Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Motherhood: The Toughest Job In The World?
-By Caleb Jones
I'm not at all surprised it went viral. It's a very well-made video that directly bolsters a strong, politically-correct, Societal Programming message. That is, that motherhood is the "most important job" or the "toughest job" in the world.
Let's examine each of the points the video cleverly makes, and see if they're accurate. I have raised two children myself, from infancy, for about nine years as a man married to a wife and an additional eight years as a single dad. (If you want to call my status "single", which is not accurate, but that's what society would call me.)
Therefore, I am qualified to confirm or deny the points this video makes about motherhood, at least as much as a man could. (I suppose some may argue that "only women" can verify or dispute any issue based on motherhood, but that's a debate for another time.)
"The job requires you to work standing up most, or really all of the time."
Mothers spend a lot of time sitting down. That doesn't mean they're sitting down doing nothing, but they do have plenty of sit-down time, whether that means they're folding clothes or watching TV while the kids are napping or at school.
I do agree that mothers are on their feet often, that's certainly true. But this "most or really all of the time" stuff is bullshit.
"The job is 135 hours per week, to unlimited hours, basically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."
Close, but still false.
Starting at age five or six, kids are in school for at least 5 hours a day, 5 days a week, and do that until they leave the home. In addition, small children go to bed early and sleep during the day. So this 24/7 thing is also BS.
I realize the argument could be made that during those off-times, a mother is still working on behalf of the kids, such as doing laundry, cleaning the kitchen, or grocery shopping. I agree this is often the case, which is why I said "close, but still false" instead of "false".
However, people who make this argument always conveniently leave out one key fact: if you had no children, you would be doing these things anyway. You would be doing them for yourself. True, you wouldn't be doing as much of them if you were single with no kids, but you would still be doing them. You would still be going to the grocery store all the time, cooking, cleaning and all kinds of other crap, with or without kids.
I also agree that this 24/7 thing is more accurate when the kids are very little, like infants to about age four or so. But once they're about six years old, a huge amount of this work vanishes. I still remember the sigh of relief I and my children's mother had when our son turned six, and then when our daughter finally turned six. It makes a huge, huge positive difference in the workload. They're somewhat self-sufficient, and spend a lot of time away at school. It's nice.
"There are no breaks available."
Read what I said above about when the kids are in school or asleep. Kids are also regularly watched by babysitters, daycare, and/or other family members.
This isn't the 1800s.
"You must be able to wear several hats. Medicine, finance, culinary."
Only if you're a single mother.
If a woman is in a stable, long-term relationship with a financially stable man before she chooses to have children, she doesn't need to wear all of these hats. The father will wear many of them for her.
But yeah, if she chooses to have babies with an irresponsible moron and becomes a single mother because of it, then oh yes. Being a single mother is indeed a nightmare life. You'll get no argument from me on that.
"You get no vacations."
Only when the kids are very small.
As I said, once your kids get up to around age six or so (at the latest), you can take vacations, with or without your kids. Parents do this all the time.
"During holidays, the workload goes up."
Finally, the video makes one completely true statement. The workload does indeed increase during holidays for moms.
"You get no time to sleep."
No time to sleep? Mothers never sleep?
Jesus. Do I even need to explain that one?
"The position pays absolutely nothing."
This is the most false statement of the entire video.
Motherhood pays quite a bit. Your husband will hand over most of his paycheck to you, your lifestyle, and your kids. When you get divorced, your husband will at least pay you child support or he will go to prison. If your husband makes more than an average income, he will be forced to pay you alimony in addition to that (or he will go to prison).
If you choose to have children as a single mother without getting married or moving in with baby daddy, you will still get checks in the mail from him every month, for every child, for 18 years. Or he will go to prison.
(If you refuse child support, than that's your decision, and you have no room to complain that you "don't get paid". You could if you wanted to.)
Motherhood does indeed pay. Often it pays quite well. Just drive through any upper middle class suburban neighborhood and look at the lifestyle these housewives are enjoying that they would not be enjoying if they were not married with kids.
Motherhood Is Important
If history is any guide, after folks read the above, I'm going to get comments, email, or forum/blog posts on other sites stating that I am "against mothers" or "anti-mother" or "hate mothers" or even "anti-children". I will state for the record that I am very pro-mother, I think motherhood is extremely important, and that I think having children is wonderful.
At the same time, we should not be a bunch of slobbering morons and overdo this. Of the six points the video tries to make, only one is completely true. That's what Societal Programming is all about. Say something that sounds sweet and nice that satisfies your emotions, then create a pile of lies about it to guilt or shame people into stepping in line.
Of course children need mothers. As a "single" dad, I can clearly attest that if I had to raise my two children with no mother at all, it would be very, very tough, and I would not do nearly as good of a job if they did not have a consistent female role model and presence in their lives.
I have said the exact reverse about single mothers...that these women damage their children by not allowing them to have a true father in their lives. Children need both a mother and a father, not one or the other. Moreover, if you are a single parent and your kids have no access to the other parent, your parenting skills are inadequate no matter how amazing you are.
Being a great mother still isn't that great if there is no father around, especially if you're raising a boy. Just like being a great father isn't that great if there is no mother in the picture (especially if you're raising a girl). In both cases, your children will grow up with big holes in their personalities. That's why nature created mothers and fathers, not just one or the other.
Motherhood is important. Fatherhood is important. Pumping up one and lying about it at the expense of the other helps no one. When was the last time you saw a "fatherhood is important" video go viral?
