College has replaced the parish

This is more of a note than a fully hashed out idea, but I think there is something to the fact that the “tribe” of college-educated adults and especially college-educated parents is where what remains of functional parenting culture lies in America among American-born Americans.  It’s the college-educated who hook each other up with nanny shares, allowing them genuinely flexible childcare that pays a good wage to the nanny while none of them ever pay more than center-based daycare costs per family.  It’s the college educated who can still find college-educated young women willing to barter and be live-in childcare for a gap year or two.  Who make social events mixed-age, and welcoming to children and their parents.  There is a loyalty and support base there that even crosses political boundaries.  But of course, both parents have to be college-educated.

Thus, when the political rubber hits the road, conservatives are more loyal to their real tribe of college-educated types than their supposed tribe of conservatives, Christians or conservative Christians.  I’ve seen way too many non-Christian college educateds serve as enforcers of progressive stuff by assuring college educated Christians that so long as they agree with some progressive thing (obviously being frothy about how evil Trump is would be a recent example) they’re “sane, sensible Christians” and thus acceptably human and allowed to retain access to a fairly vast social network.

And why shouldn’t they scrabble for the attentions of fellow college-goers?  Completing a BA/BSc or more has a shared vocabulary and world of experiences that crosses the same kinds of political and ethnic lines that church or parish (sometimes) used to.  Being cut off from a complete culture with its own traditions and lore, and of course, support in real terms like showing up to watch your kids with ten minutes’ notice, it’s easy to see why Christians end up choosing to go along with tons of progressive cant to maintain those bonds and access to those resources.

 

 

Advertisements

42 thoughts on “College has replaced the parish”

  1. There is precedent in many other places as well, where practicality and daily life overtakes supposed political alliances. Look at the many countries where the radical left and peasantry are well aligned.

    Isn’t this approach somewhat expected, if we are to avoid communities of affinity? (Obviously, it would be nice if the left did not take this approach)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You are on to something here.

    I must admit I don’t concern myself much with the politics of my family and community. If you are helpful and kind then as far as I am concerned we are on the same team. The college student that helps me went to the women’s march and had she needed it, I would’ve crocheted her pink hat. LOL. I don’t care at all. She’s awesome, she has been amazing for my oldest son (she studies physical therapy and he has Cerebral Palsy) and I will probably cry when she graduates and moves on.

    The idea that I am supposed to choose community based on shared politics or exclude people because we disagree is odd me. But then a lot of conservatives don’t like black people regardless of political affiliation so I would be in trouble if I tried to rely on conservatives alone for support.

    I’ve seen quite a few Trump supporters cut off from the “tribe” recently, so yeah, being seen as a sane and reasonable Christian is definitely a thing. My SIL cut off a couple friends over Trump support and they are now on Facebook begging for babysitters when they used to share and do things together. But a lot Christians just think that Trump is horrible and aren’t just going along to get along.

    Like

    1. Wow, here’s an illustration of exactly what I’m talking about. My experiences with conservatives have been fine. Many have helped our family, and they didn’t cut people in real need off over politics the way that is apparently perfectly acceptable to the college crowd.

      You do share a community based on politics, but it’s not a cut and dried R/D thing, so you feel otherwise. Conservatives love black people, not always in healthy ways, and I certainly avoid those conservatives because they are usually ironically part of the college crowd and all that entails unfavorably.

      As far as Trump and Christians, the numbers say something else entirely about how awful they think he is. It’s purely college-crowd stuff, signalling since I’ve found many of those same Christians live in heavier-than-average Trump voting regions and are overcorrecting to keep their college friends happy, which is precisely going along to get along. Since they do the same with non-Trump but still progressive stuff like the bathroom laws or gay marriage. Trump’s just the latest show of the old belly to keep access to the tribe, but they’ve been rolling over on a lot of supposedly progressive checklist items for a while now, the pattern simply became more obvious with Obergefell and the bathroom stuff and Trump all coming so close together.

      Politics is in the middle of a pretty big recalibration where R/D is not as readily applicable, but it is still politics of course. And it’s nothing but politics to cut people off over who they voted for when they haven’t stopped being real people with real needs.

      So the fragility of the membership is a big deal, how you just have to keep ratcheting up your acceptance of the progressive stack and any slight deviation will result in ejection and ostracism. Conservatives, if you can get them to leave their houses, I have to say aren’t as nitpicky about access to resources in that sense. But a gentler way to interpret such viciousness would be that the college crowd appreciates the scarcity and preciousness of the resources they’ve set up for each other.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My experience with conservatives mirrors yours, TPC. Lots of love, mostly well meaning and Christian but occasionally too much, LOL.

