Guest Post from Europia: The Importance of Fathers

Below is a guest post contributed by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. Remember, If you have something you want to say that is in line with the blog’s purpose and topics, feel free to send it to me.

3. I just thought that these figures MIGHT interest you, even though some of them might be a generation old.

3.01: I just thought that you would find the following FACTS from Social History of some interest. The 43% of U.S. children who live without their father (U.S. Bureau of the Census) account for the following:
3.02: 60% of America’s rapists came from fatherless homes. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.03: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census).
3.04: 70% of long-term prison inmates as opposed to youths in prison, are fatherless. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.05: 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988).
3.06: 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, March 26, 1999).
3.07: 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
3.08: 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without a father. Source: “Life without Father,” copyright 1996 by David Popenoe. Reprinted by permission of the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc.
3.09: 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Rainbows for All God’s Children).
3.10: 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26).
3.11: 80% of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes. US Dept. Of Health & Human Services (1988
3.12: 85% of all youths in prison as opposed to long-term prisoners come from fatherless homes (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992).
3.13: 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes (Center for Disease Control).
3.14: 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (U.S. Bureau of the Census).

4.01: Regarding “Deadbeat Dads” you may find these figures of some interest.
4.02: 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
4.03: 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
4.04: 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
4.05; 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
4.06: 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
4.07: In 1992 the General Accounting Office (GAO) found 14% of fathers who owe back child support are dead.
Source 4.02 – 4.06 inclusive [1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992]

5.01: 61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers (Department of Health and Human Services Report on Nationwide Child Abuse).
5.02: Rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in stepfamilies; 20 times higher in cohabitating biological parent families and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabitating with a boyfriend who is not the father. (UK research).
5.03: 70.8% of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers! 206 (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System)
5.04: 70.6% of children abused by one parent are abused by their mothers! (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment reports from 2001-2006

6.01: Child Murders
6. 02: Killed by Mothers 1,100
6.03: Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513
6.04: Killed by Stepfathers 250
6.05: Killed by Biological Fathers 137
Source of 6.02 – 6.05 inclusive, The Heritage Foundation report “The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community,” May 15, 1997.

Obliviousness, Incivility, and the Destruction of the Old Order

I came across this article from some feminist who, according to the little blurb at the bottom, has written for “Jezebel, The Frisky, The Huffington Post and The Good Men Project.” In it she complains of the incivility of men in public:

It’s a drizzly Friday in Chicago and I’m leaving a bar with my roommate sometime after midnight. We’re on a quest for tacos and we’re discussing the finer points—Should we get pork or beef? From where? How many?—when you decide to make our conversation your business. You’ve been loitering outside the bar with your friends, but you hear the word “taco” and soon you’re in lock step with us, asking us about our “tacos,” laughing, hooting back to your friends. We push past—literally shoving you—and continue on our way.

Here are some things you should know about my week: I’m on the phone with my mom on my way to yoga when a guy leans out of a doorway, drags on his cigarette and gestures with his pelvis how much he is enjoying my yoga pants. I’m walking home from the grocery store and a middle-aged guy, maybe high, maybe drunk, yells at me, “Get back here, girl!” I’m waiting for the bus when a carful of bros whips by; one leans out the passenger window, points at the girls waiting at the bus stop and yells, “Yes, Yes, No…Yes!” After work, I’m walking from the train to my apartment and four teenagers are trailing me, discussing my body, guessing measurements; they know I can hear them.

This behaviour causes her to feel unsafe. This is understandable as she is a young woman and these men are quite obviously under-civilized brutes; rape or violence would not seem to be an impossibility in some of these situations and given the inherent physical inequalities between the sexes there is little she could do to defend herself (excepting carrying a gun, which someone who writes for Jezebel is unlikely to do).

This is not my issue with what she has written. The incivility of modern times sometimes irks me as well, although, as a tall, broad-shouldered man with confident bearing, I rarely worry for my physical safety.

Rather, my issue is that, as feminists are wont to do, she blames “the patriarchy” for the incivility of ruffians.

She, of course, being an miseducated feminist is oblivious to the twin facts that:

1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them.

2) The left-wing feminist politics she advocates are the primary cause of this breakdown.

Because of this her analysis, such that it is, is flawed.

****

Men’s sexuality, absent civilizational constraint, is naturally aggressive and promiscuous. These men laughing at a woman’s “taco”, grabbing ass, and doing pelvic-thrusts, are acting out their natural sexuality.

At one point in our society, this would have been unacceptable behaviour. Under the old order, lovingly referred to as the patriarchy, but probably more accurately referred to as civilization, civility towards woman was standard; it was called chivalry.

Men raised under this order would have been loath to issue even a mild oath in the presence of a woman, let alone crassly harass a woman over her “tacos”. Had a man been uncivilized enough to harass a woman in such a way, he would have suffered immediate consequences in the form of violence from other honourable men, and more permanent consequences from a loss of social status.

As an example of the sort of man the old order raised, we can use one Samuel Proctor, who tipped his hat towards a woman. When said woman asked what that meant he replied:

Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”

A man raised in the old order as Mr. Proctor was, would never have even considered joking about a woman’s “tacos”.

Civilization was used to control men’s natural sexual aggressiveness to create men like Mr. Proctor, who acted civilized and would control their aggressive sexuality for the betterment of society and the safety of women.

Some decades ago, a cabal of dissatisfied women under the label of feminism and a small, but vocal minority under the banner of affiliated progressive ideologies decided they did not care for civilization and its constraints. They rebelled against it and fought a long, hard ideological war to destroy it.

They won.

This cabal destroyed the old order and with it the control it had over men’s sexuality.

Men are now free to be uncivil brutes. Civilization no longer holds full sway over them.

Hence, “tacos.”

****

So, in finale:

Dear Feminist,

This is the world you desired.

You and your ideological kin spent decades ruthlessly destroying the old order which kept men civilized. You smashed the patriarchy which kept men’s naturally externalized sexuality healthly internalized and productively directed.

You denigrated the institutions which controlled men, smashed the civilization which ordered men, and have created a generation of brutes and half-men.

You asked for sexual license. Men are now free to express their sexuality without consequence.

You asked for freedom to pursue hedonism. Men are now pursuing hedonism.

You asked to be freed from the rules of civilized conduct. Men are now freed from these rules as well.

You rejected your role as a lady. Men are rejecting their role as gentlemen.

These rules were made to protect you, dear woman. The patriarchy was made for your benefit. The old order existed to serve you.

You desired, nay demanded, them destroyed, and destroyed they have been.

When you destroy civilization, incivility will be the order of the day.

You have got what you asked for, enjoy it.

Regards,

A Traditionalist

Keep the State out of Women’s Bodies… Except When Convenient

One major theme in this year’s presidential election was that of the “war on women”.

The complaint was and  essentially that the state shouldn’t get involved in women’s reproductive choices.

I agree.

With the exception of abortion, where a child’s life is involved, the state should leave women alone and let them make their own reproductive choices. They should be free to do as they will and live with the consequences.

But, feminists lie. They do not want the state to let them make their own reproductive choices. They want the state to force them (and others) to only accept certain reproductive choices.

Feminists want privilege and choice, not freedom.

****

Here’s a good example of the hypocrisy of the modern women espousing the creed of keep your hands off my body.

a woman in a country where politicians who actually believe that the female body has special powers to discern between evil sperm and loving sperm have been elected to create and vote on legislation that limits women’s control over their own health care.
…
“Perhaps remove the focus from that one point and think instead about the free abortions and contraceptives that will be given to all females of reproductive age… Or about the Muslims, Christian scientists, and Amish ( among others) that are exempt from obamacare due to religious beliefs….”

She goes on and on, hitting every talking point FoxNews and its ilk have drummed into her head, including the legitimacy (there’s that word again) of Obama’s citizenship and his ties to socialism. It was all a bunch of moronic nonsense, but what stood out to me the most was her first line: “Perhaps remove the focus from that one point” — that “one point” being a woman’s right to control her own health care choice, as if that point weren’t worthy of our focus!! This was a woman saying this! A woman who was fed the bullshit and ate it up with a spoon, just like the GOP wanted.

By “limiting a women’s control over their own health care” she obviously means don’t want others to  pay for it, even if it goes against their religious principles.

She says she wants the state out of her body, but she’s very clearly inviting the state into her body by having the state pay for her health care.

Her next complaint is about how crime effects women: a valid point, but ignores how it also effects men and children. It’s not part of this topic, so we’ll mostly ignore it.

I didn’t get any paid maternity leave when my baby was born. I work for myself, so I wasn’t expecting any, of course. But here in America, even if I had been working for someone else, that person or that company would not have been required by law to give me even a day of paid maternity leave. Not even an hour. My job would have been held for a few weeks, but that’s it.

I started a new moms’ group when I was pregnant and most of us all had babies within a few weeks of each other. Some of the women took extended maternity leave — six whole months — so they could stay home with their babies until they started, you know, sleeping for more than three hours at a stretch. They weren’t paid for that leave, and they worried as their savings dwindled what they’d do if there were an emergency and they missed more work.

