Repost: Practical Definitions: What is Patriarchy?

This is not meant to be a college textbook excerpt, but to introduce a basic way to think of key concepts of traditional living. Though key to any real revival of normal living, patriarchy doesn’t really exist in the modern world except in very specific subcultures. Patriarchy, specifically Christian patriarchy, is the beginning of the rule of law, with its devotion to those not of the blood.  It is a move away from clannishness and blood bonds towards something larger.  A patriarch is a specific role that only some men can hold.  The guy on the internet pontificating about how he’s the patriarch of his home is profoundly misunderstanding what patriarchy is.  A patriarch is head of a household, but a head of household is not often a patriarch.  This distinction is crucial to understanding why both the fundie “patriarch of mah haus” and the feminist “we b overrun by tha patriarchy, yo” premises are both wrong.

Patriarchy is thus rule by a small, established group of patriarchs with the wealth and authority to enforce their rule.  In Christian patriarchy, these patriarchs are under authority as well.  Patriarchy is not simply a husband being married to his wife and having headship over her. Patriarchy, reliant in the Christian form on granted authority, is by nature more organic than pagan patriarchy. A patriarchy is about ownership with responsibility.  Patriarchs are supposed to take very good care of the people and property under their demesne, including other men’s families.

This is true in any form of patriarchy, but it has a specific spiritual component in Christian patriarchy that makes this form of patriarchy superior.

Now, while this post about patriarchy speaks of it in blood and soil terms, it nevertheless contains practical examples of what it means to live under patriarchal authority.  An excerpt:

How many people would be interested in being part of a tribe or clan again? There are some, I’m sure, who opine of tribal allegiances, based upon race or religion, or something similar. But the day-to-day stress, communitarianism, and sacrifice required for maintaining such allegiances are more than most people are willing to give.

How many men who lecture about the virtues of patriarchy have ever lived in one? How many of them realize that the rule of male elders doesn’t mean that each man rules his home like a fiefdom, but that he rules the decisions that affect primarily his own household and has to consult his male elders on everything else? How many men are willing to submit to the moderating influence of family councils — the same family councils that kept ancient patriarchy from dissolving into the abuse of women and children, even when the immediate father’s rule was inadequate?

How many people who lecture about the genetic ties of race have managed to cultivate these strong tribal allegiances within their own closer-related extended families? How many of them would sacrifice for second or third cousins they’ve never even met? So why the expectation that anyone would do that for someone of the same race that doesn’t even have blood ties with them? The heart doesn’t speak the language of genetics, it just knows that family is family.

How many people who think of themselves as patriots understand that patriotism is a progression of piety? That people loved their families and were willing to die for them, so they cooperated with other families, and those groups of families grew into towns, regions, and nations? Do they really think they can keep that patriotism going in a nation with nothing but a flag holding it together, and the individual families, towns, and regions disintegrating?

As the excerpt shows, patriarchy cannot even exist in a normal society without a willingness among men to accept that their authority is partial, and interlinked within a hierarchy where they are not likely to be at the topmost levels.  In America, contrary to many beliefs, there’s not much, if anything resembling patriarchy as described either by myself or the authoress of that writing.  Patriarchy is about a web of loving obligations and connections that begin in blood and proceed through adoption to become rules and laws for a brotherhood beyond kindred.  It’s not about individual men lording it over individual wives.  That’s certainly something, but it is not patriarchy.

Repost: Patriocentricity is not Patriarchy

Some things just have to be endlessly repeated over and over, clearly.  Patriocentricity is father-worship, with an emphasis on individual family units being subservient to unrestrained false “patriarchs” who themselves have no higher authority to be subject to (not even other father-leaders).

Unfortunately, patriocentricity is what a lot of conservatives think of as patriarchy.  It is worst in abusive fundamentalist Christian subcultures like Quiverfull or the now-former Vision Forum and Gothard/ATI subcultures, but it certainly appears over and over among other kinds of conservative or traditionalist Christians.

