Why Melania Trump would make an amazing New American First Lady

She not only admitted to having household help as a SAHM, but she was completely matter of fact about it, as if it was just obvious she’d need support to run her household.  This is not at all American, but it could be if she were First Lady and women could have the model of a housewife who was unashamed of having domestic help and considered it part of her essential toolkit in managing the household.

Contrast her openness about household help with Michelle Obama, who has called herself “Mom in Chief” in her new role as SAHM, but utterly downplayed moving her mother into the White House to provide childcare gratis (so, for the last eight years).  One can find this information in the Wikipedia article on Mrs. Obama, but from the horse’s lips, not so much.  No, from the horse’s lips there is dissembling about having one of Obama’s female relatives provide live in help when the two Obama children were infant and toddler aged.   That female relation was the “babysitter we lost”  Michelle Obama has alluded to in the past. They lost her due to her wanting to receive, well, money for babysitting.  Michelle Obama is very clear on that point at least, that they didn’t want to pay for childcare while both of them worked.  All of this is much more sadly and typically American, downplaying free help from relatives, not wanting to pay normal wages for “watching babies”, and  simultaneously flapping hands in the air about “the high cost of childcare for hard working women”.

Modelling matters, and I know what kind of SAHM model I’d prefer to see normalized.  I’d love to witness the seeds of a new American ideal of housewife, one who really is a domestic administrator whose role warrants both status and the right to delegate tasks to support people (which would mean working for such housewives would be seen as legitimate work).  That would be lovely and we could have that in Melania Trump as First Lady.  A housewife can dream.

Why are conservatives so individualistic and atomized?

My previous post was brought about by seeing promotion of 70s style egalitarian feminism on a pretty right-wing/conservative space and seeing very insistent promotion of individualistic isolated living (Just Marry and Have Kids, and optionally Homeschool ’em!) in several conservative areas ranging from the “Alt Right” to center-libertarians.

Marrying and having kids is good, but it’s not good to tell people that it ends there, that if they just follow that one weird trick everything will be all right.  It’s worth noting that even the male provision part is gone from that across the entire conservative and right-wing spectrum.  They don’t even see how badly they’ve lost the ability to think in terms of a real village, town or city.  The question of where the money is to come from to marry and have kids and optionally homeschool them is always met with quasi-solutions that rely on massive and faceless corporate entities who are completely antagonistic to family life.

The question of how your theoretical children are to be “well-reared” when social interaction with adults outside a workplace is waved away as unimportant (yes, including “church folk”, apparently hanging out with them is irrelevant to the whole marriage and properly reared kids project), where being embedded and part of a local community is dismissed as stupid to even worry about is an open one.

The question of how to raise kids with an understanding of household maintenance, management of finances and ability to save capital towards wealth-building or civic donations is also left unanswered.  There is very little discussion, even far from the internet, about what young couples who manage to marry are supposed to do for their individual families.  Again, the problem is not that for the most part we’re all reliant on the system and Business as Usual (BAU, from the peak-oil and doom-mongering crowd term for the status quo). That sucks, but you work with the situation you have.  The problem is the bizarre doubling down on the pretense that we aren’t if we just “marry and have kids”, that our choices aren’t incredibly narrow and constrained due to that reliance on BAU, that there’s no finding a way around BAU until you acknowledge you’re, well, subject to it.

But you know, this is conservatives we’re talking about.  They are leaving the development of anything meaningful to a weird guy who lives in Italy because you can live like a king on 40k a year USD because it’s so much easier to sit around complaining about how the billionaires are SJWs instead of getting funding from millionaires.  They sit around talking about how just marrying and having kids will magically produce the necessaries to feed, clothe and house them, and oh, if you do choose to homeschool, why they’ll totally be educated at an Oxford level by a worn out high school dropout mother and also simultaneously have Davy Crockett level wilderness and woodcraft skills…somehow while living in a tarmac-covered exurb without even a quarter acre parklet of grass.

And if you ask where the other people who aren’t your nuclear family are in all this, well, a surprising amount of the time it’s just a bunch of ???, because the solipsism is off the charts.  And most of the rest of the time, you’re told other people suck too much to hang out with.  The question of who your “well-reared” (in tablet-heavy isolation in the cheapest exurbs while you wreck your health with long car commuting) children will marry and have kids with themselves just leads to scary and weird places and also fails to seriously answer the question.

