Anon is married : greentext

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Maybe i'm weird, or mentally ill, but:

I just want a wife who makes her own lunch and wants to live in a 750K house and have 1 kid.

What women I meet want: to quit their job, have no kids, and live in a $5 million dollar house while i work 60+ hour weeks to pay for her to travel every other month for week long trips around the globe w/ her besties with minimum spends of about $30,000 a trip, and we have a paid servants to make us meals, clean, and in home personal trainer.

Meanwhile I'm over here cooking myself food, cleaning my own place, train myself, and DIY on my car/bike/house.

[–] M137@lemmy.today 13 points 1 day ago

"cooks me launch"

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Maybe he married a latina rocket?

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 71 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Two anons demonstrate two sides of the misogyny coin

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The first one isn't misogyny. Minus the specifivity of the "$2 million" part, its the Jewish tradition of what is required for a man to be able to propose. "Having kids is too expensive" is just the straight-up truth for anyone who isn't uncommonly comfortable relying on charity and/or society.

Like, are we going off the avatar, pretending a woman who says those things is crazy? Because she's absolutely not, and neither are the men trying to live up to those items, at a minimum.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

expecting a 2 million dollar home, is legit crazy.

but sadly incredibly common. i own a condo worth like 800K, and repeatedly get informed that it's 'cheap and shitty'. it's fucking insane what some people expect as their 'minimum' lifestyle.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 48 minutes ago

They think they are shooting you down, when really they are shoving you out of the way of the bullet that is themselves. “You know where to find me when you grow up" is a line I had worn-out by the end of my teens, yet I never get to leave it out of my repertoir for long.

The world is swimming in children of all ages. The only "favor" having them young migh do is forcing them to grow up a little earlier, and only if you're very lucky, they are still whole enough to both resent you for it and forgive you. People think their adult children still idolizing them is a good result, but those children are NOT grown.

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I don't know how Jewish it is, but it is part of a general trend of how society treats marriage.

Generations back, marriage was considered the beginning, a cornerstone for building an adult life on. Now, it's shifted more towards a capstone, a thing that you can add to your life once you get your shit together. That has shifted expectations in dating, as well as expectations of how independent young adults need to be.

And it has pushed back expectations of what it means to be ready to have children. And once a higher percentage of parents have more money when they have kids, it also subtly shifts the expectations of parenting, as well:

"Having kids is too expensive" is just the straight-up truth for anyone who isn't uncommonly comfortable relying on charity and/or society.

What's wrong with relying on society? Having a good family and social circle is basically the most important part of being ready to have kids. My wife and I waited till we were rich before having kids, but we still heavily rely on our family, friends, and neighbors to enrich our children's lives, while also being there for them and their children: rotating babysitting duties if some parents want to go on a date or even go out of town, rotating dinner hosting so only one family has to cook and clean, getting the kids together so that they can play and socialize, etc. We can't do the parenting thing in isolation, but I don't think society expects us to.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

because you shouldn't have to be rich af to have kids. or a house, or stable employment.

and yet, society is telling us that you will never have any of this, unless you were lucky enough to be born rich.

very few people will ever become rich.

i see this myself all the time. i date and i meet women who basically think you are a loser/undatable if you aren't millions in the bank, then whine people are 'lazy'. meanwhile they don't have millions in the bank, and are still having mommy and daddy pay their mortgage/rent in their frickin' 30s.

lady, i worked my ass off my entire life, why the hell would i ever want to date someone who is still dependent on their parents for basic adult costs?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

Having a good family and social circle is basically the most important part of being ready to have kids

Well, bad news for you there, too: since we're all busy working and commuting and moving states for jobs and our third places are disappearing for various reasons, because our connections have moved globally online instead of locally offline, we are all further away from our families of origin and have smaller social circles to help support our physical lives.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Relying on society, when it works out, still usually leaves you with over-extended or strained relationships(especially with friends and family), and kids who will never understand just what was so important about their conceptions and births that couldn't have waited until you were a little more ready and not constantly stressed to the breaking point - kids who are absolutely right.

