Tag Archives: Patriarchy

The Bookshelf: Red Pill Reformation

On the Bookshelf today is Red Pill Reformation by MTE. He goes by Rock Throwing Peasant in the comment sections around the manosphere, and his blog is on my blog roll. When I heard he wrote a book on the Christian Red Pill, I was intrigued. I’ve been busy lately, so it’s taken me a while to get around to reading it, but here’s my review (finally).

First, the book is fairly short, about 50 pages, with an additional 30 pages of an action plan, but it’s fairly priced at only $2.99. It’s good value for money.

As for the writing style, it’s very straightforward, basic, and to the point. Occasionally, I find the writing  can sometimes be “choppy”, but overall it reads easy, almost conversationally. He communicates his ideas effectively and functionally.

After a short introduction, the book starts with the typical beta narrative men are sold and contrasts that with the red pill of evolutionary psychology. He outlays the standard analysis of both quite well. There’s nothing new, but its a solid introduction.

I did have one little quibble; he defines hypergamy thus:

It is the innate desire of a woman to pair bond (not necessarily a relationship) with a man of higher value. In layman’s terms, think of the term, “marrying up.” Women who rate a 6 on the 1-10 scale don’t want to mate with a male 6. They want 7-10. They may marry a 5 or 6. They may have sex with a 5 or 6, but they want the 7-10. When their basic needs are met, there is little else on earth that will stop them from spending waking hours thinking about that bartender.

I don’t think he quite gets it right. Wanting to marry a higher quality mate is not exclusive to women’ men want to marry a women above their “number” as well. Hypergamy is a women’s desire for a man who more socially dominant (whether by money, fame, occupation, education, or whatever), while men desire women based primarily on looks and a pleasant personality. It’s not that women necessarily want a man with a “higher number” (although they do) that makes them hypergamous, it’s what they base the number on that does. This is a minor point, he does get the basics of hypergamy right, I just think it was a bit oversimplified and he should have explicated it a bit. The rest is of these section is good, if fairly basic for manosphere writing.

He follows with an excellent section on feminism. It provides an excellent overview of the negative effects of feminism. There’s some stuff included here I didn’t know before. I liked it.

In the next section he lays out the basics of game. Overall, he has a good general overview of the topic. Enough information to ge the basic concept without getting bogged down in detail.

I do have one criticism, the author misuses the term preselection. He writes, “Pre-selection is a female’s natural tendency to subconsciously disqualify 90% of all men she meets from any possibility of romance (carnal or other).” While women will disqualify most men, pre-selection is generally used to refer to a woman selecting a man (or not) based on how she perceives other women value that man.

At the end of the game section, he discusses the morality of game for seduction and how he rejects its use because it removes the moral component of human interaction.

He follows with two good sections on Churchianity and Marriage 2.0. These were solid introductions to the concepts.

He follows in a few sections reconciling manosphere concepts to being a Christian husband, resulting in a patriarch. In essence, he comes to the conclusion that a man is ordained by God to actively and courageously lead his home towards a goal. A good conclusion.

These first sections were the lead-up to the last 3 section which make up the bulk of the piece. These 3 sections go into detail about how to be a patriarch.

The first called “A Family of Disciples” is a practical guide to discipling your family. This will mean nothing to the non-Christians, but if you’re a Christian patriarch, it’s good advice.

The second of these sections is about developing the characteristics of “Integrity, Rational thought, Self-Awareness, Charisma, Confidence, Effective communication, Assertiveness, Optimism, and Physical Appearance.” These characteristics are developed from where game principles and Christian virtue meet. He lays out clearly why you should develop them and gives some advice on how to develop them. It is very well done and the advice is good.

The final section is called “Game and Love” and is more theoretical in nature. Here the author discusses how principles of game and of Christ interact. What I think is the essential point of the section: “God knows the heart of women and has told and shown men how to lead them. Game proponents observed God’s Way and penned the term, “game,” to give a pagan version of it.”