Here she demands that the state pay for and legislate her reproduction. She’s demanding her workplace interfere with her body. She’s begging the state and corporations to involve themselves in her reproductive choices.”When they did go back, they had to deal not only with juggling motherhood and their careers, but also with navigating the office politics surrounding working mothers. One woman, a producer at a major network news station, worried about being overlooked for assignments that would require her to travel now that she was a single mother of an infant. She worried about being overlooked for promotions and raises now that her “focus was split.” “I don’t want to be mommy-tracked,” she lamented, as she plotted ways to ensure topnotch child care for her daughter should her commitment to work be “tested” with a last-minute assignment that would take her out of town with just hours to prepare.”

Here she’s lamenting that the employer is not becoming involved these women’s reproductive choices.

How dare those corporations stay out of women’s private lives!

Many of my new mom friends who returned to work months after giving birth continued breastfeeding, which brought the new challenge of pumping at the office (or, “in the field,” in the case of my producer and journalist friends). They told me stories about the “designated areas” for them to pump, which are required by law. One woman, a clinical psychologist, pumped in a supply closet with a broken lock on the door. She kept one hand on her pump and one hand holding the door shut in case anyone wondered why the light was on and barged in on her without knocking. Finally, she put a sign on the door, but it was gone the next day and she had to make a new one. That one came down the next day, too.

Not content with the state and workplace involving themselves in her reproductive choices, she desperately wants the state and employers to further interfere in women’s breast-feeding decisions.

She notes that the state interferes in her breastfeeding decisions, but the tone of lament clearly indicates that the state is not interfering enough.

How dare they let women be free to make their own breastfeeding decisions!

Our rights are at risk — our basic rights — not to mention the fact that many of us are afraid, on a daily damn basis, of being attacked — legitimately attacked — simply because we are women.

This election year, vote to keep your rights. Vote for the people who are going to fight to protect you. And fight to keep the morons and the assholes and the douchebags out of power and out of our bodies.

She ends with a hypocritical statement about keeping people out of women’s bodies. How fitting when she spent the article arguing that other should involve themselves in women’s bodies and that this involvement was the basic right of the female.

One final observation, somewhere in the middle of her article she says:

I need a chaperone because some crazy douchebags think my body is public property. Hmm, I wonder wherever in the world they got that idea.

My suggestion: if you don’t want your body being viewed as public property, don’t act like it is by having the public pay for its upkeep.

****

This was just one example I’m using for illustrative purposes that I happened to come across while thinking about this post. I could find numerous others, but the point is made: No matter what the issue, most modern women want the state in their bodies. They beg for it, they vote for it.

They will selectively say they don’t on certain issues. They will dissemble about what the “state in their bodies” means. They will flat out lie, saying they don’t. But when it comes down to it:

The modern women fervently desires state interference in her reproductive choices.

It’s a  broad-brush generality, NAWALT, I know, but most modern women who would say something like “keep your rosaries out of my ovaries,” “my body, my choice,” “keep the state out of our bodies,” or whatever, truly want the state interfering in their bodies.

They want the state to pay for their contraception.

They demand the state pay for their abortions and reproductive health care decisions.

They demand the state educate children on sexuality, contraception, and reproduction.

They demand the employer subsidizes their reproductive choices.

They demand the employer and state make their breast-feeding choices for them.

They demand their employer make their personal work-life balance for them.

They demand the state dictate their private marriage contracts (and then demand that the state dictate homosexuals’ private relationship contracts).

The modern women demands that the state and society involves itself intimately in her personal, sexual, and reproductive choices… but only when its convenient for her.

She demands privilege without responsibility. She demands society cater to her every whim, without her having

She detests others’ freedom, but argues for it for herself when it suits her.

She demands you pay for her every whim, but denies you any say.

She is tyrannical, irresponsible, and greedy.

****

To women reading this: either the state and society are involved in your body and your reproductive choices or they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways.

You can not demand that the state not regulate contraception, then demand that the state (or other organizations under the compulsion of the state) pay for your contraception.

You can not demand leave itself out of women’s abortion decisions, then demand that the state pay for abortion providers such as planned parenthood.

You can not demand that public schools stay out of dictating women’s sexual choices, then demand they engage in mandatory sexual education.

You can not demand that the public not comment on your reproductive choices, then demand that they pay for the maintenance of your children.

You can not demand the public refuse to comment on your sexual choices, then force the public to subsidize your sexual lifestyle and health care needs.

You can not demand that your employer not dictate your personal life to you, then demand your employer subsidize your maternity leave and fund your personal choices.

You can not demand that the church remove itself from your reproductive choices, then demand that the church pay for your reproductive choices.

It is an either-or proposition.

Either the state has the right to interfere in your sexuality and reproductive choices or it does not. Either the public has the right to interfere with your sexuality or it does not. Either your employer can interfere in your personal life, or it can not.

You are either free or you are not.

Make the choice.

If you choose to invite others into your sexual, reproductive, and personal lives, do not hypocritically complain when they do.

****

In conclusion, the modern women, however much she may protest otherwise, desperately desires that others involve themselves in her reproductive and sexual choices, but only when it is convenient to her.

So, next time a modern women says the state should stay out of her uterus, ask her opinion on mandatory maternity leave. Point out the contradiction. Point out her hypocrisy.

The Frustration of a Single Man

So this comment appeared over at Dalrock’s. There’s a chance it might be a troll, but I thought it was worth highlighting. In full, bolding mine:

Hello. Is there an introduction board for this website? My name is Michael. I’ve been reading this website for 3 days. I’m shocked to see everything I’ve experiencing written in such a perfectly stated way. Never before have I seen a blog/media outlet so perfectly written. The writer is surely a genius. I’m amazed and relived to see so many responses. It means I’m not alone.

I’m 32 years old and have never been married. Unfortunately (or fortunately I’m not sure which anymore at this point) I have no kids. I am single and alone and not dating anyone. I live in Los Angeles. My income was $120,000.00 (net earnings after creative deductions and business taxes) in 2011. Income is projected to be $170,000.00 (net earnings after business taxes) in 2012. I’m exactly the kinds of “independent man” women claim they want. I drive a luxury car with an amazing apartment in Los Angeles directly on the beach. It’s quite a panty moistener and costs me $6,000.00 per month. I work from home because an office would cost at least another $2,000.00 month. I keep in great shape. Gym 3-4 a week + running + organic diet (I spend $700-$900.00 a month on organic foods and supplements) I was raised in a Christian “7th Heaven” (old TV show) type household. We always went to church. Strong hard working father figure was always present for me and my siblings. I went to private school, university, law school, and then started my own practice at 28 years old.

My parents met and married in college. They have been married for 39 years. And it hurts me to the core to be 32 and unmarried. Alone. Without a loving wife. I feel pain from it every single day. It’s like a sharp invisible dagger constantly stabbing at me. But perhaps I’m part of the problem listed in the graphs above. Let me explain why:

I went to the same college my parents met and married at. I was hoping to meet marry and settle down. Instead I was met with hundreds young college aged women who were NOT interested in marriage. They were interested in: 1) Partying 2) Having sex. College was 24/7 fuck fest. At first I was able to begrudgingly “socialize” in this element. What do I mean by “this element” within this context? College: Extreme social promiscuity, cheating, drama, drugs, and parties. I was an observer but NEVER a direct participant because my heart would not let me. This eventually caused me to stick out as a third wheel observer on campus. Someone who was always “not mixing” or “participating”. As a result I never enjoyed the benefits. I rarely dated. Instead I was sneered at. Cute girls flicked their fingers at me. I was used by women as a person to tell their problems to. I was passed over. I was seen as “weak “lame” and “boring”. I was ignored in the hallways, library, classes, by these women. And it didn’t help I was cash strapped broke working a minimum wage job and eating Raman noodles..

The vast majority of these young hot girls vigorously pursued college life sex like you would not believe. They had sex with a large variety of guys. What I personally call “lily padding”. These girls did anything and anyone in the name of “fun” (fun=parties, fun= sex with new people, fun= drugs, fun= raves, fun = frat party etc.

It hurt me to watch these girls go out of their way to pursue and spread their legs for complete losers. COMPLETE LOSERS. I’m talking: Hi I work in a carnival part time, I’m covered in tattoos, I have no job, I failed my minimum wage drug test and I’m in a band. These guys were losers. Some did not even go to the college! They would hop a bus stay with friends and get laid THAT NIGHT.

Many nights I could not sleep because of the girls getting fucked hard… 1,2,3,4 dorms down. The dorms were old military barracks from the 1940’s with vents through the ceilings. It was very loud. All the time. I remember how much it hurt to be rejected by one girl in particular I had my open hopeless romantic heart set on… We had allot in common. I pursued her like a complete gentlemen – and was eventually turned down. That same weekend after getting turned down I got to hear her getting fucked hard and loud in the room next door. The guy who lived there was a super scraggly unattractive heavy drug user covered in tattoos majoring in “music studies”. This girl was young hot thin beautiful in her physical prime. I never said anything. But I felt so hurt she turned me down for casual sex with a guy like that.
This guy was very open about his exploits with her and told me not to worry because practically every guy he knew fucked her. As the years passed the same thing happened again and again, and again and again, in various ways with all kinds of unrelated girls. What I mean is: I was looking for a LTR leading to marriage. I would meet trade numbers talk and “feel” a girl was a good person. Then she would do other guys. Or I would find out things like this. When this kind of thing happens to me over and over all through my life….it hurts me and makes me doubt senses. What is wrong with me that my heart is telling me she is a good person when she is clearly not?