        The political falling out is almost always from liberals. We take pains NOT to discuss politics with family. But because of our silence (ie refusal to join in the “Trump is evil and sending us back to the plantation” bandwagon), people push the issue.

        There is plenty of diversity of thought within our circle of friends. Every time you heard about a friend or family member falling out over politics it’s the liberal that walked.

        And since the college campus is the front line defender of progressive thoughtcand activism…

        Like

        1. But because of our silence (ie refusal to join in the “Trump is evil and sending us back to the plantation” bandwagon), people push the issue.

          I hope that you will try to talk these people down. Political differences are one thing, but living in fear? I mean we discuss how whatever policy might be good or bad for most black people and acknowledge racist dog whistle politics. But when someone seriously thinks they are going to be enslaved or rounded up internment camps or whatever then I would have to say something. That’s too crazy for me to ignore.

          Like

      2. Most of my experiences with conservatives have been just fine as well. Doesn’t change the fact that a lot of them don’t like black people. And yes, I’ve also experienced where you get a weird over enthusiasm. As I’ve said before, there is a strange and unhealthy obsession with black people among white conservatives.

        I didn’t see a single person cut off over McCain or Romney support or for being a vocal conservative. The Trump thing is a bit different. But then I don’t know many liberals who want men in the ladies’ room, so may be being a sane and reasonable liberal is a thing too.

        Anyway, yeah it is ugly to cut someone off over how they voted. Especially since everything we’re seeing here has happened before and will likely turn out the same way that it did then. Much ado about nothing.

        Like

        1. Indeed. People get over active in their political obsessions.
          I think the two party system is more polarizing, also there is a large subset of educated and politics obsessed Americans. Younger, single crowd less obsessed (although they do tend to find Trump exceptionally bad, in my experience). But that also means they are not going to be the people exchanging child care, either.

          Like

          1. The two party system is polarizing, but it helps if people are reasonable and actually consider why the person voted the way that they did. I’ve seen conservatives turn “I think that women should have autonomy over their bodies and that the government should stay out of it,” into “You want to kill babies and probably had an abortion! Murderer!” And liberals turn, “I believe that marriage should be between a man and woman,” into “You hate gay people and want them to be stoned to death.” Those kinds of conversations are a lot more likely to lead to someone being cut off.

            Most people are decent and well meaning no matter how they voted, which is why I don’t cut people off over politics. I agree that younger, single people seem more prone to falling out with friends over this kind of thing.

            Like

            1. Oh, I actually meant to say that I think younger and single people are *less* politics obsessed, at least in my undergraduate cohort. Also are less likely to vote per demographic. Of course, where I went as an undergrad was also a place where the main demographic is very apolitical, too, so that could be an exception. They certainly tolerated my politics, but it wasn’t like we exchanged childcare or anything :).

              Like

        2. I have never met a conservative who didn’t like black people, though I have met some who are neutral. I have met a lot of people who didn’t identify themselves that way who didn’t though. I wonder if it’s not just a matter of labeling white people who aren’t college educated “conservatives” if they don’t like black people.

          Where I live, not approving of 10 year old who think they’re “Transgender” is a thing a college educated conservative could get cut off from support for. And there are not many such 10 year olds or crazy mothers encouraging them, but you’ll still risk being cut off if you don’t agree with the crazy moms.

          Like

          1. Conservatives who don’t like black people are fairly common here. And no, I don’t automatically label racist people as conservatives as I am well aware that college educated and liberal racists are thing.

            I think that leftist support for transgender issues has been overstated. There are a lot of liberals women, and even lesbians who disapprove strongly and even those who approve aren’t all that enthusiastic about it. Especially when it comes to encroachment into female spaces or “patriarchy in pantyhose.” I am hoping that the left will eventually back away from that bit of crazy.

            Like

      3. TPC said:

        “Conservatives love black people, not always in healthy ways, and I certainly avoid those conservatives because they are usually ironically part of the college crowd and all that entails unfavorably.”

        I think that’s true about unhealthy love, but you’ve got the demographics of that a bit wrong.

        If we take the example of Ben Carson, conservatives (like liberals) have a tendency to overpromote minorities and women or promote them too quickly without having them pay their dues. It would have made so much more sense, for example, for Ben Carson to get at least some political experience before aiming for the big chair. (Ben Carson is brilliant, of course–but not a brilliant politician.)

