on our honeymoon...[/QUOTE]

I agree Dr. Laura has done some good yes she's not perfect. But Her telling people to put their families first and not to fornicate makes me think well of her for the most part.

[QUOTE]Dr. Laura says that women are responsible for the happiness or the misery in a marriage. And that most male infidelity comes from the wife's cold shoulder in the bedroom, or disrespectful attitude when he comes home. [/QUOTE]

Culture marxist will try to pervert anything. Sadly this all too true.

[QUOTE]From what I'm seeing from friends, marriage has been used as another assault on the male authority in society.[/QUOTE]

Happy Hacker

2005-07-17 06:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Dr. Laura says that women are responsible for the happiness or the misery in a marriage. And that most male infidelity comes from the wife's cold shoulder in the bedroom, or disrespectful attitude when he comes home.

So true.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. The male infidelity I've seen has all resulted from the woman's violation of the biblical principle in 1 Corinthians 7:5, "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a [short] time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Dr. Laura has plenty of faults. But, she is right that women have control of the happiness of the relationship.

Just from my personal experience when I was dating, I didn't take any disrespect from women. It makes you miserable. I'm pretty sure that it extinguishes what respect a woman might have for you. And, it doesn't work. But, for someone unmarried, this is easy. "Bye bye, baby." Men like women for beauty. Women like men for strength. So, whatever you do, stay strong.

I really don't like giving any guy woman advice. But, if I were you, I'd tell her "I want a wonderful woman, like you. I love you. I want a home brightened with the laughter of children and your smile. I want to stand with you and watch them grow and become fine men and women. And, when I die, I want to know that my life meant something and that part of me lives on. I know the miscarriage scared you. I want to help you feel whole again, if you're willing to let me, like you did when you wanted children. I want children. And, if you really don't want children then I've made a mistake. I wish you happiness, and no one will ever be able to make me feel the way you do, but if you can't go forward with me, then this marriage must be undone. This is the way it is." To make it work, you have to be able to say this without sounding sentimental, weak, or like you're bluffing.

If she starts to get fat, this speech may work for that, with minor modification. :lol:

jay

2005-07-17 06:45 | User Profile

I have to say.....I read this board for sanity purposes.

As I've said on many occasions, it makes me feel good to know there are people in this world that are rational and so dead-on, not only in their political views, but in their social views as well.

You know: like me. :yes:

Blond Knight

2005-07-17 07:09 | User Profile

Jay,

How ever this plays out in the long run, I can only wish you and your wife my prayers that Gods blessings will be with you and your Mrs.

CWRWinger

2005-07-17 12:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Now there's a good one. :lol: When's the last time you heard this in Church either?

[/QUOTE]IMO, preachers are afraid to preach this truth from the Scriptures for fear of getting the females in the congregation talking behind his back and also, losing "tithes and offerings" since so many wives write the checks.

IMO2, the vast majority of churches in Amerika are 501(c)(3) gov't churches. When a church renders unto Caesar the things which are God's by signing up for 501 (c)(3), the church agrees in writing (a contract) not to preach against public policy. The truth is, much of what's in the Bible is contrary to "public policy", including wives being submissive to their husbands.

Now these corrupt preachers and corrupted churches wouldn't want to lose their tax exemption carrot-on-a-stick, would they? Most churches in Amerika are in a state of apostacy just in this 501(c)(3) issue.

I'm under the opinion, for a marriage to succeed, the couple must be of like mind which similar belifs, including a committment to obeying the Scriptures as the final authority on all matters. Then that couple needs to assemble with like minded believers for worship, outside of the gov't controlled churches. I am against marriage licenses, also. That's God's to sanction, not the state.

CWRWinger

2005-07-18 00:42 | User Profile

The verse below summarises the man's responsibility in preparation for life.

Proverbs 24:27 Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house.

Decide on what God wants you to do in life.
Study and gain knowledge and wisdom so as to survive and conquer the challenges of life (go to college/technical school and learn the profession or trade and graduate). And then excell at what you do.
Once the above two are accomplished, build a house. Put down some roots and demonstrate maturity, stability and financial security.

Then and only then should a man look for a wife. And chances are he will get a much better quality wife than if he had nothing and married for "love". He will not have to settle for a career woman. The woman he marries will have no need for a carreer because the man has provided financial security and has already accumulated real wealth. The woman will be able to pursue her dreams of motherhood and take care of the home.

BTW, I have observed this over and over. The rich and secure have wives who do not work and are not interested in a career.

Also, IMO, men who are physically/mentally impaired and struggle to exist, should not get married. It's the man's responsibility to provide, not the woman's. If he is not physically able to compete, and earn a decent living, he should not drag a woman into a life of stress, poverty and living off of the gov't systems.

Happy Hacker

2005-07-18 03:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=CWRWinger]IMO, preachers are afraid to preach this truth from the Scriptures for fear of getting the females in the congregation talking behind his back and also, losing "tithes and offerings" since so many wives write the checks.

A few years ago the Southern Baptists included in their creed a biblical bit about wives submitting to their r husbands. There was a big upcry, including former President Carter leaving the denomination in protest. Yet, I doubt there are many Southern Baptists churches were any woman will hear this teaching. Yet, this teaching could save marriages if women better knew their godly role in a marriage.

Most modern churches have become theologically irrelevant. They are so devoted to not offended anyone so that they can fill their pews that they're contributing to the decline of Christianity in America and fewer people going to Church.

IMO2, the vast majority of churches in Amerika are 501(c)(3) gov't churches.

From the IRS website, a 501(c)(3) church "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates." Most churches are miles from violating this rule. It's their fear of offending the godless that silences them, not the IRS rules. IMO.

I'm under the opinion, for a marriage to succeed, the couple must be of like mind which similar belifs, including a committment to obeying the Scriptures as the final authority on all matters. Then that couple needs to assemble with like minded believers for worship, outside of the gov't controlled churches. I am against marriage licenses, also. That's God's to sanction, not the state.[/QUOTE]

Christians would be much better off not getting marriage licenses. Christians in states with homosexual marriages should boycott the state liscense. But, getting most Christians to boycott anything for Christian reasons is about impossible.

I really think any two people can have a good marriage, even if they don't have much in common, as long as they are morally decent, respect the institution of marriage, and submit to biblical teachings. In short, any two people can have a good marriage as long as they submit to biblical teachings. If your wife doesn't like golf, she can do something else while you golf.

starr

2005-07-18 05:02 | User Profile

I would agree with someone earlier who said she may be testing you possibly to see how committed to her you are.(are you willing to give up the idea of even having children, for me,etc) I could be wrong, but I would assume if this was something that she was firm on she would have told you about this a while ago, condering it is something that is going to be very important in a relationship. And if this is something that she just decided on, then obviously it is something she probably isn't going to be too firm on. A lot of women will go through periods where they may think for a time they do not want children. If refusing to have children, though, is something that she is, and remains firm on, while you obviously want them, then there really is no other option besides divorce. Remaining with her in a situation where you are divided on something as important as this is only going to lead to conflicts that probably cannot be resolved.

[QUOTE] Feed her donuts every day. Tell her it's because she's so sweet. When she gets fat, she'll probably be a little more cooperative. Tell her that no one would want her and that you have no family with her and so you have no reason to stay. Her insecurity will make her cave. [/QUOTE]LOL. This is assuming that she is going to allow you to fatten her up in this way. Obviously the major reason we obsess over our weight like we do is because we know you(guys in general) do not want a fat slob for a wife or girlfriend. Unless, of course, the guy is insecure enough where he needs the type of woman he doesn't think any other men are going to look at.

[QUOTE] Yet, this teaching could save marriages if women better knew their godly role in a marriage.