Ask me how I know. If I look at it from the stand-point of the heart-attack that seems due any day now, maybe there was some urgency, but without trying to shoe-horn kids into a lifestyle that wasn't ready for them and ultimately had to be abandoned in-favor of doing whatever it takes to keep them happy and healthy, external/internal consequences be damned, then my health outlook might not look so bleak.

All that, and have you seen divorce statistics? Jesus FUCK, have you SEEN divorce statistics? ... and it's somehow still okay to throw massive financial insecurity into the mix, the SINGLE GREATEST driver of divorce? Sure. Aim for the stars, kid. The world is your oyster and all that.

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Relying on society, when it works out, still usually leaves you with over-extended or strained relationships

No, framing that as the best case scenario is just a complete lack of imagination. I'm closer with my friends and family now because we have regular meetups and more scheduled social contact. The idea that this kind of stuff would strain my friendships is actually pretty foreign to me. We do things for each other, and that brings us closer rather than piling up one-way resentment for the people who give more than they get.

I find life to be less stressful when I'm around people I love. And that was always true, before I had kids, too.

All that, and have you seen divorce statistics. Jesus FUCK, have you SEEN divorce statistics?

Divorce rates have been dropping over the last 40 years, are especially low for college educated couples who got married after the age of 30.

Take a deep breath and realize that lots of people are living lots of different lives. Try to imagine that some of us are happy, too.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

College educated couples who got married after the age of 30 are exactly the sort to buy a house before having kids. They'll also have locked-in friends and family who they can count-on, and likely owe them favors. Other than grandparents and single people, these ARE the society you want in your corner.

As someone who did it in the reverse order, I promise you, you're gonna burn a friendship or familial relation or three out of need, ones that otherwise would have lasted generations, and know as its happenning you'll be living with that regret the rest of your life. You may be able to pay them back, but almost certainly neither in-kind or in any way, or on any time-scale, that makes the relationship what it once was.

As you get older, relationships ossify - it takes life-changing events to have any chance to undo extinction events or straight "I'm burned-out on their shit".

So yeah, I have a lot of people who know that I, and my kids know, our family owes them and I will do anything in my power to do whatever I can to help them should they ever ask. They even would likely still help with whatever I asked for, even non-sense("we're square")...

... BUT, they stopped coming to fun "note-worthy" things we invite them to many years-ago. Any sharing in our modest successes(or just relief that x milestone was reached) is tainted by all the dirty-dirty of all the sausage they've helped us make to get to here.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I've been dumping friends the past few years. because they are indeed, ossifying into miserable old cunts. and i don't regard having a social life being worht the misery of listening to someone who is 34 rant on and on about how evil everything is like my parents did. it just sucks and i'd rather be alone doing something productive and interesting with my life.

and that doesn't include the people i've dropped one became conspiracy theorists, incredibly bitter, or just trapped in social media delusion alt reality... ugh. it's so miserable to be around people who just can't think of anyone/anything other than themselves. and as you age... damn that is what most people become, entirely selfish and self-absorbed.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 14 minutes ago

I'm talking about friends that are to be rightly missed. Still close-by and friendly, but not like it once was. Anyone remotely like you've described in my life moved-away or died. They rarely-offered and more importantly never-accepted help in the first-place.

I'm more afraid of being thought of as one of them than worried about bothering to ditch anyone like-so.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I mean it's not just the women either, men could be in the picture as well

I think post 2007 our smartphones and computers with internet have unlocked near unlimited entertainment ( Welcome to the Internet - Bo Burnham )

In comparison to say 1964:

Brisbane (1964) | Life in Australia Series | 4K Restoration

https://youtu.be/KbukeJZftOs?t=467

Life looks infinitely more boring then, having kids seems like a natural time filler

Anyone saying they're not having kids because of climate change or anything like this is just making excuses for the fact they'd rather not be taking care of a kid when they could be doing something fun or entertaining

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

people dont' want to have kids because the kids are considered detriment to their own personal pursuits and money for themselves.

where i live... people dont' want kids because they want to travel and own nice things. and yet they will complain to you how unfulfilling and unhappy their lives are... and just chase the next nice thing or next travel destination that people have decided is trendy.

what kills me is people... want kids but they are under the delusion that it should come at no cost or change to lifestyle. that's not how anything works. every change you make has opportunity costs.