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Dawson Stone 2014-06-26 06:48:46
I could write a book on this topic. Toughest job in the world my ass! I couldn't agree with BD more here…actually I think I am even more extreme in my distain for this crap. Women that are stay at home mom's are LAZY. If one was going to be a PROPER stay at home mom here would be your job description: 1. Care for the child(ren) 2. Workout like a maniac and keep your body looking amazing 3. Keep the house spotless 4. Cook healthy and nutritious meals for your child(ren) and husband 5. Screw your husband's brains out 4-6x a week If a women is THAT kind of stay at home mom then I would agree it is a challenging job. I would even concede that doing all 5 well without help in the first few years is tough. So let's treat this like any REAL job where you have to actually be accountable for anything like your freaking JOB PERFORMANCE. Survey all the stay at home moms you know and ask yourself how many of the 5 do they do? I have 12 or so pretty close friends where I feel I can reasonably rank the above. Here are the results: ZERO (and I mean ZERO) consistently do well any any but the first. I have two friends that do at least get laid 2-3x a week so let's go ahead and give them number 5. So, 16% of my friend's wives score a 4 out of 10 on their annual review. 84% score a 2 out of 10 on their annual review. What would you do with an employee that at best did 40% of their job. YOU WOULD FIRE THEIR ASS!!!!! Aka divorce. WAKE UP MEN! Dawson
Maldek 2014-06-26 10:08:03
Dawson I do fully aggree with your list. 1. Mandatory. A female who does not care for her children above her own self interest is no marriage (or mother) material. 2. It is the first and most important sign of respect towards your man to keep yourself looking great. Any female who fails to do this is not fit for marriage. I would advice AT LEAT 5 years of living together before marriage and then another 1-2 years until the first child to make damn sure she understands this. You as man must always (and i mean it, even if it is 7 years) keep up your frame. Dont become a beta pussy or your wife will be a ugly land-whale in the blink of an eye. 3. Nah, almost impossible with children. Ok is good enough. If you have a big house and 3+ children you will need your SAHM and a maid to just keep it "ok". Children and spotless does not match. 4. Mightily important. If your wife does not cook and understand nutrition basics your whole family health will suffer. I cant stress enough how important this is. You may have to take lead here and give her clear guidelines. Most women are lost - even if they have the best intentions - without the man giving her a nutrition-frame. 5. "As much sex as the man likes" is what alphas get anyways. Be it 2-3 times a week (seems to be the optimal number most men like in the long run) or any number that suits HIM really. If you fail here, you will fail in most other areas. This is the basic foundation of any relationship health. 6. Bonus Support your man and his goals. Your job as a wife is to help your man reach his goals. All in all i think housewife and mother is indeed one of the most important jobs in the world. It is also considerably harder than most 9-5jobs in a cubicle. On the other hand typical male jobs like physical labor on the fields, construction work, oil drilling, lumberjack etc etc are all much, much harder.
Blackdragon 2014-06-26 11:24:06
Most of your items are contingent upon a) whether or not she's a stay-at-home wife work a work-full-time-at-a-job wife, and b) wether or not she demands/expects monogamy from her husband. I'll explain each:
1. Care for the child(ren)If she's a stay-at-home mom with no job, hell yes. If not, the husband can share in the duties to a degree.
2. Workout like a maniac and keep your body looking amazing.If she doesn't want her man fucking other women, then hell yes. If she doesn't mind her husband fucking fitter, hotter women on the side, then this is optional.
3. Keep the house spotless.If she's a stay-at-home mom with no job, hell yes. But frankly, it's not about gender, it's about who makes more money and/or works more hours at their job. I describe that here.
4. Cook healthy and nutritious meals for your child(ren) and husbandIf she's a stay-at-home mom with no job, yes.
5. Screw your husband’s brains out 4-6x a week.If she doesn't want her man fucking other women, then hell yes. If she doesn't mind her husband fucking women on the side, to get his biological needs meet that she's refusing to provide, then this is optional.
Frill Artist 2014-06-26 13:51:29
Look up the P&G Olympic "Thank You, Mom" Commercials. You'll see even more sexist, biased nonsense.
PUA Brian Kinney 2014-06-26 18:57:40
"If you want to call my status “single”, which is not accurate, but that’s what society would call me." You're right it is not accurate besides society calls you a "Mature divorced man" or just a "Divorced man". I'm really curious(just curious, no disrespect intended at all): Based on your notion of points to improve the likelihood of being attractive and getting laid. And since you tend to date really young girls. What do you do to minimize the impact (and thus loosing points) of this ugly sounding words when your targeted girls ask?: 1. Divorced: Since in the mind of societally programmed females this means strong and conclusive evidence of negative pre-selection, of course because you "failed in your marriage" but they will make it extensive to all your relationships once they find out you're divorced. Plain negative pre-selection. 2. Mature: Women but specially VYW (except MAYBE for VYW type 2) are really concerned with jealous bitchy girlfriends and worried family complaining or mocking about her relationship with a mature/"old" guy and even if they're VYW type 2 they want to avoid the "shame" of dating a mature guy, and don't even start with a Mature Divorced Man. Changing the subject, there are indeed tons of single mothers doing most of the job of raising the children and is not the toughest job but it is really tough(I'm specially worried for boys). What are your recommendations for the divorced fathers and mothers of this children assuming they're both responsible and want to raise their kids as healthy and happy persons? (I'm aware that maybe it is info for an entire post, but please realize that you have the tools to provide happiness for several children through your knowledge). Finally, you said in a previous post that you were considering talking about your own divorce, I think that would be awesome because you mostly tell us half of the tale about relationships but we want to know the other half (Divorce logistics, mistakes, experiences, do's and don'ts, etc). I'm sure you have solid gold knowledge in those fields to share with us. Thank you. Keep up the Awesome work. PUA Brian Kinney
Dawson Stone 2014-06-26 20:25:01
@BD I based my comments on the video which clearly was ONLY talking about a full-time stay-at-home-mom. You can talk about different rules with Mom's that have a real job but that was NOT what the video was about at all. And I agree that if a guy makes less money than his wife (in only 1 in 4 households is that the case) the rules are different. So my question to you is even if a wife is totally OK with you having other women in your life WHY ON EARTH would a guy marry her anyway? As I see it you are saying that for a woman that is ok with her man having other women on the side then the 5 roles in the Mom's job description play out like this: 1. Care for the child(ten) - She has to do whether she is married or not or she loses her kid(s) 2. Workout like a maniac and keep your body looking amazing - doesn't matter because you are fucking someone else (basically outsourced) 3. Keep the house spotless - You can outsource for about $5,000 a year max. I actually pay about $2,000. (no brainer to outsource) 4. Cook healthy and nutritious meals for your child(ren) and husband - She has to/should for her child regardless. Let's assume you are talking about dinners only since breakfast (maybe on weekends?) and lunch are rarely prepared by the wife. You could EASILY hire a person chef to prepare all your weekday dinners for 15-20K a year. Probably less. (no brainer to outsource) 5. Screw your husband’s brains out 4-6x a week - doesn't matter because you are fucking someone else (basically outsourced) So ASSUMING (a HUGE assumption) that your wife cleaned like a crew or OCD Russian maids and cooked like she was Julia Child, for 20K-25K a year you could replace those functions. Over a 10 year marriage, lets call it an even $250,000. 1) she has to do anyway and 3) and 5) are outsourced to other women. Not to mention that a loveless, sexless, passionless marriage is hardly a great model for any child to experience. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it. Plus, if the maid or chef quits cleaning/cooking to your liking you fire them.