[/QUOTE] I am dying to touch upon this, but I won't:clown:

il ragno

2005-07-18 06:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Also, IMO, men who are physically/mentally impaired and struggle to exist, should not get married. It's the man's responsibility to provide, not the woman's. [/QUOTE]

CRW, you are forgetting one thing. Many of our fathers/grandfathers (depending on your age, of course) made their livings, owned homes and raised families laboring at jobs that could not sustain [I]one [/I] person, alone, today. Shoot, you can add [I]paid their doctor bills, too [/I] to that list - where today [U]no one[/U] can pay a doctor's bill without some form of subsidization. Their kids wore hand-me-downs and maybe saw meat on their plates twice a week, and the wives took in washing and sewed their own clothes....and no one died from any of this. Heck, legend has it some of them were even [I]happy[/I].

Good grief, some of us (or our parents) were raised by barbers...mailmen....housepainters....small farmers....cab drivers...building doormen, even! Were these worthy and hardworking men to materialize before us today, they'd be deemed 'losers' - physically able to compete, sure, but fatally ill-equipped to function as Fortune 500 worker-drones....now the one sure avenue to stability and security for the majority of American workers. And drowning in debt, always short of cash, in thrall to finance companies and repo men... owning [I]nothing[/I].

If we restrict childrearing only to personal injury attorneys and IT cubicle-jockeys and sitcom producers and arbitrage traders....[I]say goodnight, Gracie- it's over.[/I]

CWRWinger

2005-07-18 08:51 | User Profile

CRW, you are forgetting one thing.

Please reread what I stated (I knew this one would be misunderstood). The key words are: "IMO", "struggle to exist" and "living off the gov't system" (welfare).

I know of people with physical/mental disabilities who are productive, and financially secure. But I also know of more who end up relying upon gov't to exist. The cities are full of such parasites. These types need not apply for marriage. They may end up teaching their children to rely upon gov't rather than God. These types also tend to be leftwing voters and sheeple. God does not intend everyone to marry. Marriage is serious business and a serious commitment. We are mandated to fulfill our given responsibilities. Some do not have the capability to fulfill these duties. But once a person commits to marriage, they had better do their responsiblities.

The Biblical outline of the man's responsibility should never be ignored. The Biblical commands given concerning marriage shoud never be ignored. These are guidelines and instructions for the survival of both a marriage and civilization.

CWRWinger

2005-07-18 09:00 | User Profile

Happy Hacker:

If your wife doesn't like golf, she can do something else while you golf.

GOLF??? (The games yuppies play)

I'm talking about a nice, workable group at 100 yards with a .308.

Quantrill

2005-07-18 14:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno] Good grief, some of us (or our parents) were raised by barbers...mailmen....housepainters....small farmers....cab drivers...building doormen, even! Were these worthy and hardworking men to materialize before us today, they'd be deemed 'losers' - physically able to compete, sure, but fatally ill-equipped to function as Fortune 500 worker-drones....now the one sure avenue to stability and security for the majority of American workers. And drowning in debt, always short of cash, in thrall to finance companies and repo men... owning nothing.

If we restrict childrearing only to personal injury attorneys and IT cubicle-jockeys and sitcom producers and arbitrage traders....say goodnight, Gracie- it's over.[/QUOTE] Ragno, Excellent and perceptive post. This reminds me of a debate I had with a firebreathing, Lew Rockwell-type, all-out-competition-all-the-time-and-may-the-devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian a few months ago. He went on and on about the glories of meritocracy, and about how the best and brightest would wheel and deal and compete and earn! In response to my question about Joe Sixpack, he said that if Joe Sixpack wanted to earn a living, he would also have to wheel and deal and compete and earn, and that he'd either root hog or die. I asked him if it might not be a worthy goal to structure a society in such a way that the common man (of which there are so very many) would be able to lead a dignified, productive life that allowed him to raise a family in happiness and stability, instead of a society in which a few amoral Uebermenschen are able to claw their way to the top over the masses of their discarded brethren. He just stared back blankly.

Walter Yannis

2005-07-18 15:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]CRW, you are forgetting one thing. Many of our fathers/grandfathers (depending on your age, of course) made their livings, owned homes and raised families laboring at jobs that could not sustain [I]one [/I] person, alone, today. Shoot, you can add [I]paid their doctor bills, too [/I] to that list - where today [U]no one[/U] can pay a doctor's bill without some form of subsidization. Their kids wore hand-me-downs and maybe saw meat on their plates twice a week, and the wives took in washing and sewed their own clothes....and no one died from any of this. Heck, legend has it some of them were even [I]happy[/I].

snip

[/QUOTE]

Great post, Ragman.

You're sounding like a Distributist.

Ron

2005-07-20 14:39 | User Profile

Many people spend their lives in loveless marriages, and it works out fine. Romance, love, flowers, and all the stuff of soap operas is not really what makes a marriage last. She doesn't want kids, so be it. Afterall, she is the one which will carry and birth the children, and the decision should be hers. The man should either adjust his attitude about a family, or wait a couple of years and see if his wife may change her mind. On the other hand, maybe she just doesn't want kids from [B]him[/B]. In that case, there is a bigger problem.

Quantrill

2005-07-20 15:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ron] She doesn't want kids, so be it. Afterall, she is the one which will carry and birth the children, and the decision should be hers. The man should either adjust his attitude about a family, or wait a couple of years and see if his wife may change her mind. [/QUOTE] Ron, I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree. First of all, the number of children should not be something the wife simply dictates, and which the husband meekly accepts. She will birth them, but he is ultimately responsible for providing for them, so his opinion is of equal worth. Secondly, Jay asked for a Christian perspective on his situation, and from a Christian perspective, procreation is simply part and parcel of marriage. A marriage in which the partners willfully frustrate any chance of fertility (barring extraordinary circumstances, such as health problems) is no marriage at all, and this is why traditional Christianity has recognized this as one of the legitimate justifications for divorce or annulment. I would not allow a woman to unilaterally and arbitrarily decide that my bloodline dies with me. Doing so would be cowardly.

Ron

2005-07-20 16:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Ron, I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree. First of all, the number of children should not be something the wife simply dictates, and which the husband meekly accepts. She will birth them, but he is ultimately responsible for providing for them, so his opinion is of equal worth. Secondly, Jay asked for a Christian perspective on his situation, and from a Christian perspective, procreation is simply part and parcel of marriage. A marriage in which the partners willfully frustrate any chance of fertility (barring extraordinary circumstances, such as health problems) is no marriage at all, and this is why traditional Christianity has recognized this as one of the legitimate justifications for divorce or annulment. I would not allow a woman to unilaterally and arbitrarily decide that my bloodline dies with me. Doing so would be cowardly.[/QUOTE]

I believe the wife's opinion about childbirth should weigh heaviest. Of course, her husbands wishes should be considered, but realistically the woman bears the burden of childbirth, and rearing of the child. Those who shoulder the greatest responsiblity should also be the ones whose opinions weigh heaviest. Furthermore, I have been meekly accepting my wife for years, with no ill effects. :) In so far as what a Christian opinion is, I am not sure what is meant by this. Christianity has many factions from Catholicism to Fundamentalism with varying opinions on childbearing. From a strict Christian perspective, there should be no contraception and divorce would be out of the question.

CWRWinger

2005-07-20 16:56 | User Profile

Ron quote:"I believe the wife's opinion about childbirth should weigh heaviest. Of course, her husbands wishes should be considered, ...."

Your opinion is a sad commentary on the state of American culture. Also, it is obvious from your opinion, it does not believe in absolutes.

Quantrill

2005-07-20 17:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ron]From a strict Christian perspective, there should be no contraception and divorce would be out of the question.[/QUOTE] Precisely, which is the reason I mentioned annulment. In the traditional viewpoint, because procreation is an integral part of marriage, if one partner 'decided' that there would be no children, then the marriage could be annuled. The rationale is that, since one partner entered into the covenant with the intention of not fulfilling his or her duties, ie procreation, then the covenant was made under false pretenses, meaning that it was fraudulent, meaning that it is null and void.

Happy Hacker

2005-07-21 01:38 | User Profile

Jay ought to have his wife read this thread, contrary to the earlier advice someone gave. I think it would be constructive for her to see that people here unanimously support Jay, that we want his marriage to work, and that we agree that she has her priorities wrong in putting her career ahead of her family.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 02:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=CWRWinger]Ron quote:"I believe the wife's opinion about childbirth should weigh heaviest. Of course, her husbands wishes should be considered, ...."