As time went on I was labeled “husband material” by the girls on my campus. This phrase continued to plague me into my late 20′s. This label resulted in ZERO DATES all through college. I wasn’t “down with it”. I wasn’t “participating” etc (sex, drugs, parties, etc.) My heart wasn’t into it. So I wasn’t entitled to any of the benefits (having sex with young attractive girls in their prime etc.). However party guys, flash in a pan athletes, loser guys in bands, wanna be DJ’s and self-professed “club promoters” – were ALWAYS getting these girls at their youngest hottest physical prime. Basically the more of a loser the guy was… the more these women would have sex with them. Hot sorority girls flocked to Football players like a butterfly’s on a beast. It didn’t even matter if the guy was black. College athletes did not even TRY to get laid.

One night I had enough. I confronted a room of 8-10 gorgeous white girls. These girls were 18-24 years old. I asked them if they planned to get married. All seemed to say more or less – YES. I asked what their future husband would think about their behavior. I was immediately met with hostility. I was told the future husband would “never know” and “it’s none of his business”. The girls said they knew exactly what they were doing and were planning to “have their fun” (fun= partying, fun=sex, fun=going on spring break etc.) and would “settle down later”. I asked: when are you planning to settle down? They said: “It depends” and “probably around 27, 28” or “maybe sooner it depends”. I really put the girls on the spot. During our exchange they saw I was upset. They told me I should be happy because “nice guys finish first in the end”. I told them you cannot have your cake and eat it to. Then I was told by Kaylene (a young thin super sexy blonde with curves in all the right places (who BTW refused to date me even though we were friends and according to her roommate had sex with almost 30 guys in one semester ) she told me “Michael let me tell you something: not only am I going to have my cake eat it and eat it too. I’m going to have it with ice cream and sprinkles”. All of the girls laughed and smiled in agreement.

I thought things would change after college. They didn’t.

Now at 32 and successful these women are hitting me. In my mind these are the same women who rejected me. I’m not interested. The Bible says something to the effect of “don’t forsake the wife of your youth” or something like “remember your young wife”? Something like that. How am I supposed to remember something I never had? I have no history with these women. Ticking ovaries are scandalous. They will lie and say anything to get what they want. Which is: BABIES AND A LOVING HUSBAND TO PAY THEIR BILLS. Yet these women did not even give a few good years of their youth!

As a man I am very visual. God made me this way. I cannot help finding a physically beautiful woman attractive. Why did these women not at least give me a few years of their youth so I would have time to fall in love with them and permanently burn their image in my mind’s eye? I need something to remember when we are 50 and married. Yet she spent her 20’s parceling herself out to guys who gave her nothing and offers nothing to the guy who gives her everything. I’m expected to commit hard earned resources to raising children with what is ultimately a suspect woman whose history I know nothing about. A 30+ unmarried women has very high chance of having a questionable past and baggage. I believe the more men a woman has been with the less likely she is to be emotionally committed each subsequent one. When you have handed out little pieces of your heart over years to dozens of different men what is left for the husband you proclaim to truly love? What value do the words “I love you” mean when she has stared into the eyes of 10-100+ different men and said the same thing?

At 30+ women’s physical appearance has nowhere to go but DOWN. Is this what women mean by “saving the best for last”? Marrying at 30+? How can women spend trillions of dollars a year on beauty products yet at the same time claim a women’s age “shouldn’t be important” to a man? And what about children? Did they ever think their husbands might want to have children? What’s more likely to naturally produce a quicker pregnancy and healthy offspring? A fertile 24 year old in her physical prime… or a 35 year old aging womb? What if I want multiple children? At 30+ a women can easily before infertile after her first pregnancy.
As a result of everything I’ve seen and experienced in my life I would like to make an announcement to all the desperate 30+ year old women out there: I would rather suffocate and die then spend my hard earned income, love, trust, and substance on you. Your entitled, ageing, feminist, jaded, baggage laden and brainwashed. And if I cannot marry a women in her 20’s I REFUSE TO EVER GET MARRIED. Given my high income this should not be a problem. However I’m concerned at some point I will have to start looking overseas (Ukraine, Russia, Eastern Europe etc.). I’m not going to marry one of these 30+ ageing entitled females who clearly have an agenda of their own. I intend to get married once. Marriage is meant to be forever. I will not be a starter husband for one of these used up women. I can’t tell you the number of men I’ve known who married late and were rewarded by losing everything they spent their lives building…

The way I see it I’ve been given the following choices:

1) Marry a 30+ women.
2) Marry a women in her twenties
3) Be single and enjoy my money.

This is (barring it being a troll) the plaintive cry of a beta Christian male without game whose running head-first into his red pill awakening. He’s been trained to live a certain way, then when what he realizes the disconnect between the lies he’s been taught and reality he letting loose his anger. I kinda sympathize.

Anyhow, Michael, if you happen to see this, do either #2 or #3. Do not do #1, I’ve outlined why here.

First thing to notice: these women are actively and with foreknowledge planning to engage fraudulently marry a beta provider in their 30s. I will repeat for anyone who didn’t read the link: do not marry a women over 30 (unless you are also a new divorcee or widow and much older). There’s a reason they are in their 30′s and unmarried and it always bodes poorly for the potential success of a long-term partnership.

Now some might think it unfair to blame all women in their 30s for the actions and intention of a few, but every women in their 30s did a similar sort of calculation in their 20s of why they chose to wait to marry. They would have their fun, their career, their education, their ******, and prioritize it over their future husband and family. That was their choice; all 30-something women made the choice to prioritize something ahead of their future husband and family and can be judged for these choices.

Others might think its sexist to discount a women in her 30s for marriage. That would be incorrect. It’s about choices: males have a very clear and very well known preference for younger women (even aside from the numerous other considerations I outlined earlier). Females are free to make their own choices about their sexuality, but men are also free to make their own choices. If you don’t like that than either change your behaviour, or fuck you. Your choice.

This objection would also be sexist in itself, by trying to force female sexual preferences on males while dictating male sexuality to them.

I will join Michael here: there is no way I am wasting a drop of sweat or a single penny on an unmarried 30-something; they simply are not worth it. I would rather go without.

They made their choice to deprive their future husband of their prime, sexiest, and most fertile years and, in many cases, chose to gave them to losers, cads, and assholes. They willingly squandered their youth, beauty, charm, sexuality, and fertility. Having made that selfish choice, it is very simple to say they are not worth marrying. They have put their own happiness above that of the person they will later profess to loving. Someone who puts themselves before their marriage partner, is not a good marriage partner.

It is far better to be alone than to be stuck with one of these women.

If that offends you as a women, too bad.

Instead of being offended, you should ask yourself why you choose to deprive your future husband (who you supposedly love) of your most youthful years, your most fertile years, your years where your beauty and sexiness were at your height. What was more important than offering this gift to the person you are professing to love before any other?

Again, I’m not trying to control women’s sexuality here. Women are free to make whatever choice they want, but so am I and so is every other male.

So, males, make the right choice: no rings for 30+ women.

Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.
(Proverbs 5:18-19 ESV)

Guest Post from Euroland

Today, I have one of my first pieces of reader submitted content. I’m always open to letting other express themselves here (as long is it is as least tangentially related to the blog theme, is not repulsive to me, and is readable), so e-mail me if you ever have anything you’d like to be read. I get free content, you get a platform from which to have your say: win-win.

Today’s post comes from  a man in Europe; it’s a good reminder that we here in North America are not the only ones dealing with the scourge of modern feminism and progressivism. So, without further comment or any editing from me I present this to you:

Dear Sir/Madam,

1.01: In my view EQUALITY in “Family Court” is the best way to defend marriage and children. This EQUALITY all things being equal, (no abuse or violence or bits on the side etc.) will mean that the spouse who wants out, leaves NO children, NO money & NO house rendering the innocent spouse a widow or a widower almost as the case may be. But the deserting spouse will be required to tell the children, in COURT with a Judge listening when the youngest child is 25, why the children had NO mother or NO father as the case may be. Since walking out, the destering spouse would have been forbidden to contact the children directly or indirectly except through the INNOCENT spouse’s lawyer. If the divorce is mutual BOTH parents must be required to tell the children, in COURT with a Judge listening, (Ladies First) when the youngest child is 25, why the children had NO mother or NO father as the case may be. In an IDEAL world, Divorce would be scrapped, or modified so that ONLY the INNOCENT spouse can re-marry.

2.01: Until EQUALITY reigns men must under NO circumstances marry. Even though the statement “But Not All Women Are Like That” is valid & true, the statement “But ALL ‘Family’ Courts Are Like That” is even more true. Marriage THESE days is so emotionally, financially & legally dangerous for a man that not even a brain-dead gambling addict, having spent a week boozing would urge a man to take the chance. So WHEN Equality reigns men will AGAIN marry. After the US Civil War black men could not marry their ladies fast enough. I think that in some places the Courthouses had to be kept open late, to cope with the demand.

