Don't Want Immigrants? Then Have More Babies -- Uncomfortable Ideas About Demographics No One Is Honest About

*I generally refuse to publish unedited or sloppy blog posts, and so, with the time crunch that has come from having a second child, I have hundreds of rough drafts and never publish them. This blog post, as soon as the baby wakes up, wherever I am in the draft, I am going to hit publish. So it won't be perfect or remotely up to my standards. My husband says that my B-level work is still very worth reading. So... I apologize for the quality of this post. I hope he is right and it is still worth reading!*

This study made big news:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

Populations around the world are expected to decline in a big way in the next hundred years. For some reason, educated, working women do not want to have enough babies to replace themselves. There is nothing Japan can do to get their women to have babies. Nothing Europe can do. They have "tried everything." Except an honest conversation about the problem.

All countries following the Western model need positive population growth. Why? Because of the Ponzi scheme that is their system of taking care of old people. Uncomfortable truth #1: We don't HAVE to take care of old people. It sure it a nice thing to try to do, but it is literally costing us children. Entire peoples may disappear from the world because the burden was too great. Mother Nature didn't intend for people to live so long, and those peoples who dedicate their resources to prolonging the lives of their old rather than caring for their young, those who try to defy Mother Nature, will perish, if not immediately, slowly, over generations. Dear Old People, Every five years you live past 65 costs you a grandchild. How many years passed 65 do you really want to live?

[Note: Many 65 year olds are still productive. I told a doctor friend of mine that I wanted to die with dignity while death was still a choice that I could consciously make, and she recommended that from the age of fifty on I get a cognitive evaluation every two years. Then I could measure my decline. The problem is that losing the ability/courage to die consciously will happen as part of the decline. Catching the right moment is hard. But if enough people tried to, we would have good data on the ideal time to say our goodbyes. (E.g. Maybe once you decline by more than 60% you will lose your ability to die consciously, so the right time to say your goodbyes is when you are at 70% and then at 65% you go.) I think many people, especially men, do go consciously. In The Myth of Male Power I read that the majority of suicides are committed by men over the age of 75. I wonder how many of these "tragic suicides" were actually acts of facing death bravely and rationally.]

Because Western countries must have population growth and their own people are not breeding, immigrants must be imported to prop up the system. Uncomfortable question: Are we sure that the freedom of the West isn't a breed expression of Native Europeans rather than something that any culture can acquire? We know that different types of ants build different types of homes, different types of bees build very different types of hives, etc., but the media and social sciences pretend all human breeds are the same. (Biological sciences no longer pretend this.) The question is: how similar CAN we be? Because the Western system is based on an extreme individualism that has not been able to work successfully in any of the collectivist nations where it has been tried. It is extreme individualism that leads to free societies and free societies that innovate. There are immigrants who become extreme individualists, but that is the exception rather than the rule--just Google the demographics of the Libertarian party.

A hundred years ago Native Europeans had a 25% market share of the world population. Today they have 10%. By the end of the century it will be 5%. Importing immigrants to sustain population will only work long term if those immigrants CAN become extreme individualists. Uncomfortable truth #2: For immigrants to become extreme individualists, we need to be encouraging assimilation, not cultural retention, the melting pot, not the salad bowl. And we need to fight any tribalism we see arising in Western countries. Dear Hong Kongers: You were nurtured in individualism for centuries, did you become individualists? Will you fight China for your freedom now or join the oppressive collective? Can individualism really be taught?

We don’t HAVE to constantly import immigrants. We could not support our old people instead. Or, we could tell American women the truth: Don’t want immigrants? Don’t want demographic change? Have more babies. But instead we get the message to have less babies because of overpopulation and no one understands why all the immigrants.

Uncomfortable truth #3: Don't forget IQ. The immigrants must not just be able to adopt extreme individualism to get humans to Mars, they must have high enough IQs. Instead, we live in Idicoracy. It's not just immigrant IQs that are a problem, but the breeding population in general. The army won't employ people with IQs lower than 84 because they will always cost more than they are capable of producing. Just as every five years an old person lives past the age of 65 another grandchild isn't born, every low IQ immigrant and every low IQ person who breeds, every person with an IQ of 84 or lower costs the birth of another baby with an IQ of 116 or higher.

If doing your part to help humanity meant not breeding and supporting others in their breeding, would you do it? Interestingly enough, smart liberals do this every day. They don't breed because of overpopulation, but they support high tax initiatives to support the children of the low IQ who breed even if they can't care for their children. Smart conservatives do this every day as well, through charity and adoption.

Uncomfortable truth #4: Africa is the only area of the world with positive population growth. But would it have positive population growth without Western charity? Are we not just choosing our old people over our own children being born, but African children over our own children being born? Dear Atlases of the World: The world needs more of you, not more of the people you carry. Stop carrying other peoples children and start making your own.

Industrialization leads to a plummeting of fertility rates. Uncomfortable truth #5: Another road to greater fertility in industrialized nations is allowing children back into the labor force. Perhaps with more regulations and oversight than there was 200 years ago. Children used to be so useful that people had lots of them. The Amish still put their kids to work and they have positive population growth. Simply allowing children to be useful again (maybe just a little?) could enable our old people Ponzi scheme to keep going. My eight year old worked thirty hours a week last year on a TV show, finished two grade levels, and had play time. But then, he learns quickly and has a  full-time mom, not sure most kids could do that. But they could probably manage working twenty hours a week and finishing one grade level with play time. Allowing children to be useful doesn't HAVE to mean coal mines and no play time.

Maybe I should not call these uncomfortable truths but rather uncomfortable conversations we should be having?

Uncomfortable truth #6: Oppressing women also leads to positive population growth. If educating women and allowing them in the labor force leads to the destruction of entire societies ... why on Earth would we do that? We are more interested in being fair than in being alive? Discussing this with my friends in Nicaragua, many women would actually be very happy to "be oppressed" at home with the children ... as long as their husbands do not beat them and do not abandon them. Women are forced into the workforce, not always because they want to be there, but because it is not safe to stay home with the kids. If you forgo your career (like I did) then your marriage better work out. It is super risky and makes the woman super vulnerable. In fact, being a mom who stayed home with her kids is one of the greatest predictors of poverty in old age. But we don't HAVE to solve this problem by sending women into the workforce. The problem could also be solved by not allowing men to have second, younger wives. (That's what happens in Nicaragua.) Strict marriage laws that forbid second marriage, stricter infidelity laws, stricter divorce laws, or just societal pressure could suffice to get women back at home raising babies. Or maybe second wives are fine, but no second families i.e. you have to marry a woman your own age. Or maybe divorce is only allowed after the children are grown, and your first wife is entitled to half your paycheck for the rest of her life. (I actually think that's how it should always be. Married men with wives at home should bring home two paychecks, one for him and one for his wife. Then they can negotiate spending from there. Too many stay at home women feel powerless to negotiate with their husbands as they see the money as "his.") If this sounds horrible to men, remember, in exchange you get the workforce back! No more tiptoeing and sensitivity training! No more sexual harassment lawsuits! No more sexist hires!

[Note: I am tossing out possible solutions in order to point out that we don't HAVE to do things the way we are doing. If the ideal of life is self-realization, no one will be married for very long, because self-realization requires growth and staying with the same person doesn't lead to that. But that is not the exercise in this post. The exercise is how to deal with non-replacement level fertility rates in developed nations i.e. the question implies coercion/statism immediately because individualists would not care about such things.]

Uncomfortable truth #7: Democracy doesn’t work. Aristotle pointed out that democracy will always lead to socialism, because in order to get votes, those in power offer free stuff. There always has to be more free stuff to beat the last guy, so socialism is inevitable. This could be postponed by only giving
the vote to the producers in society, not the leeches. And that seems fair to me. Those of us paying taxes should get a vote. Old people no longer paying taxes shouldn’t and anyone on welfare definitely not. Just throwing out ideas.