        My grandparents LOVED Ben Carson before they LOVED Trump, and they aren’t exactly “the college crowd” although they made sure that all of their kids went.

        Like

    2. Nonya said:

      “I must admit I don’t concern myself much with the politics of my family and community. If you are helpful and kind then as far as I am concerned we are on the same team.”

      Oh my goodness, yes!!!

      See Matthew 25:

      “34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’”

      And conversely, if you are not helpful and not kind, we are not on the same team.

      “The idea that I am supposed to choose community based on shared politics or exclude people because we disagree is odd me.”

      That’s only going to be true under highly dysfunctional circumstances (for example the US during the Civil War). It should not be our model for how things ought to be.

      “I’ve seen quite a few Trump supporters cut off from the “tribe” recently, so yeah, being seen as a sane and reasonable Christian is definitely a thing. My SIL cut off a couple friends over Trump support and they are now on Facebook begging for babysitters when they used to share and do things together. But a lot Christians just think that Trump is horrible and aren’t just going along to get along.”

      I’ve heard of this sort of thing happening in my home town, and it’s like pouring sand in the gears of community life.

      Before social media, we weren’t having our friends’ and relatives’ unsavory or stupid political views rubbed in our faces 24/7, so it was a lot easier to just get along.

      Like

  3. You know I have a very good friend -she happens to be white- who just said recently that one of the reasons they like living in this particular area is because of the near absence of racial *stuff* and how Christians (and people in general) of all stripes get along and have good relationships. Nothing at all like where she was from.

    Like

  4. One of the things I often see missing from these kinds of conversations— on and off the manosphere, the Christo-sphere, tradsphere, whatever– is no one is asking about where are the families. Where are they? Families are the backbone of society, and are the basic building block of a community, a parish, and heck even a college.

    I guess it bothers me this goes unnoticed (or evades discussion) because my eyes have opened to the saying “Charity starts at home.” I think the only people I’ve ever seen around the ‘sphere talk about family are Elspeth, a couple of the guys from the manosphere, and a couple of other women who comment from time to time.

    I’m also aware that the state of family relations isn’t the best, and a lot of people don’t have cousins, ILs, etc. around to participate in family life. Isn’t that the root of the problem? In a general sense, instead of focusing on how to create crypto-families, why aren’t there more discussions on how to make the best of the family you’ve got? This alone could address a lot of the issues concerning marriage, colleges, churches, communities, etc.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Maea said:

      “In a general sense, instead of focusing on how to create crypto-families, why aren’t there more discussions on how to make the best of the family you’ve got?”

      A lot of us do not live near our families, but that is a big question.

      There is actually a lot of stuff online (conservative and otherwise) about how to have a more harmonious relationship with extended family. It’s just not treated as a specifically conservative or religious problem.

      Like

    2. Some people don’t live near family members. Speaking from my extensive experience…as people’s opinions, theology, and politics, evolve, family relationships can grow apart.

      For instance, when we first married, our family’s primary social outlet was my husband’s siblings and their families. Through a series of changes in lifestyle and beliefs, we all grew apart. His maternal family is and always has been a great blessing to us, but they don’t live nearby,

      My family of origin was always a little more distant than my husband’s family, but we did come together when it counted most. But last February my father, the glue that was holding us together, passed on. It’s taking Herculean effort to keep connections the way we knew he would want.

      And then, there is the very basic issue of having people you can call on in a pinch to help you out on a weekday, or who have kids that are the right age and stage to be friends with your kids. There are times when extended family just can’t fill those very real needs for various reasons. In our case, it’s proximity combined with the fact that no other women in my family are homemakers. NONE.

      We are pretty much forced now to build communities of faith and affinity if we are to have any community at all. It sucks, but we have to live within the parameters of what we have rather than what we wish we had.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. People of faith encounter the same problems, and they do hence all of the scrupulousness. If I had to choose between the two groups, I’d rather pick my family (with ALL their faults) because 1. they invested in me 2. I also have one in them in the long term 3. I would rather put more energy into the preservation of my familial heritage and culture because that is where culture comes from. Culture is built off the family units who bond together because they share ties. This is not a pipe dream or wishing– I am convinced part of the problem with modern culture is people are more interested in forging bonds with strangers who may or may not have their best interests in mind, rather than the family they can from bonds with.

