The MGTOW Perspective

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2014-07-31T15:10:16+00:00

[deleted]

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2014-07-31T17:08:49+00:00

If you have a wife, you are a slave to your wife’s wishes and you proverbially have a gun to your head. If you have a couple kids, you are a slave for at least eighteen years of your life, plus more, if they want to go to university/college. You can also say goodbye to at least half a million of your hard earned cash for the kids. With a car loan, you are enriching and enslaved by bankers and paying more for the car than it is worth; the same thing for the house. If you cannot readily walk away from anything in your life in thirty seconds flat, you are a slave.

Yes and yet no.

The thing is that it really does depend very much on the "lifestyle" and whether it has been properly constructed/controlled.

Yes, the "typical" wife & kids, house & cars (the "keeping up with the Joneses" lifestyle) -- as most men mindlessly fall into them -- are virtual slavery "traps".
But no, they don't really HAVE to be.

Regardless of whether you are renting or buying a home, you will need somewhere to "live" (sleep, wash, cook, store your stuff)... and in many places in the US, a single person can live (and live VERY well) on probably around $10k a year -- and a significant portion of that (probably about 1/3) will go to "housing" (rent/mortgage + repairs + utilities), another 1/4 to 1/3 will go to food & entertainment, and the remaining 1/3+ to everything else (including transportation, clothing, etc).

Now adding a second person to that household DOES NOT necessitate/require anything like a "doubling" of all of those expenses -- certainly not a doubling of the mortgage/rent (a slight increase perhaps to tack on an additional bedroom, but not a doubling).

The standard assertion that it costs ~$250,000 to raise a child to age eighteen (or a set of calculations claiming anywhere from $150k to $333k) is based on a rather dubious calculation methodology that makes a series of fallacious (and often utterly ridiculous) assumptions.

Perhaps the worst of which is chopping up the FULL HOUSING "cost" (often choice/lifestyle based) by the number of people in the "family/household" -- i.e. that in a family with a single parent and an infant, the infant is allocated HALF of the rent/mortgage (utterly ignoring the fact that the housing cost for the parent alone could/would be 100% sans the child) -- or that in a two-parent, two child family, each of the kids gets allocated 1/4 of the housing cost (even if it's a 7 bedroom, 6 car garage McMansion, the cost/size of which has NOTHING to do with the actual "rearing" requirements of the child, and EVERYTHING to do with the "status" mentality & choices of the parents).

The reality is that kids themselves are (or certainly CAN be) virtually free to house, and relatively CHEAP to feed & clothe, etc. It just depend on the MENTALITY/CHOICES of the parents.

Here, for example is a DIFFERENT "study" (Canada) that says -- if the proper choices/allowances are made -- the cost of raising a child can be as LOW as $3,000 to $4,500 a year (study itself is PDF here) -- IOW, less than half of even the lowest of the other estimates. The key difference? Exactly what I mentioned above:

The report looks at the cost of a child as a marginal cost and excludes any prior costs that a parent would already have to pay for, such as housing. The minimum $3,000 to $4,500 figures are intended to represent costs for children up to the age of 18 per year and may vary depending on the community where the family lives and the age of the child. It includes items such as food, clothing, household supplies, personal allowances and school supplies. The budget does not consider other cost-saving measures and does not include daycare or private school costs.

[...]

“I’m not someone who’s encouraging or discouraging procreation. I’m neutral on that,” Mr. Sarlo said. “I’m simply saying cost shouldn’t be the big consideration. It doesn’t cost a fortune to raise a child.”

However, there is no “magic formula” for determining how much a child will cost, said Mr. Sarlo. A poor family can make do on little and a wealthy family may spend hundreds of thousands per year. The report’s figure is intended to be a starting point, he said.

Again... most of it is parents' CHOICES (and conveniences for THEM, their own delusions/fantasies of what is "necessary" etc).

Not to be too ridiculous, but one can SEE that writ large in the way various people own/keep pets -- some people spend RIDICULOUS amounts of money on buying "purebred" dogs, and then even MORE ridiculous amounts on Veterinary care, on wasteful overpriced food, professional weekly "grooming", plus extra insane amounts on padded-professional "doggy day care" or "doggy hotel" kennels, etc; with an end total of thousands (or even tens of thousands) per year squandered on some poodle -- meanwhile, Joe Schmo out in the boonies manages to keep several hunting dogs and in total, spends a couple hundred a year on kibble (and his pets are probably healthier and certainly lead a better "dog's life").

As a side note: One has to remember that most of the dubiously constructed "high cost of raising a child" studies are put together by parties that have a HUGE VESTED INTEREST in making the cost APPEAR TO BE VERY HIGH; why? Because it supports everything from political causes (welfare budgets, the definition of an "impoverished household/child", etc) to the overarching "feminist" agenda (where it boosts "child-support" payments -- whether from government or from the father -- up to a level that it essentially becomes "alimony" supporting the mother's lifestyle choices {which granted MAY include spending "on behalf of the child" in the sense of "fashionable" clothing, housing, transport, activities, entertainments, etc} -- and not the least of which is the inclusion of "professional day care", etc).

Which is where the problem comes in, with modern American women.

The vast majority of them have been raised to think of themselves as "daddy's little princess"... entitled to all kinds of goodies in life -- everything from insanely ridiculous amounts & types of clothing, to dinners at restaurants, to brand-new "status" cars in the driveway, some fanciful-appearing "house in the 'burbs", etc. (it is ALL about "appearances") -- and moreover they have a Veruca Salt approach: they want everything... and they want it NOW!

And the typical male in the US has become a spineless wimp unable to say "NO".

Worse -- and this is where the MGTOW comes in -- the legal & political system have decided that women SHOULD have "it all" (i.e. whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of how impractical any of it is).

So it isn't the concept of "family" (wife & kids) that are slave-making... it is that the current political & legal system have turned them into that... without any REAL limitations possible.

EDIT: I guess another point is that while living MGTOW can be done in the manner of the retire-at-40-something as a frugal "millionaire next door" type -- simply NOT having a wife/child is no guarantee of that. Yes, women (wives) often spend money irresponsibly, and the "lifestyle" choices that many (probably most) people make connected to their children squander even more... but the men in those equations are at least CONSENTING in one form or another; and more importantly is the realization that "status seeking" and a preoccupation with "appearances" (and the consumerist mentality that often accompanies it) is not solely the province of women -- many single men end up decades later without a proverbial "pot to piss in", despite the fact that they had no wife or children to blame it on.

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2014-07-31T21:52:29+00:00

[deleted]

Counter423 · 2014-07-31T19:28:15+00:00

Amazing. Amazing. Amazing...

That is what separates humans from animals. Being able to CHOOSE this over that.

Being able to overcome your natural human instincts makes you that much more of a GOD.

Title	The MGTOW Perspective
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	8
Comments	6
Date	July 31, 2014 11:52 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/2c8cjd/the_mgtow_perspective/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/the-mgtow-perspective.631807 https://theredarchive.com/post/631807

Comments