And lastly, respectful parenting hinges on a highly individualist society. Collectivists cannot be respectful to their children because their children are soldiers for their tribe, not free agents to lead lives of self-realization. Collectivist societies suck. But they might outcompete individualist societies because we are can’t seem to join together to protect and defend our culture. Individualism, as beautiful and innovative as it is, will be gone if we individuals do not join together and stand up for it ... and if we don’t breed. But as individualists -- do we even care?

A Proposal for a Meaningful Halloween Ritual/Party

I love meaningful rituals--they feel magical--and I love holidays as a reason to have them. One day I will hold Halloween celebrations at the Gulch thus:

There are many jack-o'-lanterns (that we made earlier) leading up a forest trail to the top of the mountain. They are lit and look magical in the darkness.

We begin as soon as soon as the sun sets. Each guest has an appointed time to meet the host, Death, alone.

Death, wearing a long black cloak and a mask, greets the guest thus:

"At midnight all is blackness. We sleep, like babies in the womb. And then the dawn, we wake and the morning brings with it the brightness and energy of childhood. By noon the sun is beating down upon us; our energy has waned, but we continue on with our work – there is still much to get done. Then it is evening; we are glad the day is at an end and proud (perhaps) of what we have accomplished; we feast. Darkness falls, and we head to bed, appreciating the comfort our loved ones bring.     This is also the year. It starts in darkness, quiet, the womb. The world wakes up, the energy of spring. The summer is toilsome, work, exhausting. Then the harvest, lovely, and we are ready for rest, the cold and dark – death.     There is a rhythm to life. We die every night; we die every year; we die in practice.     Most likely, we will die how we lived. This is the path for those who would live –and die – as heroes."

Death's arm opens out in, inviting the guest to leave him and walk the path up the mountain alone. The hopeful hero heads to the base of the mountain, the first jack-o-lantern. A second cloaked figure stands there, at the base of the trail. When the guest approaches, he says:

"Before long you will be no one, and nowhere. Like all the things you see now. All the people now living." (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations)

The cloaked figure invites the guest to repeat this quote back to him, to memorize it. Then he nods the guest on, perhaps handing him a goblet of spiced cider or a golden chocolate coin to enjoy on his journey.

Up the path the guest walks alone toward the first light he sees in the distance, another pumpkin with a magnificent, glowing face. He arrives. There stands another cloaked figure. This one says:

"It is our destiny to perish. So that new things can be born. To decompose, so that our atoms can be recomposed into something new." (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations)

Again the guest is invited to repeat this back, to memorize it. Again the cloaked figure invites the guest to proceed up the path alone.

At the third light, another cloaked figure says:

"All too often families and pastors and even medical staff assume that all a dying person wants is to be comfortable. Once the death sentence is passed, we tend to fluff up the pillows and hope, for his or her sake, that death will come soon. We are terribly anxious about pain and seek the latest medications, most of which deaden the mind as well as the body. I am not prepared to say that this is all wrong. But I do believe we have our priorities confused. Someone's life is about to end. Surely, there are important things for that person to say and do before he dies. [As you continue up the path, ponder this: Is there anything you would like to say or do before you die that you would like to say or do tonight?]" (Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, Death: The Final Stage of Growth)

Again the cloaked figure invites the guest to proceed up the path alone.

At the fourth light, a new cloaked figure says:

"Hospitals are institutions committed to the healing process, and dying patients are a threat to that defined role…. The human being who is dying is inexorably perceived to be a failure to the health professionals.... [This is tragic because] what dying people need is acceptance, they need to know it's okay for them to die, that it is natural, that they have not failed, that everyone will be okay. They need permission to die. The other thing dying people need is company, just someone to sit with them, because they are feeling scared and company is comforting.... You cannot help the dying until you have acknowledged how their fear of dying disturbs you and brings up your most uncomfortable fears.... If you don't look at and accept that face of panic and fear in yourself, how will you be able to bear it in the person in front of you.... If you are attached and cling to the dying person, you can bring him or her a lot of unnecessary heartache and make it very hard for the person to let go and die peacefully. [Worse, throwing a dying person on your shoulders and carrying them, insisting that they do not die, helps neither them nor you make their death journey meaningful, beautiful, or easy. Can you be comfortable enough with death so that you do not rob the dying of their death journey? Of their chance of having a heroic death? A death that is about them and acceptance and not about fear or you and your discomforts? As you continue up the path: Imagine you are at the bedside of the person you love most in the world, and he or she is dying. Can you give him or her the gift of permission and company?" (Sogyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying)

Again the cloaked figure invites the guest to proceed up the path alone.

At the fifth light, a new cloaked figure says:

"There was a young man who dedicated nineteen years of his life to caring for his dying mother. He was young when she developed Alzheimers and forgot who she was, needed diapers, and full-time care. He put off his life, his education, his career, marriage, and having children. He spent a fortune, everything he had in time and money, caring for her. He had a falling out with his sister about it. His sister wanted their mother to be allowed to die. The man couldn't do other than what he did. He had to care for his mother; that is what a good son would do, he thought. But when asked if he would ever want one of his children to care for him the way he had cared for his mother he said, 'Never. I would never do that to anyone. I would not want that.' And he cried. Why do we assume anyone would want that? Have you clearly communicated to your loved ones your wishes, so that they do not make this mistake? This is especially important if you have money. If you have money to leave behind and you don't communicate your wishes to your family, you may be choosing dementia in a nursing home on endless pharmaceuticals for twenty years, which is, in effect, choosing to disinherit your children and leave everything to Big Pharma. "

Again the cloaked figure invites the guest to proceed up the path alone.

At the sixth light, the new cloaked figure says:

"The invalid is a parasite on society. In a certain state it is indecent to go on living. To vegetate on in cowardly dependence on physicians and medicaments after the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost ought to entail the profound contempt of society. Physicians, in their turn, ought to be the communicators of this contempt – not prescriptions, but every day a fresh does of disgust with their patients.... [The hero wants] To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death of one's own free choice, death at the proper time, with a clear head and with joyfulness, consummated in the midst of children and witnesses: so that an actual leave-taking is possible while he who is leaving is still there.... He who has a goal and an heir will want death at the right time for his goal and heir. And from reverence for his goal and heir he will hang no more dry wreaths on the sanctuary of life. [As you continue up the path: Do you have a goal and heir?] (Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols)

Again the cloaked figure invites the guest to proceed up the path alone.

Now the guest reaches the top of the mountain. There is a fire, a bubbling cauldron full of sweet smelling cider, a feast laid out on a table, and one last cloaked figure who says:

"When I first began studying the Viking myths, I thought Valhalla was similar to Heaven, a tool for those in power to use. Heaven was for the good boys and girls who did as their priests instructed. Valhalla, I thought, was for those who died in battle as their king bid them. But as I delved more into the Viking mythology I realized that Valhalla is a heroic death, heldentod. A heroic death is a meaningful death, a chosen death. To go to Valhalla one cannot die of sickness or old age; one cannot die in fear. He chooses his death and gives it as a gift to those he loves, showing them how to die, how to die beautifully, gloriously, bravely, and meaningfully. Every night the hero goes to bed exhausted, having worked so hard that he is all used up and looking forward to nothing more than rest. The same can be said about the twilight of his life. Are you working hard enough to look forward to your final rest? Sogyal Rinpoche said, "For someone who has prepared and practiced, death comes not as a defeat but as a triumph, the crowning and most glorious moment of his life." ( The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying)

The cloaked figure shows the guest to the open, simple, wooden coffin under a tree nearby. If the guest wishes, he may lie in it for a time, meditating on his future death.

Once all the guests have arrived we will feast. We will toast fallen heroes and loved ones, share stories of heroic deaths and at the end, perhaps share the story of Beowulf.

Then we will feast and dance and sing songs.

The next morning at brunch, the host will say:

"Until the last hundred years it was considered very rude to not be aware of your own impending death and to not prepare accordingly. The work of the living, the work of survival, was understood as never ending and difficult. It was inconsiderate for the dead to leave work for those who survived them. It would have been unspeakably rude for an elderly person to leave an entire house of things for someone else to process when they had passed.