AKA 2014-06-26 20:28:49
Bill Burr nails it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJrMaFlxOk
Dawson Stone 2014-06-26 21:42:29
@AKA Dude that's awesome! Thanks for sharing. Dawson
Blackdragon 2014-06-26 23:46:06
So my question to you is even if a wife is totally OK with you having other women in your life WHY ON EARTH would a guy marry her anyway?Well that leads into an entirely different discussion. There is never a reason for legal marriage, correct. But there are some benefits to a man if he lives with a woman (despite the negatives which I agree are many) even if the relationship is not 100% monogamous, especially if the man is older (as in well over age 35 or so) or if he wants children. I plan on doing this myself, sooner rather than later (though probably not the children part; been there done that).
So ASSUMING (a HUGE assumption) that your wife cleaned like a crew or OCD Russian maids and cooked like she was Julia Child, for 20K-25K a year you could replace those functions. Over a 10 year marriage, lets call it an even $250,000. 1) she has to do anyway and 3) and 5) are outsourced to other women. Not to mention that a loveless, sexless, passionless marriage is hardly a great model for any child to experience. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it.I agree but that's not the OLTR marriage that I talk about. (Open marriage, prenuptial agreement, separate finances, woman works, etc.) A man in an OLTR marriage will not experience the financial expense or risk of a guy in a typical marriage, even an "open" one.
Blackdragon 2014-06-27 00:02:31
What do you do to minimize the impact (and thus loosing points) of this ugly sounding words when your targeted girls ask?: 1. Divorced: Since in the mind of societally programmed females this means strong and conclusive evidence of negative pre-selection, of course because you “failed in your marriage” but they will make it extensive to all your relationships once they find out you’re divorced. Plain negative pre-selection.This may sound strange to many reading this, but when it concerns men over age 35 or so, women actually prefer divorced men over men who have never been married. Yes, you heard me right. Women consider men over 35 who have never been married and never had any kids as red flags. Sounds crazy I know, but it's the truth. Just ask a few women about this and you'll hear all about it. So my being divorced has never (as far as I know) damaged my changes for sex or a relationship with a woman...of any age. In my ebooks I even talk about how if you have kids, you should bring that up on the first date, and how usually this will help you, not hurt you.
2. Mature: Women but specially VYW (except MAYBE for VYW type 2) are really concerned with jealous bitchy girlfriends and worried family complaining or mocking about her relationship with a mature/”old” guy and even if they’re VYW type 2 they want to avoid the “shame” of dating a mature guy, and don’t even start with a Mature Divorced Man.Never a problem with type 2s. That's only a possible problem with type 3s.
What are your recommendations for the divorced fathers and mothers of this children assuming they’re both responsible and want to raise their kids as healthy and happy persons? (I’m aware that maybe it is info for an entire post, but please realize that you have the tools to provide happiness for several children through your knowledge).Wait for my Alpha Male book. Two entire chapters on raising kids in there; I might even expand it to three. Should be available in September.
Finally, you said in a previous post that you were considering talking about your own divorce, I think that would be awesome because you mostly tell us half of the tale about relationships but we want to know the other half (Divorce logistics, mistakes, experiences, do’s and don’ts, etc).Not sure what you're asking. You want me to describe my divorce? I've discussed it in general on the forums before. I'm not sure I want to do a detailed blog post about it, for legal reasons, until all of my alimony is paid off. (Which will be happening soon.) Once my alimony is done and my daughter is 18 (thus a legal adult) I'll be legally free to go into more personal details about things in my life like that.
superslaviswife 2014-06-27 02:46:31
I've always felt that video would make more sense if they described it as: "You must be on call 24/7. You will have breaks, but at any moment you should be expected to drop anything else in your life and head to work urgently. You must be physically fit and healthy. You must develop skills in education, medicine, nutrition, DIY, etc. You must have the patience to work on little to no sleep, to miss out on your social life and yet stay happy and loving towards an individual with very little mental power. You must accept that only in rare situations can this job be turned down or left. You must accept that you are the primary worker, even if the work can temporarily be moved onto another human being. You must accept full responsibility for your actions. They may mean life or death, success or failure to one or more human beings and all of this is in your hands. If at any point you fail to meet one of the above requirements, there is a risk of your failing them. If you repeatedly fail to meet the above requirements, you will be destroying another human being and possibly risk jail time." Still drives the point home, is more realistic.
superslaviswife 2014-06-27 02:51:46
Possibly adding: "Your earnings are not dependent on your performance, but on your co-worker's work and decisions. You may require government assistance to meet your own and the client's basic financial needs. You run the risk of losing your wages but keeping the job at any point. This work does not count towards any career-swap or as progression in your previous career." on the financial side.