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anyone saying they’re not having kids because of climate change or anything like this is just making excuses for the fact they’d rather not be taking care of a kid when they could be doing something fun or entertaining

Sounds like you asked all of "them". Me included. Or at least a representative sample size, in which case I'd be interested in your methods and the statistics.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

People in developed countries with smartphones, unlimited high speed internet and time = no kids (insert variety of reasons here)

Places with no such luxuries (having kids):

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-countries-by-fertility-rate/

I would also argue that we have over regulated and are strangling ourselves

admittedly this is oversimplying but ultimately there are more disincentives to having kids than not having kids, and having unlimited entertainment I would argue is part of that

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, you could say that for a lot of reasons:

People in developed countries, with access to American-style Pizza = no kids, prove me wrong

If we look at birth rates of developed, industrialized nations, we see the same picture everywhere: a steady downwards trend, with the big chunk happening between the 60s and 90s, so basically, when quality of live became decent and the economy recovered in those countries, post-WW2.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?+title=Fertility_statistics https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/birth-rate https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/births-australia/latest-release

Counter-point: Zimbabwe is a country with very high mobile phone usage, and really high birth rates. I have no idea about trustworthyness of Zimbabwe sites, but they all seem to agree: https://technomag.co.zw/zimbabwes-mobile-penetration-passes-100/ https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zim-mobile-phone-usage-climbs-up/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Zimbabwe

However, what is super interesting is the Wikipedia article above: Both births and total fertility go down with child mortality. The obvious conclusion is, if less of your kids die, you don't need to birth so many kids, and interestingly, the less kids you seem to need overall.

So, based on this alone, I believe "high quality of life in strong economy" is much stronger correlated with decreasing birth rates than the invention of the iPhone. I would argue that it is more a case of one not needing that many kids to survive due to improved social and economic situation, and maybe access to education (including sex education of course, less accidents, more family planning).

Sure, entertainment is probably contributing a bit, but I don't see it that far up the list.

Personally, I believe that if you have kids out of boredom, maybe you shouldn't have kids, but idk, get a gym membership or something. How can we say that gifting someone a dog for christmas that may or may not be mistreated and discarded when the novelty weary of is bad, but kids out of boredom is ok?

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

get a gym membership or something

have you got a gym membership? I do, it doesn't take up that much time but one can go back to the 50s/60s/70's and see what were people doing? At 11pm what were you options for entertainment, I remember in the 90's it was like, read a book, watch TV, or listen to the radio, not exactly thrilling

In comparison now I have an unlimited entertainment vehicle in trolling the fediverse (1.07K Posts/3.04K Comments god damn), I put in ~an hour at the gym every few days, compared to easily hours on the fediverse every week, some nights I put in more time on the fedi than the gym in a month, and that's JUST the fedi, not even mentioning youtube, telegram, mistral/claude, torrents, movies, music, programming, etcetc

How can we say that gifting someone a dog for christmas that may or may not be mistreated and discarded when the novelty weary of is bad, but kids out of boredom is ok?

