Why this non-gaming Christian housewife supports #Gamergate

It’s pretty simple.  I am touched and invigorated by the idea that there are a bunch of people who really do think it’s possible to be ethical reporters regarding the world of video games.  That level of sincerity and earnestness is nice, and cynics need to stop acting like it’s a false front.  It is about ethics and honor, and that’s kind of wonderful.

I’m also not a fan of someone who created a passel of family-supporting jobs being slandered.  The guy running Stardock is both profitable and an asset to his local community and the broader business community.  He’s what I wish every conservative guy talking a big game about entrepreneurship should be and often isn’t.

And as someone who’s been burned by believing social justice types were serious about Doing For Self and Supporting Oppressed Communities, I am pro #Gamergate because they are confronting scam artists who rely on the good intentions hustle to get money and status.

And I also approve of people in a low status affinity group policing those who would claim to be acting like jerks on their behalf.  Which is way more than some affinity groups I can think of do.  I just wish they weren’t getting picked on so much and then told it’s their fault, the irony is head exploding.

Keep on trucking, #Gamergate!

Most women don’t like bad boys.

I know, I know, I haven’t got manly manparts flapping in the breeze to serve as “data”, but I do, for good or ill, have over a decade of plain old life experience with a wide sampling of mostly American women and a modest number of non-American women.  They’ve been conservative, they’ve been liberal, they’ve been white, they’ve been black, they’ve been Latin or Asian from more than one of those nations.  They’ve been respectable and they have been quite unrespectable.  And over and over, they were not making a beeline for promiscuous and/or “bad boys”.

Some did, certainly, and it is very true that some women will always be interested in that kind of guy with no loyalty, honor or often even charm.

Any discussion of how “all chicks dig bad boys” is guilty of extrapolating from a small population out towards all women.  This is called apex fallacy, even though it doesn’t require that the minority slice be at the apex.  Most women don’t want a guy obsessed with getting frisky all the time.  They also don’t want a criminal.  The Wire has many problems as a TV series, but the distinct lack of girl action for most of the low-level male criminals is pretty accurate.  Even most poor women aren’t getting jiggy with bad boys.  People only see the ones that do, but they aren’t a majority or even a plurality.

What is going on is that some personality disordered white women from the professional managerial classes have developed strange and deviant preferences in men, and their weird problem is somehow supposed to be representative of all women.  Nobody thought this way in the past about the small number of poor women with such preferences.

Even with the array of incentives to misbehave in marriage or cohabitation, most women don’t go running for Thuggy McThuggerson.  They still mostly end up with average guys or spend months/years in self-imposed celibacy with long gaps between dates or relationships.  Because normal women aren’t into bad boys and never really will be no matter how galvanically society changes.

Real Talk for SAHMs: SAHMs chatting online is (technically) traditional

Sometimes male people harangue housewives on the internet about being on the internet instead of scrubbing floors with a toothbrush, but in ye olde days, the housewives could just yap at each other while doing the various household chores.  For the women who weren’t servant-class in societies fancy enough to have servant classes, letter writing was a huge part of the day, complete with multiple deliveries of said letters each day.  Not all chit chat is gossip.  Women are garrulous and verbal by nature, they like to discuss.  Society has changed so that it’s much more difficult to stay home and chat with other women, but technology allows for a partial simulation of the traditional behavior.  The real thing is better, but women who can’t get to the real thing anytime soon shouldn’t be picked on for seeking out some semblance of normal female interaction as they go through their housewiving day.

 

Practical Definitions: Sustainable Natalism

Natalism in the common parlance usually refers to government policies designed to make people want to have children.  Practically speaking, that puts the cart before the horse.  I favor natalism that starts with social norms and then is reflected in government policies.

Sustainable natalism is arranging society so that children are acceptable parts of the public sphere at all child ages.  It’s making sure women aren’t broken and worn down by the stresses and strains of bearing and caring for little ones so that they have energy to pop out more than a couple and raise them to adulthood afterwards.  It’s also about granting higher social status to married mothers and fathers, so that marriage is once again considered the correct place to bear and raise children in.

Sustainable natalism is people setting things up so that women feel that they can handle 3-6 kids, so that men can marry before age 30 because they have a good shot of being able to support three or four kids and a wife, and helping parents by being the real village, full of loving friendships and support.  It’s discouraging atomic living and moving every couple of years for a job, it’s encouraging social norms that have extended family nearby.  It’s remembering the value of cousins and siblings and aunts and uncles.  It’s restoring healthy relations between single childless adults and children.  It’s creating a social milieu that leads to grandkids and great-grandkids as a norm.

Tax credits are neat and stuff, but they won’t do the job.  Society has to be oriented strongly towards children as a good in themselves, living the idea that they are a blessing, because modernity shows us that once any ethnicity or culture gets rich and bloated with cheap consumption, they get very uninterested in having children.  Children are hard, even easy ones are hard.  Without lots and lots of explicit support and status accorded to motherhood and fatherhood, people simply don’t bother.

 

Why men have to work to support families

If you don’t make them do it, they sure won’t on their own.  They will mostly play.  I’m not talking about all men, obviously, but men really need the provision thing hammered into them in a way that isn’t the case with women.