Dawson Stone 2014-06-27 06:15:00
How about this as being a more realistic job description for a stay at home Mom… So long as you don't endanger the health and well being of your "employee" you will have to be accountable to no one for anything. You can use that employee as an excuse for literally ANYTHING. Your inability to dress nicely and look presentable. Your ability to remain fit and in shape. Your desire or interest in sex with your romantic partner. Your ability to provide any financial resources to your household. You will be provided for by your co-CEO. He will bear all non-employee responsibilities including making sure there is food, clothing, shelter, vacations (you are exhausted so you will need a couple a year), make sure the taxes are paid, that retirements are planned for, that education is saved for. You are free to complain to your co-CEO about how he has no idea how hard your job is and how unappreciated you are. In the event that the Board of Directors decides to fire you for non performance you will get a generous severance package including 50% of the company's assets and a slice of your co-CEO's income for quite a while…maybe even forever if you have been employed 25 years or more. Additionally, you will automatically get to bring the "employee" with you even though they play a critical role in the organization. Even though you are taking the employee, the co-CEO will be responsible for a significant chunk of that employee's salary for a number of years. What I don't understand is have any of these people bitching even had a kid? The first three years are rough but unless the Dad is a complete asshole he is doing at a minimum 20% of the childcare, 35% of the cleaning (or paying a maid), 25% of the cooking. And all this "no help, I am so overworked" crap is insane. Forty-one percent of preschool children are in child care for thirty-five or more hours a week. Another 25 percent are in care for fifteen to thirty-four hours a week, while 16 percent are in care for one to fourteen hours. ONLY EIGHTEEN PERCENT spend NO time in child care. That's less than one in five. Add to that help from parents. Babysitters. Siblings. Most kids are fairly self sufficient by time they are seven. Both of my parents worked and I cooked, cleaned and did my own laundry by 7. I even ironed all my Dad's shirts. Mowed the lawn. Shoveled the driveway. Raked the leaves. Free labor! 🙂 And what is the first thing that a woman often wants to do when her youngest child gets to that age where she might have to get a REAL job because she has enough free time on her hands? Yup…she has another kid. Hardest job in the world my ass. A stay at home mom is closer to social welfare than it is to a difficult job. Dawson
superslaviswife 2014-06-27 07:54:51
@Dawson: True. I guess mine's more realistic if the mother cares at all for how her children turn out (which, of course, includes at least educating herself a little on what's in the child's best interests), whereas yours is far closer to the reality for most SAHMs. The wealthier the man, the easier the woman's life as a SAHM. As a counterpoint, even if a woman does all that I described, it's not that hard work besides the stress and sleep aspects, which should sort themselves out 6-8 months in with co-sleeping and a healthy baby. Women are designed to breastfeed, love their children, educate them, run around after them and generally enjoy it. There are far too many succinct and well-written articles on the matter to find and link to, but some thoughts. 1: All women are designed to bear and raise children. So, most of us should be good at it, or humans wouldn't be doing too well. Which means it should be easy for us. 2: Most women complaining about the money and time invested into children are women clinging onto a single lifestyle that was barely sustainable on its own. 3: Most women complaining about their lack of energy, depression, poor worklife and social life probably had children too old. 20-somethings with children who are happy to sacrifice living like a 15yo tend to be brimming with energy and very, very happy and fulfilled. 4: Women, like all animals, are designed to seek the easy option. Happily for us, our easy option is easier and more readily available than a man's easy option. Whether it's right or wrong, women like being whores (as mentioned by Super Redneck) and the only way to stop the child-provision cycle is to render us infertile (as mentioned on AVFM).
Dawson Stone 2014-06-27 08:56:14
@SuperSlavIsWife 1: All women are designed to bear and raise children. So, most of us should be good at it, or humans wouldn’t be doing too well. Which means it should be easy for us. This is just silly. Just because a woman is born with reproductive organs in no way endows her with any special child rearing skills. A woman becomes a good mother in the same what that anyone becomes good at anything…but working at it. Rabbits are good at having babies. Does that make them good mothers? 2: Most women complaining about the money and time invested into children are women clinging onto a single lifestyle that was barely sustainable on its own. Perhaps to some extent. I think it is more a sense of entitlement. The issue is that because woman that stay at home have all their effort invested in the child(ren) it makes them much more likely to be a less than ideal mom. You see it all the time because they don't want to let go of the "thing" they have poured all their energy into and it tends to make the mom about the mom and not the kid. "Do you know all I sacrificed to stay at home and raise you? If not I could have been a FILL IN THE BLANK." 3: Most women complaining about their lack of energy, depression, poor worklife and social life probably had children too old. 20-somethings with children who are happy to sacrifice living like a 15yo tend to be brimming with energy and very, very happy and fulfilled. I think the lack of complaining has very little to do with age and much more to do with a shift in their attitudes as women get older. a 30 year old's body won't bounce back as fast as a 20 year old but the energy level isn't the thing. 4: Women, like all animals, are designed to seek the easy option. Happily for us, our easy option is easier and more readily available than a man’s easy option. Whether it’s right or wrong, women like being whores (as mentioned by Super Redneck) and the only way to stop the child-provision cycle is to render us infertile (as mentioned on AVFM). We agree here. Dawson
Maldek 2014-06-27 10:28:51
Good to read a womans viewpoint on the matter. "who are happy to sacrifice living like a 15yo" -> The crux of the matter. Many young men and women never stop living like a teen. They never grew up and are refusing to do so even 40+.
superslaviswife 2014-06-27 10:33:36
1: Yes, they're good mothers in as much as a rabbit needs a mother. My point is that little effort should be required to raise a child that can survive, reproduce and contribute to society, or hoards of women failing at it would have killed us out or bottlenecked us, resulting in... well, the women who were more naturally skilled at mothering reproducing more. It makes sense that human females should be good at raising humans. 2: True again. With entitlement even a woman who turns away from her desired/prior lifestyle can wind up being a bad mother, especially once the child is socially actualized. Although this IS more common in single mothers, who often grow to resent their children more than they resent the man who left them/was never with them to begin with. 3: Trust me on this one. Mums who have children young rarely complain about energy and are less likely to have obese or "ADD" children. I'd say there's a connection. More factors? Maybe. But reproductive age and capacity seems to be significant and younger women will always, on average, be fitter and more energetic than older women. Add to that the fact that modern humans are weaker specimens than ancient humans or tribal humans and that on top of that the 30yo has been abusing her body and, well, you have a woman with no energy to run after toddlers.
Blackdragon 2014-06-27 10:46:35
“Your earnings are not dependent on your performance, but on your co-worker’s work and decisions. You may require government assistance to meet your own and the client’s basic financial needs. You run the risk of losing your wages but keeping the job at any point.”"Therefore, if you cannot afford any children, you should refrain from ever getting pregnant until such time as you know for sure you can afford it, just like women used to do just a few decades ago. Otherwise, you have zero reason to complain, because you chose to get pregnant and carry the baby to term on purpose knowing that doing so would make your life a living hell of financial problems."