One reason these subcultures are relatively small is because there is no coherent authority or hierarchy.  At best they are cults of personality, which cannot be lasting sources of invested authority.  At worst it’s a bunch of isolated families being ill used by a man who answers to no-one and does as he pleases, which was not really the case in any historical patriarchy, not even the pagan ones where a patriarch had life or death authority over his familias/clan.

Patriarchy means men have responsibilities and have to answer to other people outside their immediate family.  They also, in addition, have headship in their own individual households, but it doesn’t supersede their hierarchical status within their local community.  I find it quite telling that a lot of self-proclaimed patriarchs on and off the internet fight the hardest against actual patriarchy being implemented.  An unfortunate and recent example is Doug Philips of Vision Forum.  He failed to accede to the authority or intervention of his (supposed) co-elders, which again is rebellion and not patriarchy.  More prosaic examples are the guys who can never attend a church because the leadership just isn’t Godly enough for them and “pastor” their families at home.

For the purposes of those interested in Western traditions and restoring them to the extent possible given time and technology, polygamy is practical patriocentricity rather than patriarchy.  So anyone supporting or encouraging polygamy is not advocating a pro-Christian patriarchy or pro-Western patriarchy position.  Patriocentric systems work against patriarchy, and polygamy tends to degenerate into patriocentricity fairly readily.  While not a common conservative theme, there are nevertheless a noticeable minority who promote polygamy either implicitly or explicitly and this promotion should be discouraged among those who are pro-Christian patriarchy.

H/T to Hester at Scarlet Letters, who is slogging through old Vision Forum stuff and brought the term patriocentricity into play.  It’s a very useful term.

ETA: From the comments, it appears the term was coined several years ago by Karen Campbell over at the blog That Mom.

Ace of Spades misses the unseen use of social media to be social offline.

Ace of Spades, a fairly major conservative blogger, writes here that conservatives need to abandon Facebook.

What he misses though, probably because they’re all literally closed, secret and otherwise kept from public view, is that Facebook is where mothers, particularly the SAHMs conservatives make lots of noise about supporting, are arranging their playdates and finding childcare and cleaning help or doing swaps or looking for extra work doing those things, where they are buying and selling stuff, and all the other things that used to be on mailing lists but are increasingly on Facebook.

Small businesses have also stopped using their own webpages in many instances in favor of Facebook.

Women, especially mothers, are using Facebook to arrange IRL stuff, that’s why they can’t quit it. Find a way to make all these things as one-stop shop as Facebook is and craigslist used to be for selling and buying, and then people will exit en masse. Right now I see lots of people leaving, but not the ones who need Facebook for these arrangements. Just single people, and some older folks.

We now need social media to form social bonds locally because of breeding for antisocial and autistic tendencies.  Plus, women are social creatures and that means they want socialness offline too.  I’ve tried to join mommy-only startups, and photo-posting sites, and so on and so forth.  But the critical mass never gets there, and it’s because these SAHMs can’t quickly set something up on their phones with ten different websites.  But Facebook is integrated into every smartphone, so you can easily arrange everything from it.

Conservatives are really unwilling to confront the woman problem, which is not that women need to lead their political movements or even participate in them, but that they need to actually have a real space with status and support for women and they just plain won’t do it and then whine about the consequences of women taking on liberal alternatives that supply what they sorely need.

Draft, so very very open for discussion and disassembly.

The Poison Red Pill, an Introduction

I am finally going to start fisking and discussing “Red Pill Woman” posts because the political season in the USA has shown that a lot of the craziness the manosphere talks about regarding women’s behavior and thoughts really is more common among conservative women who are not too conservative to vote (Republican).  So for the fishbowl I swim in, it’s 30% of women instead of 10% of women.  Depressing.