        Kin and kith are important, but relying on faith communities at this point in the modern culture is too much of a risk to me. People come and go from churches, people move, they change their affiliations, etc. Same with families, but as what one of my cousins says, at the end of the day despite all of the differences, you know that there will always be a time where everyone will need to come together and they will. Can I really say the same for faith communities? Nope. And honestly? People need to learn to get over themselves with family. Political differences, religion, parenting styles, etc. are meaningless when it prevents strong relationships and bonds, especially when there are children involved. My ILs in particular disagree with my SILs parenting style and I kind of want to tell them to shut up and deal, and while I won’t do so that is the truth.

        I spent a lot of time refusing to accept this in my youth, but blood is thicker than water.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There seems to be a miscommunication happening here Maea. I am not saying that we should toss our families and build pseudo families of affinity. For instance, I loathe the notion of “Freindsgiving”, LOL.

          What I am saying is that when your family isn’t available, and many families today simply aren’t, then you have to have relationships with someone. If, on a weekday at 10:00, I need a favor, I am very thankful that I have a group of women (not blood related) that I can call on and accomplish what needs to be accomplished. I don’t know if there’s ever been a time in this country -given the way American expansion started in the first place- when people didn’t have to rely on no relatives at least some of the time.

          As for family differences, when the rubber meets the road, and the chips are down, our family comes together. But there have been some differences that have caused walls to be built which, despite our best efforts, have precluded the kind of regular “hanging out” we used to do.

          I keep trying to figure how we got to the place where we either have to have only family in our lives to depend on, or only friends in our lives to depend on.

          The existence of such a dilemma only serves to underscore the overall point that TPC keeps trying to highlight here. Namely, that we have lost all touch with any semblance of a normal, functional family and community culture, which historically included both blood family and Christ’s family connections.

          Liked by 2 people

  5. TPC said:

    “This is more of a note than a fully hashed out idea, but I think there is something to the fact that the “tribe” of college-educated adults and especially college-educated parents is where what remains of functional parenting culture lies in America among American-born Americans.”

    I think that’s right. I read manosphere descriptions of typical wife or mom behavior, and I’m all “NOPE.”

    Manosphere guys believe that modern women are just doing whatever the heck they please, and that ain’t so. There are very strong social norms regarding marriage and parenting in the upper middle class and upper middle middle class, as well as in lower-income people who grew up in or are influenced by that culture.

    I have a guilty pleasure of reading Lori Alexander’s and the Nauglers’ threads at Free Jinger, as well as Jenna Andersen’s thread at GOMI, and one of the things I have picked up from there is that there is actually a pretty strong consensus vision among conscientious US parents of what a good marriage or good parenting looks like. Even though it look to the untutored eye that nowadays anything goes, the truth is that anybody who lives in an upper middle class/upper middle class zone but doesn’t obey the UMC/UMMC rules is going to be punished (even if nobody straight-out says, “we are punishing you”).

    “It’s the college-educated who hook each other up with nanny shares, allowing them genuinely flexible childcare that pays a good wage to the nanny while none of them ever pay more than center-based daycare costs per family.”

    Based on my DC days, that’s often done online, with a family you might not even know that well.

    “There is a loyalty and support base there that even crosses political boundaries. But of course, both parents have to be college-educated.”

    I’ve never seen a diploma check at a potluck–but both parents have to ACT college-educated. There is solidarity and trust based on shared parenting values.

    “Thus, when the political rubber hits the road, conservatives are more loyal to their real tribe of college-educated types than their supposed tribe of conservatives, Christians or conservative Christians.”

    I have a somewhat different experience because of regional peculiarities–in our particular area, virtually all college-educated types are conservative or conservativish church-goers (and even the liberalish ones would look very conservative up North). There was a lot of anti-Trump sentiment–even in the absence of virtually any “progressive” element to impress.

    Aside from “progressive” norms, Trump just happens to be in violation of a lot of traditional norms, too. He’s basically the political equivalent of Rodney Dangerfield’s character in Caddyshack.

    Like

    1. He’s actually not, based on American political and social history and even much of his own personal and business history. It’s just progressive cant where it isn’t literally making stuff up about him. And as I said, my experience (and voting data shows) is that college-educated conservatives who are anti-Trump mostly live in Trumpier than average regions and are engaged in what the kids call “signalling”.

      I think people moving to various Southern states (like yours) and bringing their lack of earthiness (except of course if you call them out on their hypocrisies and pettiness, then they get real earthy with you really fast) if you will, are a different but related phenomenon.