Rock Throwing Peasant ends the book with a 30-Day Action Plan. Everything on this list is good stuff to do/practice, although, a good portion of it is very much focused on Christians and/or the married, so if you aren’t either, fair amounts of the plan may not apply to you. For the married or to-be-married Christian, it is excellent stuf, but it is a lot of stuff. Some of it is fairly easy to do in a single day, but much of it is long-term habits to work on. If you tried to start all of it on it’s recommended day in the month, you’d likely experience willpower depletion. I would recommend practicing everything in the plan, it’s a good plan, but maybe, slow it down a bit. For the developing the larger, long-term habits, implement a new one each week or two.

Overall, the book got better as I read more. It started out a little shaky and there were some theoretical points on game that I think were mistaken. This made me skeptical at first, but the deeper into it I got, the more impressed I became. This is a great book.

It is very much geared towards the married or to-be-married Christian, so its use for those not in this category may be limited. For the red pill aware Christian, this book does a good job of sorting out the relationship between the red pill and Christian virtue, and how to develop yourself into a patriarch.

Recommendation:

This is a great book for its purpose.

If you are a married Christian or a Christian looking to be married: Buy this book. It’s an excellent guide to becoming a patriarch and exerting your leadership in your family.

If you are non-Christian and are married or looking to be married, this book is solid, and I’d recommend it, but it is based heavily upon Christian thought. You would benefit, but not as fully as a Christian would. You’d likely get more from reading Athol’s Primer; read that first, then, if you want more, pick this up. It’s definitely worth its price.

If you are not a Christian and do not plan to get married, I don’t see this book helping you very much. It’s probably not something to put high on your priority list. If you have a theoretical interest in the topic or want to develop yourself through the action plan (although,30 Days of Discipline may be more to your liking), for the price and length, its not too much of an investment if it doesn’t pan out.

If you know a young Christian male you want to introduce the red pill to, Red Pill Reformation would be an excellent place to start. Despite a couple of small quibbles about his theory of game, this book will get him thinking about the red pill, without the immediate negative reaction he might have towards material oriented towards players.

Feminism and Housing Costs

Today I read this (h/t: BitterBabe) and this one quote really stood out:

Commentators said yesterday that pressures on women to work and pay mortgages mean that many do not have the same choice over having families that their mothers did.

I’ve discussed feminism and choice before, and I’ve discussed how feminists are in opposition to the wants of most women before, but now I’m going to focus on something specific: housing.

I’m going to explain exactly where the “pressures on women to pay mortgages” comes from.

****

Housing is the single largest expense most people have (other than possibly taxes), taking up almost 35% of their income. Unlike most goods, which have gotten cheaper over time due to technology improvements, housing costs as a percentage of income has remained stable over time (with the possible exception of fluctuations due to the housing bubble and crash).

Why is that?

The primary reason is that housing is mostly a positional good.* The price of a house has less to do with the actual materials making the house and more with the desirability of the land the house resides on. This is why a house in New York costs so much more than the cost of a similar house in, say, Detroit.

The other reason is that people are using extra income buying larger homes.

For both these reasons, as people’s incomes grow higher they will generally increase their housing costs to match a proportion of their income. You see this all the time, where people will buy bigger and better houses even if their old houses were perfectly livable and they do not require more space for the kids they are not having.

As people buy more housing the price of housing goes up. So, over time, as people’s incomes go up, they will buy more housing, which will increase the price of housing, increasing the absolute amount spent on housing.

Because of this mechanic, the proportion of income spent on housing remains stable even as incomes go up.

****

So, what does this have to do with feminism and choice?

As more women have entered the workforce, they have contributed their income to their households. Because of this household incomes have increased, but, because of the primarily positional nature of housing, the proportion of income spent on housing by households has stayed the same.

So,to now purchase the same amount of housing you could purchase on a single income prior to women entering the workforce en masse you need the equivalent income of a two-income household.

Because of this, families are now in a position, where two incomes are required for sufficient housing space for a family in many areas.

Households wanting to live in certain areas are now required to have the women work rather than stay home simply to afford housing.

As more women enter the workforce, the viability of women choosing to stay home decreases.