Anyhoo, the main issue with Red Pill Women’s advice to other women is that Red Pill women on the internet are so profoundly male-oriented that they can’t give useful advice to other women.   Women repeating bad male advice to women is not useful to women. So I’ll criticize it and point out what’s bad about it.

I’ll also criticize it when people use their own lives as examples of living rightly.  Yes, you can have a clean slate, sort of, on the internet even if you’ve had six divorces and five kids out of wedlock and now you’re a devout Latvian Orthodox Christian at 46, but your advice on how to marry at 24 and stay married should be taken with some shakers of salt.

Red Pill Women mostly don’t introspect about how they got from A to B there.  They just talk about B like they always did it.  Red Pill Men do too, but that issue is kind of resolving itself in real time with other men taking up that task of critique.

 

25% of first marriages end in divorce, not 50%

I got the Shaunti Feldhahn divorce data book much sooner than expected.  I haven’t had a chance to read it all the way through yet, but she is using census stats, so isn’t just making up stuff.  That said, the 25% number is an estimate derived from taking widows out of the data on first marriages where the person is still married to their first spouse.  Otherwise, the number is 72% of first marriages with first spouse.

The 50% number was a projection based on trends at the time it was formulated, and even then it was 40-50%.

Anyone saying likelihood of marriage ending in divorce is 50% is not looking at how many ever-married people have divorced.

What did happen, and she notes this, is that before the 1970s divorce spikes, marriages remained intact 85% of the time.  That dropped to 70-72% (remember, this includes intact marriages where death ended the marriage, otherwise it’s closer to 75%) by 1985 and stayed there.  Interested parties might look at that stability and contrast it with fertility declines over the same period of time.

The interesting thing to me is that a 25% divorce rate is miserably bad, but there is enough data to show it’s remained constant over several marriage cohorts.  And it’s, well, it’s half of 50%.  I haven’t gotten to the part where she compares by age bracket, but that should be interesting.

 

Conservatives and the IT Ghost Dance

“One of the IT drones who got replaced by H1B Indians testified to Congress the other day, and just endorsed Trump.

It’s a despicable move by Disney, but fortunately they’ll reap the “rewards” of their decision as soon as all the whites they laid off are gone. There’s nothing more dysfunctional than a large group of Indians whose thought process can’t deviate from the flowchart. And there’s nothing more infuriating for the productive types (whites) than a flowchart-reading Indian.

What’ll wind up happening is Disney will either hire their old employees back as consultants, or they’ll have vendors do the real work. Vendors which, not coincidentally, happen to be white and staffed with people who are like the people they laid off. At 3x the rate.”

Another special from the My Posting Career crew.  Stripped of the racial overtones, this excerpt is bog-standard average conservative or right-wing.  It’s the IT Ghost Dance, the belief that (white) guys are all easily able to adapt to endless shifting job sands by getting extremely high paying IT consulting gigs cleaning up the outsourcing mess.

It undergirds the conservative promotion of homeschooling, of SAHMing, of living a rural prepper/homesteader life (just telecommute for six figures!), of having more kids than fingers on a hand, of whatever conservative shibboleth you please.  It’s always there and always lucrative at top 10% or even 1% levels, you just have to want it enough.

It’s really really common.  Perhaps because conservatives can’t have much of a social life in IT offline due to the high amount of libertarians and such, they are all over homesteading and farming online and have been even before we took a stab at our own agrarian LARPing (currently pending due to the same kind of health breakdowns that sent people back to the East from OG homesteading).

It also exposes the core lie of “just reskill, reskill, reskill” that is bipartisan.  There’s IT and healthcare (tons of nurses homesteading because of flex schedules) and not a whole lot else that’s telecommute or flex-schedule friendly and pays anywhere near enough to fund the kind of “self-sufficient” and independent lifestyles mentioned above.

Again, ripped only from my own experiences, but non-IT conservatives who’ve tried these things invariably end up putting the kids in public school or having to be double-income explicitly.