There are powders to add to your formula / breast milk to introduce allergens early (we used Ready Set Food but easy to DIY). Kind of annoying since they often clog the nipple of the bottle, but we did it with my daughter who is now 20 months and her favorite breakfast is a spoon of peanut butter. Sesame gives her a slight reaction still, we unfortunately don’t eat it very often.
The BIL alone has already funded ~30,000 Road/Bridge projects totaling $95 billion so far, plus hundreds of billions more on other infrastructure. Would you mind pointing to the specific working group funding that you have an issue with and which specific bridges need repairs but had their funding rejected?
I mean, for just one example, the DoT awarded $600 million to replace the I-5 bridge between Washington and Oregon. I don't pretend the funding is perfect but it is reaching real projects.
This is now the recommendation. Companies even make allergen packets to add to your baby’s breast milk / formula / early foods for gradual and systemic exposure.
In my small community we have a weekly paper that they deliver every Friday for free. I love it. It was recently bought out and the quality has gone down hill, but I still enjoy reading about what’s going on hyper locally.
I’m the minority however. Most of my neighbors never bother to bring it in off their driveway. The papers tend to sit until the next garbage day at which point it goes from driveway to garbage bin.
People are exceptionally weird about news consumption.
Some of my most politically active friends in NYC admit they don't read local news, when brining up specific things. It's not like we are a small town either, I'm talking about NYC news vs National News.
Everyone is too busy putting on their red/blue hats and voting for their national sports team, and not paying attention to what is happening in their local communities.. where their votes have more impact.
From this article “Female suicides decrease by 8% to 16%”.
Yet, from another study
“In the United States, the rate of suicide among persons who are divorced or separated is usually reported as about 2.4 times greater than the suicide rate for married persons. ”
And
“For every one divorced woman who dies by suicide, there are nine divorced men who do so.”
Seems like we are managing against the wrong metric.
I'm divorced. By the time you make the decision to leave your partner your life is in a bit a shambles. Something you thought would last together is about to end and if you have kids with your ex (I have 3) then you're about to enter into one of the most stressful and complicated parts of your life.
Of course the suicide right is going to be higher, but you shouldn't compare it against the part of the population who is happily married, you would have to compare it to the people who are desperately unhappy in their marriage and don't get divorced. At the end of my marriage I still dearly loved my wife, but hadn't been happy for years and I was wishing for death to give me a noble exit from a situation I couldn't see a way out of myself.
Guys take all the blame for divorce. I’ve know married women with kids that were monsters and everyone pitied them. There’s a strong, verging on psychotic, bias towards women in society and family court.
It depends a lot. Very little time in court (no fault divorce, informal agreement re money, and child just stayed with me) and the family courts here are secret so will not comment on that courts, but as for society it depends a lot.
My own experience is that no one who knows me at all well blames me. Some of my ex-wife's friends do - the ones who do not know me mostly. Why should I care what they think? My friends have been supportive, so have my (extended) family.
The only thing that annoys me is that she has been playing on racial stereotypes to gain sympathy. More that people are ignorant enough of other cultures to believe her uncritically than anything else.
I got divorced in the UK and my understanding was that it was not possible for the two parties to simply agree to have a divorce.
I had to sign a paper where I agreed I committed all sorts of "faults" just for the court to process the thing and make the divorce official. To me it doesn't matter -- the legal system of the UK is archaic regardless. A divorce is nothing more than a contract agreeing to share financial and child responsibilities.
They were quite uncooperative as well to get the paperwork necessary to register the divorce elsewhere in the EU, but that might have breen Brexit.
The law was changed from 2022 (I delayed starting my divorce proceedings by a few months to benefit from it) and we now have no-fault divorce. Essentially, all it needs is for one party to want to divorce and the a certain lapse of time after you married. The only grounds for opposing it are very narrows ones like jurisdiction.
The divorce case is separate from those over money and children which are also optional. You can just have informal agreements over both unless someone wants to go to court. That is why I spent very little time in court - in fact the divorce itself happened with need to attend hearings with the application made through the family court website.
Even before the change judges would try and find for an allegation of a fault (usually "unreasonable behaviour") and most lawyers advised clients not to contest divorces. One lawyer I consulted told me that in the previous 20 years he dealt with one contested divorce (contesting the end of the marriage that is, obviously going to court over child and financial arrangements is common).
