The tyranny of the morning people has got to end. Traditionally, mostly servants got up early. Now it’s high status UMC types and their aspirational fans (i.e. most of the rest of American society).
SAHMs frequently act like just getting up earlier is the solution to any difficulties with prayer time, exercising, or arranging the day. It is a recurrent theme. I think the earliest I’ve seen or been told offline is to get up at 3am, though 4-6am is the typical range, usually 4-5am. Which is feasible for a morning person, even through lots of kid wakeups. Not so much for people with a different chronotype who don’t physically get tired before 10pm.
Wiki says that morning types don’t necessarily predominate, but in American culture they have taken the moral superiority reins and galloped right off with them. There has been and continues to be a general tenor in American culture that early rising is morally better. Someone could probably write a monograph connecting it up to the inherent consumption mentality that has ever dominated American society even before the Industrial Revolution. They could also throw in some anti-Scandinavian polemic. Thorstein Veblen is the spiritual grampa of overwork as a form of consumption behavior instead of bling. He wasn’t the only one (there were some Scandinavian ladies behind it too), but his name is probably the most recognizable. Overwork as consumption good is part of the tyranny of the morning people.
Repeatedly, morning people tend to act like it’s either getting up at 5am or sleeping until noon, and that obviously nobody should pick the latter choice. The idea that chronotypes occur along a continuum and that even late-night types might well be able to “do mornings”, just at 9am instead of 6am, is utterly alien and threatening to a surprising number of morning people. They place a stupendous amount of personal value on being up really really early and if other people are up later in the day and still have clean houses and functional kids and regular prayer lives, then maybe being up at 4am isn’t the one true path to holiness and merit. It’s especially bad in the SAHM world, because the domestic sphere is so totally unvalued that it sometimes just might take a 14 hour day to actually get anything done effectively since the support is mostly in name only.
But chronotypes are real. And valuing the domestic sphere for its own sake rather than declaring women who aren’t morning people lazy/selfish/spoiled/ungrateful would allow more private households to be functional no matter what time of day the lady of the house arose. The Proverbs 31 wife is an ideal, not a literal woman. Also, a lot of cultures have midday nap traditions for a reason, even if they are agrarian and the master and mistress have to pop up at 4am.
I have a long list of black-related history on my current reading for the year, and even though I’ve not finished the really giant tomes, it’s already becoming clear that the real history of blacks in America doesn’t fit liberal or conservative narratives (even though some of these texts are compiled from primary sources by ultraliberal9000 folks).
The brief takeaway is that blacks worked very hard for hundreds of years before America was even a nation and for roughly 150 years afterwards, up to and including development and use of fancy machinery and infrastructure. They were creative, curious and industrious and responded to massive setbacks with renewed energy and efforts to build and maintain self-supporting towns and households and businesses. There was a great deal of black-founded and black-funded (key point, that) relief society/private charity. It is an ongoing theme.
Then WWI and various weather disasters hit and there was a big shift towards urban living that never really died down. There is a grain of truth to the idea that after centuries of building and rebuilding, black Americans were worn out and exhausted and struggling to maintain their own belief in America as a propositional nation.
And yeah, there was real legal and social restriction of blacks specifically over and over again where this simply did not happen with Native Americans and Chinese (and later groups of Asians). And sometimes it was actually similar to the WASP fear of Jew dominance– that is, not all the economic fears of blacks were due solely to the idea that they’d work cheaper. That’s been interesting to discover.
This doesn’t mean there were no sketchy black people or shiftlessness. But there was a fair amount of projection from whites obscuring some of this that is also very interesting to read from correspondence and other recorded notes from the various historical eras.
There is, ultimately, no sane argument for claiming black Americans aren’t legitimate sons and daughters of America, who have frequently been denied access to the patrimony of America as a nation. To torture an analogy, blacks in America are like the children of a widower’s second wife being treated like the children of a mistress by the children of the widower’s first wife.
A little honesty on these matters would go a long way. A lass can hope.
It is often referred to as a rhetoric vs. dialectic divide, but even people tossing those two words around don’t really understand them, so let’s put it a different way with smaller words.
Conservatives are info junkies and like information for its own sake. Thus, they believe that bringing facts, data, information (even of the unfactual infotainment sort) into a discussion should be persuasive to liberals. They get very confused when liberals argue for x in one comment/remark and argue against x ten minutes later or six comments later in the same thread. But liberals aren’t interested in information, even if it confirms their biases. They are strictly about protecting their self-image as morally elevated and intellectually sophisticated.
Global warming/climate change is a great example. Most liberals don’t realize that the average skeptic’s position is not that carbon isn’t being emitted, but that the side effects (feedbacks) of the carbon emitting are not as large as the favored models claim. This is a more complex argument, but it’s one that is based on considering the data that is actually there regarding climate modeling and climate measuring/analysis. Liberals believe that global warming skeptics don’t believe carbon exists. Or even more simply that skeptics “hate science” or “don’t realize the SCIENCE is SETTLED”. And this is because such factless hilarity preserves their mental image of themselves as informed, morally suasive individuals who reasoned their way to the correct social display. The idea that the skeptic position is about confirming an anomaly’s existence rather than declaring the anomaly “settled” without such confirmation is anathema.