Your opinion is a sad commentary on the state of American culture. Also, it is obvious from your opinion, it does not believe in absolutes.[/QUOTE] Amen Brother. Ron sounds like a feminist, the man is the priesthood holder and the head of the household. It is my belief that women above the age of 25, without children are a menace to society. So I'll admit, I would probably not give the best advice. As a married father of 5, from the age of 19, who knew my wife since we were both 14 years old, my sympathy goes out to Jay. It makes me grateful for my wife, she truly is the fortress of my children's childhood. The most constructive advice I could think of is for both of you, to seek counseling from your Priest or Bishop. Good Luck!

il ragno

2005-07-21 02:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Jay ought to have his wife read this thread, contrary to the earlier advice someone gave. I think it would be constructive for her to see that people here unanimously support Jay, that we want his marriage to work, and that we agree that she has her priorities wrong in putting her career ahead of her family.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, she oughtta get a bang out of seeing her husband describe her miscarriage, among other private marital difficulties, to a coterie of strangers whom she's never met - so they can reassure him that she's no damn good and should be dumped.

And if she feels violated or otherwise offended, she's doubtless in dutch with some Bible quote somewhere : "submit in all things unto thy husband, and heed his buddies' counsel, else burn forever in the lake of fiery whoredom." C'mon, as bonafide counsel this thread is dubious enough to begin with.

Has it occurred to no one here that you've pretty much rendered a decision without ever bothering to hear [I]her side [/I] of this? Yet you'd like her to read (but not contribute) to this thread. I understand Jay is upset, but the sanctimony in here is getting a little thick. If you could time-travel back back to that day on the Mount of Olives, you'd all pack rocks for the trip, I presume.

jay

2005-07-21 04:31 | User Profile

Il, your comments definitely are interesting to read. I think that it may be as simple as another poster pointed out: maybe she just doesn't want them with ME.

that is different. i came to the conclusion recently that she couldn't have them, or had doubts she could, and didn't deal well with the pressure that carried. i'm to blame for that, sure.

altho, i do also believe that when a woman says she wants kids, then says she doesn't 2 years into the marriage....that's bunk. it's a violation of a marriage. My friend said it best: "Love is unconditional, but marriage is not."

YOu ahve to do certain things to keep a marriage going....be it rubbing her shoulders, or doing housework, or having a steady job. I have a marital "contract" that I agreed to live up to, even tho I didn't like parts of it. She has to do things, as well.

il ragno

2005-07-21 06:01 | User Profile

Jay, my point here is - and I believe you already know this - that whatever you do here, ther are only two people in this world qualified to make the decision, and that's you and her.

You've already mentioned trying counseling and finding it unsatisfactory. And frankly, I think your reaction to the counselor indicates you'd walked in on eggshells, expecting the worst and "finding" it. Thry're [I]supposed [/I] to ask those sorts of questions.

In fact, you've already mentioned that your wife had [I]already [/I] made the decision to file for divorce. Believe me I understand the hurt, the anger and the defensiveness. I understand the frustration at what seems like the world unraveling under your feet and the helplessness to stop it. And I know you still love this girl very much or you wouldn't have even begun this thread.

Surely you must have close friends who know both of you personally, who would be in a much better position to give you at least impressions that will be worth more than guesstimates by people here who know [I]you [/I] tangentially, and her not at all.

And there are two other people who - if they're still with us, of course, and if you enjoy a loving, trusting relationship with them - can offer you the soundest advice of anyone, and certainly the most meaningful moral support: your parents. (And maybe hers, too.) Not everyone [I]has [/I] that kind of bond with their folks, and some parents prefer a hands-off policy regarding these sorts of personal/marital problems - but right now, what you need is understanding from someone who knows and loves you...someone you trust implicitly. So that IF they happen to tell you something you maybe aren't crazy about hearing, you won't reflexively reject it.

But in the end, it's going to come down to you and her. Talk to her. Lay aside your first instinct and extend the olive branch, if only to talk. Even if you're talked out to death already. Very few people emerge whole from a divorce; there's more involved than a pigheaded pronciple, and relying on Christian drill sergeants isn't the way to go here. You need to be big enough to [I]not [/I] succumb to bitterness and stubborn pride right now, when all is not yet lost.

For Christ's sake, you're being 'counselled' here by - among others - CI wackos and the self-professed Christian Taliban! (And yeah, I realize you're just looking for an understanding ear here, and you're not about to robotically obey whatever advice you get.) I don't really think you're nutty enough to show your wife this thread - but you're vulnerable right now and so I just wanted to remind you: DON'T. She'll see some private things that [I]strangers have no right to know about her [/I] being openly discussed like a Bill Clinton thread at FR - and she will more than likely feel [I]betrayed and devastated[/I].

If two people love each other, as you two do, there's a strong chance that this too can and will pass. If it can't, at least take your best and most honest shot at it. But if this [I]can [/I] be saved, then she needs [U]you [/U] right now, and not an inflexible list of demands. This is your [I]wife[/I], not "a typical feminized female", not a "sheeple"...and life is about compromise sometimes, no matter how loudly somebody else screams you mustn't. It ain't [I]these [/I] guys who'll be sleeping alone and listening to the faucet drip till 4 in the morning. Go talk to her again, and be patient, and win back her trust - you [I]can [/I] do it, you know - and don't worry about being 'strong'. You already are.

truth

2005-07-21 07:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Many of our fathers/grandfathers (depending on your age, of course) made their livings, owned homes and raised families laboring at jobs that could not sustain [I]one [/I] person, alone, today.

il ragno -- no offense -- but manual labor is much glorified by those who have never had to do it. it is much less pleasant than working in an air-conditioned office at a computer. it is romanticism to think otherwise. powerpoint may be dull, but shoveling manure is worse.

you can add [I]paid their doctor bills, too [/I] to that list - where today [U]no one[/U] can pay a doctor's bill without some form of subsidization.

If we're talking grandfathers, world war 1 was not exactly the pinnacle of modern medicine. Even 30-40 years back, doctors weren't all that effective. no MRIs, few antibiotics, lower life expectancies, etcetera. And you can get 1950's health care today for less in real terms than you'd pay in 1950. It's 2005-standard health care that is expensive.

Besides, what's driving up health care costs is the cost of subsidizing illegal aliens and the 25% of our population (= blacks and hispanics) that demand much and produce little. It's not a function of modernity per se.

Their kids wore hand-me-downs and maybe saw meat on their plates twice a week, and the wives took in washing and sewed their own clothes....and no one died from any of this. Heck, legend has it some of them were even [I]happy[/I].

some of them, but for most life was miserable. little in the way of entertainment. You worked many more hours per day at much lower levels of productivity to earn much less in the way of goods.

again, if you work 40 hours a week at mcdonald's, you can afford the lifestyle you describe -- meat 1-2 times a week, hand me downs, uneducated and subservient wife -- but it is much less pleasant than you'd imagine.

the main thing which may truly be more costly in real terms today in the US is land, but this is again largely a function of the Hispanic influx (especially in Los Angeles). Being urban, I would prefer a life in Japan or New York City to one in Montana. I certainly prefer a life with Ipods and online mathematics texbooks to one where i'd have to subsist on moldy crusts of bread.