"Today you are invited to do the work of a conscientious death. You are invited: to right your wrongs, pay off debts, say to people what you don't want to miss out on getting to say, do to people what you don't want to miss out on getting to do, make sure your life insurance policy is paid up, make sure your will is up to date, and get rid of stuff you no longer need. If you haven't already, you are encouraged to share your will and your death wishes with your family.

"Today is also a great day to spend contemplating the words, stories, wisdom, and useful medical information you would like to leave behind to your descendants. Every year I add to The Book of Roslyn. This evening at dinner, everyone is invited to read a short section from their own book or a book of one of their ancestors."

This same ritual could also be fantastic if done as an evening walk through a graveyard.

Would love feedback on this! Would you want to come to my party? Would you want to come every year until you had memorized the various quotes? Would you want to be a cloaked figure? Do you know of a better quote about death or an aspect of it that I forgot to cover?

Happy Halloween!

A Different Way to Think About Death: Dying People Need Our Permission To Die and Company While They Do So

I've been reading book about death for a while, wanting to grasp the psychology of it, wanting to know more about my own future. One thing that struck me is that those who care for the dying say they need two things above all: permission to die and company while they do so. In our society today we are terrible at meeting that first need.

What do we do when we see a dying creature?

In some times and places compassion for a dying animal meant giving it a quicker death. Now it means fixing it, at all costs, and caring for it, if necessary, for the rest of its life. Now it means prolonging its death for as long as possible. And if it is dying and there is nothing we can do, lying about it.

What we are doing, that we claim to do in the name of compassion, is not compassion. It is avoidance of pain and fear of death.

We, the living, don't want to confront death. We would rather the burden of carrying a dying creature for fifty years than a week at his bedside holding his hand while he dies. Yet that is what the dying need, I have read. Not to be our burden. No one wants to be a burden.

We know this, deep down, that no one will accept burden status, so we lie to them. We tell stories to make them feel entitled to being burdens; we play a dishonest psychological game with ourselves pretending that they are not burdens, that it is meaningful to carry them, that good people are genuinely happy to do so, that it is their right to be carried, that they deserve it, etc.

But this dishonesty is not kind because dying people need two things: our permission to die and company while they do so.

To turn them into a burden and then lie to them, telling them they are not a burden, is to deprive them of our permission to die.

More than denying them permission, it gives them the message that they are bad to die. It also deprives them of a possible meaningful death.

"Am I a burden to you?" What if they need to hear that they are? What if that is what will give them the strength to face what is perhaps the scariest thing a person will ever have to face? What if we said, "You are a burden to me, a heavy one. I am struggling under the weight of carrying you. But I will carry you, until you are ready to go."

The journey of death is the journey of acceptance. How can the dying find meaning in their death if we refuse to? What if their death could have meaning? What if instead of their death being a failure, it can be a gift they give those who survive them, a lightening of the burdens of the living?

The faceless society cannot bear the dying, individual people must. Because it is the desire to not burden those individuals that gives the dying the strength to go, that enables their death to be a gift. I would so much rather my death be a gift to those I love than a traumatizing event that causes them pain.

Not saying we should run around telling people to die. Not saying death will ever not be painful. But I would like to see a cultural shift in our attitudes about death and especially about choosing to die instead of live and the many times it is a highly rational choice. We treat death as such a tragedy, but it is the fate of each and every one of us. It is not a failure on the part of the dying person. Memes talk about the "courage" of those "fighting cancer" in their "battle against death." I think that often the far more courageous choice is actually the choice to go gracefully. Sometimes the battle is desperation and fear. Especially when I see pictures of courageous toddlers fighting to survive and destroying the lives of all those around them in the process. The toddler isn't courageous of course. And neither are the parents. It is not courageous to sign up for twenty years of medical bill slavery so that a sick child can die in his teens instead of now. Facing death, your own and the death of those you love, is often the far more courageous choice.

Someone wrote to ask me about my position on the elderly and here is what I have to say: In Tibetan Buddhism it is said that a person spends the first half of his life learning to live and the second half learning to die. The elderly are those in the final stages of learning to die. They should never be infantilized nor turned into burdens against their own wishes. Their death is natural and right and should not be prevented or prolonged, rather it should be treated as sacred, beautiful, and theirs.

The dying need two things from the living: permission to die and company while they do so. Most people die today, sadly, without the former. Like labor, the "no" instead of the "yes" can make the experience last much longer than it would have otherwise. Death can be dragged on for years if someone is given the message that their death will cause pain to others.

And the latter not everyone actually needs, just most people. I will want someone to hold my hand. But many people are so connected to their spirituality that they don't need anyone there. If that is the message an elderly person gives by choosing to stay in his own home alone, so be it. He doesn't want to be a burden. That is actually far more natural and right than convincing him he would not be a burden. He should be praised as heroic, honest, emotionally aware, brave, and generous. It is not sad to know that, no matter how much your family loves you, caring for you would be a burden for them – a burden they would bear, but a burden you don't wish them to bear. It is beautiful to refuse to be their burden, beautiful to give them that gift.

Perhaps this isn't a new way to think about death at all. I have read of hunter gatherer tribes in which the old were expected to get lost in the forest. That was how they died. No one offered to carry them. No one insisted the tribe go slower. Similarly, old vikings, when they saw that they were becoming burdens on the living, left to fight in a battle. They did it consciously, knowing they would not survive the fight. They said their goodbyes and then picked a cause to die for. Of course, their main cause was that gift they wanted to give their families. Because life was understood to be endless toil and death was understood to be rest, it was easy to talk about the burden of caring for the old. Contrast that with today, when we can't seem to have honest conversations about death at all.

A Reader Asks: Do I Make Enough Money To Have Kids?

I recently received a message on Facebook from a couple that are interested in having children, but are worried that they don't make enough for the woman to be a full-time mom, and they were curious what I spend on Anders.

Before I share what I spend on Anders, here are some things that I know:

1) There is a wealth of information about this on the internet that can be Googled. There are even cost calculators that you can do by geographic area. Assume that your costs will be higher than those listed if you will not be feeding your child fake food. Also, cheap plastic diapers and wipes gave Anders diaper rash, so we used the Seventh Generation brand which is much more expensive. We used plastic diapers when we were out. We used cloth diapers at home, but I did not wash them myself, I had a diaper service. You could save money by using cloth diapers and washcloths and washing them yourself. Also, I was never willing to use the cheapest childcare available for Anders (daycares), so my child care costs (high quality babysitters) were always higher than what the websites list as well.

2) I read that parents spend about 33% of their expendable income on their first kid. If they have a second child that number goes up to 41%. If they have a third child that number goes to 47% and after that it stays around there, just under 50% regardless of how many children the couple has.

So my first thought is: Do you have expendable income?

Note that at my house, one cannot say, "No." Because my husband worked minimum wage jobs for ten years and during that time lived on just 20% of his income. No joke. So literally no one can tell him that they "can't save."

Now, what my husband did, I do not think most people are capable of doing. The sacrifices he made blow my mind. He parked miles from venues but never once paid for parking until he was over thirty years old. He periodically slept in his car for a few months to save on rent. He shared a studio apt with three other people. He couch surfed for years while working and saving. He worked as a bus boy at a restaurant and only ate the free food from there. The only food he was willing to pay for was Ramen noodles and cans of tuna fish. He drove a car with no a/c and a busted window in Los Angeles for over half a decade. He did not go out to eat or to movies - ever. He did not pay for books or movies, he only rented from the library. Stuff like that.

If you have a dream and you can make these sacrifices for it, even working minimum wage jobs, you can save. So, regardless of how much you make, what is your savings rate? Assume that 30% of your income needs to go to your child and another 10% needs to be saved each year, can you live on 60% of your income?