Dawson Stone 2014-06-27 12:41:35
@BD So did I read correctly that you are planning on co-habitating with a woman and perhaps sooner rather than later? I really do want to understand what you see the benefits to this even if she is 10000% percent OK with you not being monogamous. Dawson
AKA 2014-06-27 13:23:04
@DAWSON. Bill Burr is a comedic genius. Do yourself a favor and watch each of his full hour standup specials. He tackles male/female relationships better than most anyone. And he's damn funny while doing it. Patrice O'Neil on "the black philip show" and "the elephant in the room" was also well worth your time for a funny unvarnished look at how females really operate.
Blackdragon 2014-06-27 13:58:58
So did I read correctly that you are planning on co-habitating with a woman and perhaps sooner rather than later?Yep. A live-in OLTR has always been my eventual goal. There is always at least one active MLTR in my life who I consider a candidate for this.
I really do want to understand what you see the benefits to this even if she is 10000% percent OK with you not being monogamous.I honestly don't understand the question. I can experience all of the joys of love and connection in a live-in (or quasi-live-in) relationship without any monogamy. Read this.
Dawson Stone 2014-06-27 16:22:56
@BD My question is what is the benefit of having a woman live with you? You say in your post: "But he was also a human being, and thus strongly desired to be in love and devote himself to one special gal" Why? What is the benefit that accrues to you for devoting yourself to one girl? In my experience ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME if you increase your exit costs (cost to exit a relationship) you will increase the about of BS you have to tolerate. Some women are better than others but it is an absolute. If you have living with a woman even if only your name is on the lease, there is a cost to exit. If you ever get a pet, increase cost to exit. Why wouldn't you just have this amazing woman in your life but not live together? I can see no benefit…what am I missing? And have you ever had a long-term (let's say 5 years or longer) or known anyone that had a long-term arrangement like what you are describing where they were happier than they were before they co-habitated? Dawson
Blackdragon 2014-06-27 19:08:33
As I've said before, yes, if you move in with a woman, the amount of drama you'll have to put up with will increase at least a little no matter what you do or how you structure the relationship. This includes me if I end up doing it. I've said this many, many times over the years. The amount of the increase is based on how you structure things. Traditional monogamy + traditional marriage + no prenuptial agreement + combining finances = an extreme (eventual) increase in drama, as people like superslaviswife will discover. Moving in together but doing none of those things results in a slight increase. Am I willing to "pay" a slight increase in drama for the increased connection, increased stability (even if temporary), and increased consistency of a live-in relationship? Sure, as long as the woman qualifies for such a thing. So far I haven't found one who has whom I was attracted to sufficiently for such a thing, but at some point I'm sure I will. Will it last forever? Nope, that's not how women work. Eventually the relationship will end and she'll move out (my sex life and financial life completely intact and undamaged). But it will be enjoyable and interesting, assuming I do everything correctly. Which I will because, you know, I'm Blackdragon and everything. It should also make for some very good blog posts for the audience, 95% of which will end up living with a woman someday (monogamous or not).
superslaviswife 2014-06-28 02:05:38
Not have kids until you're mature and financially safe? What sort of vile misogynist slut-shaming are you peddling? :p
Dawson Stone 2014-06-28 02:50:33
@BD WIth all due respect (with no sarcasm implied or meant) for a guy that seems to be so objective and concrete in your decision making I am baffled. If I read what you wrote correctly you have never experienced this situation (properly structured co-habitation) or even seen it with another couple and yet you feel you can accurately estimate the increase in drama and bullshit accurately ("slight increase" or "a little" you say). By definition that makes your position on the issue theoretical at best. And yet you seem so certain "...at some point I’m sure I will" that this will occur. And your rationale for this decision is that you will have "increased stability (even if temporary), and increased consistency." A) you have no logical basis to assert that either of those things will be the result of cohabitation since you have no direct or indirect experience with a properly structured cohabitation and B) this implies that stability and consistency is impossible without cohabitation. I guess if your definition of stability and consistency is the mundane (e.g. you get to eat breakfast most days with the same person, walk your dog together, someone to bring you soup when you aren't feeling well, etc.) then perhaps but you still have given NO BASIS for how this increase in stability and consistency is better or why you feel so certain it even exists. I LOVE women. Like you I am good friends with most of my current ladies and many of my past ones. But any psychotherapist worth his or her salt will tell you that at the core of ANY romantic relationship is a power struggle. It is biological because what women and men want are different. All you can hope to do in a "stable and consistent" relationship is hope to minimize the power struggle (which all of your techniques do). Regardless there will be a "winner" and a "loser" and we both know which side we want to be on. I HATE to sound like Charlie Sheen, but as a "winner" I decide and control the level of stability and consistency I have with any one of the women I see. I usually have one (at most two) that I see more regularly and that are a bit more like gfs. If I am sick, need someone to watch my dog and apartment when I travel, might meet my family (NOT my daughter), might meet my friends, need a date for a wedding (GOD forbid and it sure as shit won't be mine), etc I will turn to this person(s). As a side note (and in no way necessary to my argument) stability and consistency seems to be at odds with your once a week rule (I actually have a twice a week rule except for an out of towners or vacations where I am spending more then 2 days with someone.) I do agree that it will make for some VERY interesting blog posts. Maybe even a book, "Blackdragon Plays House -- For A While" 😉 I will 100% NEVER live with a women unless I can determine a rational and coherent reason for how this improves my life. You have given me none. I can think of none myself. If ANYONE reading this can provide a dispassionate and concrete reason(s) for how cohabitation is a superior strategy regardless of how perfect the setup and awesome the woman I would truly appreciate it. Dawson
Blackdragon 2014-06-28 11:07:26
If I read what you wrote correctly you have never experienced this situation (properly structured co-habitation) or even seen it with another couple and yet you feel you can accurately estimate the increase in drama and bullshit accurately (“slight increase” or “a little” you say).Dawson you're way off-topic now, so this will be my last response regarding this topic in this comment thread. The above statement is wrong. I know many, many, many men who have live-in relationships that I talk about that are working just fine. I interviewed over 40 of them for my open marriage ebook.