Were these worthy and hardworking men to materialize before us today, they'd be deemed 'losers' - physically able to compete, sure, but fatally ill-equipped to function as Fortune 500 worker-drones....now the one sure avenue to stability and security for the majority of American workers. And drowning in debt, always short of cash, in thrall to finance companies and repo men... owning [I]nothing[/I].

the stupid and/or lazy didn't "own" more in the past than they do now. Pick whatever measure of material wealth you like (with the possible exception of sheer acreage per person, which has rapidly diminishing returns anyway without the guards to enforce property rights). the stupid -- i.e. manual laborers -- will have more of it today than they did 50 or 100 years ago.

the soft-focus idealization of the "working class" is one of the annoying tics of our professoriate, particularly because the working class is comprised of those voted "most likely to engage in Hogarthian dissipation" during their senior year.

truth

2005-07-21 07:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Il, your comments definitely are interesting to read. I think that it may be as simple as another poster pointed out: maybe she just doesn't want them with ME.

that is different. i came to the conclusion recently that she couldn't have them, or had doubts she could, and didn't deal well with the pressure that carried. i'm to blame for that, sure.

jay,

i don't post here very regularly, but i do lurk and read. for what it's worth, from a total stranger -- aside from my academic disputation of ragno's points re: doctors, i think his advice on the wife thing is sound.

during a similar period in my life, i found it very important to keep up my confidence. one can get stuck in a rut where you think you will never find someone else as good, that she was the pinnacle, and so forth. that's a bad place to be mentally. at least for me, intellectualizing the problem worked well. there are more than one hundred million white women in the united states. that is a lot of possibilities.

and if you want a sure thing re: marital stability, you could commit OD heresy and go Asian (smart, age well, loyal). I hear it's all the rage out west :)

...the point is that you seem to be a well spoken and competent guy. One who is not possessed by the paranoid ideation (viz, "George Washington = George Wasserman") that is all too common among the fringe characters who hang out here. So, assuming you're normal in appearance, you won't have a problem finding other women if push comes to shove. You won't have a problem finding better women, in fact. Even if you don't decide to do this, reminding yourself of this fact can give you the inner confidence required to do what you must.

il ragno

2005-07-21 08:22 | User Profile

Truth, you miss my point - perhaps that was my fault - that it was once entirely possible for a father to own a home and raise a family on a single salary at the sort of jobs that - whether skilled labor, semi-skilled labor or what have you -- he could barely support him[I]self[/I] at today.

And [I]you [/I] need to fess up too - you represent a new class of folks so inured to the centralized/subsidized [I]here and now [/I] that "less" means "nothing", "some" becomes "most" - as in "for most life was miserable" - and for whom "the past" almost always represents an unendurable death-camp of flat-earth superstition, daily beatings and endless privation. Viz your description of 50 million or so working men as "the stupid and/or lazy" (interesting how they were so "stupid and lazy" they [I]still [/I] somehow managed to work themselves into early graves, according to you).

Yeah, we're all used to our air-conditioners and our iPods, but that view - that [I]convenience and materialism= more and greater happiness [/I] (and its converse: [I]modest means= dying young with fresh welts on your back[/I]) is every bit as naive as mine might admittedly be. Your examples might [I]appear [/I] to be specific refutations but are no less vague and generalized than my own 'rose-colored' view (not that I ever denied that there [I]was [/I] privation, or that less was ever more. My point was [I]more is not necessarily more [/I] - indeed, it tends to atomize famlies, communities, and eventually societies. There were no H1-Bs or mestizo invaders 30 years ago when drug addiction, abortion and the deconstruction of the family began in force. Only higher levels of personal income, and three tvs in every home....all color.)

Texas Dissident

2005-07-21 08:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Yeah, we're all used to our air-conditioners and our iPods, but that view - that [I]convenience and materialism= more and greater happiness [/I] (and its converse: [I]modest means= dying young with fresh welts on your back[/I]) is every bit as naive as mine might admittedly be. Your examples might [I]appear [/I] to be specific refutations but are no less vague and generalized than my own 'rose-colored' view (not that I ever denied that there [I]was [/I] privation, or that less was ever more. My point was [I]more is not necessarily more [/I] - indeed, it tends to atomize famlies, communities, and eventually societies. There were no H1-Bs or mestizo invaders 30 years ago when drug addiction, abortion and the deconstruction of the family began in force. Only higher levels of personal income, and three tvs in every home....all color.)[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think America's greatest living poet, Merle Haggard, nicely expressed the same sentiment in his song "In the Good Old Days (When Times Were Bad)".

il ragno

2005-07-21 11:03 | User Profile

Now I'm going to talk about some specific examples, beginning with my father. (Whom - in all candor - I have always had a thorny relationship with.)

My father was a [I]classic [/I] unskilled laborer. Calloused hands that he felt both pride and shame in. He legally immigrated here in 1951 in an era when legal immigrants had to take the equivalency of loyalty tests and display a knowledge and appreciation of this country and its values upon entering, and one had to be vouched for - by a friend or family member - who would take it upon themselves to see to your food, clothing and shelter until employment was found.

When I was ten years old he was the sole breadwinner in our family. We owned a two-family home in a borough of New York City, in a reasonably pleasant area that was non-integrated and low-crime. We had a late-model car. We took vacations every other year. We had a fair number of amenities and appliances and tended to stretch whatever we had a little longer than most folks. He owned stocks and bonds even! On [I]one [/I] salary, of never more than $15, 000 a year, if that. The neighborhood we lived in was rowdy but lively and full of "stupid and lazy" people with similar stories. We left the front door open at night in summer to let the breeze (if any) in to cool down the living room. No six locks on the door; we barely used the one we had. Everyone knew everyone: if I was locked out of my house I could always stay at a neighbor's until my folks got home. All the women were housewives and could be found leaning out their windows in what seemed like shifts, keeping an eye on us kids as we played ball in the street or opened up a fire-hydrant to cool off. It wasn't a perfect life but it was pretty ok (and we knew it, too, even then). It was best described with a word now too much in vogue by the wrong people: it was a [I]community[/I]. Only we called it a [I]neighborhood[/I].

When I was 21 all that was fast-fading if not already gone. For my father...for a lot of fathers....everything had changed. Either their industries had all been jobbed out overseas, or their earning and purchasing power had been crippled - by runamuck inflation, by Walmartization, by dirt-cheap foreign goods flooding the marketplace. Their wages were either locked in pre-70s limbo or vanished altogether. My mother had - at 40 - entered the workplace to help make ends meet, like so many others did at the time. By the time she was 45 it was obvious that she was now the primary earner in the household with my father working harder than ever to come in second. The world around him, you see, had moved from a labor/manufacturing based economy into a paper-and-chatter based one instead. Bit by bit he felt the ground shifting and lurching beneath his feet, not just disorienting but [I]emasculating [/I] him, relentlessly. (Although my mother, being from the same generation, never once allowed him to feel like anything other than the king of his castle and the head of the family - even when he began to become slowly consumed with frustration and bitterness and lashed out at her. She was better able to adapt to the social upheaval because she entered the workforce at a time when the upheaval was well underway; office work and paper-pushing would have been alien and alienating to him, but it suited her....and the Women's Lib movement had forced opened a door for her by forcing men like him [I]out[/I].) It was disturbing, to watch him grow more and more disconnected from an America that had no place for him any longer and took its pound of flesh from his autonomy. He became....not just angrier, but dumber. Louder. He didn't really understand what was happening to the country, but he knew that even if he [I]did [/I] understand he couldn't stop it from happening. Where were the plants? The manufacturing? Where had they gone? Where were the men with calloused hands who could buy their own homes? In our neighborhood, it was only the mob guys who now thrived, and the new neighbors moving in all worked at banks, insurance companies, law firms...[I]paper-pushers[/I]. More and more he took comfort and refuge in fundamentalist religion - in dreams. At the time, it angered me, but I've come to understand the whys and wherefores at work. [I]He had to have something of permanence to hold on to,[/I] and as the 20th century wound down, "permanence" was defined in increasingly shorter and shorter measures of time. It's as if he'd got into his car one day, and discovered to his horror that he'd instead been soldered in place onto a roller coaster he couldn't get out of. And he got older and eventally sicker, he grew .....[I]childlike [/I] in a way. A kid catching a whipping for something he didn't even know he'd done. He's on his way out now, and in pretty sad shape. Our relationship is no longer thorny because - frankly - there's not much left of him to connect [I]to[/I]. It's not his illnesses so much, it's his identity. It was peeled away from him in strips till there was next to no identity left.

