Superwife, the Catholic version.

http://stlouisreview.com/article/2017-08-18/faith-home-sacred-act

We have a woman here whose life is so easy and uncomplicated, but yet whose faith is so brittle that *loading a dishwasher* is untenable without a saint’s image to pray to.  O-kay!

The evil here is that a woman in the life religious is not the same as a mother of young, closely spaced children.  Such a mother ostentatiously and vaingloriously holding herself out as equivalent to a cloistered nun (who, incidentally had a pretty interesting and short life, but one that didn’t feature much in the way of dishwashing or linen folding) is morally and spiritually dangerous.  In the life religious, the twenty or thirty tasks that make up a baseline of homemaking are split among many women rather than just one.  And this is partly so that the beauty of the small things in domestic upkeep for a group can be understood and comprehended more completely.

Birthing human small things with souls and hearts and chasing them around and then feeling aggrieved about loading a dishwasher is not a sign of spiritual discontent.  It’s simple and normal and human.  But as usual, the bar is set at “housewives, if you’re not performing at the level of VIRGIN SAINTS YOU NEED TO STEP IT UP LIKE MEEEEEEEEE”.

This is far more of a problem than the Lori Alexanders of the world.

 

Advertisements

Just how dysgenic is the college gap between men and women?

Vox Day feels that it is quite dysgenic, but I think that we kind of see the Grain of Truth thing going on.

The reality is that 70% of white, non-Hispanic (WNH) births each year for the last decade or so are to college educated women.  And still more reality is that a majority of WNH births have been to college educated mothers since sometime in the 80s, when they crossed 50%.  So for about 30 years now, a majority of white babies are being born to educated white mothers.  And by 1960, the percentage was already over 20%.

Now this is a different issue than raw baby count, but even there, white women had about 2 million babies (after minusing 50k or so Hispanic births, this was before they were a separate category) in 1970 (when college educated mothers were around 25% or so of the total) and in 2015, the most current year available, they also had 2 million babies.

People are having fewer children as a population proportion, that is true, sort of.  But the raw count of kids has been very stable for decades, with its structure changing.  The right wing having a big conversation about what it means that most white kids are born to college-moms would be more useful than asserting that such motherhood is definitely dysgenic.  Which is itself an open question.  Intelligence flows from mom, so is having bright women make up more of the moms (particularly the married moms) dysgenic?  Yeah, yeah “watered down curriculum”, but that means arguing that the ones who can’t complete coursework in even a watered down form are somehow smarter.  Which would be a hard sell.

Even among black women, a higher fraction of mothers who get married before the babies come are college educated.  That is, college educated black mothers are often married before the babies come and non-college black mothers are at scary 90% or so out of wedlock levels.  A majority of black mothers with a BA or greater are married before the kids come.

So we have a larger population with a static baby count and thus a lower birth rate, but the women left who are bothering to have babies, plural are majority college-attending and married.  And they have more higher-order births, they have supermajorities of the 3+ births.

One could make an interesting argument that it was mainly the vanguard of college educated women’s daughters who successfully reproduced.  And that also has pretty far reaching implications.

 

The Grain of Truth theory of effective activism.

Activism is effective politically and even socially when it starts from one true thing. Even if a giant forest of lies is built up around that, one small grain of truth is what keeps people attached. This is more true of progressive activism than conservative activism, but that is fairly recent.

The reason conservatives lose so much of the time is that they prefer stories that don’t even have the grain of truth and then wonder why people reject them. A good example is the bizarre love affair conservatives have with food stamps needing to be converted into actual raw ingredients. That this was done and didn’t work and that food stamps really are better at both feeding little kids who can’t help who their dysfunctional parents are and at getting said parents to be less dysfunctional is something they appear to be utterly ignorant of. Conservatives prefer a story about how things ought to be over the historical reality.

That’s just one example. There are plenty of others. Wide open topic for discussion.

Rousseau vs. the Puritans

My beautiful children are making a lot of noise, so this will have to be blunt and unlinked.

American motherhood has been defined since the dawn of America as a nation by what we would now call a PUA (pick-up artist).  That’s right, if you’re an American woman promoting mother-only care as historical, the most natural and the best possible care for children, you’re promoting the views of a man who abandoned his own illegitimate children to be reared in orphanages without the least thought.

Rousseau’s view on motherhood was that women needed to be constrained in the domestic sphere by sole (not primary, but SOLO) care of their children so that they wouldn’t go out into the marketplace and rule over men.  Yes, that was what the man feared.  He claimed women were sooooo powerful that if they weren’t trapped at home constantly pregnant raising kids by themselves (only to be handed off to men at apprentice-age of 12-13 if boys and married off at 15-16 if girls) that they would TAKE OVER THE WORLD.  And yes, he comes close in his writings about motherhood to using phrases like trapped or constrained.