3.01: In my view the PARENT who walks out (unless there is Abuse or Cheating involved) in an UNFIT parent. Society in ALL Western countries is NEVER tired of bellowing “Be a good husband Joe and you will become a good father” AT a man as opposed to saying it TO a man. However Society tells a woman under the EXACT same circumstances that she can be a BAD wife and still a good mother.

4.01: I listened to The Communist Manifesto on Youtube in which we hear:
4.02: The “Children’s Rights” and the “Bad Parents” speeches,
4.03: The “State Education” speeches,
4.04: The “End of the Family” especially the Marriage Family speeches,
4.05: The “Abolish Countries and Nations” speeches.

How little things change!!!!

5.01: States turned against smoking when the cost of treating sick smokers exceeded the revenue from tobacco. The same will happen regarding the Liberal Agenda. Possibly the $1.5 BILLION that George W. Bush spent to promote the marriage family might be seen in 30 years time as the turning of the wheel.

6.01: I think that the ‘marriage strike’ by men in the USA and increasingly throughout Western countries MIGHT just be the beginning of the end for this toxic tsumanai known as ‘Family Law’ in the West.
6.02: Men must remain Chivalrous to tell those women who value marriage & men that it is now up to WOMEN to get the laws changed to achieve Equality. So a girl who experiences Decent, Dependable Dave who punctual, who is reliable, who holds the door for her, gives up his seat to her, gets her a chair, carries her bag, holds her coat for her, lets her before him in the queue, stands aside for her in the corridor or the street, is getting a POWERFUL message. Decent, Dependable Dave is showing the girls what THEY are missing and demonstarting to the girls that Chivalry is a TWO-WAY street. This message becomes even MORE powerful when Decent, Dependable Dave REFUSES to allow ANY female interaction go beyond casual social pleasantries. So if the girls want Scumbag Steve who treats girls like dirt, they are MOST welcome to him.
6.03: Lets us say here that Decent, Dependable Dave marries Maria from Manila as Dave has seen his uncles, brothers, cousins & buddies discarded like old shoes in ‘Family Court’ when the wife walked out on an INNOCENT spouse. Let us make Dave a truck driver who works day and night to provide for his wife & children. Let us say that after 7 years Maria is a stay-at-home Mom with 4 children. Let us further say that Dave did not abuse her, the children or anybody else. Nor did he have any affairs, in short he was a PERFECT husband. Maria has spent all her days at home listening to the Man/Husband- Hating message on Daytime TV. Maria walks out. She gets ABSOLUTELY everything. Suddenly, Dave discovers that it is “HER” children, “HER” house, “HER” pension scheme but HIS bills. Conclusion: It makes ABSOLUTELY NO difference for Decent, Dependable Dave to marry Maria from Manila or indeed Arlene from Alabama..

7.01: On a somewhat different note, I wonder if you have come across the following situation that I heard on Youtube.
7.02: A “loving same-sex couple” be it male or female or a rich single again be it male or female decides that they want to adopt a child.
7.03: They drive through a financially deprived area, where people tend to go to Church on Sunday. They will find a child whom they like and then find something wrong with the child’s situation, the parents are short of money, the child is wearing his brother’s cast-off clothes etc.
7.04: Our couple or rich single will then inform CPS/Human Services who then take the child from the parents. The child is then placed ‘on a temporary basis’ with the couple or the rich single.
7.05: By the time the parents who have no money can get to Court several months at least will have passed.
7.06: The Court will then decide that “the best interests of the child” require that the child be left with the couple or the rich single.
7.07: The parents are then called “Bad Parents” and sent the bills.

8.01: I have NO DOUBT but you will find these remarks in brackets {} from FDR by Ted Morgan, TOUCHSTONE BOOK published by Simon & Schuster New York p493 regarding Congressman Martin Dies of Texas MOST SINISTERLY interesting. In 1938, Dies had got a Committee on Un-American Activities underway in Congress. {He originated the techniques later brought into full bloom by Senator Joseph McCarthy — unfounded charges, lack of substantial evidence, use of guilt by association, denial of opportunity for the accused to answer the charges and repeated public assertions of the extreme danger of a largely imaginary threat.} I wonder why ‘Family’ Courts cross my mind?
8.02: I have no doubt but you have heard of Cronos, a mythical King in Ancient Greece. He overthrew and killed his father. After learning that he, Cronus, was destined to be overcome by his own sons, just as he had overthrown his father, he devoured all of his sons as soon as they were born, to pre-empt the prophecy. When the sixth child, Zeus, was born, Zeus was hidden and later fulfilled the prophecy. Conclusion; No matter how ALL-POWERFUL a Tyranny may appear to be it will EVENTUALLY be overthrown.
8.03: I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Icarus, the bird-man of Greek legend. His father, Daedalus made two pairs of wings out of wax and feathers for himself and his son Icarus so they could escape from Crete where they were held prisoner. Daedalus tried his wings first, but before taking off from the island, warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, nor too close to the sea, but to follow his father’s path of flight. Overcome by the giddiness that flying lent him, Icarus soared through the sky curiously, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted the wax. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms, and so Icarus fell into the sea and drowned.

9.01: We ignore the lessons of History at our peril. There is NO CASE known to History, REGARDLESS of the bona fides of those involved, of any Society that has survived an attack on the Married Hetrosexual family.
9.02: Before he invaded Russia, Napoleon said “After three months, Russia will ask me for peace” to one of his generals. In June 1941, as Germany prepared to invade Russia, German officers on the ground (as opposed to the Nazi leadership) told the troops that the serious fighting would last 4 weeks, that the Germans would be at the Urals in 14 weeks and that they would all be back home in Germany for Christmas.
9.03: In 1941, as Hitler’s armies were racing towards Moscow, Stalin summoned Ivan Stamenev, the Bulgarian Ambassador to Moscow to the Kremlin, and asked him to mediate with the Germans, as Bulgaria was neutral. Stamenev refused saying “Even if you have to retreat to the Urals, you will beat them in the end”,in reply to Stalin a prediction, that Time, proved correct. Men and families are now back at the Urals. However, do NOT worry as this toxic tsumanais called ‘Family Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries WILL come to an end. If you had said “This is the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union” on December 24, 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, you would have been the butt of EVERY joke as people rolled around the streets laughing at you. We all now KNOW that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan WAS the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire. Slowly, men and families are moving westward. We are NOT QUITE YET in the position of the Soviet trooper Sgt. Alyosha Kovalyov who on May 02, 1945, hoisted the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in the famous photograph. The day WILL come when Families hoist the Flag of Freedom over the TOXIC MT EVERSTS called ‘Family’ Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries. Within twenty years in Western countries, we will see some of the cheerleaders for the Feminist/Liberal/Child Abuse Agenda doing the General Deboi & Julius Streicher Act.

Julius Streicher

Julius Streicher 1885 – 1946 was a Nazi newspaper owner in post WW1 Germany. His racist newspaper even by Nazi standards spewed forth the most vile virulent hatred of Jews. He incited Germans to the persecution and to the extermination Jews. For “the persecution and the extermination Jews” you may read “the persecution and the extermination of the family & fathers” in Western countries. Hitler was NOT tough enough on the Jews for him. After WW2 he claimed to know NOTHING of any anti-Semitic campaigns NEVER MIND any Death Camps. He was tried at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and executed by hanging.

General Deboi

After Stalingrad, the Russians captured 22 four-star German generals. One of these generals, General Deboi was appointed group spokesman as he could speak French, Europe’s international language of that time. During the Russian-organized press conference Deboi stressed ‘Je suis autrichien, je ne suis pas allemand’ constantly, to anybody who would listen.

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXX (Reader did not want to be identified).

Baby Rabies and a Traditional Wife

I’ve talked of finding a good wife and mother before and the blessings of having many children. One of the things I talked about was finding a women who wanted children and as good with children.

The simple fact is that if you are to be a patriarch, finding a wife who wants a full quiver is essential.

Despite the grinding, remorseless slog that is online dating, I still have a couple profiles, and invest a minimal amount of time in them (about once or twice a week I login, check who’s new within my parameters, and send a short message or two if anyone’s interesting).

Like most men, I do most of the primary messaging, but I do get a small amount of messages (about one every month or two) from women who I did not contact beforehand. The women who send me unsolicited messages always came in one of two categories:

1. She is overweight/unattractive and reeking of desperation. Often women in this group don’t even seem to have read my profile. (Hint: If a guy says he is looking for a Christian wife and wants lots of children, he will not respond positively to messages from an atheist who doesn’t want marriage or children. Exception: She is offering very easy sex, in which case he might be tempted into entertaining thoughts of carnal sin).
2. She is in her late-20s or early-30s (ie. older than me) and her profile shows her as being very interested in having children.

After initially trying to be polite by replying to these, I’ve since stopped replying to both groups after a bad experience where some polite responses to a girl I was not interested in broke down into receiving lengthy hysterical messages outlining how awesome she thought she was, along with an extended detailing of her life story after I declined her advances.