Yeah I hear the legal system is draconic in the UK for men. Men’s mental health in general seems like a joke in England. British TV: “men are four times more likely to commit suicide but how can they help women defeat sexism???”
Yes, and no. Mostly the issue is (as in many other countries) a tendency to assume children should be brought up by women, together with inadequate systems to enforce access after divorce.
On the other hand I have come across many cases where the less affluent former spouse (especially one who did not work while married to look after the children) does not get a fair amount of child support and these are mostly women. Not a problem in my case as I was the one who was earning and the primary parent.
The biggest criticism I would make is not of the courts, but society and the police do not take domestic abuse of men seriously. They also do not take emotional abuse such as controlling behaviour seriously despite it now being a crime. This is pervasive - the Crown Prosecution Service classifies domestic abuse as "violence against women and girls" and then mentions in passing that men can be victims too (40% of violent abuse victims, in fact, but you would not know that from their manuals).
It’s true. I’ve talked a lot of guys off the edge of a cliff. You try to warn the new generation but they don’t listen, guys always got to learn the hard way.
It’s because for every one of those there’s a battered wife, and before the 1970s women had little ability to escape that kind of thing except at incredible cost.
People can be awful to each other. Gender doesn’t matter.
“Spousal abuse” is more than just hitting, it’s psychological and emotional stuff too. Male police officers, due to work related trauma, have high rates of spousal abuse. But even higher rates are found among lesbians. It’s made a lot of researchers rethink what’s going on.
I would be interested to compare this to homicide rates. Because I remember reading that when no fault divorce was allowed male lifespan increased.
I also think it's too early to really look at these rates. Of course many women would be happy they weren't destitute when they got married during a time when women couldn't have bank accounts. Of course men would feel put out when they were used to having everything handled by their wife and existed during a time where joint custody was not so common.
I'd like to see these studies again in 20 or so years when most people surveyed got married out of commitment instead of life necessity.
> I'd like to see these studies again in 20 or so years when most people surveyed got married out of commitment instead of life necessity.
We are already there, what kind of world are you imagining? The need for women to marry was removed 50-60 years ago in the west, there hasn't been a necessity to marry in a really long time, you might have some really old couples left from the time before that but it wouldn't affect statistics much.
That's definitely true, in my grandmother family, it was was an open secret (or rather a mean and quite unfunny running joke) that her aunt managed to get out of her arranged marriage after ten years by "inadvertently" poisoning her abusive husband. I can only speculate that they had fertility issues since after 10 years they did not had any kids, and that could have been a reason why he became violent.
It sounds like men should either not get married, or if they do, then endeavor quite seriously to keep their wives happy. Personally, I have to say I've never really "gotten it" so-to-speak - I really never felt a desire to get married and/or have children, so this is no great worry for me. But I do normally feel quite counter-cultural when I express it.
There is a great joy in building a deep bond with a partner.
There are definitely difficulties, but no need to throw out the baby with bathwater, if done right a partner & children are one of the biggest joys & sources of meaning for life.
I can't seem to maintain an interest in such a bond, and I've long since stopped believing in meaning. As I said, I'm aware that that sort of talk is frowned upon. But given the number of men estranged from their children (the number of kids being raised by single mothers is, I understand, at an all-time high in the US), and the consistently high divorce rate (lower these days probably only because the marriage rate is also lower), I don't think that I'm actually particularly unique.
I think it's important to think about marriage separately from raising children. You can do the activities separately or together.
For me, my spouse is someone I can implicitly rely on and vice versa. We are a team working towards our shared purposes, but we are still individuals. We each have skills that make the others life easier. It's a lot easier to get a ride from a spouse than from a friend, and a spouse will be more available to help tend to sickness and injury. That sounds emotionless, but of course emotions and emotional support are important too.
For me, having a spouse where we have compatible ideas on children, money, climate, travel, and most things is like an easy button for life. Research and problem solving is easier with two people. Decision making can be harder though.
If you marry someone who doesn't have compatible ideas, there's going to be a lot more conflict and a lot more deep compromise, and that may not be as appealing. And, of course, people change, and exiting a long term commited relationship comes with trauma, so there's risk. Maybe none of this feels appealing to you, and that's fine. There's some social and legal pressure to marry for lots of reasons, but we live in a world full of social and legal pressures, and you should reject those pressures if they don't feel right to you.