I mean I would say it's largely just life, this comes into the overregulation/helicopter parenting, loads of kids would come home from school then just run off for hours until it was time to come home or just for dinner before running off again, parenting shouldn't be a full time job, requiring 24x7 supervision and checking at all times

Ironically because of iphone they now sit inside getting fat watching youtube and tiktok

Like this is the housing we used to live in:

http://romseyaustralia.com/houses.html#7

Now we can't build a house for under a million

We have simultaneously loaded ourselves up with high standards (both with regards to raising kids and the equipment to provide for them) and easy cheap entertainment/calories

It's completely understandable why we're fat and not particularly enthused about raising kids

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Man, don't get too hung up on the last sentence, that is more my personal opinion on how one should approach life, I don't expect anyone to share it, I haven't discovered the ultimate truth. Yet. So, my clearly marked personal opinion:

Don't get me wrong, I hate helicopter parenting as much as anyone. "Back in my days", we'd fuck off into the woods after school, doing all kinds of bullshit, and as long as we were home at dinner time and didn't lose any teeth, all was fine. On the other hand, I can't say that that stopped me from becoming a weirdo. I have seen plenty of people have kids who wanted them and really should not have kids, and I have seen some people go above and beyond for their children, although they were in bad situations, or got them by accident and so on.

If one gets a kid out of boredom, I would argue one is exactly the kind of person who parks their kids on youtube in order to watch their own tiktok slop in peace. Or the kind of person who gets a pet and then neglects it. Only that tying up a kid at the highway truck stop is, much to my surprise, still illegal.

Now, to the facts: the data looks pretty clear to me. Higher standard of living, more education, less kids. I don't know why this is really seen as such a bad thing, since apparently, not all people have the inherent drive to have kids, and in a more "developed" society, there is no hard push that one has to have children or else. Not pushing people who don't want to do something is good, in my not very humble opinion.

[–] lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 2 days ago

I also do love it when my imaginary wife cooks launch for me as well

[–] janus2@lemmy.zip 36 points 2 days ago (5 children)

could we maybe stop downvote bombing greentexts with takes we disagree with? 🙄

obviously the author has some toxic ass views but that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting/entertaining greentext to read

the only posts on this sublemmy that should get downvoted are irrelevant and/or boring greentexts

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Next you're going to want us to stop downvoting unpopular opinions in the unpopular opinion community

[–] BreakerSwitch@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you don't want baffling, fucked up takes, then you don't want green texts, go to a microblogging community. I feel like the entire point of being here is to see the insanity without engaging with or or condoning it.

Am I so out of touch?

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I've heard this place described as a zoo. We're just here to observe. Posts are not meant to endorse screeching, throwing poop, or whatever else anons might do.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

On Reddit, it took very little time for the bigots to roll in and create a familiarly unpleasant atmosphere in /r/greentext. Downvotes are, perhaps, the lightest form of disagreement one could offer to a potential chink in lemmy’s armor against righties. The absence of chuds is a decent portion of why I love this place. If they find an “ironic” home here, as they did on reddit, it’d suck for me.

[–] BreakerSwitch@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Okay this is a take I can understand and respect. That being said, how can we observe unhinged posts, acknowledge them as such, and have a laugh about them, while making it clear that they are unacceptable? This feels a difficult tightrope to walk, given the context

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

That’s the best part, exactly what we’ve been doing, no changes! Lemmy is so hostile to conservative ideologies and incapable of recognizing satire that it forms a decent barrier. Delightfully, we get to have our cake and eat it too! Accepting the downvotes as an aspect of our immunity, creating titles that point out OOP’s degeneracy, and banning every righty that pops out of the woodwork keeps us clean.

I know I can still act unhinged in this community, so it seems to be working out.

[–] janus2@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

my sentiment precisely

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago

It's the racism. You can be interested and entertained by it, but many people prefer not to condone it.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 7 points 2 days ago

could we maybe stop downvote bombing greentexts with takes we disagree with? 🙄

Welcome to Lemmy 🤣

This is not just a place for posting dumb shit but a place for activism, no bad thinking allowed

[–] wyldrstallyns@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 days ago

obviously the author has some toxic ass views...

but that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting/entertaining greentext to read

No, that's exactly what that means, in fact. Stop the bullshit.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 40 points 2 days ago

This is some chud speak I can't parse the meaning of

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 8 points 2 days ago

Remember kids racism is when a Mexican man loves his wife

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago

Fake and disgustingly straight

Greentext