Anyhow, moving away from my digressions, the second group is what I am going to write about today.

Before I dipped my toe into the manosphere, I wondered about these women. They often seemed as desperate as the overweight women, but there didn’t seem to be any reason for it. They were fairly physically unattractive for their age and didn’t seem to have anything in their profiles that would obviously disqualify them from finding a decent man. Yet, here they were, hitting on a much younger guy, with an obvious tinge of desperation in their profiles and messages (even in my blue-pill days I was cognizant enough to know women generally preferred older men and vice versa).

I wondered why, if they were so family-oriented and wanted children so very much, they were unmarried in their late-20s or early-30s when there wasn’t any reason they shouldn’t have been able to find a decent husband much earlier.

Reading the manosphere, I’ve since realized that these women are suffering from what is often derogatorily referred to as “baby rabies”. They have lived it up in their 20s, are now hitting the wall and realizing their fertility is waning, and are desperate to get a bun in the oven before it’s too late.

(I will continue to use the term baby rabies, despite it’s moderately derogatory nature, as I can not remember another simple term for this phenomenon while writing this post).

****

So, these women suffering baby rabies are loudly proclaiming how family-oriented they are and it is very apparent how much they desire to have children.

For the MTGOW or PUA, the obvious response to the desperation of these past-their-prime women is either ignore it or take advantage of it, respectively, but how should the patriarch-to-be* respond this kind of women, when her stated goals so closely align with his own?

The same as the MGTOW’s: ignore them.

There is a fundamental difference between a traditional women looking to raise a large family and a women in the grip of baby rabies.

A traditional women will plan her life around her desire to have children; raising and maintaining a family will have always been a priority for her. She will have prepared herself for this goal and learned the virtues necessary to meet this goal.

On the other hand, a women in the grip of baby rabies has not made raising a family a priority. She is merely responding to an emotional impetus pushed on her by her changing hormones and has not prepared herself for the demanding task of raising children.

There is a fundamental difference between a women whose goal is to be a wife and mother and a women who is experiencing baby rabies.

Do not mistake the two.

****

The question then becomes, how does a young man distinguish the two?

The most obvious and easiest to observe answer is age.

A women in her late-teens/early-20s who is desiring a husband and large family is very unlikely to be in the baby rabies stage; assuming she meets the other requirements you should have for the mother of your future children.

On the other hand, a women in her 30′s(or older) has very obviously not made raising a family a priority, otherwise she would already be married and raising children. If you want to be a patriarch, do not marry a women this old, whatever her potential virtues, she does not have the same goals as you.

****

Now, you may have noticed I didn’t include women aged 25-29. That’s because these women are not so cut and dry.

They aren’t as obviously in the throes of baby rabies as older women, but at that age, you wonder why, if a family is of such a priority to them, they have waited until past their prime fertility to get serious about marriage.

I would say to generally avoid them, but would not categorically reject a woman in that age range as I would those in one in her 30s. If they have enough other virtues and their reason for not getting married earlier is not silly, they may be worth considering.

But be cautious, use your judgment.

****

Now, some may raise objections to my eliminating women in their 30s out of hand and advising against women in their late 20s, but the patriarch is looking for a particular type of women, one for whom marriage and children are a high priority.

A women who waits until her late-20s or 30s to pursue marriage has amply demonstrated that marriage and children are not a high priority for her.

What of her education and career?

A bachelors can be achieved by the age of 21, so that’s not really an excuse.

Even if it was, a women who pursues an education and career above a marriage and family, self-evidently puts the former as a higher priority.

That’s fine, it’s her choice, but it does mean that she is not a good candidate for a patriarch looking for wife whose highest priority is family.

But what if she didn’t have the opportunity to marry?
What if she couldn’t find a good man?

She did have opportunity; she didn’t take it. She did find a good man, she rejected him.

Women have a lot of options of the marriage market when they are young; most men would be surprised (and jealous) of how many they do have. Even a woman with below average marriage market value will have far more opportunities to pursue marriage handed to her with minimal effort than even the highest value men will get through huge outlays of effort.

You average women will have met a large number of decent guys throughout her late-teens or early-20s. If she has not married one of them that shows that she either:

1. Puts a low priority on marriage and children, in which case she is not what a patriarch is looking for.
2. Had some flaws that were strong enough that no other decent man  pursue he and propose to her, in which case sound judgment would warn any other man to avoid her.
3. Has far too unrealistic standards of her husband. Anybody who marries her will not be able to live up to them (that includes you, you’re not special), setting the stage for a bad marriage.
4. She has been open to many suitors and either dated a large number of them or simply had one or two long-term relationships that went nowhere. She didn’t end up marrying them because, for whatever reason, none of the men she dated were of sufficient quality for marriage. In this case, she has shown that she has a history of poor choices regarding the type of men she has allowed into her life. These poor choices shows that she has poor judgment in men, which likely means poor judgment in other areas of life. Poor judgment is not something any patriarch should want to attach themselves to. (Either that or see #3;they were of sufficient quality, she just had unrealistic standards).

A women who is still single by her late-20s is simply not the kind of women any patriarch should be looking to marry. She may be a good women, but she is not the type of women a patriarch should choose.

****

Even if we assume that, somehow, her failure to be married and raising children already are not due to her own choices, there are other considerations that are simply unavoidable at that age.

There is, of course, the biological fact that a women in her 30s is rapidly losing her fertility and there likely won’t be enough time to raise a large family before infertility and/or a high risk of mutation strikes. Even for a women in her late 20s: if you take the time to court her (say a year), then have a child every two years, you’re approaching her 40s by the time you get to child five, which is a bit late to be having children. The amount of children you will be able to have will be limited.

As well, simply living independently for a decade or so following high school/college is itself a problem. By that time, a women will have adapted to her situation as an independent, single adult with little responsibility. Re-adapting back to the interdependence of a marriage will likely present a challenge for her (and her husband). In addition, adapting to the responsibility of a child (let alone many children) at that age following so many years of a lack of responsibility may prove problematic.

****

What of men in their 30s; should young women looking for a patriarch avoid them? It’s kind of sexist to have a double standards.

First, I am writing for young men, not for women and am focusing on what young men should concentrate on. Women have their own things to look for, which I might write about at another time, but this post is not aimed at them.

Second, it’s not a double standard, it’s two different standards. Men and women have different priorities for potential mates. Stop trying to force women’s priorities on men.

Third, a man has not likely had the same opportunities as a women for marriage. As the pursuers in the marriage market place, men do not have the same overwhelming array of options handed to tham from which to choose that women do. They have to work very hard simply to have a small fraction of the options open to your average young woman. (Take heart young man, the situation reverses itself sometime in your 30s). He may have pursued many women who he thought might make good potential wives, without being overly picky, and been shot down by all.

As well, his fertility will last him well into middle/old age, so that worry is off the table.

That being said, there are a couple problems a young women might face with a man in his 30s (or older). He may be approaching the age where his children may be at higher risk of mutation. Also, he has likely gotten used to living independently, just as women have, and will face the same problems settling down.

****

Age by itself is not a perfect guide. For a younger women, rather than being a traditional women wanting to be a patriarch’s helpmeet, she may simply be a gold-digger or someone who believes raising children and being dependent is easier than working. I’m not going to get into that at this time, but will give you this link (which I’ve already used thrice above; read it is essential to this post) once again.

Other things you can look for two distinguish between the two:

1. Desperation: A traditional women will be looking for a husband, but in a calm, sensible manner. A women with baby rabies will have a tinge of desperation to her.
2. Singular Focus: Is she focusing on the marriage, you, and children more or less equally, or does her primary focus seem to be having children, while marriage and her potential partner seem secondary?
3. Particularity: Related to that, does she want your children (or at least a good man’s children) or does she not seem to very selective about who fathers her children?
4. Preparedness: Has she prepared herself to be a good wife and mother (see previous link) or does she seem to just be acting impulsively?
5. Timing: Has she always wanted to be a mother, or is this something that just recently appeared for no good reason?
6. Number: Does she want just one designer baby to fulfill her itch or is she looking to raise a whole family?

That’s probably not a complete list; I’m sure others will have things I missed in the comments. The thing is to recognize that there are potential pitfalls and that just because she says she’s family-oriented and wants children does not necessarily make it so. Use your judgment and consider things rationally to come to the choice that fits your life goals.

****

Just to head off some objections I’m sure will come up.

Aren’t you being judgmental?

Why, yes I am. Thank you for noticing.

Anybody who is not extremely judgmental in choosing the person to whom they are swearing a solemn oath before God, the state, and their family to spend the rest of their lives with is a fool. Anybody who is not even more extremely judgmental in choosing the woman who will be the mother of their his children is an abject fool.

This goes for women as well. If you aren’t extremely judgmental about the kind of man you consider marrying and fathering your children, you are a fool.

This is not to say young men and women should make a large list of stupid superficial requirements for potential mates. Use your reason. Judge on the important things: loyalty, reliability, judgment, shared values, work ethic, shared morality, religion, family attitudes, sexual attractiveness, etc., while being forgiving on the superficial/small things.

This is probably the most important earthly decision you will make in your life. Do not be too compromising.