Raising children is a whole other thing. I don't think people should be pressured into it, and it's best to be on the same page as a potential spouse before considering marriage, otherwise one spouse is likely to have to make a big compromise and that's not great. Personally, I find raising children to benefit from a team approach, but it's not required and a marriage is just one way to form a child raising team.
It sound you are looking for datapoint to easier accept your lack of meaning in life. You can also do the opposite and look at the happy partners & families to prove yourself wrong.
But I understand, however I hope you find it, in which way works for you, it does make life much richer.
For me family is one of them & buddhism another one.
If I can give advice, the easiest way to experience meaning is to serve & help others. Easiest is to do voluntary work in obvious helpful things like food serving etc. Something where you just enjoy & give and not think deeper about what the point of it all is.
I think there is quite a bit of nihilism in Western evolutionary materialism (all our feelings are just side effect of evolution). But that's a very limited view on reality. Not sure if that's also part of your experience, but I do see this cause similar feelings to smart & technical people around.
Lol, I was raised Catholic; the serve others thing is quite a big part of the dogma, and I don't disagree with that necessarily (unlike quite a bit of the rest of that religion), but that doesn't mean that it works for everyone. Some people are just wired differently; the meaninglessness creeps in no matter the volunteer organization; the therapy, the drugs (licit or otherwise). It's an experience since young childhood and seems unlikely to change markedly. I'm actually quite happy that it's not something I'll ever have to subject a child to (and the probable hellscape that we're leaving them; glad I'll never have to have that conversation either). It certainly could be a post-facto rationalization on my part, but perhaps it's just the way I am and ever was. Honestly, accepting that has brought me peace as much as anything.
~20 years ago I met a wonderful older couple: she was an astronomer and programmer who was actively engaged with the Debian community, and I can't recall his profession, but he was clearly delighted to support her interests.
It was inspiring to see a couple who actively supported each other's hobbies and careers, who engaged with each others' professional communities.
It may be true but not actionable. For example, some wives may be happy regardless of how much their partners bend over backwards to please them. Their partners are then more likely to have a happy life. Or, maybe your wife will be miserable no matter what you do. You're less likely to have a happy life. This is why I believe the most important step in vetting a spouse is to spend a long time with them first, the longer the better. How happy you both are isn't likely to change much after you get married.
This is logical thought. Relationships run on emotions. For most of history marriage's sole purpose is to create social security for women. That is really a problem, because once a service is provided, there is always a scope for improvement. If there is a crisis people are busy solving the crisis, in times of relative peace people think they should be optimising for a better deal. There is always a man better than you. Somebody is more healthy, wealthy and spends more on his wife, and you are continuously benchmarked against him.
Heck in most cases you might even be getting benchmarked against a fictional figure who exists only in her imaginations.
The more you do, more that fictional figure gets better than you, and you are expected jump over the bar she just raised. Sooner or later you will burnout and she will hate you for being weak compared to the hero that exists in her mind.
What I'm getting at is that, by adulthood, those behaviors are not easily changed, at least beyond temporarily. People know they'll live longer if they quit smoking, but despite the enormous benefits, it tends not to happen. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just think it's more realistic to go into a marriage with the expectation that the person you're marrying is not likely to change much.
Here's a thought, maybe try not living under the thumb of a woman to derive your happiness.
Today my toddler asked for candy and my wife almost gave her a piece (it's 7:45am). I said no. When the wife rebuked, I said, "stop, you're going to make our daughter fat like you." Mad her piping mad but guess what?
Happiness comes from within and you know what makes me happy? Having a healthy family that makes good choices. The happiest wives are those that get gentlely pushed around from time to time.
So in short, stop being a push over and maybe your wife won't leave you for a man that does.
“If you are profiting from being unhappy you will find ways and reasons to be unhappy.”
I believe the idea expressed in ‘appetite comes with eating’ is that your desire to indulge in an activity is correlated (caused even) with that activity. IE skydivers will likely have a larger appetite or desire for skydiving than a layman.
In a larger context I believe cjbgkagh is arguing that women can retain an advantageous position in a marriage by pretending or presenting unhappiness because exiting a marital contract would be an especially poor outcome her partner.
It's more of a general phenomena that I believe commonly applies to this specific case. Often there is an assumption that a demand can be satiated once met, but quite often instead the demands simply increase.