      Like

      1. Just because it is signalling doesn’t mean it isn’t also sincere.
        Trump does not fit into any real right wing tradition that well; particularly those who despise liberal democracy and prefer a genuine aristocracy look down on his nouveau riche tastelessness. Yes, I voted for him, but I don’t have a problem with calling him out, and I understand those who criticize him.
        Many people who support (and engage in) real work like local charities, local schools, support for working families, no interest loans, etc. have little interest in populist politics for that very reason.

        Like

        1. The college educated conservatives also don’t fit into real right wing traditions, except being stridently anti-abortion (and not always even that much). Saying he is not unusual in American political history is not saying he’s good or bad, it’s saying that he falls within normal ranges for a political figure or a figure who enters the political realm.

          As far as aristocracy goes, he’s done plenty of noblesse oblige, surprising me. He’s a lot like Prince, also showy and with a pretty scandalous love life, but doing a lot of good works and local support within his community. They are both, in that regard, rather like classical aristocrats in practice, if you really want to go there.

          Sincere hypocrisy is still hypocrisy. Eager support for politicians with similar love lives and much less history of personal charity while jumping on the progressive anti-Trump bandwagon is just hypocritical signalling and it’s nothing to be impressed with or view favorably.

          Like

          1. I suppose this depends on what we mean by college educated conservatives; I was talking about the best case scenario, the anti-Straussians, distributists, and anti-liberals from places like ISI, University of Dallas, St. Thomas Aquinas College of Liberal Arts, etc.

            Yes, many of the people around the think tanks, defense sector, etc. fit what you describe, and I have my strong disagreements with them entirely apart from Trump. I really don’t consider them that conservative at all. In my experience, especially at conservative think tanks, a lot of the people are actually libertarians or liberals despite their job.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. TPC said:

        “I think people moving to various Southern states (like yours) and bringing their lack of earthiness (except of course if you call them out on their hypocrisies and pettiness, then they get real earthy with you really fast) if you will, are a different but related phenomenon.”

        In my experience, it’s actually the other way around, but I live in a bubble. It is a large bubble, though.

        My experience has been that it’s Northerners (and specifically Northeasterners) who are prone to “earthiness” while the Southern academic bubble I live in is hyper-civilized and extremely intolerant (in a good way) of violations of local social norms. There is a certain possibility of overlap with the stuff you’re talking about, but I find that the college cultures are quite distinct. One of the drivers in the Southern culture (and this is not just academics but the larger Southern culture) is that people would pretty much literally rather die than hurt other people’s feelings or give offense unnecessarily. (In fact, it’s initially often quite difficult for outsiders like ourselves to figure out what the heck people are trying to say, because they’re so indirect.)

        Again, this desire not to give offense or to hurt others does on the one hand open a door to certain progressive ideas, but on the other hand, it firmly closes the door to a lot of the more colorful expressions of those ideas.

        My suspicion is that when manosphere guys complain about “churchianity,” they’re talking about the powerful social norms that I have described.

        Like

        1. I was born/raised in the South, and I think you’re just not familiar with what it’s like among long-term Southerners, especially the more westerly ones. You’re just describing transplants. The kind of earthiness I’m talking about is just normal social intimacy, not necessarily public behavior, although even then, there can be a lot of chumminess and florid openness too.

          What I’ve seen of even upper-class Southerners is…it’s a kind of looseness that I guess is part of the blood. The transplants who brought their stiffness and striving have created a different culture quite rapidly (post internet), and it looks a little like classic Southern if you aren’t actually Southern, but it’s something else entirely.

          Like

          1. TPC said:

            “I was born/raised in the South, and I think you’re just not familiar with what it’s like among long-term Southerners, especially the more westerly ones.”

            What you’re talking about sounds like what Florence King talks about in Southern Ladies and Gentlemen and also the country folk I occasionally bump into at the grocery store.

            http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/southern-ladies-and-gentlemen-florence-king/1000353475

            But what I’m talking about is a very different flavor, but still indigenous. A couple of the people I am thinking of actually are transplants, but from Arkansas. It’s a very specific local cultural bubble–it’s the intersection between the South, Texas, Baptists, upper middle class/upper middle middle class, and academia.

            In our area, Baptist propriety is HUGE. It’s extremely powerful, because it effects everybody of a particular socioeconomic level and gets them to toe the line, no matter what their particular political or religious views. It’s sort of the traditional/conservative mirror image of what you were describing in your original post.

            Like

    2. As to the parenting choice thing, you can be as crazy and stupid with parenting as you want to be, and so long as you have that credential, your parenting choices are totally fine, or at least you must have some long-term plan that will eventually work out favorably for your kids.

      Whereas someone like me has every decision second guessed because since I don’t have a college degree, how can I possibly know what is best for children and child rearing?