Most women desire to stay home with their children, if they could afford it, and the feminist desire to have women be economically independent is removing that choice from them.

****

Of course, I have completely ignored the impacts of divorce on housing costs for former households and the impacts of increased demand. You should be able to figure them out yourselves (hint: they increase housing prices and costs).

****

Combine this with the unfeasible daycare costs I previously pointed, and you being to wonder if women moving into the working world has provided any benefits to most women.

Most women desire to stay home, but many are forced to work because they can’t afford not to.

But their biggest expense is only that big because women are working and one of their next biggest expenses only exists because they are working.

Is this what most women want? To be forced to work for little real benefit.

Question for women: Do you enjoy spending your days at work rather than with your children knowing that most of what you earn is not actually providing any real benefit to your or your children?

If not, maybe you should think about what you support.

****

Now, for budding patriarchs, this doesn’t mean your (future) wife has to work. What it does mean is that it will require sacrifices and good planning.

You will have to limit your desire for a bigger home (even as you need a bigger home than most, because you’re filling your quiver instead of vacationing in Mexico). You may have to commute longer or find a job away from the urban core. You will likely have to forgo other luxuries.

If you and your wife plan on having her be a homemaker, you will have to discuss this with her. You will have much less house than your peers, and this could lead to envy for you and your wife. You will not be able to afford yearly vacations to distant lands. There are numerous luxuries and status symbols you will have to give up.

You have to make this clear to both yourself and her that this lifestyle is a sacrifice and that both are willing to accept it.

In the long-run, which is more important to you though?

Your child being raised by his mother rather than strangers and the educational system. Or the status symbol of a bigger house and your children being forced to share a room.

*****

* It is only primarily a positional good, not totally. Housing does have a certain intrinsic worth and the materials in housing have a certain intrinsic cost, but, by comparing housing prices in high- and low-demand areas we can easily see that the costs of housing are primarily due to the comparative value of the land on which they are built, than the homes themselves. Of course, it can be argued that the value of the land is not exactly positional, in that being in geographic proximity to certain locations has its own intrinsic value, but this does not effect my point. My point only requires that the value of land is due to competition between potential buyers, for whatever reason, rather than for any immediate practical effect the land has on the utility of the home itself.

What is to be done?

Aurini writes:

I am a Patriot.  During my life I hope to actually see the True North Strong and Free – not just sing it in the National Anthem.  To find a wife and raise a family, with hope for a future.  Gaming girls in foreign countries is better than marital theft, certainly – and it’s probably a fair bit better than Heroin – but it doesn’t leave much of a Legacy.

Running away will protect us for a time, but the Enemies of Life are implacable; this is a global ideology more infectious than proselytizing Christianity could ever hope to be.  It’ll reach Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia sooner than you think – only by the time it gets there it won’t be called Feminism any more.  Like the common cold, this virus mutates fast.

The MRM fell because it was premised upon weakness.  Any true hope for the future will have to be premised upon Strength.

I agree fully.

But that leaves the questions of what is to be done. How can we destroy the system that is destroying us?

How can we avoid the Bonobo Masturbation Society?

****

The options we have:

1) The Blue Pill: Play along with the system.

2) MRM: Fight the current legal system for equal rights from within the system.

3) Game/MGTOW: These options are essentially the same: retreat. You withdraw from the system.

4) Patriarchy: This is outwardly similar to the blue pill, with all the attendant risks, but is done intentionally with red pill frame and knowledge,  rather than leaped into blindly.

5) Violence: Overthrow the current system with violent revolution.

****

The blue pill may work. For you, for now. But you could always wind up on the wrong end of the divorce or economic statistics with one bad week, and it leaves the system intact. This is no fight at all.

MRM may make the legal system more fair, but that’s all it will do. It will make divorce sting less, it will remove affirmative action to allow fair employment competitions, and it may do some other good things, but it is still based on progressive ideas of equality, fairness, human rights, social justice, and all that jazz and is still corrupt. In the long run it merely preserves the corrupt system, but blunts its edges, reducing consciousness, fixing the system further in place.

Game/MGTOW may work. For you, for now. But it is retreat; it is conceding that the system wins and hoping that if you either avoid or succeed at playing by the new rules of the system it might not eat you. You might avoid family court, unemployment, or unhappy marriage,  but you are still a Bonobo happily masturbating away, enjoying yourself to avoid thinking if there isn’t something more fulfilling out there.

Violence won’t work. Right now the system is not corrupt enough to get enough people fired up for violence. In addition, the anti-progressive movement is small and is like herding bulls. There would be no way to win. Starting violence would turn the decline into a collapse and most revolutions end up eating their own children. Small scale violence accomplishes nothing except making the violent person’s ideology look bad. Violence should be avoided.

That leave patriarchy as the only hope.

****

So how does patriarchy help us win?

We must realize that any fight against the current progressivist system will take time, possibly generations. The war against progressivism is a war of ideology and ideas; changing the dominant paradigm is (usually) a slow process. It took progressivism and feminism over a century to bring our country to this point. It will take just as long to bring it back.

So, that leaves us with two things we must do: push our ideas and develop our ideology and breed the next generation.

First, we need to develop our ideas and put them out there; we must push the overton window. We have to put red pill knowledge out there, make it acceptable, and bring people to the cause. This is already being done; you can occasionally see red pill knowledge creep into the MSM. The manosphere is great for this.

More importantly to pushing our ideas, we have to live lives that are enviable. Ideas are great, but unless people see what’s in it for them, ideas alone will not suffice. We have to demonstrate what we are arguing for.

Live a red pill life that others are envious off and want to emulate. Praxis.

Second, breeding. The future of our society is determined by the next generation, so we need to create the next generation. On one hand, we have an advantage because progressivists are breeding themselves out of existence. On the other hand, if we all go MTGOW or PUA, then we aren’t breeding either.

So, marry a good women, have lots of kids, and raise them traditionally. Your life will be better, your life will be full and meaningful, and you’ll have a legacy you can be proud of.

Make sure to avoid a few pitfalls. Refuse to marry those who aren’t worthy of bearing your children (no rings for sluts). Be wary of the public school system; make sure to raise your kids right. Live as an example you want your kids to emulate.

Creating the next generation and developing our ideas is how an ideological war is won. So, do it.

****

That’s not to say game and MGTOW don’t help some. Both spread red pill ideas. In addition, PUA’s make promiscuity rougher and less fair, thus making promiscuity, already unattractive, less attractive for females. Both reduce the amount of marriageable men who will “man up”, leaving women asking “where did all the men go”, showing the corruption of the “sacred path for marriage”.

While they’re still acting the part of bonobos, they do have some positive impact in the ideological war.

The Bookshelf: The Way of Men

The first book I read on my trip was Jack Donovan’s The Way of Man.

The book is a theoretical discussion about manhood and what defines a masculinity. In terms of writing style, the book is written in an engaging and clear manner. It reads well and communicates effectively without slowing down as theoretical books are often wont to do. It is an enjoyable read.

The first couple chapters  introduce the concept that “the way of men is the way of the gang”. Essentially, masculinity is defined through a man’s interactions within a small group of other men gathered together for resource acquisition and mutual security. Essentially, manliness was defined by man’s position in a small war band or hunting party.

From there he describes the four tactical virtues men that defines a man’s worthiness as a man within his gang: Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honour. He makes an excellent case for these virtues being the defining traits of masculinity and I would agree with him on his chosen traits. They represent what I’ve noticed masculinity is generally defined by.

After a discussion of the virtues, he writes of how “being good at being a man” differs from “being a good man”. The four tactical virtues are the virtues that define masculinity, on who demonstrates these virtues is good at being a man. Other virtues (piety, charity, temperance, righteousness, etc.) may make a man good, but do not necessarily make a man good at being a man. (I like the implicit acceptance of virtue ethics by this book).

This distinction is important and brings this book far above most other writings I’ve read on masculinity, which usually conflate being a man with the author’s own personal morality, often to results that don’t quite sit right. Christian writings on masculinity often conflate Christian morality for males with masculinity,excluding obviously masculine men who might not follow Christian morality from being a man. Game advocates often define masculinity through a male’s attractiveness to women making masculinity dependent on female approval and implicitly denying the masculinity of men who aren’t superficially psycho-socially dominant. Society as a whole usually either defines masculinity through anti-social thuggery, reducing masculinity to nothing more than the gratification of base urges and denying the masculinity of men dedicated to higher values, or the approved beta life path, making masculinity dependent on providing for women and denying the masculinity of those who don’t “man up”. It’s good to have someone define masculinity in a neutral way apart from the moral preconceptions of the author.

He then discusses the way of the gang in relation to civilization for a few chapters, with a chapter focusing on Rome in particular. As society becomes more civilized and peaceful the need for gangs decreases, so men  redirect their gang activities into simulated (ex. playing sports or games), vicarious (ex. watching sports or war movies), or intellectual masculine (ex. economic or political competition). Men will be content in civilization as long he has sufficient redirection for gang activities, but increasingly our society is limiting men’s opportunities for participation in masculine activities.

He illustrates with a comparison of the Way of Women and the Way of Men through a comparison of  Bonobo and Chimpanzee society, respectively. If men become too decadent and their opportunities for gang activities too few, civilization will become a “Bonobo Masturbation Society” where meaning and purpose are replaced by “fun”.

These chapters are excellent at explaining why men are in a crisis of meaning in our modern society despite being more prosperous than ever.

The last few chapters summarize the consequences of the previous discussions. Men have to choose whether to have civilization with access to a meaningless world of pleasure and fun, the Bonobo Masturbation Society, or a more meaningful society of the Way of Men. He discusses how reasserting the Way of Men is impossible in a democratic society and requires the collapse of prosperity, security, and globalism.

These chapters are rather bleak, as the only solution given to the modern malaise besetting men is collapse, but I can’t argue that it’s not true.

He then gives some advice on starting your own gang. This last chapter is the only part that may be practically applicable to your life, the rest of the book being a theoretical and philosophical discussion of masculinity.

Overall, this book is an excellent exploration of masculinity, and I think Donovan gets everything exactly right. This is simply the best book on masculinity I have read.

Recommendation:

If you are at all interested in men’s issues or masculinity (and you are reading a manosphere blog, so you probably are) or if you’ve ever wondered how to be man, read this book. In itself, it won’t really help you become a better man or improve your life, but it will give you the theory necessary to understand what you are missing, so you can begin to find solutions for yourself.

Buy the E-book here for only $5.99

Adam’s Original Sin: Disobedience and Betaness

For the Biblical Alpha series, we’ll start at the beginning of the Bible, with the first man, Adam.

Now, the first mention of man’s creation goes:

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

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so. (Genesis 1:26-30)

We can see here that man was created to rule. Man’s purpose, the reason for his creation, was to rule over the rest of creation and to his expand this rule over whole earth. Mankind’s purpose is leadership.

Now, knowing man’s purpose, we move onto the first man. The Bible only gives a few chapters to Adam but they are revealing. He was created, told not to eat from a specific tree, and named the animals. While in Eden:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribhe had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:15-22)

The creation story is re-iterated, putting the focus on man. Man is created to care for creation. His purpose is leadership over the earth.

We can also see that woman was created to be a helper for man. Man is to rule, woman is to assist the man in his leadership. This is the natural Christian order of earth, man rules, woman helps man.

Man was created by God for the purpose of being the alpha over the earth. He ruled over paradise with his helper at his side.

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.(Genesis 2:25)

Man (and woman) was originally created to feel no shame. Shame is a result of sin.

It is interesting to note, that the alpha is immune to shame, but susceptibility to shame is the hallmark of the beta.

Then the Fall occurs:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”

The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Genesis 3:1-12)

Here Adam displays a stunning lack of leadership and betaness leading to the fall.

First, while he is with her, he allows his helper to be tempted by the serpent, who is under his dominion, and he does nothing. He takes no leadership over either his helper or the one he rules.