>It sounds like men should either not get married, or if they do, then endeavor quite seriously to keep their wives happy.
I'm happily married, and in the sense of being counter-cultural would be in completely the other end of the spectrum (very conservative about family, intend on having 6-8 kids that I will cherish even when they're adults).
That said, I think you've hit the nail on the head about "happy wife, happy life".
It's important to basically dedicate your life to being in service to her, but on the flip side it's important for her to do the same.
This level of dedication is almost counter-cultural in a sense, because you're not putting yourself first, but it's absolutely worth it in the long run.
On a visceral level, you feel always loved, always important, always worthy.
That's great, but you should realize that not everyone is wired the same way, and that's fine - you'll have a hard time catching me criticizing anyone's choices here. All I can really offer is my own feelings and observations as someone who's been around the block a bit these days.
> intend on having 6-8 kids that I will cherish even when they're adults
There's a wonderful Mike Tyson quote that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. I assure you that it's quite a rare individual who gets married and has kids with the intent of despising their spouse and estranging themselves from their children. Sometimes it works out, and other times it doesn't.
You are apparently speaking from a Christian perspective. What do you do when after childbirth your spouse exits that reciprocal context and begins consuming you as a resource, but not before experimenting with narratives that maximize sympathy for her, which, as you can probably guess, make you the Disney villain.
> then endeavor quite seriously to keep their wives happy
Why not just find someone who is already content living their life single but enjoys the added social aspects of a relationship? That plus someone where those social aspects happen naturally without a lot of using the finite motivational energy.
Then there's no expectation or perceived responsibility to have a sort of dependency relationship, and the happy social reinforcing moments happen naturally.
>Why not just find someone who is already content living their life single but enjoys the added social aspects of a relationship?
The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Even happy and independent people have ups and downs, and can benefit from someone enthusiastically helping them promote their happiness.
It is a win win win for everyone involved.
The recipient of support is even happier, the supporter gets to enjoy the process of making the other happy, and then the supporter get the company of a very happy person.
Ideally this is bidirectional with each partner playing both roles.
It doesn't use finite motivational energy. It creates net positive energy.
Usually the idea of marriage comes from a romantic idea of building something together with a partner.
If you ignore the romance, and only consider the practicalities, there is no good reason to get married. It doesn't offer significant rights or benefits and mostly puts you at risk and restricts your option.
Me, I've been married, and I know I'll likely do it again. Not for personal gain, but because I'm a fool who believes in love.
When you don't want to do something, but you also don't want to be blamed for not doing it, you can transfer the blame to someone who isn't there.
Boss wants to go out drinking after work which is his idea of 'team building' but you don't feel like it right now? "Well gee boss I'd love to come, but my wife's expecting me home by 7pm. Happy wife happy life, right?"
About 75% of the time when you hear people in the workplace saying "happy wife happy life" what they actually mean is "thanks for the offer but no thanks, and don't bother trying to cajole or peer-pressure me"
(Veterans at transferring blame will go even further, transferring blame to abstract concepts like 'market conditions' and 'company policy' )
> You’re socializing around your wife being abusive.
Not at all, for all they know you're living some 1950s lifestyle where your wife has dinner on the table just as you get home, and it'll be cold if you're late. Or if they prefer, they can imagine you're a progressive modern father, going home to change diapers and help with bedtime. Or they can imagine you're deeply in love, and eager not to disappoint your best friend in the whole world.
There really is nothing abusive about a man saying he likes his wife to be happy. Making an effort to make the other person happy and them making an effort to make you happy is the whole point of a relationship, isn't it?
I’m good at cheering people up and making them laugh. You can’t make people happy ESPECIALLY women. You’re just setting yourself up for failure. All you can do is support people and enable good decisions so that they can learn how to have a fulfilling life.
I don't think it needs to be "wife" other than to rhyme. Having a happy partner instead of an unhappy partner (regardless of gender) is certainly better (speaking from experience).
Marriage has for most of its history been an arrangement for securing alliances and ensuring transfer of generational wealth. Since the sexual revolution [1] the pendulum has swung completely back the other way and attitudes toward marriage have focused almost exclusively on romance. The problem since then is that hormonally-driven romantic attachment is fleeting and unreliable, so security of relationships has dropped dramatically.
If people want to have a long-lasting and successful marriage they need to be clear-eyed and pragmatic about it. The fact that Hollywood makes a fortune selling romantic stories has not helped!