Aren’t you being unfair about *******? What of *******? Isn’t ******* an exception?

Life’s unfair. Get used to it.

Also, NAWALT, I know.

I am giving young men some rules of thumb to help them make the best decision they can. It is up to them to apply them using their own discretion and judgment.

Rather than whining about how others are unfair and judgmental and how you deserve something just because, look at your own choices and try to change them so you are best able to achieve your goals.

If having a family is important to you, make choices that reflect their importance.

You’re an asshole.

Probably, but that’s irrelevant.

****

Despite my prior dismissal of exceptions, I will note one.

There is the rare exception of the early widow. A women who married (or was engaged) young and was a loyal, loving wife (or fiance), but whose husband (or husband-to-be) died tragically early, is a special circumstance. A widow will likely come with some extra emotional needs (and possibly previous children), but if you are willing and able to comfort and emotionally support her (and raise her children), she could make an excellent wife for the young future patriarch (assuming she meets the other basic requirements you should have).

A faithful widow would also probably make an ideal marriage candidate for an older widower or man who’s been cheated on and/or abandoned by his wife. All things being equal, she would likely would be a much better potential wife (and mother) than either a divorcee or a women who has put off marriage to much later in her life.

Consider it. Think of the example of Ruth and Boaz.

****

* All of the above advice is written particularly for young men in their 20s/early-30s looking to become patriarchs, but anyone else looking to marry should take heed.

****

This post inspired by (h/t: M3):

The Squeeze and the Surrogate Family

I came across this article (h/t: Instapundit) about the squeeze middle-aged folks, particularly women, are under as they are stressed caring for both their children and their aging parents. According to the article, it is supposedly difficult and stressful to care “for both their children and their aging parents while also managing their income-generating jobs and keeping their partners happy–all at the same time.”

To which the only possible response is: no duh.

It is difficult, if not impossible, because nobody was ever meant to do all that at once. People simply do not have the time and energy to deal with children, old people, a career, and other activities at the same time.

Traditionally, there have always been societal and biological mechanisms to deal with this, but, over the last few decades, we’ve decided to spit in the face of both.

Throughout history, these mechanisms have varied. Tribal structures, villages, and the like made raising children and taking care of old people a community thing for most people. Combined with the typical “low” age of average death, “early” child-bearing ages, and large families things mostly worked themselves out.

When people started living longer and tribal and community ties began to die due to the mass dislocations caused by industrialization and urbanization, society adapted by adopting what we now know of as the traditional nuclear family in the early 20th century. Combined with some help from local churches and community organizations this worked fairly well, reaching its apex in the decades following war boom.

In the nuclear family model, the family adopts a division of labour to help the running of the household. The husband works and the wife takes care of the family. Families have many kids and they have them at a young age, so when they get old, the children can care for their parents.

Given the realities of modern, mass society, this structure works.

Having children young (in your late teens/early 20s) provided future children to take care of you and makes it so that by the time you need to take care of your elders, your children are already nearing self-sufficiency. It means that you have your youthful vigor to raise your children when you need. (Did you ever think of why you are able to go with minimal and erratic sleep when you’re young? It’s because it lets you physically handle the realities of a squalling infant unable to tell time. You are not built to naturally be able to take care of young children in your 30s and 40s, you lose the vigor necessary to do so as you age.)

Having lots of children meant that there would be enough people to take care of you when you aged without it being an undue burden on any single child.

Having the wife stay home provided the family with a person who had the time to take care of the children. She had time to take care of elderly relatives. She had the time to take care of sick family members.

There was no generational squeeze, because the division of labour and proper family planning inherent in the nuclear family model gave each individual only what they could actually handle and there was no undue burden on any single family member.

****

When feminists, and others, criticize the “housewife”, they miss the importance the housewife has for modern, mass society. Absent the traditional bonds of tribe and villages, anomie was destroying people in an urbanized, industrial environment.The development of the housewife held this back.

The housewife may not contribute to “GDP” but she contributes something just as important, she socially bonds the family together and bonds the family to the rest of the community. She has time to take care of dependent family members. She has time to develop meaningful relationships in the neigbourhood and the family’s social circle. She had time to support local organizations and by taking care of the household, she gave the husband time to support them.

The bread-winning husband is economically productive, while the housewife is socially productive.

In a modern, urban society, social productivity is as essential to the health of society as economic productivity, as the natural social relations and community of a tribal or village lifestyle simply do not exist. But building community takes time, something people working full-time, while taking care of children, simply do not have. The housewife had this time.

She has time to get to get to know Edna down the street and develop a meaningful relationship, which would then transfer into a meaningful family relationship, building community. If Edna’s husband, Bill broke his leg and couldn’t work, her neighbour, the housewife, would have the time to comfort them; she would prepare meals, look after Edna’s children, provide emotional support, run errands, etc., which she was able to do because she had time. She would know that Edna would do the same if something happened to her family.

The housewife would build community where community did not naturally exist.

****

But, some sections of society (read: leftists and feminists) were unhappy with this adaptation to modern society and set out to destroy it.

The traditional, nuclear family was “oppressive” and being a housewife was unfulfilling, so patriarchy had to be destroyed. (Because working 40 hours in a dead-end office job simply to expand your ability to mindlessly consume was somehow more fulfilling than meaningful community).

And destroyed it was.

People started getting married later, had children later, and had fewer children overall. Family became less important.

The housewife was replaced by a second provider. The traditional family replaced by the broken family. Social productivity was exchanged for economic productivity, with little real benefit.

The result: anomie.

The social capital the traditional family, particularly the housewife, created began to disappear. As Robert Putnam has documented this decline in social capital and social trust. As one example, over the last 25 years the average adult has gone from having 3 friends to having only 2; half of all adults have one or fewer real friends.

The squeeze occurred, as no one is able to work full-time, raise children, care for elders, and develop community. There is simply not enough time in the day and peopel simply do not have that much energy.

****

So, how was the squeeze handled?

The traditional family was replaced by the broken family and the surrogate family.

The broken family lost the husband and father. Of course, raising a child, while also providing for this family is brutally hard work, almost impossible. So, the husband and father the broken family did not have was replaced by the state, which became a surrogate husband and father. The state would offer provision through welfare, mandated leave, tax breaks, funded child care, public health care, and a wide array of other benefits.

The housewife was working and could no longer raise her children. Instead, families gave them to a surrogate mother: subsidized daycare and the public school system.

The housewife no longer had the time to take care of elderly or ill relatives and the relatives had forgone having enough children. The work of supporting them became overly onerous, it simply was impossible. So, families entrusted their elderly and ill to a surrogate child, the state. Social security, subsidized senior housing, public health care, and a wide array of government benefits replaced the family.

****

The problem with using the state as a surrogate family is twofold.

First, the state can only provide bread, but man does not live on bread alone. People need community, friends, family, and social interaction. The state is incapable of providing this; it is a cold, faceless, bureaucratic institution. The best it can do is hire a paid nurse or teacher to tolerate your company for a few hours.

The state can not build community. It can only replace community with economic transaction or destroy it.

The state can not end the squeeze, as personal relations are still necessary for the elderly, the infirm, children, and the building of community. It may alleviate is somewhat, but the squeeze remains.

Second, is the cost. The state’s coffers are not bottomless and when the benefits of social capital that were previously built by unpaid labour, now has to be built by labour paid by the state, the costs become onerous.

The state goes broke.

Greece is experiencing it. Other part of Europe will experience it soon. North America will experience it in time if her course does not reverse.

When the state goes broke, it can no longer replace community, but people have lost the community to replace the state. There can only be a void, with people left to their own devices. Those unable to repair community or provide for themselves suffer.

Without the traditional family, the squeeze is unavoidable.

****

The traditional family, particularly the housewife, was essential to building community. The state as a surrogate family has replaced the traditional family. Mindless economic production and consumerism replaced community. The bureaucratic state expanded and replaced community.

For what benefit? A squeeze on the middle, a dubious increase in material well-being, and the end to an amorphous concept of oppression.

I hope those who did this feel it was worth it. Do you think it was?

Feminism and Housing Costs

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

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

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

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

****

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

Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

Demanding More

There’s been a little bit of debate on the infantalization of men within the alt-right/manosphere, so I decided to weigh in. (I have a companion piece to this post here, read it to give more context to this post).

The Social Pathologist wrote:

The manosphere rightly criticizes women for their diminishing femininity, but what the manosphere does not do so well is criticize the increasing infantisation of men.  When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home. What many manosphere commentators fail to recognize is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick. The manosphere demands thinness  but criticizes women for wanting its feminine equivalent. Mote, beam, eye. It’s all a bit of hypocrisy.

There are two problems with his argument here.

The first problem is the difference between the manosphere and modern feminism. The manosphere is actively trying to improve men; they are encouraging men to become better, more masculine players, or better, more masculine patriarchs. They are actively trying to move away from being the nice computer nerds and become better at being a man. (Whether that’s better or not for women is debatable).

(The other section of the manosphere, the MGTOW, may not advocate self-improvement as much, but they are not hypocritical because they are also no longer calling for women to improve. They’ve simply decided to take their ball and go home and have given the reasons why).