When I was around thirty I made a sobering discovery purely by accident. I was at my folks' house, seeking some old photo in a series of shoeboxes full of familial ephemera, when I came across his old love letters he'd written to my mom while he was 'keeping company' with her, as they called it then. To my astonishment, they were written in [I]flawless [/I] grammatical English and were beautifully expressive and heartfelt. What happened to [I]this [/I] guy? I wondered; this was nothing like the often-surly and usually-inarticulate man I'd known all my life. Of course, marriage and family happened to him; [B]I [/B] happened to him. Whatever he might have been, whatever path he might have chosen, he'd put them up on a shelf and took the best-paying job he could find instead, regardless of how laborious or undignified, in order to do what you did without question in those days: [I]you start a family[/I]. You work hard and live right and do your best and it will all work out in the long run.

Not.

In one of those letters I found the only reference he ever made, oral or written, to the war he lived through as a kid. He was twelve years old, and there was heavy fighting in the occupied part of Italy he was born and lived in. He was on his way to visit his cousins in a nearby town and took the shortcut through the woods to get there as he usually did. When he approached the clearing he heard women wailing and sobbing. Some partisan had shot and killed a Nazi officer in the town on the day prior; in retaliation, they had dragged out sixteen men from the village and hung them publicly on the spot. My father looked up and saw the bodies swaying on the ropes - one of his cousins was among them. He ran all the way home, tripping and falling over constantly because his eyesight was blinded with tears. A few days later, he approached the town priest. "If God could let this happen, why should I worship Him?" he asked. The priest responded by slapping him hard enough to knock him down. Oh, those letters were [I]revelations [/I] to me. For a "stupid and/or lazy man" who never fulfilled his potential by programming an iPod or downloading an online mathemnatics textbook, they were [I]surprisingly [/I] profound.

And what happened to the world he lived in? The America he embraced where a "stupid and/or lazy man" could put aside his traumas and his disappontments and setbacks and yet still make a place for himself and his family?

Guys like [B]you [/B] happened, Truth. (No offense.) White-collar go-go libertarian whiz kids who’d sooner live in Tokyo than Tupelo and who helped convince us all that the Old America was an overrated sweatshop propping up the stupid lazy men we'd be better off without, and we’d all be [I]much [/I] happier when the manufacturing plants were all moved to Malaysia and the iPods begin rolling off the assembly lines. I think the jury’s out on that one, regardless of health-care cost analysis in real terms, adjusted for inflation.

Quantrill

2005-07-21 14:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno] I don't really think you're nutty enough to show your wife this thread - but you're vulnerable right now and so I just wanted to remind you: DON'T. She'll see some private things that strangers have no right to know about her * being openly discussed like a Bill Clinton thread at FR - and she will more than likely feel betrayed and devastated*. I absolutely agree with this. Don't even consider showing her this thread. An emotionally vulnerable, distraught woman will not be swayed by the purely objective analysis of strangers. Il Ragno is completely correct.

[QUOTE=il ragno] If two people love each other, as you two do, there's a strong chance that this too can and will pass. If it can't, at least take your best and most honest shot at it. But if this can * be saved, then she needs [u]you [/u] right now, and not an inflexible list of demands. This is your wife, not "a typical feminized female", not a "sheeple"...and life is about compromise sometimes, no matter how loudly somebody else screams you mustn't. It ain't these * guys who'll be sleeping alone and listening to the faucet drip till 4 in the morning. Go talk to her again, and be patient, and win back her trust - you *can * do it, you know - and don't worry about being 'strong'. You already are.[/QUOTE] For my part, I have not been encouraging divorce, by any means. You should certainly try to work things out. Only you two know the contours and intricacies of your relationship, and only you two can decide on what is best. The point I was trying to make was simply that one partner in a marriage unilaterally deciding that there will be no offspring is unacceptable in a Christian marriage, and has traditionally been grounds for an annulment. That is the basic principle, but it will vary widely in application to different circumstances. For example, health problems are a perfectly legitimate reason to forgo having children, and infertility would not be grounds for divorce. In your case, it sounds like there are two probable scenarios-- the first, and most likely (in my admittedly uninformed opinion) is that she was understandably traumatized by her miscarriage, and is afraid of having to undergo that experience again. That is completely understandable and legitimate, and you should be as supportive as possible. You certainly cannot simply demand that she stop being afraid or upset, but maybe in time you can work through it together. The second scenario is that, as one poster mentioned, she simply doesn't want children with you, in which case this is merely a symptom of some other issues in the marriage, which you will have to uncover. Sorry if I am merely restating my previous posts, but I did not want to give the impression of inflexibly advocating divorce, because I most certainly am not. Good luck, Jay.

Okiereddust

2005-07-21 16:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]When I was 21 all that was fast-fading if not already gone. For my father...for a lot of fathers....everything had changed. Either their industries had all been jobbed out overseas, or their earning and purchasing power had been crippled - by runamuck inflation, by Walmartization, by dirt-cheap foreign goods flooding the marketplace. Their wages were either locked in pre-70s limbo or vanished altogether. My mother had - at 40 - entered the workplace to help make ends meet, like so many others did at the time. By the time she was 45 it was obvious that she was now the primary earner in the household with my father working harder than ever to come in second. The world around him, you see, had moved from a labor/manufacturing based economy into a paper-and-chatter based one instead. Bit by bit he felt the ground shifting and lurching beneath his feet, not just disorienting but [I]emasculating [/I] him, relentlessly.[/QUOTE]Well there's no doubt manufacturing died in NYC. With all the taxes and regulations and crooked/mafia-dominated labor unions and outright mafia payoffs, not to mention periodic pairs of concrete boots, it just wasn't competitive, let alone fun, to work in NYC, or most of the rest of the Northeast for that matter.

What we in the rest of the country didn't realize was that, while at the time it seemed to be something good for the rest of us, New Yorkers would never let it last. First they shipped all those garment factories to North Carolina and other factories to various places, but you know know new yorkers, if they aren't going to get to pitch they just take the ball home and don't play. Or at least send it across the ocean. All those North Carolina textile mills pretty soon were being sent to Mexico, Taiwan, Or Thailand, (now Red China). And the people in North Carolina or Oklahoma for that matter were stuck trying to do the same thing your dad was trying to do, learn how to "upgrade" into the new service economy.

I can just hear people like your dad who used to work in those old NYC harment district shops cackling when they closed up and moved south. "You think you're winning now hillbilly, but we'll get the last laugh. You think those guys won't sell you out faster than they sold their old next door neighbor out? Fat chance -sucka".

il ragno

2005-07-21 16:39 | User Profile

I can just hear people like your dad who used to work in those old NYC harment district shops cackling when they closed up and moved south. "You think you're winning now hillbilly, but we'll get the last laugh. You think those guys won't sell you out faster than they sold their old next door neighbor out? Fat chance -sucka".*

They'd cut out the middleman on him: when the first waves of layoffs came, his job was shipped straight to Taiwan. Some of the women he'd worked with were given the "opportunity" to continue to do piecework.... at half wages, off the books, in illegal sweatshops. Eventually it simply became easier to get people more accustomd to uncomplaining serfhood to handle the work and even the sweatshops were taken away and staffed with Chinese and othe Asians.

PSto Quantrill: I've always considered you a rational and fair-minded Christian, and the comments were certainly not aimed at you. These two people love each other and both of them should put pride and stubbornness aside and try talking to each other instead, without agendas or demands. Storms happen but they also pass if you'll be patient and let them.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 16:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno] I can just hear people like your dad who used to work in those old NYC harment district shops cackling when they closed up and moved south. "You think you're winning now hillbilly, but we'll get the last laugh. You think those guys won't sell you out faster than they sold their old next door neighbor out? Fat chance -sucka".

And you might want to adjust your sights a little further south, to Washington. You can't sell out American industry and manufacturing without a wink and a thumbs-up from the politicians who sign the treaties that give you the all-clear to do so.[/QUOTE]There are jobs available in the Pacific Northwest for fruit-pickers and packers. One of the Mexicans in Washington state told me he made $150 a day picking cherries. The Mexicans there have little overhead as most live in tents in the fields. You missed out on the cherries, but could still pick apples.

truth

2005-07-21 17:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]There were no H1-Bs or mestizo invaders 30 years ago when drug addiction, abortion and the deconstruction of the family began in force. Only higher levels of personal income, and three tvs in every home....all color....