...you still have given NO BASIS for how this increase in stability and consistency is better or why you feel so certain it even existsYes I have. You really need to do some more reading on this blog. My basis is: 1. I lived with a woman before for 9 years (though it was a mono-marriage) and there was indeed an increase in stability and consistency, even considering I did just about everything wrong. 2. Again, I know many men (and women) in live-in OLTR relationships like this, and they have more stability and consistency. Regarding your statements on power struggle, I agree. She will will prove, through her actions over many months (or years) that do things my way before we move in together, or she will not move in in the first place (or will be kicked out fast if/when she "changes her mind later"). Thus my lack of "forever" expectations. Many men should NEVER move in with a woman, completely agree. You're probably one of them. Other men actually feel uncomfortable if they're NOT living with a woman (betas) or consider moving in with a woman a very important, non-negotiable, strong goal for their future (Alpha Male 1.0s). I fall somewhere between those two extremes.
Dawson Stone 2014-06-28 11:52:25
My two main questions you didn't answer were: 1) How can you be so certain of the result of non-monogamous cohabitation as a superior strategy with no direct experience (clearly mono-marriage doesn't qualify as direct experience). Interviews? Really? 2) Why is consistency and stability a) superior and b) only possible with cohabitation? So I pose it to the rest of the commenters on here? Does anyone agree that cohabitation is a superior strategy or alternatively do you agree that consistency and stability are more desirable and only achievable via cohabitation. This will be my last post on this. I am just looking for a rational, coherent answer. Dawson.
Maldek 2014-06-28 15:13:35
@Stone "cohabitation is a superior strategy" -> that's pretty clear to me. The more you write on the matter dear Mr. Stone, the more I get the impression of you beeing: http://www.gucomics.com/20100326
AKA 2014-06-28 18:16:06
I get where Dawson is coming from. I have read many of BD's posts and having a live in GF is not something I would have expected from him. I will not question BD;s motives, but Dawson's surprise is...well... not surprising to me. Stability and consistency is why most of us end up married or cohabbing.
Dawson Stone 2014-06-28 18:59:18
@Maldek As Alicia Florrick of The Good Wife would say "I always know the other side is losing when they make it personal." I respectfully and clearly articulated a fair and reasonable question. I ask "Why is consistency and stability a) superior and b) only possible with cohabitation?" Your response "that’s pretty clear to me." Does that seem like a response that has ANY value whatsoever? As if your assertion with absolutely no facts, information, data, logic, etc. somehow has merit based on the fact that you asserted it. If my post bothers you either ignore it or make a reasoned, intelligent and logical response. I never disparage anyone (implied or otherwise). My positions are always based on clear and reasoned thinking. Point out the flaw in my logic (which I have ASKED FOR). Otherwise you are simply responding from emotion and ego. No value there. Dawson
superslaviswife 2014-06-30 00:41:55
@Dawson: If I may, I think that cohabitation is better in specific personal situations, hence why anyone who isn't currently cohabiting can't quite explain it. For example, if Jon and I weren't together we wouldn't have this house. He wouldn't be able to run it and maintain it, so it would fall into disarray, meaning he'd need something smaller. I wouldn't have the finances to rent a house like this and keep myself fed and my work going. We'd both be in one-bed flats. As we wouldn't have a spare room, I wouldn't be able to tutor from home, so I would lose income. As we wouldn't have a garden, he wouldn't have space to keep his bikes and car and wouldn't have a cheap transport option available. As we wouldn't have a garden, we wouldn't be able to have chickens for eggs and (soon) meat or vegetable plants. As I would have to take-on full-time work he would have to either cook his own meals (meaning either overtime, weights sessions, reading, or gaming would have to go, to make time for it) or buy ready-made or easy to cook food (meaning either an increase in expense or a decrease in food quality, which would both impact his mood, weights and work). Working full-time, my social energy would be drained by the evenings, resulting in a desire to do absolutely nothing but sleep, so social interaction, weights, studying or art would have to go. Living apart means we can't be at each other's beck and call for sex, help around the house or even conversation. Children aren't an option at all, as we don't have a large enough home, the time or the money. All in all, through living together we better our lives. We have a larger house where I can earn from home, meaning I can use the rest of my time to maintain the house. If he's having a bad or a full day, I can take over all menial tasks to allow him time to do his weights, play some games and read to unwind. If either of us gets ill we can entirely take-over for the other, ensuring they recover faster. As I'm home most of the day I can work in the garden, growing our own food, shop around to get the best value for money for the things we can't grow and make, do and mend to avoid extra expenses. This means that he can happily do overtime or put time into his security work on the side, as there is no pressure on him to do anything at all around the house. This also means we have the space, money and time to have children next year. So, in our individual case, our lives are improved by cohabitation. We have more money and more time all round, which increases our quality of life. Of course, the factors will change for different people. But, in principle, cohabitation can improve your life.
Dawson Stone 2014-06-30 06:33:48
@superslaviswife Thank you. That makes sense. I have cohabited in the past (I was with my ex-wife for 10 years) and all that you say would have made it better. Sadly once our daughter was born she didn't cook or clean or really do much other than care for our daughter. I don't think people are not able to answer my question because they haven't cohabited before but because in many (if not most) situations there are no advantages and they are simply responding to societal programming that says cohabitation is better. My point was never that cohabitation isn't a superior strategy but that cohabitation isn't a superior strategy for MEN that DO NOT WANT TO BE MONOGAMOUS. This is not the case for you and Jon as you intend to remain monogamous and have a family and life together. If I take it at face value that you and Jon will remain together for a significant portion or your lives, have children and raise them happily then of course cohabitation makes sense. So I want to make sure I have what you are saying correct and that I haven't missed anything. In your particular situation your life is improved by cohabitation because it allows you to: - Do more with less since you can divide the workload between the two of you. - Afford a better place because you are cost sharing. - Pick up the slack for your other partner because you are physically there whether it is because he/she is having a bad day, is sick, etc. - Are available for sex any time your man isn't working since you physically live together Have I missed anything? Dawson
superslaviswife 2014-06-30 07:58:55
"in many (if not most) situations there are no advantages and they are simply responding to societal programming that says cohabitation is better" Sadly true. I was more referring to those like BD, who have clearly enjoyed cohabitation, but seem unable to express why it worked. I know that for most cohabitation is either an "almost but not quite" where they had an idea but didn't follow through, or something they feel they should do to show commitment or even (heavens forbid) try and spice up the relationship. "- Do more with less since you can divide the workload between the two of you. - Afford a better place because you are cost sharing. - Pick up the slack for your other partner because you are physically there whether it is because he/she is having a bad day, is sick, etc. - Are available for sex any time your man isn’t working since you physically live together" That, and also the fact that we both have common goals which, regardless of whether or not you think measurable objectives matter, are always easier to reach when two people can work together. Jon getting into security, me starting to work in tutoring, both of us getting more qualifications, moving towards self sufficiency and having children are all tangible goals that are made easier by the presence of another person who wants you to reach them. Then again, you could just argue this, like financial stability, is merely a result of your list, rather than a point in and of itself.