Surprise! If you were married to my husband, saving 10% would not fly. He would say you should save a minimum of 30%. Assume you will spend 30% on the child and save 30%. Can you live on 40% of your income? Start experimenting now to see. How does it feel to make those sacrifices? Because if you are not happy to do it now, when you are getting enough sleep, you will feel much less happy about doing it when you are a bleary-eyed, sleep-deprived parent.

If you are going to have a child you should definitely have six months of income stashed in a savings account for emergencies. If you are Mormon, you have to have an entire year. Do you have that?

3) Another thing I know is that, from the book, The Price of Motherhood, if the woman makes less than 50k a year, it is a better financial decision for her to stay home than it is for her to work. This is because the costs of childcare and taxes negate the entire worth of the woman's salary if it is below 50k. If you haven't read that book, I recommend it.

4) For Tom and me, our highest value is health. I would consider it cruel to have a child that I couldn't afford to feed a nutritionally-dense diet. Can you afford to feed your child real, chemical-free food? If not, start making friends with local organic farmers.

Also, remember that you need to prepare your body for two years before you have the child to maximize the DNA you pass on (this is from what I have read about epigenetics). Have you been doing that? Have you read about the pregnancy-prep diet in Nourishing Traditions?

5) Tom and I take pride in our family being "hard to kill." Are you prepared for black swan emergencies? Do you have a gun and know how to use it, gold and silver coins, medical supplies, batteries, and two months of stored water and food and a way to cook that food if there is no power? If you live in a cold climate and the power is out, how will you heat your home? Do you have a wood stove and two months of back up wood? *Assume it is not safe to leave your home for two months and figure out how you will survive. If you are Mormon, assume a year. (I really respect the Mormons in this area!)

In addition, have you taken an EMT class? Not CPR, that is basically useless, EMT. Have you studied a martial art, hopefully krav maga so that you can protect your family if there is ever an emergency?

Remember that children cost a lot more in time than they do in money. Assume that your family will now be your hobby. After work, are you happy to skip your favorite activity or show/video game and instead go to krav maga for your family? For the next year, experiment with having no down time. Instead, spend your free time on your unborn child – working extra to get the emergency food stash, money, and skills you need for your family to be hard to kill. How does that feel? Are you happy to be a king instead of a squire? If not, you will most likely not enjoy having a family. (The king/squire comment is referencing this post. If you have not read it, I recommend it: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2016/07/living-right-story-parents-as-kings-and.html)

6) Finally, what do I spend on Anders every year? I don't have the info with me for the first few years, but in both 2015 and 2016 we spent about 18.5k, not including food or plane tickets. Here is the breakdown:

2015 (Anders was 3)

$10k on childcare
$5k on classes, camps, experiences, books, and toys. (We buy almost no toys, opting instead for experiences and camps.)
$100 on haircuts
$2.5k on health, this includes insurance (catastrophic coverage only), and dental apts. Keep in mind dental costs would be a lot higher if we agreed to fill his cavities. And medical costs would be higher if we went to the doctor for "checkups."
$900 on clothes

2016 (Anders was 4)

$4k on childcare
$11k on classes, camps, experiences, books, and toys.
$150 on haircuts
$2.5k on health, this includes insurance (catastrophic coverage only), and dental apts.
$1k on clothes

Food costs an additional $1k per month if we are feeding Anders in Los Angeles and an additional $200 a month if we are feeding him in Nicaragua.

Thoughts:

-Where you live matters the most. If you live in Nicaragua and make 30k, you are rich. Like, maid, cook, driver rich. If you make 200k in Los Angeles, you still can't afford those things.

-There are ways to do kids for a lot less than what I spend, of course. If you have a social network that you can rely on for hand-me-downs, that can save you money. Goodwill is a great option, but it's a big time investment. If you get the plastic tubs now and start hitting the store once a week, you could have a good collection of clothes two years from now when you need them. It doesn't work to go there when you need the clothes, as you will leave with only one or two items each time you go.

-If you have relatives nearby that would babysit once a week for a full day, that would help significantly. You will need time off. After Anders was a newborn, Tom and I got zero help from our families. Many families try to do without time off. I think that, except for a select few, this doesn't work. I think planning to have no time off is basically planning to end up divorced.

-When Anders was younger we didn't go to any classes (except for his RIE baby class), so I imagine those costs were negligible. There are free classes offered at libraries and through homeschooling networks that I know are available, but in general I found them to be not what I was looking for. I think that if Tom and I had a stronger social network (which would require being more mainstream) they might have been.

-I don't think kids need their own rooms until they are much older. So one way to save money is to plan on sharing a room with your child until he/she really wants one of his/her own.

-I do think it's important for you to think about what will keep your family together. Because if you don't plan for it, your family will most likely disperse and then – what was the point of having kids? This means: Are you in a city near your own family? Are you in a city you could live in for the rest of your life? Are you in a city you would be proud to have your child live in for the rest of his/her life? Are you in a line of work that you can share with your child? Start thinking now about how you will involve your child in your work life. Start thinking now about your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Have you read The Little House books? They were poor, and they had a happy family life. But the children were malnourished and unable to produce viable offspring. For me, that is a big fail. They would have been better off limiting themselves to one child. Or staying in the big woods where they had the support of their families. Either way, the point is to start thinking long-term. Most people think that if the children survive to adulthood, the parents were successful. I disagree. I think the children must survive to adulthood and be better off physically, emotionally, and financially for the parenting to be deemed successful. (Note that I am not suggesting parents should be perfect, just that they should think realistically and long-term about their abilities to do better in all three areas than their own parents did.)

-Tom and I would save quite a bit of money if I would stop writing this blog, and instead spend my free time growing veggies, preserving food, taking Anders on hunting and fishing trips, and learning how to make our clothes and do basic home repairs. I recommend saving money by not starting a blog! :)

-If you can get your hands on The Baby Decision by Merle Bombardieri, I highly recommend it. And one of those books along the lines of 100 Questions to ask before getting married. I do not agree that love is enough. (I think one should breed primarily with one's head, not one's heart.) Values and long term plans should be addressed before the long term commitment is made.

-And finally, if you don't do any of these things that I recommend, and you decide to be what I would call "irresponsible," remember that because you read this blog you will probably still be better than 99.9% of the parents out there.

I give you sooooooo many point just for even considering these things before having kids!

Dynasties: How to Avoid "Blue Collar to Blue Collar in Three Generations"

 I am currently studying family systems, what leads families to stay together, and what tears them apart or encourages their dispersement. Seventy percent of all generational wealth transfers fail. And then there is the proverb that is, statistically speaking, almost always true: "Blue collar to blue collar in three generations." Why?

 

The story generally goes like this: An ambitious middle-class man creates great wealth and starts a family dynasty. His children try not to mess it up, but mostly they are lazy and/or uncreative. The fortune is no long grows, rather, it stagnates. The grandchildren are worse than the children, even less creative, and sometimes despots, and now the fortune decreases. By the time the great-grandkids are grown, there is no fortune. The dynasty is over, and the family is back to blue collar work.

 

I have been coming up with theories about how families can fight the proverb since I began working for families who were dealing with these issues. For a long time, my answer has been: Your children are headed toward the mean because you are not raising them – middle class nannies and teachers are. Want your children to have your values, habits, and skills? You need to be the one who raises them.

 

But recently I have come to a second realization. In some ways, it only appears that the children are "not great" like the parents. And it only appears that the parents are all that great. Because most of the time it takes three generations to make the "great creator." I think the story is six generations long.

 

Generation 1: The pioneer generation. They struggle for survival in a new ecosystem. 

 

Concrete Example: A young man, raised by an unsuccessful Inn Keeper, decides to be a farmer as there is an opportunity for cheap land out west. He goes there. It is wilderness. It is far from anyone he knows. Though he knows how to run an inn, he does not actually know how to farm. And though his parents weren't ideal, at least he knew people in the town where he grew up. Now he knows no one. But he is hardworking and determined to make something of himself. Survival isn't easy or guaranteed at first, but he plugs away, clearing the land, breaking in the soil, building a tiny cabin, and saving. He marries and works his tail off to feed his offspring. He has to create a new family culture because the only thing he was able to learn from his own parents was what not to do. So, he does not turn to drink, does not divorce, does not indulge in overspending, etc, but he is a lot better at knowing what not to do than what to do.