Guys like [B]you [/B] happened, Truth. (No offense.) White-collar go-go libertarian whiz kids whoÃ¢â¬â¢d sooner live in Tokyo than Tupelo and who helped convince us all that the Old America was an overrated sweatshop propping up the stupid lazy men we'd be better off without, and weÃ¢â¬â¢d all be [I]much [/I] happier when the manufacturing plants were all moved to Malaysia and the iPods begin rolling off the assembly lines. I think the juryÃ¢â¬â¢s out on that one, regardless of health-care cost analysis in real terms, adjusted for inflation.[/QUOTE]

ragno, no offense intended by the "stupid and lazy" crack. it wasn't directed towards your dad but rather towards the people that the middle class romanticizes but does not emulate.

My point is very simple: modernity must be decoupled from multiculturalism and Mestizo immigration. They are not the same thing. You didn't like my example of Japan, but it's a great example of a place that is modern and technological without experiencing the societal decay inflicted by blacks and Hispanics. Finland is another one. Some of the countries in Eastern Europe are getting there too, as long as they can hold off the flood of gastarbeiters that the EU promises them.

On a civilizational basis, many of the nations in East Asia have managed the trick of acquiring technological modernity without our current policy of mass importation of illiterates and criminals.

Again, my points are that:

1) modernity need not be accompanied by mass hispanic immigration. 2) if you factor race stuff out, the past is less pleasant than the present for the average person. that is, more technology means more opportunity and a better life.

so, what i object to is blaming the present upon tech and individualism rather than the fellows who loosed africans upon us through forced busing and related measures.

the people who want to run successful technology companies hate the fact that the EEOC mandates that 25% of their workforce be comprised of incompetents. there is no equation in the sky that says that being pro technology and pro market means you are anti bell curve and opposed to racial reality. it is a mistake to conflate the two, particularly when east asian nations are not making that mistake.

xmetalhead

2005-07-21 17:12 | User Profile

IR, I was touched by your dad's story. As I recently posted somewhere else on OD, my dad supported our family of 4 as an auto body mechanic through the late 60s to the early 80's. We took vacation every year to the Poconos, and although we lived humbly, we had a nice apartment in a White neighborhood, food, clothes and Catholic schooling. My mother didn't work until 1983. Altough I'm a little younger than you, I did catch some of that real neighborhood community you described during my youth which was prevalent in many a NYC neighborhood....shoot, even any neighborhood in America for that matter. I miss that feeling today big time, as I bolt up my 3 locks on my door after mingling in the multicultural morass all day.

Quantrill

2005-07-21 17:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=truth]You didn't like my example of Japan, but it's a great example of a place that is modern and technological without experiencing the societal decay inflicted by blacks and Hispanics. Finland is another one. Some of the countries in Eastern Europe are getting there too, as long as they can hold off the flood of gastarbeiters that the EU promises them.[/QUOTE] All of those countries have negative population growth, which is prima facie evidence of societal decay.

truth

2005-07-21 17:19 | User Profile

ragno,

with respect to the question of losing manufacturing jobs, sending them to taiwan, etc...

do you think the united states should have remained an agricultural society? the manufacturing jobs you idealize are not "traditional" in any sense. They are quite new, just a few decades old, and only came about when people moved off farms and up the value chain. Yeah, a few people did worse, but society as a whole did WAY better. I personally do not want to return to the days in which 90%+ of the population had to farm for a living rather than today when less than 1% of the US is involved in agriculture, with mechanization doing the rest.

would you rather have 1920's tech rather than computers, jet fighters, cellphones, and all the rests? Going from 1900 to 1950 meant an awful lot of movement from agriculture to manufacturing. Going from 1950 to 2000 meant a lot of movement from manufacturing to service jobs.

I'm sure that 50 years hence someone will be pounding the table about the good bread and butter software jobs lost by their parents and how it's a tragedy that everyone is working in nanotech or biotech or whatever. They will loudly proclaim this and return to enjoying their hovercar, their holodeck, and their nanomedicine.

i'm sympathetic to your position re: mestizo immigration, of course. we should be using machines, not mexicans. what we have today is a new form of slavery that is retarding the whole US just as it retarded the south before the civil war. The mexican immigration situation is a lose-lose proposition that prevents manufacturers & farmers moving up the value chain via automation/mechanization and also looses these predators to rape 9 year old girls ([url]http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2005/07/20/citizens-reject-enforced-kumbaya/[/url]).

Minus the blacks and mexicans, the past was a lot better in terms of public safety. But not in terms of tech and overall standard of living. It is just romanticism to idealize a time when you actually could starve to death rather than buying food at Walmart, and I like to think that those on the broad right are less interested in fantasy. Let's leave the romanticism to the libs who think we're going to see an outpouring of guys on the level of Arthur Compton from Compton, CA.

truth

2005-07-21 17:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]All of those countries have negative population growth, which is prima facie evidence of societal decay.[/QUOTE]

EVERY country in the developed world has negative population growth. We would if we didn't have hispanic immigration. tons of undeveloped countries do as well. china has below replacement fertility. even the teeming masses of south asia have radically decelerating population growth.

[url]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PCG/is_1_20/ai_105659430[/url]

The world is now experiencing unprecedented low fertility. By the end of the twentieth century, 44 per cent of its population lived in countries with below-replacement levels of fertility as measured by total fertility rates (TFRs). Whether the whole world will face declining population depends to a considerable extent upon what happens in the huge, poor countries of Asia.

besides, if you know some math you can see why negative population growth can not continue indefinitely. very simply, within any population there is a spread of high and low fertility individuals. if you assume that high fertility individuals are more likely to pass on the values and genes to have high fertility children -- and they are -- then they will be more and more prevalent in increasing generations.

lastly, Britain took over south asia when its population was just a few million. A few million dedicated individuals can obviously accomplish quite a lot -- look at the Jews. Power is not a simple function of numbers, but a function of the ability to sustain civilization (which really reduces to the ability to do math, and build the guns/computers/etc. which keep us on top militarily).

One last -- in many ways the past that you and ragno idealize was enabled by a period of much lower population. The price of land is higher in real terms today because there are many more people around. The divorce rate is higher because people are in higher population density areas and can see many more people that they fancy better than their current partner. Etcetera, etcetera.

Upshot being that it's strange to me to simultaneously want high population and a traditional lifestyle, when the former mitigates against the latter. All organisms behave differently as population increases, and humans are no exception.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 17:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=truth]My point is very simple: modernity must be decoupled from multiculturalism and Mestizo immigration. They are not the same thing.[/QUOTE] Most of the mestizos are here, because it is economically advantageous to certain poeople for them to be here. In other words they perform jobs that others seem unwilling to do. Technology is great, but everyone isn't cut out to be a computer guru, some are made for manual labor. [QUOTE=truth]You didn't like my example of Japan, but it's a great example of a place that is modern and technological without experiencing the societal decay inflicted by blacks and Hispanics..[/QUOTE] Japan also imports most of their food supply from countries like the U.S. that employ mestizos as laborers.

Quantrill

2005-07-21 18:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=truth]EVERY country in the developed world has negative population growth. Precisely.

[QUOTE=truth] besides, if you know some math you can see why negative population growth can not continue indefinitely. No, but it can continue long enough to completely destroy the modern institutions that have been built with certain population patterns in mind.

[QUOTE=truth]Power is not a simple function of numbers, but a function of the ability to sustain civilization (which really reduces to the ability to do math, and build the guns/computers/etc. which keep us on top militarily). Is America currently a leader in mathematics, engineering, or computer science?

By the way, do you know a poster named Darkstar? You seem to share his touching faith in a technocratic, libertarian utopia in which the limitations of man and the tyranny of nature are conquered by Moore's law.