Second, he then allows his helper to convince him to violate his duty. He falls into the woman’s frame and allows her to lead him against his own principles and duty.

Then he, rightfully, feels shame.

When confronted with his disobedience, what does he do? He shifts the blame. Instead of taking responsibility for his own actions as a man and a leader, he blames his helper.

The original sin was disobedience to God. This disobedience was caused and exacerbated by the beta actions and inactions of the first man, Adam.

Had Adam taken his alpha leadership role given him by God, the Fall would not have occurred.

Lightning Round – 2012/07/3

A study says men’s  testosterone decreases over time are due to behaviour and health rather than age. So, stay healthy.

Mangan talks on the supernormal stimulus of porn and food.

Cogitans discusses how a single Roman law helped lead to its decline.

A defence of Franco.

The Captain discusses the costs of being a player. Further confirming that it’s not for me.

Women doesn’t work, has $4,500/month in income, and a $1.2-million house, then violates her contract and demands $4,000 more/month, and the dad leaves because he’s broke. Dad is the bad guy. Makes sense.

Dalrock asks “Will betas shrug?”

Roosh gives some advice to White Nationalists.

Fred’s a racist.

“Destinations are for bitches, betas, and vacations.”

On the other hand, too much dissatisfaction is not good.

Ashur discusses the feminist bubble.

The difference between procedural and substantive traditionalism.

Frost reviews a book I might have to look at.

Dicipres notes that guns create a democratic effect.

Men have never been able to “have it all”. We suck it up.

I just got my gun license recently, so that’s good news.

Ace is pissed the government has been telling fat people to make themselves fatter for decades.

Hehe.

Despite all the hype that women use tech more, men still dominate it’s creation.

Why countries collapse.

Ontario runs into the laws of economics and loses.

Too bad he didn’t believe that when he was leader of the Liberals.

(H/T: Instapundit, the Captain)

Economic Costs of Children

Here’s another installment of  my economic analysis of marriage. This time we’re calculating the cost of children.

Conveniently,the USDA has done a study, and it costs $235,000 to raise a child (in a family of two) through age 17 for a middle-income family, about the price of a 2012 Ferrari.

So the question is, over time, which do you think would bring you more utility, a Ferrari or Junior (or a medium sized house, or 4 years off work if you make $60k, etc.)?

That’s that.

****

But that doesn’t really make much of a blog post, so more in-depth analysis of the study.

annual expenses ranged from $8,760 to $9,970 for families with a before-tax income less than $59,410, from $12,290 to $14,320 for families with a before-tax income between $59,410 and $102,870, and from $20,420 to $24,510 for families with a before-tax income more than $102,870. (p. 10)
….
As can be seen, total family expenses on a child through age 17 would be $212,370 for households in the lowest income group, $295,560 for those in the middle, and $490,830 for those in the highest income group. In 2011 dollar values, these figures would be $169,080, $234,900, and $389,670, respectively. (p. 20-21)

Here we can see that a lot of the cost of child rearing is likely optional. Low income people can do it for $170,000, so they could only get a 2008 Lexus instead.

If we look at page 26, there’s a complete breakdown of the numbers. Low income people made on average $38k, medium made $80k, and high made $180k. So, we can calculate that, low income people spent about 1/4 of their yearly income on a child, medium income spent about 1/6, and high income spent about 1/9. Because this number is based on having two children, it means you average poor 2-child family would spend half their income on a child, medium would spent a third, and high would spend about a quarter. So, as you get money, you spent a smaller proportion of it on children.

****

housing accounted for the largest share across income groups, comprising 30 to 32 percent of total expenses on a child in a two-child, husband-wife family. For families in the middle-income group, child care/education (for those with the expense) and food were the next largest average expenditures on a child. (p. iv)
…
Food was the second largest expense on a child for families in the lowest income group, accounting for 18 percent of total expenditures. Food was the third largest expense on a child for families in the middle income group, accounting for 16 percent of total expenditures. Transportation made up 13 to 15 percent of total child-rearing expenses over the income groups. (p. 11)

Housing is the biggest expense. The study calculated housing by the cost of adding extra bedrooms to the price of a house. You could save money by buying cheaper real estate or jamming or making your kids share rooms or change the basement into the room (both strategies my family used at various times).

If we look at page 26, you can see that costs vary a lost, although, food, clothing, and healthcare vary less, while child care, miscellaneous, transportation, and housing vary by a much larger proportion. This suggests you can only save (or overspend) so much on eating, clothes, and health, but a lot of housing, transportation, and miscellaneous costs are optional. Child care varied the most, so this could either be optional, or simply be that higher income people used proportionately more of it to gain those higher incomes.

****

Overall annual child-rearing expenses were highest for husband-wife families in the urban Northeast, followed by families in the urban West and urban Midwest; families in the urban South and rural areas had the lowest child-rearing expenses. (p. iv)

So, choose where you live when you want a family to save on housing costs. If you live in a lower cost area, it costs less. Pretty self-explanatory. Steve Sailer wrote an interesting article on this kind of thing before, give it a check.

****

For all three income groups, food, transportation, clothing, and health care expenses on a child generally increased as the child grew older. As children age, they have greater nutritional needs so consume more food. Transportation expenses were highest for a child age 15 to 17, when he or she would start driving. Child care and education expenses were generally highest for a child under age 6. (p. 12)

Interesting, I though babies would be more expensive. Kids eat more as they age and young children use more child care. Makes sense. Learning to drive increases transportation expenses, probably due to buying your kid a car, so tell your kid to get a job and buy his own car.

****

Compared with expenditures for each child in a husband-wife, two-child family, husband-wife households with one child spend an average of 25 percent more on the single child, and those with three or more children spend an average of 22 percent less on each child. (p. 17).

So, as Bryan Caplan pointed out, children get cheaper the more  you have of them. For the middle income family, a single child would cost $294k, 2 children would cost $470k ($235k each), and 3 would cost $550k ($183k each). For a lower income family, one would cost $211k, 2 would cost you $338k,  and 3 would cost $395k.

For a middle income family: the first child costs you $294k, the second costs you $176k (60% of the cost of the first), while the third costs you only $80k (27% of the first).

For a lower income family: the first child costs you $211k, the second costs you $127k (60% of the cost of the first), while the third costs you only $57k (27% of the first).

So if you decide to have children, have three or more. Your third child has a 73% discount on the cost of the first, a steal. You can also save a lot by adopting a lower income lifestyle.

****

Conclusion:

Kids cost a lot, about as much as a Ferrari, but which would add more value to your life?

A lot of child rearing expenses are optional as evinced by the fact low income families can raise kids on less costs than other families. Housing is the biggest expense and a lot of the costs are optional. Children can be a lot cheaper if you buy less house, squeeze the kids in, and buy in a cheaper area.

Your first kid costs a lot of money, your second costs a fair amount, but your third kid and beyond cost very little, so, if you do have children have a lot. The marginal costs of the additional children after the second are very low.

Discussion on Game

I posted a review of Bang yesterday and this prompted me to think on if I will apply game in my own life.

I’m still on the fence about game. I’m a Christian, so casual sex is not something I plan to pursue, this seems to take away the most immediate reason to learn game.

Right now I plan on being a patriarch, not a player, so I am looking for a wife, and do not want to ruin that prospect with the player’s curse.

On the other hand, I do want to be an alpha male patriarch, not a whipped beta schlub. So, MMSL-style marriage game is something I want to pursue when I get married to keep my marriage happy and my wife attracted to me.

But for the mean-time prior to marriage I’m not sure.

Mentu’s advice on Christian game creates a really convincing argument for Christian men to learn game.

On the other hand, I do not want game to be necessary to attract my future wife though.

So, the conclusion I’ve come to for now it to slowly learn the basics of game over time, in particular confident movement and posture, outcome independence, and social/conversational skills. The kind of basic, underlying attitudes that will enhance my life apart from picking up girls, and will not require me to continually monitor myself and my techniques to keep my wife I gamed from leaving me.

I also plan to get myself into shape.

Apart from that, I won’t meet a girl to be my wife if I don’t get over my approach anxiety, so I plan to practice approaching women, not really gaming them, but simply to get over the anxiety.

Next month I’m going out of the country for a few weeks with family. I plan to practice some approaches to get over the anxiety then, when I have opportunities, as there will be less, but still some, social risk to (awkwardly) approaching women from another country who I’ll never see again. We’ll see how that goes.

The goal is to have the base attitudes of game by 30. Then depending on what I choose for my life, I can add on to the base as necessary.

Lightning Round – 2012/06/12

Welcome back to the Lightning Round, we’ve got a large one today.

The emotions and our genetic drives of red-pill nihilism are just as enslaving and meaningless as blue-pill delusions. In a somewhat related post, Roissy talks of how players lose the ability to find divine love in their quest for meaningless sex.

Feminism is the ideological justification for female childlessness. No matter how much utopian ideologies may ignore it; choices have consequences.

Apocalypse Nowish gives one of the clearest, most straightforward explanations of how the banking system and the government are colluding to rob you.

In surprising news, a study shows government size and economic growth are negatively correlated. The Captain had already pointed out what could have been.

In related news, it seems Americans lost 20 years of wealth  between 2007 and 2010, and everybody makes less except seniors. Related: We are becoming a rental generation and the government refuses to learn from past mistakes.

But, Fearsome Pirate has hope that progressivism can be smashed, while Zero Hedge calls us to have courage in the fight against the tyrants.

Some are not so hopeful. Noting that in fact, Canada is actively destroying itself.

Zero Hedge says bring it on, the solution to our problems is collapse.

The Captain asks “Is it me, or is there something wrong with everybody else?”, and concludes it’s everybody else. Red-pill thinking requires a certain amount of arrogance.

Wintery Knight points out that young Christians are abandoning the fight in an anti-intellectual compartmentalization of the faith. Will S comments. If Christians give up on changing the culture, what then do we have?

****

Much has been written on Christian relationships in the manosphere in the last week:

Athol notes that the Bible was written for when men were all alphas under the law, so it recommends beta behaviour, but when culture betaized men, this created hardcore mode for Christian men.

Dalrock points out that the celibate boyfriend is non-biblical. All Christian relationships should be geared towards sex as soon as possible, within marriage.

UMan coins the phrase girligious and notes that Christian marriage has the advantage of a “a rule book written thousands of years ago” in our battle to preserve traditional marriage.

****

I knew men committed more suicide, but I never knew it was quite this bad. One possible cause could be that boys are persecuted by the public schools.

Wintery Knight points out the lie that homosexual couples are as good for raising children as straight couples. Related: A homosexual Mormon enjoys a happy an fulfilling heterosexual marriage and family.

Some people still blindly defend the worthless university system and encourage the degree bubble.

Every time I doubt the Conservative Party (and voting in general), they do some small thing that encourages me.

Ummm… No. Chivalry is for ladies, and there are few ladies nowadays.

(h/t: Instapundit, SDA, Wintery Knight, Save Capitalism)

Lightning Round – 2012/06/05

Some sad news for the Manosphere: Ferd is shutting down In Mala Fide. I wrote on this already, but it bears repeating.

In other Manosphere news, the Captain is creating an intro guide with links.

INTJ’s seem overrepresented in the Manosphere. There must be something about analytical, socially awkward individuals that attracts them here.

CDM-N has some advice for Christian ladies looking to become marriageable.

Questions for budding patriarchs: do you practice and live what you preach? I haven’t, but I hope to create this.

The Captain finds a humorous video.

Interesting that this is coming from a mainstream magazine. Wonder if this will help change anything?

Waiting until her thirties can really reduce a women’s options.

Oh Spain. Too bad TNR doesn’t really connect their ideology with what’s happening there.

Only the government could lose money on a Timmies in Canada.

The social gospel types in the Catholic Church are reaping what they sowed.

(h/t Instapundit)