 

Generation 2: The second generation continues what the pioneers began. With hard work and perseverance, they will do well, but they will never make it big. Outlying success will allude this generation.

 

Concrete Example: The children of the pioneer don't need to spend a decade breaking-in virgin soil, learning the native plants of this ecosystem, clearing the land, or even figuring out what values lead to success. They inherit this wealth of knowledge, and they improve upon it. They build bigger houses, barns, and better tools. They plant trees for beauty, not just for food. Their father was only ever able to think about the current year. Because they are already on top of that, they plan ten years ahead. They grew up knowing people in the area - small time farmers like themselves, so unlike their father, they have a support network (not to mention the best support network their is, successful family members nearby). They also build on the family culture. Their parents were good parents, but they want to be even better.

 

Generation 3: The outliers. They can do what their parents and grandparents could not. Biographies will be written about them. They will be heralded as the creators of a dynasty.

 

Concrete Example: The grandchildren of the pioneers are born into a family successful enough that they have free time. Their family farm is already productive and beautiful, so they focus on improving it even more, making it not just beautiful but glorious, and making it not just productive but top notch. They grew up watching their parents be alluded by the big leagues, and they know exactly what they need to do to go big. They go to school, and college. They network. They have a support network of a higher caliber than their parents did. Their family has now made it, and they are revered for their success.

 

But their childhoods are not given enough credit. Their parents and their grandparents, keeping it together despite the rigors of pioneering in a new field, are not given enough credit. Those who came before them don't become part of the family myth. Whether it's Stephen "Wonderboy" Thompson or Beyonce or Gwenyth Paltrow, the third-generation outlier becomes this heroic individual who did it with help from his parents, sure, but not to the extent that anyone imagines.

 

And now we get to their children.

 

Generation 4: How do you follow up a truly incredible parent? Hopefully the Generation 3 Outlier used his success to find the best possible mate he could and then settled into focusing on his own children. More likely, he will be seduced by his own success and not able to give it up. He will spend his life focusing on attaining even higher echelons of success. He will fail to raise his children. A child of an outlier, say, Beyonce's kids for example, has a choice when it comes to work:

-Don't work and live off the family money

-Try to outdo Mother

-Try to do my own thing (i.e. be a pioneer in a new field and/or ecosystem)

 

Family systems experts generally recommend to heirs that they do their own thing. Thus, they inevitably end up not being very impressive. The experts recommend having compassion for them. 

 

Much of the time, families return to pioneering before the third generation is even reached. Perhaps the family has bought into the cultural myth that everyone must have a One True Passion, and the point of childhood is to find it. Many in academia believe that if all children worked in fields different from their parents, they would not be able to benefit from nepotism, and the playing field would be leveled for all. If everyone was always a pioneer, we would all be equal!

 

The hard life of a pioneer is also often the end result of twenty-two years in school. Well-meaning parents deprive their children of the wealth of knowledge they would have received from a childhood at their side. So, they end up, at twenty-two, starting as a pioneer in their parent's business - a pioneer because even though it is their parent’s line of work, they have no experience in it.

 

The fourth-generation children, the children of outliers and successful people, will most likely never be that successful, not because they are lazy or losers or less than their parents, but simply because they are pioneering in a new field. They will struggle just to survive in their chosen career in ways that their parents cannot possibly understand.

 

A second or third generation success cannot fathom what it is like to arrive in the wilderness and learn an entire ecosystem. This is another reason why so many children of successful people choose to be pioneers – because the successful parents advising the children have no idea how hard it is. As a rule, the successful people were not pioneers. They think success is easy and anyone can do it.

 

Concrete Example: the generation-four child of the outlying farmer is told that he can do anything with his life. All he has to do is work hard and he will be a success like his father. So, he goes to college and studies film. When he graduates, he moves to Los Angeles to be a director. He spends his family's money lavishly and, though he is able to get a foothold, he doesn't find any success in his career. It is so depressing for him, measuring himself up against his father, that he turns to drink. He is a horrible parent to his own children.

 

Generation 5: Raised by a miserable father who drinks and beats his child.

 

Concrete Example: The child from this generation decides that the movie industry ruined his dad. His family still has enough money for him to go to college, so he studies something safe, like business. He gets a job in Chicago running an inn and, as a pioneer, struggles just to survive. He wasn't raised with any good examples of hard work, rather he grew up learning how to be depressed and drink his problems away. This is what he does.

 

Generation 6: Back to blue collar.

 

Concrete Example: The fortune is gone now. The family is now blue collar again. Generation 6 will not be able to afford college. This child is raised by an alcoholic failure who runs an inn. All he knows about his future is that he doesn't want to be like his father.

 

And so it starts over again

 

************

 

I think the proverb should be: "Blue collar to Blue Collar in Six Generations." And I think the problem is a general failure to understand that success takes generations to build.

 

So, what does this mean for you and your family or me and mine? I think it would be helpful for families to place themselves: Are you a pioneer, pioneering in a new line of work that you did not learn from your parents as a kid? Are you second generation, successful and perhaps even very wealthy, but not to the level that biographies will be written about you? Are you third generation, the outlier that most likely your child cannot top? 

 

If you are a pioneer, you will most likely think your career is a dead end. You will hope your child does something "better." College will fix it! This is your mistake.

 

I met a guy the other day named Matt. He never went to college. He was raised by a single mother, an immigrant. She worked a minimum wage job and could barely feed him when he was a kid. He quit school at sixteen. He is now forty-years-old and owns thirty two convenience stores. He makes a fantastic living. How did he pull that off?! Hint: He was not the pioneering generation.

 

His mother worked at a 7-11 for his entire childhood. She couldn't afford daycare, and they didn't know anyone, so he hung out at her 7-11 after school. He knew how to run the place by the time he was twelve. Started working there himself when he was fourteen. Saved up and bought his first 7-11 when he was twenty-five. Killed it. Most people who run 7-11's don't understand how to run them, he told me. He does.

 

The lesson: If you are a struggling pioneer don't assume your child will struggle as hard as you. You paved the way. Your child has been paying attention. Invite your child to your life. He will do it better. Don't assume your career is a dead end or you life isn't a worthy one to invite your child to join. If you can just keep it together, despite the insane difficulty of your life, your children will do great.

 

The other lesson: Many people would look at Matt, the guy who owns thirty-two convenience stores, and mistake him for the pioneering generation, after all, his mother never owned any convenience stores. This is not the case. Matt is the second generation in his family to work in the field of convenience stores. Unfortunately, because Matt chose a line of work his childhood had perfectly prepared him for, he thinks that anyone could do what he did, anyone willing to work hard can reach his level of success. That is the mistake the second generation makes.

 

And one more lesson: If pioneers can just provide their children with basic survival and a good parent-child relationship, the family will rise. But pioneers need to stick to it and not flail about.

 

Laura Ingles Wilder's story is a good example of pioneers that could have made it, but instead, flailed about, not settling down, not focusing on providing their children with enough nutrition for them to reproduce well. Their children lived to adulthood, so it seemed like they were successful. They probably told themselves that they were fine parents. Three of the daughters married. But there was only one grandchild for Ma and Pa Ingles and she could not have children. There were no great-grandchildren. The evidence points toward malnutrition related infertility, the physical degeneration Weston A. Price writes about. 

 

If you are second generation, your weakness will be having no idea how hard it is to be a pioneer. Picture Matt's mother and how successful she was, or Pa and Ma Ingles and how successful they were. If you sentence your child to the life of a pioneer, that will likely be that level of success, not yours.