6KILLER

2005-07-21 18:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=truth]do you think the united states should have remained an agricultural society?[/QUOTE]Not all agricultural jobs are low-tech. Agriculture uses the most advanced of machines i.e. turbine powered aircraft, chemicals, lab analysis, assembly line mechanization etc. They still haven't developed machines that can pick fruit without destroying it.

[QUOTE=truth]would you rather have 1920's tech rather than computers, jet fighters, cellphones, and all the rests? Going from 1900 to 1950 meant an awful lot of movement from agriculture to manufacturing. Going from 1950 to 2000 meant a lot of movement from manufacturing to service jobs.[/QUOTE]Last time I checked US agriculture used 2005 technology not 1920's. You sound like some vegan people that I recently met from Seattle, who were parrotting the old Greenpeace line about 'if all the land used to grow cattle was used to grow grain and produce, that we could feed more people.' Having grew up on a ranch, I would love to see these people farm the land that we ran cattle on.

[QUOTE=truth]I'm sure that 50 years hence someone will be pounding the table about the good bread and butter software jobs lost by their parents and how it's a tragedy that everyone is working in nanotech or biotech or whatever. They will loudly proclaim this and return to enjoying their hovercar, their holodeck, and their nanomedicine.[/QUOTE]Sounds like the Jetson's

[QUOTE=truth]i'm sympathetic to your position re: mestizo immigration, of course. we should be using machines, not mexicans. what we have today is a new form of slavery that is retarding the whole US just as it retarded the south before the civil war. The mexican immigration situation is a lose-lose proposition that prevents manufacturers & farmers moving up the value chain via automation/mechanization.[/QUOTE]Tell me how a farmer that grosses $260,000 on 8 acres is going to move up the value chain when he is already using the most advanced technology known to man, but still must hire mestizos to harvest his crop.

Ponce

2005-07-21 18:34 | User Profile

In June of 04 the US stopped being a major exporter of food to the rest of the world, why?

We still have the same land, same machines, same water, same ferteliser and with the "illegals" we even more workers out in the field, so what is going on?

Do we need to place more Americans as farmers out in the field or do we have to bring in more "illegals" to do the job that Americans don't want?

I mean, $150.00 bucks a DAY is pretty danm good, specially in this one mule town with no jobs.

I will tell you this much, with those super hyber seeds that grows only one time the US and the whole world is in peril and those who controls those seeds will be the new masters.

Like a Jew said at one time "Let me control the economy and I'll control the government".........the new one will be " Let me control the food and I'll control the people".

Soylent Green anyone?

6KILLER

2005-07-21 19:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]In June of 04 the US stopped being a major exporter of food to the rest of the world, why?[/QUOTE]Probably because 60% of what we grow is genetically engineered by some high tech genius like truth. And the fact that some of our cattle have been found to have mad cow disease. The European nations want our agricultural products because of this.

[QUOTE=Ponce]We still have the same land, same machines, same water, same ferteliser and with the "illegals" we even more workers out in the field, so what is going on?[/QUOTE]Could it be some social engineering by the chosenites?

[QUOTE=Ponce]Do we need to place more Americans as farmers out in the field or do we have to bring in more "illegals" to do the job that Americans don't want?[/QUOTE]Illegals are doing the jobs that americans won't do and they are making pretty good money doing it. Last winter I worked slinging X-mas trees and boughs, that they use to make x-mas reefs. The ground crews were all Mexicans. I use to do helicopter logging, same thing most of the ground crew were mestizos.

[QUOTE=Ponce]I mean, $150.00 bucks a DAY is pretty danm good, specially in this one mule town with no jobs.[/QUOTE]My point exactly, but no one except mestizos seem to want these jobs. I do realize they are seasonal, but it has to beat working at burger doodle.

[QUOTE=Ponce]I will tell you this much, with those super hyber seeds that grows only one time the US and the whole world is in peril and those who controls those seeds will be the new masters.[/QUOTE]I'm against genetically engineered agriculture.

[QUOTE=Ponce]Like a Jew said at one time "Let me control the economy and I'll control the government".........the new one will be " Let me control the food and I'll control the people".[/QUOTE]They also said that 'conflict is the yeast of their dough.'

[QUOTE=Ponce]Soylent Green anyone?[/QUOTE]I'd like to urinate on Rachel Carson's headstone. It never was proven that DDT softened bird eggs, but now it is accepted as fact.

Quantrill

2005-07-21 20:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce] I mean, $150.00 bucks a DAY is pretty danm good, specially in this one mule town with no jobs.[/QUOTE] Where are you getting this figure? Around here, the reason Mexicans do the jobs 'Americans don't want to do,' is because Americans don't want to do a job that entails poverty wages, long hours, and no benefits. The norm for a living wage shouldn't be based upon what can let you live thirty people to a house and get tax-funded medical care at the emergency room.

EDIT -- By the way, hasn't this thread drifted pretty far off-topic?

6KILLER

2005-07-21 21:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Where are you getting this figure?[/QUOTE] I think he got the figure from a post that I made in another thread. I told him about a Mexican that made this amount per day. They are paid piece work where the key is to be fast.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Around here, the reason Mexicans do the jobs 'Americans don't want to do,' is because Americans don't want to do a job that entails poverty wages, long hours, and no benefits. The norm for a living wage shouldn't be based upon what can let you live thirty people to a house and get tax-funded medical care at the emergency room.[/QUOTE]Most of the mexicans that pick fruit are migrants they live in tents and send their pay checks to Mexico, but they do make pretty good money for what they do. Of course it's seasonal and there are no benefits.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]EDIT -- By the way, hasn't this thread drifted pretty far off-topic? [/QUOTE]Yes it has.

Ponce

2005-07-21 22:06 | User Profile

Quantrill? the $150.00 per day came from the original poster before me or from another post.

6Killer? when I was a kid back in Cuba we used to take a bath with the sray can of DDT before going to bed, we use to close our eyes and spray even the face.

Those who are the power to be decided that DDT was doing to good of a job and got rid of it........DDT is safe.

Pennsylvania_Dutch

2005-07-21 23:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]Quantrill? the $150.00 per day came from the original poster before me or from another post.

6Killer? when I was a kid back in Cuba we used to take a bath with the sray can of DDT before going to bed, we use to close our eyes and spray even the face.

Those who are the power to be decided that DDT was doing to good of a job and got rid of it........DDT is safe.[/QUOTE] ...another reason, why your friend Castro says, history will absolve him...:whstl:

truth

2005-07-22 01:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno] To my astonishment, they were written in flawless grammatical English and were beautifully expressive and heartfelt. What happened to this guy? I wondered; this was nothing like the often-surly and usually-inarticulate man I'd known all my life.[/QUOTE]

ragno -- i just read this bit again. Is it possible, again without meaning offense, that your father suffered from early onset alzheimer's? People believe that something similar may be happening to Bush -- he is considerably slower today than he was when he ran for governor, and your description reminds me of this article from Fallows.

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200407/fallows[/url]

It may be that he was ill, and the behavioral shifts you observed were part of that.

madrussian

2005-07-22 03:17 | User Profile

There's nothing wrong with iPods. Or H1b program as long as it brings people from Europe and not hinduchinks. Il Ragno, you sound similar to Bible thumpers rejecting modernity and science. Just because the world was less technological back then, doesn't mean that it's the modernity which is responsible for the problems of today.

il ragno

2005-07-22 05:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]There's nothing wrong with iPods. Or H1b program as long as it brings people from Europe and not hinduchinks. Il Ragno, you sound similar to Bible thumpers rejecting modernity and science. Just because the world was less technological back then, doesn't mean that it's the modernity which is responsible for the problems of today.[/QUOTE]

It's called ironic emphasis, MR. You know, they [I]had [/I] 'modernity and science' prior to 1990: I'm pretty sure I read that in an online textbook somewhere. (Although I'm sure the pregnant women who were prescribed thalidomide might differ with you on science being the solution and never the problem.)

See, I did it [I]again[/I]!

Blond Knight

2005-07-22 05:47 | User Profile

IR,

Thanks for telling us about your families experiences. Multiply by how many 10's of millions to realize the destruction of middle class America.