      Like

      1. TPC said:

        “As to the parenting choice thing, you can be as crazy and stupid with parenting as you want to be, and so long as you have that credential, your parenting choices are totally fine, or at least you must have some long-term plan that will eventually work out favorably for your kids.”

        You can be as crazy and stupid with parenting as you want to be–as long as you can find a group of peers to be crazy and stupid with you in the exact same way. Unfortunately, the internet insures that it is now always possible to find peers with the same brand of crazy.

        And yes, people do second guess those who are outside of their particular parenting tribes, college or no college.

        Like

      2. Whereas someone like me has every decision second guessed because since I don’t have a college degree, how can I possibly know what is best for children and child rearing?

        LMAO who are these yahoos? The fact you got pregnant, carried to term for 9 months, took care of yourself during those months, gave birth multiple times, and care for them by providing a stable home, love, lots of outdoor places to play, material necessities, and healthy food is enough. Who cares if you don’t know what’s best for children at large? All that matters is you know what is best for your children.

        Man, if I had a frying pan near those kinds of people…

        Liked by 1 person

      3. People second guessing due to credentials takes an ironic turn when there are women who do have a college degree, and have more than 2 children. I’ve read so many stories online where people have asked them “you do know where babies come from, right?” along with “shouldn’t you be thinking about stopping?” as if these women should “know better.”

        Liked by 1 person

    1. WOW so will these people get slapped with discrimination violations, like a woman did years back when she put out ad looking for a Christian roommate? Or are Christians getting targeted with Fair Housing violations? I didn’t vote for Trump (or Clinton, no need to freak out) but it would be hilarious for a Trump voter to covertly get into renting one of these places and then do recon on What It’s Like To Live With Liberals.

      Like

  6. By the way, my current working theory is that when manosphere guys complain about “churchianity,” part of what they’re talking about is the sort of informal social control that we’ve encountered in our part of the South. It isn’t necessarily the church leadership taking an erring brother aside (although that must happen), but a sort of polite crowd-sourced vigilante enforcement of the social norms (this has some overlap, but not complete overlap with Christian moral norms).

    Case in point–our transplant friend who brusquely told his wife to bring him a coat while out in public. His tone was so shocking to local feelings that that minor event spread like wildfire through the gossip tree, and my husband (being his friend) was soon fielding multiple requests from concerned community members that he talk to our transplant friend. The locals are both big gossips and very indirect. I’ve also seen “inappropriate” fraternizing between married and single people of the opposite sex to generate the same concerned swarming effect. By local upper middle class standards (at least within our fairly large bubble), unnecessary car rides between a married and single person of the opposite sex are to be avoided (so, for example, my husband would make a point of making sure that a third party was riding along if he gave a ride to a female grad student).

    You only have to witness this stuff once or twice before (like a dog dealing with an invisible fence) you figure out which behaviors generate the negative reinforcement.

    If I’m right and this sort of diffuse social control is what a lot of manosphere guys mean by “churchianity,” I can say with a lot of confidence that they are wrong that women get a free ride under that system. It’s not there is no “invisible fence” for women, it’s that it’s not set up to manosphere satisfaction and/or that the zaps are invisible to manospherean observers.

    Like

    1. It isn’t necessarily the church leadership taking an erring brother aside (although that must happen), but a sort of polite crowd-sourced vigilante enforcement of the social norms (this has some overlap, but not complete overlap with Christian moral norms).

      I think that this is also what people are complaining about when they say that they are tired of having to be PC. Political correctness is just politeness and civility.

      Like

      1. The fact that people think that way is part of the Victory of Liberalism: any restriction on someone is now “political correctness”.

        The original meaning of political correctness would have meant overstating Soviet success to fit the government’s story, or today’s belief in Gender Theory. Americans don’t have enough experience to understand that anymore.

        Like

        1. Anymouse,

          And interesting (and familiar) feature of Soviet political correctness was that it was an ever-moving target, so that the individual was in awful danger if they didn’t keep up.

          Like

      2. Nonya said:

        “Political correctness is just politeness and civility.”

        There is definitely some overlap–but not complete overlap.

        Politeness and civility aren’t competitive and an ever-moving treadmill in the way that political correctness can be. Political correctness also can have a strong element of fantasy.

        Politeness or civility can require not verbally noticing things (the fatness of very fat people, flatulence, a really bad case of acne, an ample bosom, disfigurement, whatever) but it doesn’t require florid lies about one’s sense impressions.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s