Maldek 2014-06-30 08:03:30
"that cohabitation isn’t a superior strategy for MEN that DO NOT WANT TO BE MONOGAMOUS." -> In islam (muslim countries are many) a man can have 4 women and they all live together. It seems to be working since 600+ years. I could also point to the many 3rd world countries (christian), where the man and woman are married but will have a maid working full time in the house, including sleeping there (in her own room+bathroom) and not seldom having children with the man. In many south american countries you will have to look hard to find an upper class mansion without such build-in arrangements. So back to my first statement: "It seems pretty clear to me" (If you stick your nose 0.1 inch outside your comfort zone or the US/EU)
superslaviswife 2014-06-30 08:07:30
And I'd say cohabitation can also work for nonmonogamous relationships. If a man can find a wife who is happy for him to bring girls home or doesn't mind so long as she doesn't see (so either a full submissive or a bisexual), and they, like in our relationship, work together to improve each other's lives and move towards common goals, then a nonmonogamous man still has something to gain by it. It would be as if you met a completely supportive woman whose life was compatible with yours, who you could love and respect more deeply than most other women, who was happy for you to have FBs and who would do her best to make you both happy. In that case you have a wife and as many girlfriends as you like, equaling nonmonogamous cohabitation. It's a chance thing, but theoretically possible.
Dawson Stone 2014-06-30 17:40:57
@Maldek You are joking right? If I didn't know any better I would wonder if you were trying to be obtuse on purpose. What I asked and what NO ONE but SuperSlavIsWife has answered is HOW IS COHABITATION a superior strategy. Telling me it is obviously a superior strategy means ZERO unless you tell me WHY. Telling me others do it in Muslim countries is also meaningless. Telling me housekeepers fuck and has children with the the guy that hires them in 3rd world counties…also meaningless. And you self out places where they have concubines and harems. Let's add those to the list as "proof" that cohabitation is a great strategy. By that logic religion makes sense because 2.1 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, and 1 billion Hindus think it makes sense. But oh which one should I pick? Are you kidding me? That's your best argument? I have taken the position that non-monoagomous cohabitation under any circumstances is an inferior strategy and have sincerely asked for REASONS why I might not be seeing some side of it. I would love to be proven wrong but by LOGIC…not emotions, ego and societal programming. What to try again? How about this time actually read and pay attention to my question. WHY IS IT A SUPERIOR STRATEGY and what basis do you have for believing it is a superior strategy other then lots of other people do it? Lots of other people think marriage is a great idea and I feel we are all pretty clear that's not very rational…especially for the guy.
Maldek 2014-06-30 18:19:48
Senor Dawson Stone, it is hard to give you arguments, when the only argument you care about is your own opinion. -> http://www.gucomics.com/20100326 , with special attention to the Knee braces. For the sake of the argument: Marriage is a great and working strategy for both men and women. It is the backbone of our modern civilization. Without it, no high culture has ever evolved in known history. It is just that in our modern age, the GOVERMENT and the LAW have made it so, that for most men in the west, the traditional marriage has become more a trap than an asset. Goverments come and go. Laws change; they will have to, if we are to avoid another dark age. But i disgress. You asked about co-habitation (with or without marriage) in a non-monogamous situation. The fact it has been working for Billions of people all over the world is not good enough for you. Of course not. (see reference above) BD also has given you an answer and referenced to his blog. "Yes I have. You really need to do some more reading on this blog. My basis is: ..." Did you do some reading as he suggested? My bet: You did not. Why? See reference above, Knee braces and all, you know. "WHY IS IT A SUPERIOR STRATEGY and what basis do you have for believing it is a superior strategy" -> Children for starters
Dawson Stone 2014-06-30 19:21:45
@Maldek "Marriage is a great and working strategy for both men and women. It is the backbone of our modern civilization. Without it, no high culture has ever evolved in known history." Wait…now you are arguing for marriage? Really? You think that is a happiness maximization strategy? See if you can get BD's buy in on that one! lol. BILLIONS OF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD! Muslim god. Christian god. Hindu god. Should that be GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME?!?!?! Should I believe in God because "...it has been working for Billions of people all over the world." Wow. Breathtaking! lol I believe in LOGIC. You have yet to provide ANY! You can have children without cohabitation. Try again. Dawson
Dawson Stone 2014-07-01 04:38:44
@Maldek I do find it HILARIOUS that as your ONLY rationale you picked the ONLY ONE that BD won't do which was the ENTIRE point. "-> Children for starters" So let's try one last time… HOW IS COHABITATION a superior strategy when marriage and children are NOT the goal.
lifeofalovergirl 2014-07-08 08:16:17
I don't have time to read all the responses or watch the video. I will say that being a mom is sometimes more difficult than people give credit for, so I disagree. Granted, I am a single mom now, with 5 children, so I have more on my plate than most. I also have always homeschooled my children and didn't outsource them to babysitters and schools. Its only been since I have been single and in the past couple of years that I have had many breaks, other than when a child was sleeping. Now that my oldest two are old enough to do some babysitting, and I don't have any infants in the house, that helps as well. Anyhow, I would also say it depends on the children. I have 4 "easy" children. If I had only had them I might agree with you, but because of my difficult child, I do not. He rarely took naps even as an infant and was constantly awake and raring to go, needing much more attention than most. It made housecleaning very difficult, even though I had no television, internet, or cell phone back then. It was ALL I was trying to get done during the day, cook, clean (garden and take care of farm animals also) and care for ONE child but it was extremely difficult to keep up with. Anyhow, sure, I had time to sit down. Usually while nursing a baby or reading to the kids. Sure, I got sleep, even though it was often interrupted. Yes, I was financially provided for (though I did the exact same tasks when my ex husband was out of work that I did when he was bringing home a paycheck). I'm not really sure where downplaying the job of a mother is beneficial to you. A truly single dad (which doesn't mean taking them on the weekends, that doesn't really count since you get a week long break) has the same things to do as any mom, but those are rare. PARENTING is a really hard job, for either parent, and whether or not they work outside the home. Just different aspects are difficult for different roles.