And now forced marriage is included in the category of modern day slavery. Marriage is work but it’s not a hostage negotiation situation. I see a lot of guys crushed by marriage, this idea that it pure benefits men is nonsense.
Honestly, the relationships are similar. They both require a lot of trust and companionship to be successful, you spend a lot of time with both people but in very different ways
Same... Or that the husband is objectifying the wife as a thing that just needs to be kept happy, regardless of what the husband actually truly thinks. Inauthentic.
It always reminds me of that creepy old Lana Turner quote “A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.”
I don’t think it’s suppose to sound like that. At least for me and the situations I have heard it, it’s a genuine expression that if you make your partner happy, it’ll also make your life (together) happy.
It works very well for me. We both appreciate each other and actively make an effort to make one another happy.
For a period of time, I was in a situation where I would come into contact with people at their apartments. I saw so many unhappy--downright miserable--women who were recently divorced. I just never thought about it before but there it was in front of me so many times.
Culture in the United States is aggressively uninterested in men’s mental health. It is always the last thing to consider and the first thing to drop. See also university admissions/graduation rates.
If you’re a man in the US: You. Are. On. Your. Own.
It's true across Africa. It's true across Asia (see: China, Japan for two very prominent examples). It's true in India. It's true across all of the Islamic world. It's commonly true in most of Europe (and absolutely true across Eastern Europe). Canada is quite similar to the US. It's true across Latin America. And it's true in the US.
When it's that comprehensive, spanning most of the human population across wildly different cultures, it's not society, it's biology. Society - cultures - are a production of that biology, reinforcing, not the other way around. It's not recent, it's ancient; it wasn't originated by humanity through society, nature organized humanity in a way that assisted survival.
It’s always “Western society at large” in these conversations. These have for a long time only been social requirements of some women in order for some men to partner and reproduce. This is not “Western society” it is the cultural fabric, which itself is dominated by the social activity of women. It is a shadow matriarchy.
I don’t know if this is really universally true. But I do expect there are large pockets of the population for which it is. For me I have a number of male and female friends that are emotionally supportive, my parents are good in this regard as well.
So your argument is "suicide is good as long as (toxic) men do it"? Come on, please try to keep HN substantially more intellectually stimulating than reddit and its ilk.
All social pressures have a cost and an optimal balance. Men tend toward a less bonded mating strategy, and divorce law seems to seek to punish that behavior (which, again, can be offset by prenups). A symptom of a social pressure that is out of balance might be disproportionate male suicide rate.
I didn't get that impression. To me it's more about calling into question bringing up certain statistics when if you were to really make policy based on unbiased decision-making, then you'd have to ask uncomfortable questions just like the one you've asked.
Better protections for men from the social consequences that some women architect purely out of spite would go a long way.
I’m often in awe that we can both propose equal rights and responsibilities and sympathetically treat forty-year-old adults as children in these situations, but only if they belong to one sex. The other sex gets disgust or at best pity.
Not sure I understand the information at your link, but as far as I can tell, the most weight that has been deadlifted by a teenage female (<20yo, open weight) is 391lbs.
Maybe I suck at web search? Is there a teenage female record holder who has smashed that weight and I’m just not finding anything about it?
I have found they are so much better in practice than initial reviews made them out to be. I quickly forgot it was a persona when FaceTiming with another person in the AVP. The flat screenshots look terrible. The fully dimensional version is good.
I agree. Mine looks much better than I was expecting. I suspect some people don’t like them because they are too realistic.
When I think of people who use Memojis, they rarely choose designs that resemble them. In some cases I think the rejection could be this. People want more control over virtual versions because normally they have it.
Between MineCraft, Ark, Satisfactory, DSP and now Palworld I bet I have 1,000 hours into tree punching games which is kind of nuts to think about. Really scratches the itch for me.
I get it - you only punch the tiny trees, or just pick up branches and skip right to an axe :) But the progression / natural draw of discovering new things to craft as you touch new items is really good. And excellent procedurally generated worlds to explore.
Yeah and Valheim's multiplayer (at least for our group) kind of sidesteps the "grind" issues because we each tend to like different aspects.
I'll happily chop trees and mine all day, others like farming/animal husbandry, building, cooking, foraging, etc. All of us like exploring, boating, fighting bosses together. And we're all happy to craft/upgrade/repair our stuff.