 

Conservatives act like 1970s black Americans about male provision

Let me count the ways…

  1. Emphasis on self-employment because the (liberal) Man is prejudiced against their kind, without providing any meaningful reserve or protection against the volatility of this choice.
  2. De-emphasis correspondingly on male provision as an important part of being a husband, including discouraging men who want to do that as cavemen or delusional.
  3. Both overt and covert encouragement of women to produce the primary income in a marriage, either by openly promoting an egalitarian view that women can and do earn as much as men as sole or primary providers, or by defining the SAHM life as incomplete or lazy/leisured if there’s no income-generating going on.
  4. Related, but its own thing, pushing a “working homemaker” ideal where even if you do work full time or close to it, you are still expected to home-make at effectively a full time level too.
  5. Defending the extremely rare stay at home father as a paragon of manliness and as perfectly common and therefore something women should be expected to take seriously as a possible path in their marriages.
  6. Declaring any woman who talks about the importance of financial provision within marriage by the husband as a gold digger or money obsessed or not bringing a supportive and Godly spirit to marriage, etc.
  7. Raising daughters and loving sons.  This means encouraging girls to pursue practical options with education and prepare to earn a living while telling young men to follow their bliss and/or pursue self-employment and encourage this by not expecting them to work.

With immediately post-Civil Rights Act black Americans, some of this was not surprising and they did still have to face actual race prejudice making male employment riskier and more fragile even within marriage.  They also were looking at affirmative action preferences quickly shifting towards favoring black women over black men due to killing two birds with one stone (another reason straight quotas would have been less poisonous).

Conservatives, though, are doing a lot of this for ideological and unstated class reasons.  Many and probably most conservatives are not middle class but rely on declaring themselves such as a major part of their subculture’s cohesiveness.  But these are not middle class behaviors.

Large families when you can’t run away

In America today there is a paradox of choice regarding large families that is as far as I can tell totally ignored by people who have or defend large families.  My experiences with large families (double-digit) are that I’m only one generation removed from women who couldn’t escape that size of family.  It wasn’t just one option they were taking and could drop at any time.  Yes, even extended abstinence is a major privilege that many of those women would have been pretty cheerful about having access to.

They had to agree to what he wanted when he wanted it, no matter if they were just a few weeks postpartum or had had a hard delivery and needed more recovery time. Formula being easy, cheap and reliable to use wasn’t the case and some of the double-digit kids didn’t make it on the various alternatives available.  This informs a huge amount of my views on birth control.  I don’t think birth control is something women should feel pressured into doing either for related and religious reasons, but let’s just be real and note that the medium-term consequence of that is fewer children you can handle if you do have a resource shortage in your household.

I just have to shake my head at women who have the totally free and unfettered choice to have zillions of kids acting like women abandoned that in droves in the last 50 years out of (@($*@#@(!@ “selfishness” or “hard hearts” or whatever self-righteous word of the month gets tossed out there.  Being able to feed, clothe, house and provide for the medical needs of ten or fifteen children with relative ease and comfort no matter what your income level is should be acknowledged as the astonishing modern consumption good that it is.

Now certainly some of these women would argue with me on the ease point, but you know what, if you can welcome pregnancy after pregnancy with zero concern that the other children or the one(s) you’re carrying will be stunted or die from lack of food or medical care when sick or have to be shipped off to sometimes pretty distant relatives because you can’t feed them all once the next one appears, that’s relative ease of provision.  This is not what the women I am speaking of could count on.  I am talking about deaths under age 5 all the way into the 1960s, in America.

It was really bad in the richest country in the world before mass-economy made food and clothes so cheap.  And anyway that’s where I’m coming from regarding large family rhetoric among conservative Christians.  It didn’t matter whether you had joy in your heart or not, you were facing another pregnancy anywhere from a few days to several months after that delivery until your 30s, and sometimes into your 40s.  A lot of those women knew however dimly about the sterilizations performed on many of them without their consent after World War I and many weren’t mad about it because it meant a break from the treadmill of fertility.  They weren’t as stupid as people think and had some idea what was going on.

The Sigma-ficant flaw in Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy

Vox Day’s little socio-sexual hierarchy is not too terribly inaccurate in its portrayal of men.  It skews towards a decent breakdown of nerd guys, I am not sure how far it goes in utility for non-nerd, non-geek guys. But the flaw of his hierarchy is in considering the Sigma its own category.  In Vox Day’s hierarchy, the Sigma stands outside of it, but near the top.  But because he is a fish in water on this matter, he never noticed that Sigma is a quality of the other categories, not its own thing.  Sigma is simply the measure of how weird or unusual a guy is given his natural relative tendency to be in any of the other categories.