 

Also, don't assume your kid wants to do his own thing if he knows the true choice. Don't send him down the pioneer track by sending him to a "good school" and being able to afford after school activities or a wife at home that prevents him from hanging out with you at the office all day. Your mistake will be one of ignorance, not appreciating what your parents did that you were able to build on. Be clear with your kids: You can be a pioneer, but you most likely will not find the level of success I have found. If you want to start studying the family business now (at seven years old) you have a chance at becoming an outlier.

The key take away is to be clear with children about the real choice. Hard work is not all it takes to reach a second generation level of success at a reasonable age.

 

For example, Laura Ingles Wilder found success as a pioneer in the in the field of writing – when she was seventy years old.

 

If you are adult second-gen who just realized how hard it is going to be to be a pioneer, but its too late to spend your childhood learning the family business, consider accepting your pioneer status and focusing on your children: They can be second generation in whatever field you are pioneering, or, if you raise them at Grandpa's office, they can take your place as the outlying, third generation.

 

Before I move on to third generation, it should be mentioned that staying at what I am calling second generation levels of success is something a family can actually maintain for many generations. The third generation doesn't have to become outliers. They can build on their family's wealth while focusing on their children. They can grow the company, but not be consumed by it. In fact, in my current studies of the institution of family, the most successful families (in terms of their long term ability to maintain a high level of wealth and stay together as a family) follow this model.

 

If you are third generation, and people are writing biographies about you, you are in the riskiest spot. If you have made outlying success, you will most likely struggle the most at parenting because your success keeps you stuck in the maiden/squire phase of life and because your children will grow up in your shadow.

 

You could try to lessen the shadow, toning it down at work. This would happen naturally if you let go of your maiden/squire phase. If your focus becomes your child, and you bring your child to life with you. What happens? You can't do as much. You have to slow down. If you are Beyonce, you do maybe three shows a year, and you prepare for them for months – they take a lot longer to prepare for because your five-year-old is there wanting to learn the dance routine too. You don't make quite as much money because your time is being poured into your child. But in the end, it's wonderful, because you are not a maiden trying to attract the attention of the highest status mate you can anymore. You are a mother now, trying to raise a child who can attract the highest quality mate. You can't buy a good mate for your kid. You can only focus on your child, helping her to become the best potential mate she can be.

 

That's how I can see a third generation successful family working. It is also currently the only way I can see outlying success work at all in a family that thinks in long-term ways (encourage outlying success in the young as a mating strategy, but once mated, get out of the limelight). Because otherwise, outlying successes are so difficult for the next generation to overcome, that I am not sure a family thinking long-term should even strive for it. In many ways those who choose outlying success for their career might consider forgoing having children as to do so is inconsiderate of them. The outlying success who continues to be so after his children are born is not a good parent, and if he ever does graduate from squire to king, he is the king who cannot give up his throne.

 

Another option for outlying families would be to take the child destined for a pioneer career, and your fourth generation child isn't going to follow your career, perhaps he can pick something you exposed him to, so he will have a better chance of not being a total pioneer. For example Brad Pitt's kids could consider architecture or directing or working for the UN. In this way maybe they can pull off (almost) second-generation status. Should they choose chemistry, they will be pioneers. It's fine to choose chemistry, but they should be made aware of the reality of the choice they are making.

 

Another strategy for a third generation parent is to have the child pick something when he is very young. In this way, both child and parent have ten to twenty years to learn about that field, giving the child possible second-generation status by middle age. The danger is that the parent will underestimate the level of involvement needed on his part, thinking that that $150/hr tutor is enough. The tutor is not enough. Every line of work is its own world, it's own ecosystem. If you own a soap business, you can buy your child acting lessons from the best teachers in the world, but if you don't take the time to meet people in the film business, and develop relationships with them, your child will end up a pioneer. 

 

Anyway, not saying there are not exceptions or that this is The One True Rule. It's just a trend that I have noticed.

 

You may not understand what I mean when I say "pioneer" unless you have read this post: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2015/03/nature-versus-nurture.html. You may not understand what I mean when I say "maiden" or "squire" later unless you have read this post: http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2016/07/living-right-story-parents-as-kings-and.html

 

What Maids, Cooks, Drivers, Gardeners Have to do with Raising Children

*I just updated the Nicaraguan gulch post with this paragraph, but I thought it also deserved its own post.

I ran into an Argentinian couple the other day. They met in New York and lived there until the birth of their first child. They found raising children in NYC to be unbearable, so they moved to Nicaragua. Not Argentina. Not elsewhere in the US. Why? Because they wanted more children. And in Nicaragua (unlike the US or Argentina) they could afford it and enjoy it. Because to truly enjoy raising your children you need help, they told me. In Nicaragua they could afford the maid, cook and driver that make raising children so much more enjoyable.

This hit home for me because I worked for some of the wealthiest families in Los Angeles--they had full time maids, cooks, and nannies--but raising children in those lonely houses was still unbearable.

I envisioned how a city gulch (a place where one could enjoy raising her children) could work, but it required too much capital to get it going. So I chose the farm gulch, where raising Anders is every bit as idyllic as I imagined it would be. It's not perfect, but if there were 120 voluntaryists here it would be as close to perfect as my ideal life could possibly be.

It's hard for egalitarian Americans to understand the value of having help. The fact is: All parents would be significantly happier with maids, cooks, drivers, gardeners, personal secretaries, and the like. Raising children is not a two person job. Yes, I would rather the help be grandparents, bachelor uncles, spinster aunts, strange cousins, and single friends but that was not an option for me. So I chose the paid staff. What I don't consider a viable choice is the two parents doing it alone. It's just too miserable and hard.

Every parenting book talks about the time crunch, and how you have to lower your cleanliness standards, lower your organizational standards, lower your cooking standards, lower your expectations of your own behavior: That is the only way the two-parent household can cope with parenting. This is nuts.

When raising children our behavioral standards and cooking (nutrition) standards should be of the highest quality in our lives. Or at least that's what I wanted for my parenting experience. So, like the Argentinians, I live in Nicaragua.

"It was a very simple decision for us," the Argentinian woman told me, "if we still lived in New York, my younger two children would never have been born."

I concur!

That being said, let me state the problem in a different way so that other solutions become apparent: A child is a 98 hour a week responsibility, not including nights, cooking, and cleaning. 98 hours is a hard load to carry. This load would be easier divided up among three people. Interestingly enough, here in Nicaragua I have a cook, a maid, and me here to care for one child. This is easy and an enjoyable way to do things. But with this arrangement, I could handle a lot more kids, up to six I would say. Now, I can't pop out five more kids because I spend about five months of the year in Los Angeles (or Santa Barbara or Whistler or wherever we decide to go). Those months are grueling. But, what if, in Los Angeles, three sets of parents decide to live together and share a cook and a maid? Now, not only do I have a cook and a maid in Los Angeles, I have companionship at home and so does my son! Now parenting is more enjoyable.

The same can be done in other places. I think parents would be wise to form groups of 4-5 couples. The couples decide to raise their children together. Perhaps they buy one big house or apartments all next door or they live in a neighborhood and make one big backyard instead of five backyards. Better yet maybe there could be a house with four different wings and then a shared play space for the children and cooking space in the center. This is very similar to the extended families that reared children for so many centuries. The kids are happy because they have people to play with. The women are happy because they have people to cook and clean with. The kids can connect with more than just their moms (they have other adults around). Better yet if the guys work within walking distance or at home so the working world can be part of their lives as well. But now we are getting into the "City Gulch" idea I wrote about before:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-ideal-unschool-community-here-and-now.html

I am not saying that the two parent household isn't doable. Children have been raised in two person households (and one parent) for almost a century. I am saying that it is not enjoyable. Sure, everyone loves their kids. But man is it hard! So hard, that most people, as soon as they leave their extended family situation, will opt for having just 1 kid. The birthrate in all affluent societies is always negative. Immigrants live with their extended families and have a lot of kids. Then they adapt to the Western way of doing things, switch to a two parent household, and voila, negative birth rate for them too.