Usually when the topic of male provision comes up, someone always wants to bring up edge cases like a crippled or injured man.  But functioning patriarchal societies handle those edge cases as the individual cases they are.  They recognize that there’s a distinction between drinking away your pay and being unable to work because a horse kicked you and rendered you paraplegic.  Other people, often women, want to bring up the case of women making more money or having inherited money.  Again, the man still has to have something obviously productive to do because men need that push more.

Just as women need the comforts of home and hearth more and will end up trying to turn the office into a home if their natural homemaking impulses are deranged, men will easily be content with a lean-to and a few handfuls of nuts and berries if they have no chance for a family or membership in a properly ordered male collective.  Pro-family is usually going to be pro-male provision.  Even in societies where getting food is easier, the men still provide things like the primary family buildings or fortifications.  So it’s not really an exclusively modern or capitalist notion, again, as some try to claim.  Men build the grass huts even if women are growing much of the food.

Given this requirement, promoting marriage without pursuing goals for male employment at all income levels is a hollow gesture.

Real Talk for SAHMs: Homeschooling promotion vs. homeschool reality

It’s presented as easy to jump into, especially by conservative men talking out of their hats, but there are numerous obstacles and regional barriers.  A few of the more common ones are listed below.  Actually, this should be an ongoing series, with each one its own post.  A project for another time.  For now here’s the capsules.

  1. “Just go join a co-op!”  LOL.  As if they’re listed in the phone book, or posted at your local church (if you even have a local church, the commuter-Christian phenomenon is painfully familiar and common, and has been for much of American history).  The existence of contact information does not prove the co-op is open to new families.  The lack of contact information does not prove the co-op is closed to new families.  This is, needless to say, confusing as all get out, especially considering the state the average Christian SAHM is in.  Sure, I’ll take my sleep-deprived, pregnant self around to ten or twenty churches and ask about their homeschool co-ops, towing my four kids under 5 behind me.  Or I’ll compose a dozen emails because doesn’t every homeschool co-op have a well-designed website with contact information and details of how the co-op works prominently labelled?  Oh, oh, wait, wait, let me make PHONE CALLS while KIDS SCREAM IN MY EAR.
  2. “You can easily homeschool older kids with littles around!”  ROFLMSMBO (rolling on the floor laughing my shiny metal butt off).  Not really, no.  It’s hard to end up with the mix of personalities that would allow this to be possible, and what is rare and unusual at best is all too often presented as a normal, reasonable expectation in homeschooling.  But everyone lies.  It’s just not real.
  3. Not distinguishing between HomeSchool and School at Home.  The latter is just a way to bring all the ridiculous pedagogy from public school into your house for no gain and a lot of needless hassle.
  4. “It’s always superior to public school!”  LOLOLOLOL.  The homeschool vanguard, with exceptionally well-educated mothers who had access to classically trained elites (because that was their cousin or uncle) could not produce employable children.  They couldn’t even produce the army of little Lee Kwan Yews they were very convinced they would end up becoming the new elites.

Brought to you by my attempts to find other homeschoolers locally and the honest experiences of homeschoolers online and off when it’s just us ladies realtalking while the kids run around.

The anti-natalism of primary c-sections.

About a third of all deliveries in America are c-sections, and a majority of those are primary c-sections.  The anti-natalism isn’t in women having c-sections so much as the pressure for women to accept a primary c-section.  This wouldn’t be possible without the subtext that women shouldn’t have more than two children, three at most, a view that is standard American these days.  It also wouldn’t be possible without the medical community downplaying the risks of c-sections.  The reality is that c-sections limit how many children a woman can reasonably risk conceiving and carrying to term.  While there are risks to naturally delivering seven or eight or ten children, those risks are significantly lower than the ones c-sections introduce through repeated surgical trauma and scarring.  However, those risks don’t come into play for the average woman having c-sections until she’s looking at more than three of them.  After three c-sections, the risk of losing the baby shoots up (the scarring makes it hard for the placenta to seat itself, increasing likelihood of fetal demise) along with the risk of premature delivery or catastrophic delivery complications like placental abruption.

This is not communicated to women when they are “encouraged” to have a primary c-section after say ten or twelve hours of labor.  Thus, many women who would like to keep open the possibility of having a larger family are limited by a choice they were given misleading information about by medical professionals advocating approved choices rather than patients’ choices.  It is possible to have 4-6 c-sections and deliver the children safely, but it’s also a range where health and life risks for both mother and baby come into play at rates exceeding 20%.  For perspective, women are not allowed to attempt natural delivery after a c-section in most American hospitals (VBAC) due to a 1% risk of rupture (which baby and mother typically survive without complications).  Yet women are not presented with the data that way.  And they certainly aren’t told that a primary c-section means probably not having more than three or four children liveborn and term.  A primary c-section is not terribly risky, and neither is a second one, compared to natural delivery.  But they are slightly higher risk and on average harder to recover from than natural deliveries.

Combined with the delaying of childbearing, telling women in their late 20s and early 30s that a primary c-section is no big deal is to consign those women to fewer children than they might otherwise be able to have even starting in their early 30s and further, to leave them struggling with (on average) more difficult recovery while struggling with a newborn.  That also leads to fewer children born at the margins.  It’s just anti-natalist.  This isn’t to say that c-sections, including primary ones, aren’t sometimes medically necessary.  But many primary c-sections are a judgment call rather than “have to cut the baby out NOW”, and the judgment goes in one direction due to the general distaste culture-wide for having enough little taxpayers to fund society.