Modern feminism on the other hand is actively trying to make women less feminine. They are actively encouraging women to be fat (fat acceptance), to be “outspoken” (read: bitchy), and to discard their traditional societal roles. They are actively trying to make woman worse. They are encouraging women to become bitchy (not nice) fat chicks.

The second problem with his argument is the underlying social context. The problem the manosphere has is not, so much, about women preferring alpha men to beta men, it is that women and society lie about it.

Men are honest about what they want. Most men (lying manginas and fat fetishists, aside) are honest about their preferences and are quite willing to say “I want a thin, feminine women with a nice chest.” Women are told and know exactly what men want. Some women lie to themselves that fat is beautiful (Rubens like fat women… dur), but even then their complaints are that men do not appreciate their “beauty”, not that men are actually lying to them about it.

On the other hand, women lie (or genuinely don’t know) about their preferences. If you ask women (be they your mother, sisters, female friends, whomever) what women want, the answer will usually be something similar to “a nice, loving man in touch with his emotion who wants to settle down and share the housework equally.” The problem being something any nice young man looking to settle down realizes quite quickly: women’s actual choices in men are something else entirely.

If women just came out and said that they were attracted to aloof, dominant, irresponsible, alpha bad boys, there would be no problem. (There would also be no problem if women found betas attractive like they said). Men would have the honest truth and could live their life accordingly. The problem is that men are sucking up the lies about women’s desire for a loving beta, are having these lies dashed around them, and, when they wonder why, are lied to even more. It is not the preferences that are the problem, it is the lies surrounding the preferences that are the problem.

The difference is that men are honest about what attracts them, but women are dishonest (or mistaken) about what they are attracted to. These are what separate the “why are there no good men?” feminists and the manosphere.

In a later post he wrote:

The manosphere has quite rightly denounced the corruption of women by feminism but what it has been unable see is the failure in modern masculinity. Roosh and Roissy may get lots of lays but they would have hardly been though of examples of masculinity either in Roman, Greek or Victorian times. Hedonism was always the “soft” option of manhood. And the reality today is that many men are soft. Not so much physically as in character. Women are far “harder” today and more self disciplined. Making women “softer” may restore some of their femininity but it no way guarantees the masculinity of men.  Taking away a woman’s rights does not give a man alpha qualities.

Simon Grey responded:

And so, while I agree with the MRA crowd that most women would make for terrible wives, I also agree with Slumlord that most men make for terrible husbands.  Quite simply, most people in this world are self-absorbed cowards, too afraid to live up to their potential, and too weak to suppress their self-destructive tendencies.  No wonder their marriages and relationships turn cancerous.

I agree, most young men today would make terrible husbands, but they both stop there. They do not ask why, and that is the important question.

Why are most young men today living as “Peter Pan” manboys?

(We could ask the same about why most women would make poor wives, but the manosphere has covered that fairly extensively already; the answer boils down to feminism).

Dalrock has already has partially answered the question and has hit a key point:

While we might argue about the speed and magnitude of men’s reaction to such a shift, as well as the specific mechanism we might observe (marriage strike vs weakened signal, etc), I don’t see how one could argue that an overall decline in men’s eagerness to work hard in preparation to lead families is surprising.

We wanted non threatening men, and now we have them.

But I don’t think he spells it out clearly enough, so I’m going to.

The reason there are so many losers, manboys, men without chests, or whatever you wish to call them, comes down to one, solitary word. This word is probably the single most important word when it comes to any social pheonomenum. This word is:

Incentives

This is the centre-piece of economics. This is the single most explanatory concept in all the social sciences. Incentives.

People respond to incentives. If there are positive incentives for a behaviour, there will be more of that behaviour. If there are negative incentives for a behaviour, there will be less of that behaviour.

No matter how much cajoling is done, no matter how much people are shamed, no matter how many laws are written, the incentive structure of society (of which cajoling, shaming, and laws are all a part) will override them all.

****

So, what are the incentives of the young man today?

I was originally going to write a short narrative, but it turned long, too long for this post. You can read it here, it provides more context.

The young man today is put in 13 years of public school and university, where people are judged primarily by their ability tosit still and parrot what their teachers say. Where masculine behaviours, such as risk-taking, dominance, and rough-housing are discouraged, banned, and punished. Sometimes these behaviours even result in a regime of drugging. The entire system is as structured as a tightly run concentration camp.

On the other hand, young males are taught that their natural desires are destructive and to be controlled, but are not taught the discipline necessary to control them. They are taught to get in touch with their emotions, except those school administration think are dangerous. They are taught self-esteem, where no matter what they accomplish (or don’t accomplish) they are special and deserving. They are not taught self-control, they are taught hedonism.

This produces a horrible dichotomy of a lack of freedom and a lack of discipline. The entire school system is geared towards teaching young boys subservience and dependence (beta traits) and to destroy their in-born initiative, risk-taking, and ambition (alpha traits).

Right from the get go, authorities teach young boys that traditional masculine behaviours are punished, while weakness and beta traits (not always the same) are rewarded.

In university, the incentive structure is much the same. Obey and parrot and be rewarded.

Men are taught, while young, that the authorities will reward for being weak and punish for being strong. They are also taught an entitlement mentality.

This is the incentive structure the primary authorities in their life (children spend as much or more time being instructed by the school system than their parents) ingrain in them from a young age.

****

On the other hand, the social system of both school and university naturally coalesces into an opposing dynamic. Children are socialized through other children than through other adults. They pick up natural, feral attitudes towards interpersonal relations rather than a more mature civilized attitude to social relations.

In this social system, the alphas are socially and sexually rewarded, while the more awkward betas are not. Young men learn that sex, social status, and relationships can be obtained without work. In fact, men are taught that the irresponsible “cool” kids are more likely to be socially and sexually rewarded than the more responsible “nerds”.

In other words, they know they can satiate their primary genetic drive without having to contribute to society, as long as they act “like jerks.”

Young men are taught that irresponsibility pays now.

The only threat we have against this the long term: responsibility pays in the long run.

This worked until the last decade or so, until long-term incentives began to collapse.

****

What are the long-term incentives for your young adult male, so he is responsible?

A good-paying, worthwhile job, a house, a loving wife, social status, and a family.

The good-paying job is dying in the current economic corruption. 50% of our young people are either under- or unemployed. Their college degrees are worthless. They are shackled with near unmanageable student debt. Self-employment is a no-go. Government regulations strangle most industries and are especially painful to small businesses. (Not to mention, the initiative and ambition necessary for self-employment were beat out of him by the school system). Those who do get jobs are usually suffering in useless government busywork or brutally impersonal corporate work.

Simply put, there are no longer any guarantees that hard-work and responsibility will lead to a worthwhile job. But even if he eventually gets a job, he is punished by having half his income is taken by the state and given to the irresponsible.

He can still get a home, but not without the job. That, and the young man doesn’t want a home for himself; he wants it so he can raise a family. This incentive is more an ancillary option to the other incentives.

The primary incentive is a wife and family, but that incentive is becoming meaningless.

The average age of marriage for is 28 (in Canada it’s 31). Think about that. Your average man will not find a wife until a full decade after he graduates from high school and about 15 years after he hits puberty.

During this 15 years of either loneliness and sexual frustration for betas or, for the alphas, hedonism and sexual license, what lessons are being learned by men?

Irresponsibility.

Men are learning to get used to irresponsibility. How the hell can you expect most men to be prepared for the responsibility of a wife and family after he has had a full decade of getting acquainted to irresponsibility?

You can’t.

But lets say he’s prepared for marriage. It’s highly unlikely his wife is a virgin: his dating pool probably has more single mothers than virgins. She’s not going to bond to him.

There’s a 50% chance that he will lose his family. When he loses his family, there is a good chance he will be subjected to alimony slavery and have his family kidnapped from him. I’m not going into detail here, because other’s have wrote much more comprehensive articles on the risks of marriage, but marriage is becoming and increasingly bad option.

Social status? Hahaha… Being a responsible person no longer create social status. “Office drones” are looked down upon. The rich and successful are castigated and punished. Everybody is equal now. There is no more of the base respect and social status given to a man who quietly works hard to provide for his family.

So, where are his incentives to be responsible?

When having a family is a decade away and is likely to be punished with divorce, alimony theft, and having his children ripped from him? When hard work and an education no longer means a job, let alone a meaningful one? When he’s grown accustomed to the freedom of singledom? When he is punished for career success? When the lazy and irresponsible are rewarded with his hard-earned income?

****

Overall, the entire incentive structure of society is biased towards men being irresponsible.

If a man is irresponsible, he gets to play video games now. He gets sex now. He gets to hang out with his friends now.

If a man is responsible, there is no immediate gain. When there were long-term incentives, this was fine, but the long term incentives are breaking down.

Why should men act responsibly, when the incentives are towards irresponsibility?

****

Pathologist illustrated his point about weak men with a story about a “responsible” young women with an irresponsible young man for a boyfriend.

Many in the manosphere would view this woman as a demanding bitch. I don’t. She would be a good modern fit for Proverbs 31:10-31. She has independently, on a low income, saved money and bought herself a house, put tenants in it and has a long term plan for the future. She is keeping down a job and has been able to organise her own affairs. She wants a stable future and does not want to live in poverty. By the way, I’d estimate her BMI at about 22. Such a woman is percieved as a threat to Western Civilisation by the manosphere. Facepalm.