The solution in some societies has been more and more compartmentalization of life and government involvement in the family. "Oh no, we have a negative birth rate! Let's get them to have more kids by paying for child care and school!" The problem is: This doesn't fix the problem. It makes parenting doable but not enjoyable. Children raised by other people become alienated from their parents. Children removed from the world require parents to be removed from the world or to be separated from their children. Instead, people interested in solving the negative birth rate problem need to think: Under what set of circumstances is raising children enjoyable. If it is enjoyable people will do it more.

The solution I propose is:
1. Invite children back into the world
2. Keep families together
3. Get rid of the nuclear family as a child-rearing model

Lastly, if you want to go all conspiracy theorist, consider that the government does not benefit from happy families that are wonderfully bonded and love each other. Governments do not like multigenerational extended families because they are their own little worlds--and if they get big and strong they may end up wanting to be their own government.... Governments benefit from raising the kids. They get to decide what values are imparted onto them. They make the kids into "Americans" instead of proud member of "Clan Garrett." The loyalty is to them, not the family. The family bonds, severed in childhood, keep the government in power. Moreover, the harder and more miserable parenting is, the more willing people are to hang their children to the government to be raised (free school! free daycare! let's be like Sweden!)

Not saying there is a conspiracy going on. Just saying people make decisions based on what benefits them. Those in power are not benefited by competing powers.

Another way to think about it though is that multigenerational families is akin to tribalism. And tribalist societies (collectivist societies) suck. The Christian church went to a great deal of effort to dismantle the extended family--and it is possibly their success at that that led to the creation of the West, of individualism, of the invention of the scientific method and everything we enjoy today that has been invented because of it! So ... we need to find a balance of individualism and collectivism. Pure individualism is too lonely. But Collectivism is too corrupt and uninventive.

Only Kings and Queens Can Found Kingdoms: A Story About Successful Marraiges

This is a messy blog post. It is an idea I want to share because, though it may not be The One Truth, it's a story that has been helpful to me.

My husband and I have a great relationship now, but we didn't always. We had horrific childhood attachment issues to overcome in addition to terrible relationship models coming from our two sets of divorced parents. There was a key moment in our relationship right after we got engaged. We got into a terrible fight (of course I cannot remember what it was about). I called my mom, and she said, "Yeah, relationships end. Sounds like yours has run its course." He called his mom, and she said something similar.

When we made up from that fight we realized we could never call our parents to help us through our marriage struggles (if our goal was to stay married). Similarly, I couldn't turn to the advice offered by Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden on the subject of marriage and relationships as neither of them had marriages I would want to emulate. I started my search for new relationship role-models.

A few years later Tom and I were married, and I was pregnant. Tom's single friends at the time were Tindering it up, and his married friends (and him) were all feeling a little jealous and trapped. I had this realization then, that changed how we saw the situation.

Joseph Campbell wrote about the "human story." He saw a woman's life story as having three main arcs: Maiden then Mother then Crone. For a man was: Squire then Warrior then King. I don't think those work well for today, so I updated them to: Maiden then Warrior Queen Mother then Wise Woman and, for a man, Squire then Warrior King Father then Wise Man.

"The problem," I said to my husband, "is that your friends think they are still squires. They are like the 40-year-old married women running around in short skirts. They're living the wrong story. I'm not a maiden anymore. It's hard to let that story go. Flirting with squires was fun. But now I will live the Warrior Queen Mother story, and I will try to make that story as glorious as my Maiden story was.

As a Warrior Queen Mother, I don't want to wear skimpy dresses and flirt with boys. I want to fight for the survival of my kingdom (e.g. my children). Your married friends would feel a lot better if they stopped seeing themselves as squires who are supposed to be chasing maiden-tail. They are kings now, and they have kingdoms to fight for. They can be heroes. Or they can be playboy princes that destroy their kingdoms."

This story rings even more true now. I was at a department store the other day trying on dresses for a cocktail party. The saleswoman was trying to get me to buy something extremely short and "sexy." "You've got such a great body; you should flaunt it!" she kept telling me. I was totally uninterested and tried to explain to her that I am in my mid-thirties not my mid-twenties, that I am married, that I an not trying to attract anyone, etc. She found it sad that I didn't think I "could" wear sexy stuff anymore.

I became interested in this exchange. Hollywood loves the maiden/squire story and has fed us a ton of one-liners to keep us pursuing our mates rather than building kingdoms. It is rare, on television, to see loyalty between partners. There is so much back-stabbing. And yet it is partnership and commitment that leads to riches, the kingdom we create that leads to a better life.

Squires and maidens tend to spend money in their efforts to show off and attract a mate. Smart kings and queens are more likely to save money because security and ensuring the survival of their offspring is what motivates them. Maidens and squires, whether they have children or not, are largely focused on attracting a mate, not kingdom building.

Maybe it's because we give away our children to be raised by others – there is no kingdom to fight for anymore. Maybe it's because of all the subterfuge involved in today's battle for survival. On the subject of nutrition alone – how many wealthy dynasties have failed because of inability to produce viable heirs due to nutritional depletion of genetic stock across generations? Many wealthy and middle class people think they are successfully "surviving," but they are not, not if you take a long-term (three or more generations) view of it.

I find this reflected in my parent-friends who, rather than be focused on the battle for the survival of their children, are focused on their careers. "Your family is your job!" I want to say. The point of a flashy career is to attract the best possible mate. A married person overly focused on career is a person looking to get divorced (and "trade up" in mates). A king or queen would only be interested in their career to the extent that it could benefit their kingdom, perhaps by making family alliances so that their children can find the best mates possible. But in a very deep way, Kings and Queen know it's not about them anymore, and that's wonderful!

I am all about selfishness, but for me, the battle for the survival of my children is what I want right now. Every time I hear my parent-friends talk about their search for sexual fulfillment, I can't help but think – you are stuck in your old story. By all means, if you are so wealthy that your children are eating farm fresh organic Weston A Price food, if you and they have straight teeth with no braces and no cavities and no other signs of physical degeneration, if you have fantastic communication skills with your partner and your children and you are raising them and not having them raised by others, then perhaps you have so much free time that you could be focused on "sexual fulfillment." Otherwise: You are falling for what seems to me like a media sales gimmick.

When a twenty-year-old tells me about her wild sex life, it's entertaining. When a forty-year-old does so, there is something unattractive about it. And I think it's this: The social cues you are giving me with your focus on sex or your career is that you are not focused on your kingdom.

Having been born into poverty and having been studying successful families since the minute I understood what I wanted, and knowing that most people who make it into the top 1% will stay there less than two years and 80% will stay there less than ten years, and knowing that while I worked my butt off and rose in wealth throughout my life, I have watched most of my friends (who were raised in wealth) fall. Why? Why is it so hard for a family to keep its wealth once it has acquired it?

One conclusions I have made is that wealthy people equate their wealth only to money. This is a fatal mistake in the creation of a dynasty. Ask any of the failed dynasties why they failed: Inability to produce heirs (decline in genetic stock), poor parent-child relationships (which the parents will pass off as unmotivated kids), fighting among heirs (failure of family to share values).

It became clear to me while I worked for unhealthy 1%ers that you cannot lose focus on health and healthy relationships. My husband and I talk about this as we build our wealth. We will build our wealth more slowly than we can, but we will do it right. The foundation of physical health for our bodies and our children's bodies is our highest priority. We can always make money. But money cannot buy good health that has been lost.

Same with relationships. Divorce destroys kingdoms. Children who hate their parents destroy kingdoms. So though my husband and I could be moving toward our financial dreams twice as fast if we put Anders into school and I joined the paid workforce, that is sacrificing the future for the present. And it would likely destroy our kingdom, if not in our lifetime, in our children's lifetime. And why? My husband and I are taken; we don't need flashy amounts of money or success to attract mates. We only need enough money for our own enjoyment and to maximize the quality of our offspring.