Year's ago I saw with my own eyes grown men crying when they lost their jobs.

As to the nut jobs that think that free trade as practiced in our nation today is just the way things have always operated, they are quick to bring up some kind of false arguement such as "well we don't need buggy whips anymore".

Typical bullshite from the "I got mine club". When the buggywhip & blacksmiths were obsolete, they could go down the street & get a job at the auto plant, textile mill, machine shop, ect.

We still use the products that have been "outsourced". I do believe that we would still be better off if we had a vibrant textile industry in our nation for example . The last time I looked, people were still wearing clothes & shoes, but sadly, you will have a hard time finding any made in the USA or any western nation.

But we "need to import people from turd world countries to do the work that Americans won't do".

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2005-07-22 09:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Wondering what the Christians on the board would think of my dilemma. Just turned 30, married 2 years, and the wife tells me last month, "I changed my mind: I don't want kids after all"

Divorce may well be a moral evil in principal, and it is certainly something to be avoided ordinarily (take it from me, as one who's had one the most amicable and least contentious divorces of all time; it ain't something one would generally want, if reasonably to be avoided), but life is a series of trade-offs, and sometimes you don't have the luxury to limit your behavior to what is right, but rather must take the lesser two undesirable pathways. If you want children (and you should, and it sounds like you do), then issue her an ultimatum, and if she doesn't yield on such a fundamental point, then yes, divorce her, and find yourself a more appropriate woman (and don't necessarily limit yourself to a woman in your own socio-economic & educational bracket, i.e. a woman with a low-status job may well be more interested in motherhood than one with a high-status job/"career," as it sounds like you may have discovered for yourself, albeit at great and unjust cost).

il ragno

2005-07-22 10:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Is it possible, again without meaning offense, that your father suffered from early onset alzheimer's? [/QUOTE]

Given that the man is 77 now and on powerful medication that periodically confuses the shit out of him, I would say that this "early Alzheimer's" would have progressed over the past 30 years to the point where a doctor would have diagnosed it long ago. He knows who he is, he knows who I am, he doesn't look into mirrors and ask [I]who are you and what are you doing here?[/I]

He may, though, be battling the early stages of it [I]now[/I], however. Or it might be the medication beating the piss out of his short-term memory. But he's lucid a good 80-90% of the time.

toddbrendanfahey

2005-07-22 11:52 | User Profile

Is she a hottie? I don't want kids; will consider taking her off your hands. :drool:

jay

2005-07-26 04:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=toddbrendanfahey]Is she a hottie? I don't want kids; will consider taking her off your hands. :drool:[/QUOTE]

Indeed, TBF, she is most definitely a "hottie". About 5-5, 130 lbs, and very pretty....Swedish in origin (obv. many generations ago)

She's a spoiled brat, tho. Only child, and literally would not do ANYTHING when asked. That's the problem with good-looking blondes: they were so used to getting their ass kissed by every damn guy wanting to get in their pants from age 15-30, that when it's time to do the marriage thing, they get culture shock: [I]i don't wanna do that[/I]......

jay

2005-07-26 04:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Jay, my point here is - and I believe you already know this - that whatever you do here, ther are only two people in this world qualified to make the decision, and that's you and her.

Great post, I don't have much to add except, I obv. got lots of advice from friends & family. Most of them, as pro-marriage as they all are, were pretty amazed she was such an unsupportive person.

Last year, she refused to go to my best friend's father's funeral. (Said the "kid talk" made her too angry) Unreal. Then she moved out for a week and threatened divorce.

Fact is, there's only so much a man can do in a marriage. She moved 1,000 miles away to Phoenix this week: "I told you I wanted to move there, and you obviously don't care about my opinion" I've made my peace with God on this one. In fact, I question why he put her in my life in the first place (tho, I know getting my leg blown off in Iraq is 10 gazillion times worse, I realize.....)

Happy Hacker

2005-07-26 04:22 | User Profile

Tell her that you don't want children, then go out and pretend to get fixed.

Does anyone know if microwaving "the pill" will destroy its effectiveness?

Slip fertility drugs into her food.

Try hypnosis.

skemper

2005-07-26 13:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]Great post, I don't have much to add except, I obv. got lots of advice from friends & family. Most of them, as pro-marriage as they all are, were pretty amazed she was such an unsupportive person.

Last year, she refused to go to my best friend's father's funeral. (Said the "kid talk" made her too angry) Unreal. Then she moved out for a week and threatened divorce.

She is very immature and selfish. Do you want someone like this to be a mother to your children? With the next woman, take Walter's advice: "Go ugly earlier, you'll be happier." I am not saying to go for a dog but if you want a woman as a wife and mother, then you should have looked for a woman with those qualities in the first place and not put such emphasis on looks beyond other characteristics. Many good-looking people, both men and women, are selfish and self-centered on their looks. She probaly showed such signs before the marriage but like many men you were so dazzled that you got a hot babe that you didn't notice.

xmetalhead

2005-07-26 15:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=skemper]She is very immature and selfish. Do you want someone like this to be a mother to your children? With the next woman, take Walter's advice: "Go ugly earlier, you'll be happier." I am not saying to go for a dog but if you want a woman as a wife and mother, then you should have looked for a woman with those qualities in the first place and not put such emphasis on looks beyond other characteristics. Many good-looking people, both men and women, are selfish and self-centered on their looks. She probaly showed such signs before the marriage but like many men you were so dazzled that you got a hot babe that you didn't notice.[/QUOTE]

Good advice, Skemp. I'd think Jay should [I]thank[/I] God for sending that self-absorbed woman away from him which would've made his life miserable for the next 40 years.

Sing it with me brothers!

"If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life/never make a pretty woman your wife/so from my personal point of view/get an ugly girl to marry you...."

Sing it my brothers!

il ragno

2005-07-26 15:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Last year, she refused to go to my best friend's father's funeral. (Said the "kid talk" made her too angry) Unreal. Then she moved out for a week and threatened divorce.

Well then you took your last and best shot, and can move on with a clear conscience.

I wish you'd have ment'd the "funeral" anecdote earlier, actually. I dated a girl who ran a [U]very[/U] similar number on me (skipping a wake that she knew damn well was important to me); and at the time I was pretty infatuated with her - in fact, we had [I]two [/I] go-arounds with each other, separated by eight years in between.

I was too numbskulled to realize that what she was always really saying (in code) was "I want someone to take care of me, and support me in style, and cherish me...but in a way that allows me to live as though I was still single, and answerable only to myself." We never tied the knot, thank God...one thing I [B]am [/B] indebted to her for, even though some internal alarm-bell had always prevented me from proposing to her....and sure enough, I later learned that both of her [I]actual [/I] marriages were marked by many abortions and many not-so-clandestine affairs; her first husband even attempted suicide. My "source" for this information was [I]her[/I], telling me all this in bed one night, on that second go-around. Suffice it to say our rekindled romance fizzled out real quick after [I]that [/I] bit of pillow-talk. ("What's the matter?...suddenly I can't [I]feel [/I] you any more...")

I shouldnt've been all [I]that [/I] surprised, since all the clues were there, years before. But sometimes we don't wanna admit that we're seeing what we're seeing, and that square pegs can't be willed into round holes. I happened to compound my mistake in getting wrapped up in her by nursing too much bitterness once I realized what a wrong number I'd caught. But the amazing thing is when the one who brings true love back into your life comes along, you'll be more surprised than anybody. Best of luck, and prepare to be pleasantly blindsided one of these days.

Ron

2005-07-28 22:24 | User Profile

Here is the prescription for a happy marriage. The man says to the woman, "You are right, it's my fault, will you forgive me."

CornCod

2005-07-29 03:14 | User Profile

Yep, the woman abandoned you. Its OK with God if you give her walking papers.

Ron

2005-08-01 16:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=CornCod]Yep, the woman abandoned you. Its OK with God if you give her walking papers.[/QUOTE] I guess you speak for God?

Texas Dissident

2005-08-01 16:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ron]I guess you speak for God?[/QUOTE]

The true colors begin to emerge.

:caiphas: