Next Page | Contents | Previous Page
Most "career" housewives experience diminishing sexual pleasures and happiness. Why do such declines of happiness occur? Because such women limit their personal growth by letting their intellectual and productivity potentials remain under challenged in being full-time housewives. To experience psychuous pleasures and abiding happiness, a person must fulfill his or her potential. That means becoming independent -- materially, intellectually, and emotionally. Today, such independence usually evolves from productive jobs or careers.
And today, with the many domestic labor-saving conveniences, a housewife "career" is generally too unchallenging to provide the self-esteem, independence, and growth needed to experience the full range of happiness available from life. But, exceptions exist in which being a housewife is a challenging life-time management profession delivering full self-esteem, happiness, and romantic love. Historical examples are the wives of the American pioneers and frontiersmen. Examples today include the partner-wives of super-productive entrepreneurs, businessmen, farmers, scientists, and other hard-driving producers.
Another potential area for undermining happiness is having children, especially before achieving financial independence. Children can shrink the potential for career success, romantic happiness, and psychuous pleasures of both partners for two decades or more. Often the birth of children means the end of growth and happiness for the couple. And the parents' loss of growth and happiness can damage the well-being of their innocent child or children. Often when personal growth is ended by the burden of children, the parents' view of the future shifts to a downhill direction. Their lives then begin shrinking toward aging and death. But if parents fail their responsibility to properly raise their children into productive independent adults, those children become the victims of their parents' moral default. As with any uncorrected moral default, those parents responsible will suffer damaging consequences to their self-esteems and happiness.
Neo-Tech oriented couples would not have children until they were in a financial and maturity position to conceive a child as a net-happiness asset, rather than a draining task. Such couples almost always have greater capacities to love both life and their children than those who thoughtlessly or prematurely have children to "secure" the marriage, to meet the expectations of others, or other unhealthy reasons.
Romantic love and psychuous pleasures can still be achieved for couples who have children if they fully meet their responsibilities to both their children and to themselves. With children, the goal of building happiness and romantic love becomes more difficult and challenging. But if successful, a romantic relationship with the uniquely valuable experience of children can be even more rewarding than a romantic-love relationship without children. With children, increasing romantic happiness can be accomplished only after accepting a nonmartyr, full-responsibility role in preparing one's children for productive, independent lives. At the same time, one must always hold the romantic-love relationship, not the children, as the primary value.
In any case, having and raising children is a unique, profound life experience. And children can develop characters that yield major, long-range values to their parents, especially as the years go by. ...Well-evolved children can yield magnificent values. Rationally bearing and raising Neo-Tech oriented children can yield a bonanza of values available from no other life experience.
Financially secure, emotionally mature couples can genuinely desire the unique, value-generating experience of having children. Thus, they can rationally choose to bear and raise children without sacrificing or diminishing their careers, romantic love, or long-range happiness.
Raising competent children oriented around Neo-Tech can be rewarding beyond any other life experience, except romantic love.
If the market for technology and research were free from government interference, genetically controlled, flaw-free babies would probably be routine in a decade or less. Moreover, externally produced babies could forever free women from the incapacitation, pain, physical damage, and life-threatening dangers of childbirth. That technology could also reduce childhood diseases and eliminate birth defects. Externally produced, genetically controlled babies would also allow selection of sex and certain characteristics that would provide the maximum advantages to their children.
Still, the key traits can develop only through the volitional choices of each living, conscious child. For example, personality, character, and integrity are traits that evolve from the personal choice of each individual to be honest or dishonest, nonmystical or mystical, responsible or irresponsible, a value producer or a value destroyer.
Except to one's own self and dependent children, no one owes duties to anyone (including one's spouse, siblings, or parents) or to anything (including society, the government, the church, or to any other "higher" cause). The prime moral duty is to develop one's own potential to achieve abiding happiness through competitive value production. Beyond that prime responsibility to be a net value producer in order to earn happiness, a person's only other moral duty is to support and develop one's own children into honest, nonmystical, self-sufficient adults. That duty includes teaching children to objectively identify facts in full context and to live competently by rejecting all forms of mysticism, dishonesty, and neocheating.
Parents must, above all, teach their children to identify and avoid the disease of mysticism and its gaggle of neocheaters. Those children are then free to develop into independent, self-sufficient adults capable of achieving unlimited prosperity, psychuous pleasures, and abiding happiness.
Properly caring for and rearing children to become honest, self-sufficient adults is a moral responsibility and duty of the parents. That duty is assumed from the parent's chosen act of procreation, for which the children are not responsible. Thus, parents have no right to place future claims or obligations on their children. Likewise, after children develop into self-sustaining, independent beings, the moral responsibilities and obligatory duties end for the parents.
Compared to men, few women have directly achieved greatness in the major areas of human accomplishment (e.g., arts, sciences, philosophy, music, business, industry, medicine, law). Those differences in achievement are not due to inherent or biological differences between men and women, but rather such differences are due to (1) women being more involved in the restricting tasks of raising children, and (2) the cultural, legal, mystical, and neocheating oppression of women that has occurred throughout most of recorded history [Re: Tables 38-39, Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia].
Few men attained greatness in any area of human achievement during the 1000-year Dark Ages. For, during that time, the church oppressed everyone's intellectual and productive capacities. Likewise, few women have achieved greatness during their cultural dark ages that existed throughout most of recorded history. In recent years, however, radical changes have occurred to eliminate most differences in oppression between men and women. Those changes have occurred through the relentless, rational pressures of business and free enterprise, not through coercions of government, the feminists, or the non sequiturs of neocheating theologians, journalists, professors, and politicians.
Today, women in the Western World have essentially the same freedom and opportunity as men to develop their commercial values in most areas of human activity. But many women are by choice not exercising their new freedoms and opportunities. Thus, many women are failing to exploit their potentials for financial prosperity, psychuous pleasures, growing romantic love, and abiding happiness.
Divorced men and widowers are generally more desired or sought after by the opposite sex than are divorced women and widows. Aside from population statistics that somewhat favor men, no intrinsic or natural reason for that difference in desirability exists. The main difference is that, compared to women, men generally are and remain more productive in their jobs and careers and thus have more values and life to offer. By contrast, man-dominated housewives living as toys, pets, or servants generally have indulged themselves with mysticism instead of developing their characters, abilities, and talents. Thus, they have fewer values and less life to offer. On the other hand, men and women of equivalent character and value development would have equal worth and desirability as value-oriented, romantic-love partners.
Next Page | Contents | Previous Page
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com