Money will only serve the mind that can match it. It is far more important that we focus on giving our son a mind that can match and grow our current level of wealth, than that we keep growing it.

The battle for survival that my husband and I fight is glorious. We must be quite high earners just to feed our family properly. Tom has to earn twice as much as husbands whose wives work so that I can raise our son. But we have a dream of a family like one we have yet to see in our lives. There is nothing more bonding, nothing sexier, than going to war in this way with my husband. It's exhausting of course, but it's a beautiful, fun, and interesting exhausting because it is meaningful for us.

Something else I noticed recently: Battle scars are tragic and hideous on maidens and squires. On kings and queens they are hot, proof of our strength, our prowess. And thank goodness, because I don't think anyone makes it to old age without them.

The belief that we are warriors now, not innocent, happy young folk, also helps us on to the next phase of our life story – old age and accepting death. When you are a maiden or a squire death is tragic. When you are exhausted from battle, scarred, used, death is rest, something that you can be happy about (just a little bit).

This is a subconscious experience for us, an emotional story. But you better believe I am out there making friends who are living this story. Most parents I meet are still maidens and squires. They are not kingdom building and alliances with them are becoming more and more unfulfilling. They are married and have children, but seem to have bought into the advertising media pitch that their life purpose should be ... sex. I like sex as much as the next person, but as your meaning in life?

I was having lunch with a friend of mine the other day who is getting her PhD in sexual health. She was telling me how important sexual fulfillment is, and when I told her it wasn't a priority to Tom and me, she became worried. But upon further questioning it turned out that we have a "healthy" amount of sex. Yet we don't make sex dates or have a date night as is recommend for couples with children. Just the fact that we like each other is enough to get us into bed. I am not holding our relationship out there as a Model For Everyone To Follow, but I think that we are still attracted to each other because of how we see each other. Like I said above, there something bonding and super sexy about seeing each other as warriors fighting a battle together.

Here are some more metaphors: I think many wives subconsciously do their best to stay maidens because they think that is how they will keep their husbands. But it's actually the opposite. If you stay a maiden and keep your husband in squire-mode, eventually you will break up. Why? Because a mother cannot compete with the maidens. A forty year old woman cannot out maiden real maidens. Even if she isn't older than they are, her focus is divided, her story is wrong, and there is always something unattractive subconsciously about people living the wrong story. Rather, the woman who wants to keep her husband should specifically try to not be a maiden or compete with maidens. She should focus on being the most incredible queen any king could wish for. No maiden can compete with a true warrior queen. And no king is attracted to maidens - they are pretty, silly things, not useful to him in battle.

What does it mean when a married woman and mother dresses in a way to attract men? Does it mean she is confident about her body? I don't think so. Something about it is unattractive. (And that is interesting to me.) This is what I think: What it says to me is she is not happy in her relationship, that she may cheat on her husband, that she may wish she were still a maiden, in other words: I should not trust and form alliances with her kingdom as she is alerting me to its instability or lack of success. Perhaps she genuinely thinks she is just showing the world that she doesn't care what it thinks – but that's just out of touch with reality. And I don't think it's attractive to be out of touch with reality. The fact that you will be judged by how you present yourself is unavoidable. To dress as if that is not a fact just makes you in denial and likely to fail.

I think about the things we used to think (as a society) were "bad." Dressing slutty. Divorce. We don't want to stigmatize the people who do these things. But at the same time, in some ways, they signify someone's success or failure to grow up.

I went to a conference over the summer where I was hit on rather a lot. It was flattering, but it occurred to me that it's boring to me now. What's interesting to me is my son and my husband, our growth, our finances, the creation of the best life possible for our family, the dream of building something that could last generations. Several times I was hit on by people who have open marriages who wondered if I have the same. And I ... don't see that in my future. Because it's boring. Seduction and being seduced was once the most fascinating and marvelous thing to me in the world. I read books on it! But now it simply doesn't serve me. It doesn't serve my kingdom.

I can't help but wonder about the people who are married and have children, but are still pursing mating. I wonder how their kingdoms will do (long term) with their energies so distracted.

Likewise the high percentage of women who abandon their children and return to the workforce. This is a subconscious signal to me that they don't trust their relationship. Their relationship is on such shaky ground that the woman cannot afford to specialize in the children, she has to be prepared for the coming divorce. She has to have "her own" money. If you haven't even figured out how to make a committed alliance to your own husband, how can I trust any alliance you make with me?

Not to mention your children. I am looking for the best mates for my own well-raised children. If your children are going to be raised by servants, middle class teachers, and the television, they are not good mates for mine.

Some women think that staying in the workforce is sexier to their husbands. These women are completely out of touch with reality. Every father I know wants his wife to "do whatever makes her happy." But every last one of them hopes that caring for his children (and him) is what will make her happy. I have never seen a man jump for joy when his queen announces that she, actually, would not enjoy caring for his children. What man can forgive that betrayal? Of course they smile and pretend they are modern, but I think that when their wife shows she cares so little for the children, he starts to detach from them as well.

A man cannot become a king without a queen. A woman in the workforce is not a queen. Queens are focused on their kingdoms, on their children. Likewise men pursuing outlying career success are not kings. Kings are focused on their kingdoms. That is what the money is for.

Both partners must choose to mature. If the man stays a squire he will be obsessed with maidens, and since his wife cannot be one anymore, he will end up leaving her for one. And with his new wife he will start a kingdom a second time. And then he will leave her for a third maiden. Never will his kingdoms progress or grow in glory. He will have wasted decades of valuable kingdom building time reliving the same old story rather than committing to the new one.

I maintain that kingdoms can be built at any social status. It is a way of life, not a social status. Some people will argue that their family "cannot afford" to have one partner at home, but according to Ann Crittenden in The Price of Motherhood, if the wife isn't making over 50k (possibly 65k in today's dollars), it doesn't actually pencil for the woman to be working. What does "cannot afford" mean? Money is all about choices. We choose what we value. For a kingdom builder, nothing is more valuable than the children.

For the record, I don't agree with women being stuck in the house with the kids. Please see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1185171129?type=review#rating_109775433. But I also don't think there is any other option today for the woman that values the health of her children and future of her kingdom.

When my children are ready, I will give up my throne and become a wise woman. This is one of the hardest and most important things a king or queen must do. The failure of many parents to "give up the throne" destroys relationships, and especially the children. It is this awareness of my future obsoleteness that enables me to give Anders my very best happily. Nothing like being a warrior for a few decades to make you feel excited about resting!

I had lunch with one of my favorite girlfriends the other day. Unlike me she grew up in a wealthy family, and she has happily married parents. She said, "Many girls marry rich men because they want to be a princess. But to be a princess you must make your husband your servant. If you make your husband your servant, he will soon be poor. Instead you must seek to be a queen at his side, and make your husband your king. If you treat your husband like a king, he will soon be more rich."

I love this story too. Princess-wives are another example of a way people can fail to change stories.

I apologize for any of this sounding judge-y. Like I said above, this is not The One Truth. There are many glorious stories to live, this one has been mine.

UPDATE

Frank pointed out below that it might be easiest for people to move on to their next story when they have lived their current story to the fullest. As in: squires and maidens who milked every last drop of their squire and maiden experience might be happier to settle into the warrior kingdom mode. Likewise, those who accept the warrior kingdom and live it to its fullest might be the happiest to let that go and become the wise "letting go" generation.

In my studies of death it occurred to me that Buddhism is a disturbing religion for the young. Nor is it helpful for the kingdom builders. But man is it the perfect religion for the old! It's about acceptance and letting go. The entire Tibetan Book of Living and Dying has one main thing to teach: how to die with grace and dignity. Buddhism is the religion for our final stage. I would say Christianity and Judaism (war-making religions) are quite fantastic religions for kingdom building. And for maidens and squires? Well, they should be Pagens. Again, not saying this as Fact. Using these ideas as metaphors to describe the human experience and how we can best facilitate one another to live our stage to the fullest.