Liberals can’t talk to conservatives because conservatives want discourse and discussion (information exchange). Conservatives can’t talk to liberals because liberals want reassurance that they are following the right moral consensus (power exchange). Yep, I went there!
It is kinder and less stressful in contrast to the American mule thing. Under a confinement model, pregnant women aren’t forced into the standard of trying to match the ones who can do All The Things in every trimester and who don’t appear to even know what morning sickness is. Instead, every pregnant woman is given the benefit of the doubt and not burdened with additional expectations that she appear in public or do a lot of physical labor.
Other people in the community come to the pregnant woman. The pastor or priest comes to visit, she isn’t expected to waddle into church with a passel of younguns behind her. Other women visit and the expectations for the state of the house are very different, because the time to grow the baby is considered important all by itself.
There has been a lot of historical variation in the confinement model, and it mostly involved waiting until a baby bump was likely for what should be obvious reasons. But there is a tenderness to it and a preservation of women’s space and a women’s sphere that is sorely missing from modern American norms regarding pregnancy.
A broad standard that builds rest and healing into the natural course of pregnancy, labor and the postpartum period seems pretty pro-woman to me.
The dissident right, manosphere, neoreaction, dark enlightenment, orthosphere, etc, whatever you want to call the giant tent of weird subcultures that are conservative-liking but not terribly conservative in thought all have the same problem.
They don’t appear to read or watch fiction made in the 20th century. And they don’t read fiction from the 18th and 19th centuries. They read and recite thirdhand commentary on commentary at best from three or four writers, and this results in many of them believing silliness such as PUAs being a brand new entity in the world, invented with the interwebs.
Alfie (1966) shows otherwise. It put Michael Caine on the map and it might as well be called “PUAs: Behind the Mask”, because it is almost half a century old and reveals all the general spiritual decay behind the PUA front of insouciance and skirt-chasing in a way that blows any of the blogs about such things right out of the water. It also reveals that the PUA pushing a guru system thing is hardly new, although Alfie certainly wasn’t making money off it.
But think about that one. “Red pill” info about women *and men* was known and put into a mainstream British film in the mid-1960s. If any of these self-proclaimed enlightened ones ever bothered to pay attention to media through the decades, they’d see that what they seem to think is a brand new round thing has been rolling along without them for decades.
Likewise, just reading fiction at all would reveal to them that a lot of the beliefs they have regarding how “realistic” they are about human nature are neither original, insightful nor true. It’s so strange. They are like very odd, very confused SWPLs. No history, no sense of the past, and no understanding of how utterly ignorant this makes their proclamations and declarations of wanting to restore and honor same look. At least the regular SWPLs think the solution is to keep moving forward and constantly redo the stuff that didn’t work. These guys don’t want to do that, but lack the historical grounding to propose coherent or sound alternatives.
It’s not like this sort of fiction is being kept under lock and key by the liberal cabal. It’s all hiding in plain sight.
In this article about ridiculously high property taxes in Austin (excerpted or copy-pasted from a paywalled newspaper, it’s not entirely clear), the commenters are all lol liberalz iz dum, but don’t see that it’s commercial property owners who are milking the system to get Other People’s Money to pay for their services on the backs of single family homeowners. This type of reflexive implicit defending of business interests doing the same thing environmental and social justice groups do in large cities is a big obstacle to conservatives having a shot at normal life. Conservatives should actually be putting on their small government hats here and asking why it’s ok for commercial property owners to game the appraisal system to avoid millions in taxes.
Instead, every link I found referencing the original paywalled article was from a conservatively oriented site and consisted of laughing at the homeowner who was not really that silly. SFHs should not be bearing disproportionate costs of local services at all, even if they vote for increased services. Yes, I said it. Even if someone votes for more taxes, they shouldn’t bear a disproportionate amount relative to their own property’s market value. This is what’s going in Austin. Commercial interests (developers and medium to large corporations) are skating by and paying taxes on a fraction of their market value and all these supposed conservatives can say is that “a woman is stupid, hahaha”. A system where voting homeowners have 40% of the property but pay 60% of the taxes is not really a time to tribally laugh at liberals. It’s time to maybe be serious and ask why property taxes seem to be a type of tax that routinely has this kind of death spiral and regulatory capture.
Conservatives also might pause to ask why Republicans are the ones pushing all those exceptions through in Austin, though the exceptions for commercial interests also happen in blue states and counties. I also find the lack of concern for individual home owning citizens very telling coming from people who are generally fulsome in their praise of single family households.
ETA 6/4/14: the paywalled article got unlocked after the mainstream right wing (Hot Air, Instapundit and the like) got the tribal bit in their teeth and rushed to gloat collectively. So that happened.