Donald Trump is a Sigma-Alpha, weird for an alpha.  Vox Day himself is a Sigma-Beta with some Omega traits.  A lot of nerds in general end up Sigma-Deltas, normal but with super weird hobbies.  There are Sigma-Gammas, a ready to hand example is the PUA or seduction artist.  There are even Sigma-Omegas, low end scary losers who are weird even for that group of men.  Milo Yiannopoulos is a Sigma-Lambda.

The link is in classic nerd fashion a little TL,DR about the categories, but simply put, they go like this:

  • Alpha: Super competitive, very conventional man with lots of success and charisma, generally able to pick and choose from fellow successful conventionally attractive and charismatic women.  Least likely to be “weird”.
  • Beta: Hospitable, affable, much less competitive than the Alphas, so more willing to be considered weird and paper it over with near-Alpha levels of success and charisma.  Usually prefers a conventional woman, but due to that affability totally able to navigate a sophisticated social scene with a weird wife or girlfriend if he feels she’s worth it. Weird themselves about 25% of the time.
  • Delta: The average guy.  Usually not very weird, can eventually find a girl, tends to be scared off by weirdness.  Weird maybe 5-10% of the time.
  • Gamma: A feminine man.  Attracted most to mannish women, followed by male-identified women.  Finds feminine women offputting, the more feminine, the more revolted the Gamma is.  Second least likely to be “weird” for their category.
  • Sigma: contrary to what Vox says, it’s just a tendency of the other categories.  Betas are actually very Sigma-ish compared to all the other groups because weird guys tend to make poor leaders of men but are themselves often loyal and trustworthy.  A lot of Sigmas are just weird Betas and most of what’s left is weird Deltas.
  • Lambda: men who prefer other men.  Weird for their group about as often as Deltas, which generally means a conservative bent or a modest interest in women for romance.

 

 

Why SMV and MMV are stupid.

There is no marketplace for individuals.  There are only other individuals.  SMV is especially stupid because most women can’t attract “men in general” and those that can attract large amounts of public favorable attention are not available to “men in general” in the first place.  MMV is a little less stupid, but only if you have an actual ethnic and/or religious community serving as your pool of options.  If you don’t have that, you’re not in anything resembling an economist’s marketplace.  In a tight-knit community, there can be a market of sorts for marriage, but even then, you don’t have “marriage-minded men in general” if you’re the average woman.  You have a handful of prospects that can be sorted through relatively quickly without frittering up all your baby-having time.

In the world where super nerdy people misuse economic terms, though, it’s really about one-to-one.  You just need one guy or one girl and once you realize that, things get a whole lot easier even in this atomized, deracinated world where people yap about marketplaces and street values or whatever.  One of the ways you know the whole SMV/MMV thing is stupid is that people using it can’t even be coherent in their examples.  A typical example is underwear models or some other looks-trading category of woman having a “high SMV but low MMV”.  If you are desirable enough in charisma and presentation and raw natural good looks to trade on them for a modeling contract, your MMV is whatever the bleep you want it to be.  That’s just reality.  Reality doesn’t have a red-pill bias.  Conversely, women don’t have a “high MMV but a low SMV”, as far as that one goes either.

I need to dig up the anonymous pamphlets Fascinating Womanhood ripped off   was based on.  Because they were written by someone who recognized all the way back in the 1920s or so that things were less community-oriented for women and that the idea of a preselected pool for women to pick a husband from was increasingly not available to average women.  So it was about how to be the best kind of woman you could be to attract That One Guy.  There was a recognition that most women can’t attract men in general, but they can be appealing to a couple now and again.  This is not really a marketplace view of female attractiveness.  But it was the view of a pamphleteer trying to help young women starting to live alone in the big city keep their virtue until they could get married, however long that might be.  Apparently this is not what Fascinating Womanhood is about, which I guess means I should look into it one of these days and find out where the divergence lies.  From what I understand the pamphlets were plenty popular themselves.

I find the whole market-fixation to come from the same ridiculous place as libertarianism and lust for free markets and all that other right-liberal junk so many conservatives are in love with instead of faith, family and country.  It also leads to seriously terrible advice given to women of all ages.

TLDR; LOLOLOL at the idea that SMV and MMV diverge for women or that a woman who can figure out how to command a room’s attention can’t get married (spoiler alert: most do).