She is a threat to Western Civilization, not because she is a “demanding bitch”, but because she is not demanding enough. If she was a Proverbs 31 women she would not be shacking up with an irresponsible man. She would have demanded marriage to a man “known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.” ie. She would have married a responsible and respected man. Instead, she is giving herself to an worthless man without any demands of responsibility from him.

She is the one creating perverse incentives.

By herself, her actions don’t matter. But if you multiply her by a few million women, all demanding nothing out of the men they bed, then you have a threat to civilization.

She made her choice to date a loser, to be irresponsible, and to reward irresponsible behaviour. She now has to face the consequences of her choices. Society now has to face the consequences of her actions.

When love is free, most men won’t pay for it.

If men aren’t paying, civilization is threatened.

****

The manosphere is right to demand more from women, but there is also a corollary. Women need to demand more from men.

We need a society that demands more from everybody and rewards those, and only those, who meet those demands. People will only rise to the level that societal incentives reward.

Everything in life comes down to incentives. Right now, the incentive structure for men is built so that irresponsibility is rewarded, while responsibility is punished. When the incentives for men are structured this way you will get irresponsible men.

If women, conservatives, and the Social Pathologist want responsible men, they should help restructure society so that the incentives of society, particularly, in this case, those related to sex and relationships, reward responsible men, and punish irresponsible men.

Feminism and Homemaking are not Compatible

TC linked to this article in the Atlantic on feminism and homemakers by Wurtzel.

While the original article has its inaccuracies and slip-shod thinking, it is absolutely correct in its main point:

Let’s please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don’t depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

A women can not be both a feminist and a stay-at-home mother; the two are mutually exclusive.

And there really is only one kind of equality — it precedes all the emotional hullabaloo — and it’s economic.

Modern feminism (with the possible exception of certain forms of liberal feminism which I am going to ignore for this post, but would probably be easier categorized as libertarianism rather than a form of feminism) is based on the application of marxian methodology to sexual relations. In marxian analysis, all power is, at base, economic power and varying groups are in competition with each other for this power. When marxian analysis is applied to sexual relations, the inevitable conclusion is that women and men are in a power conflict and women are economically oppressed. Only by by gaining economic power can women no longer be oppressed. Hence feminism.

Women are oppressed because they are not financially independent; only the financially independent woman can be free of oppression.

The traditional home-maker and the stay-at-home mother is economically dependent on the male breadwinner and is therefore oppressed.

Economic self-sufficiency is feminism.

****

The augmentation of her main point is dead on as well:

Being a mother isn’t a real job
…
something becomes a job when you are paid for it — and until then, it’s just a part of life.

A job is a relationship where money is exchanged for labour. If you are not getting paid, you do not have a job.

Homemaking is not a job because the homemaker is not being paid.

****

There is one specific way in which being a homemaker can be a job.

If there is a written contract between the homemaker and the breadwinner, in which the breadwinner is contractually obligated to pay the homemaker a clearly defined sum for clearly defined, contractually obligated childcare duties independently of the state of the marriage and marriage contract, the homemaker can be said to have a job.

****

Some guy named Friedersdorf had a response to the original article.

When questioning the main point of the original argument, that being a mother is a job, he pisses all over such petty things as logic. (On the other hand, his destruction of Wurtzel’s analysis of electoral politics is not bad, but her analysis was rather shoddy, so that’s not exactly something to brag about).

His argument essentially boils down to: being a homemaker is a job because it costs a lot to hire a caregiver and because raising children is both important and somewhat difficult.

Just because something requires effort, costs a lot to replace, and is important does not make it a job.

The fallacy of this is obvious. It is important that I fry myself a sausage and the alternative of eating out can be costly, that does not mean I have a job as a chef. Under his argument almost any activity can be considered a job, making the whole concept of a job meaningless.

Something is only a job if you get paid. Homemaking is not a job.

He then goes on with a tale about his mother, of which I’ll only quote a portion:

To describe her as dependent on my father for income is accurate only insofar as my parents decided together that she’d forgo working, plus the wage premium she’d gain from those lost years of work experience, to raise my sister and me, and to do other uncompensated labor

In other words, it’s entirely accurate. That’s very much being dependent; she voluntarily chose to be dependent, but she’s still dependent on a man to provide for her.

One other thing. Contrary to his assertions, his mother was not acting like a feminist. She may have had all the right cant, but she did not live them.

****

As a side note, he then makes this asinine assertion:

The legal recognition of community property was a major, rightfully celebrated feminist victory.

It was not a feminist victory. It was a form of marital law developed from civil law (as opposed to common law) and Catholic social teaching so that children were provided for if the husband died, not because of what it did for women. It preceded feminism by centuries and has only been adopted in less than a dozen states. It was, at most, a partial victory of civil law over common law in some jurisdictions (which is still not good, but that’s currently irrelevant). It was neither feminist, nor anything resembling a victory.

****

Of course, near the end of the article he actually almost begins to stumble upon the reality of the situation, seemingly by pure accident:

GDP is evidently her bottom line.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Although,not GDP per se, economics is feminism’s bottom line. The economic power and independence of women is the central point of feminism. (Other forms of power/independence, such as political power, which are critical to feminism would flow from naturally from economic independence/power).

The notion, implicit in Wurzel’s piece, that men and women should set aside the work arrangements that best suit their families in order to further an ideological agenda

He hits the nail on the head. Feminism is an ideological agenda. It requires that men and women set aside “best suited” work arrangements in favour of the women being economically independent.

That’s exactly the damn point Wurzel was making.

If a family is not willing to do this, they are not feminist.

Feminism may require sacrifice so that a women can be economically independent.

****

The paragraph before that he stumbles upon another truth. Friedersdorf states this:

If anything, society benefits from a diversity of arrangements being tried all at once, both because variety is more conducive to fulfilling diverse individuals, and because stay-at-home parents and working parents can likely learn something from their analogs using a somewhat different model.

He is right, society does benefit from a diversity of family arrangements.

****

So, if he understands both that Wurzel is arguing that feminism requires women be economically independent and he understands that society may benefit if not every women is economically independent, what’s his problem?

His problem is that he is unable to connect the two ideas. That is why he makes up all sorts of half-baked justifications for why a homemaker somehow has a job, even though she is not getting paid, and is somehow independent, even though she depends entirely on someone else’s income for sustenance.

He is not able to connect the two ideas because he wants to be labelled a feminist (or supporter of feminism, it’s unclear which from the article and the difference is irrelevant for our purpose) without actually adhering to feminism.

As soon as he connects the two ideas his thinking will become clear and he wouldn’t have to make such logical contortions to continue to hold his own ideas, but then he would have to make a choice.

He would have to choose between feminism and his support for multiple family arrangements, because homemaking and feminism are mutually exclusive. This, of course, presents a dilemma.

If he chose feminism he would have to *shudder* judge other people’s decisions.

If he chose the acceptance of multiple family arrangements, he would *gasp* no longer be supporting feminism.

He is like the liberal Christian deciding whether he wants to follow the Bible or follow worldly wisdom. The “Christian” can’t make choice, so instead he decides to contort the Bible to fit worldly wisdom. Friedersdorf can’t make a decision so he contorts the English language and logic so that independence means dependence and a job includes any activity that requires some skill, effort, and someone somewhere gets paid for.

****

Friedersdorf’s confusion is not solely his own. Many seem to have this confusion; it is often called choice feminism.

Feminism has become very popular; most women want to be identified as strong and independent feminists. Most liberal men want to be seen as supporting female equality and feminism (which are not necessarily the same thing).

Yet, most women do not actually want what feminism is selling. They want to be dependent and have a man upon whom they can depend, they want to stay at home with their children, they don’t want to have to work at a job. Even when they work, a significant number of women choose to work in fields no different from what they would be doing as a homemaker anyway (ie. teaching, non-registered nursing, child care, etc.)

They don’t want feminism, but they want the label of feminism. So, what do they do?

They contort. They twist feminism, the English language, and logic so that they can somehow define themselves as feminist while doing things that are a denial of feminism.

They contort until somehow they have convinced themselves that being a homemaker, totally dependent on a man for income and devoted entirely to children and the home, is somehow a feminist act.

But it can not be. A women can be a homemaker or she can be a feminist. She can not be both.

Trying to be both is nothing more than self-delusion.

Choice feminism isn’t.

****

All this isn’t to say homemaking is a bad thing. In fact, I am opposed to feminism and I am in favour of woman staying home as homemakers and, if I marry, I will marry someone who wants to be a homemaker.

I support families who decide the wife should be a homemaker. I’m not going to say that it’s the hardest job in the world, because it isn’t particularly hard and it’s not a job, but I will say it’s a respectable and worthwhile life path.

But there has to be a choice: feminism or homemaking.

If homemaking is your thing, repudiate feminism. If feminism is your thing, then live it and be economically independent.

If you don’t like that feminism requires economic independence, perhaps you may want to reconsider your attachment to it.