lifeofalovergirl 2014-07-08 08:30:58
Regarding some of the comments (I mostly skimmed them). There is a benefit to a man living with a stay at home mom and many of them see it when they date me. Like the guy I am seeing now- he is single with no kids, but just like other guys in the past he sees me and: 1. Wants my help with his business (easy for me to do work for him on my computer from home and help with other things from time to time- keeping up while he is at work). He pays me, but stay at home moms often are able to be of great HELP to their husbands without extra payment- I did all kinds of things for my ex when I was married, including typing and editing his papers when he worked on his master's degree, writing puppet shows and baking snacks when he taught children's church, taking care of the bills and various paperwork, etc. 2. Wants me to cook for him and has offered to PAY me for it rather than have to eat out all the time. This is the SECOND guy that has wanted this from me. He doesn't mind paying just as much as he would to eat out, its that he wants home cooked meals. A stay at home mom and presumably you get this every night of the week. 3. He has a housecleaner, and I haven't offered to do that for him but she doesn't do anything that a stay at home mom isn't doing pretty much every day. Yeah its harder when you have kids underfoot and clinging to your ankles and wanting to be held and making messes. A lot of guys underplay this because the kids don't tend to cling to dad as much as they do mom. It makes basic things like doing the dishes really hard. When mine were little I wore them in a sling in order to get things done but it does make it more difficult, especially with toddlers. That totally leaves out just the taking care of his kids part. So I think your post is just encouraging men to be unthankful and ungrateful towards the work that many women DO. It's not really helping anyone, just making women more resentful of them for not understanding.
Dawson Stone 2014-07-08 09:34:27
@lifeofalovergirl You have ENTIRELY missed all the points I was trying to make. You have FIVE kids. That's insane right there. Of course that is a full time job…at least for a while. As you say, until some of yours kids are older and can help care for them (although I would argue that's not very fair to pass off parenting responsibilities to your children). If you can't afford to have kids and care for them on your own (or with the father(s)) you shouldn't have them IMO. My position was that there is no logical reason why it is a better happiness maximization strategy for a man THAT DOES NOT WANT CHILDREN OF HIS OWN AND DOES NOT WANT TO be monogamous to cohabitate. I assume that the man that you are seeing now doesn't want also sleep with other women. And if he does, I assume he doesn't have sex with them in your home with your five kids. I am NOT saying that men should be ungrateful if a stay-at-home-mom is doing her JOB. I am saying that MOST (not all) stay at home moms do at most 40% of what they should be doing and men should not tolerate that.
Dawson Stone 2014-07-08 17:29:16
You really didn't read much if that is what you took from it. The whole point was that a stay-at-home-mom (not a single mom) has it easy. Especially the way most of them behave. I am encouraging men to have some freaking balls and not accept getting treated like crap. Why comment on things you don't bother to read?
Lovergirl 2014-07-08 18:04:50
@Dawson- if you read my comments you will see that I am commenting mostly about what I did as a stay at home mom,(for 13 years). The idea that it is not a lot of work is baloney and primarily espoused by men who have never personally tried it.
Dawson Stone 2014-07-08 21:18:25
@lovergirl I did read your comments. You give no timeline so I have no clue unless you provide one. Regardless I would ask did you: - Keep your house clean - Stay in amazing shape - Cook healthy and nutritious meals for you husband and children - Take care of your children - Fuck your husband's brains out 2-3x a week minimum If you did and had 5 kids, then hell yes that's a challenging job. But that is NOT what most women do. Most women let themselves go (average woman gains 21 lbs during her first year of marriage), don't keep the place clean, rarely cook and rarely fuck their husbands. Dawson
lifeofalovergirl 2014-07-13 18:53:07
@Dawson...I can honestly say that I TRIED my best to do those things. No I wasn't able to accomplish them all. My house was as clean as I could get it with 5 kids inside it all day and all the other tasks I had to take care of. It didn't look like Better Homes and Gardens but I did get positive comments from other moms with kids who were surprised I was able to keep it "that clean". Its no easy task. A lot of men have high expectations in this area that they don't understand are pretty much impossible to fulfill with small children around. As my kids got older, they were able to start pitching in on housework in a very real way and it is so much easier now. It also got much easier after my divorce, without a husband there making messes and not cleaning up after himself. I have stayed in pretty good shape after having kids. I've made an effort to work out and do the best I can. A lot of people are impressed but no, it is not what I consider "amazing". I don't look like a supermodel. I can't compete with idealized images that some men have from watching too much tv/porn but I have put forth a good effort and have some results to show for it. I'm not going to look like I did before I had kids, ever, without some surgery that I can't afford. I have good genes to thank for some my ability to stay in shape, that other women may not. Yes, I cook(ed) nutritious meals. Again, sometimes my meals are down home cooking and not 100% nutritious but pretty healthy and mostly from scratch, better than eating out. Yes, I take care of my children. That's the bulk of my day...though now that they are getting older that part is getting easier. I wish I could say I fucked my husband's brains out. I gladly would have, as I have a very high sex drive, but he wasn't interested. Plenty of men are interested now that I am divorced so I am going to have to say that was on him. I disagree that *most* women don't try their best to do these things. It's just ten times more difficult than *most* men realize. You can't expect perfection any time there are kids around.
Dawson Stone 2014-07-19 11:41:10
@lifeofalovergirl You aren't being intellectually honest if you are saying *most* women even make a strong effort at doing those five things. The average women gains 21lbs in the first year of marriage. By definition that is MOST and by definition gaining 21lbs as soon as you land a man is not taking care of yourself. I don't know you so I will take 100% at face value you that you did a good to very good job on all five fronts. But can you really look at your married girlfriends and say the *average* women does the same? Dawson