The entire point of Rousseau-style motherhood is to limit female power and influence and constrain women’s roles, even in the domestic sphere.  One must remember that in the 18th century, household production by wives and mothers was still economically important and a Rousseau-style program of childrearing would make it much harder to maintain that economic role.  This was intentional.

Rousseau’s framework of solitary childrearing by mothers has, astonishingly, continued down nearly unaltered in 200+ years in American society.  American society really is just that weird and started out with wacky theories about mothering propagated by a man who didn’t do any proper family formation of his own.

In contrast, the colonial Puritans had a view of motherhood as a primary role for women and marriage as the highest state for men and women (presaging the Mormons, who replicated some aspects of their views on family and community), but they didn’t believe women were supposed to rear children alone.  Women were expected to be part of a large, bustling household composed of husband, wife, servants and relatives, with the husband sometimes gone for months earning the giant wheelbarrows full of money needed to keep what was essentially the original home-based business going.  So Puritan women were expected to stand in their husband’s stead and have authority in both the home and the marketplace.  In this respect they diverged wildly from Rousseau while still holding to the idea that women were best suited to marriage and motherhood.

And while there were many young-married Puritans, there were plenty of older-married ones who started families later in life when they could get the cash together to set up the proper household structure.  So all the current fretting about people delaying marriage “too long” is just a lot of Rousseau-inflected hokum.

Rousseau is the source of the obsessive pressure for teen marriage no matter what in various eras in America, especially of barely-pubescent girls.  Rousseau is the real source of what many think is just from attachment parenting, the idea that mom is the only possible proper caregiver for children (and yeah, it’s always plural).  Because of Rousseau’s influence, women braved the frontier life and tried to rear children that way and enough continued encouraging it that, well, here we are today.

So if you are a mother struggling with small children in isolation, and you see people saying that this is what women really want and really feel fulfilled by, they are telling you a PUA fish story.

I remain a neo-Puritan on this subject and ever will.

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.

 

 

Please help Vladimir Bukovsky, Freedom Fighter

I am spreading the signal for this good cause.

This really brilliant woman has a good summary with donation links.

This is the donation page:

https://www.crowdrise.com/help-vladimir-bukovsky-brave-putin-critic1/

 

If you can spare something, please do.  If not, keep passing the link along.

Goal was met!  Yay!

The Pornographic Missing Stair Shaped Elephant in the Marital Bed

I have a half-finished post briefly outlining that men bringing pornography consumption into their marriages has been part of American married life since World War II.  This of course goes against the narrative that men are “driven” to seek out pornography because mean mean wives are withholding sex as a tool of control and dominance.  But the historical evidence is on the side of the man bringing the habit into the marriage and retroactively blaming the wife when the sex life goes awry.

“Missing Stair” is a reference from a promoter of deviant sexuality discussing the shocking fact that when you devote your free time to obsessively pursuing a sexual fetish, the subculture you create attracts predators and abusers like flies to fresh manure.  The missing stair is the way that the subculture coalesces around the abusers to work around their abusive tendencies and still keep pursuing the other forms of deviance as a group.

This working around a bad actor can occur outside the world of sexually deviant subcultures, and it does occur in settings that are not themselves “missing stairs” to the culture at large.

Which brings me to this post.  Pornography is a huge elephant in the room regarding sexual marriage dynamics and pretending it’s harmless or trivial because “it’s just pictures/video” illustrates just how deep the corruption and protection of evil to feed unrepentant depravity goes.

One of the issues with 2016 marriages is that they involve men and women who came of age just as pre-teen pornography exposure became something that was easy to do accidentally and very easy to do intentionally.

From the male side, when men are exposed from age 9 or 10 to frequent graphic sexual imagery of women, it’s disorienting at best for them to step outside and go to a shop.  The female store clerk isn’t…behaving correctly.  Neither are the women chatting to each other by the cereal aisle wearing the…right clothing.  Or…behaving correctly.  And forget talking to a girl, it’s almost offputting because she just isn’t behaving according to what you are used to women doing constantly for hours per day in multiple browser windows and screens.

And this is at best.  Many men respond to this disorientation by resenting or even hating regular women for not acting like erotic automata.

Christian ministries around pornography are trying to grapple with something that is in some ways more serious than regular brothel visits or having a mistress.  The ladies in the brothel and the mistresses are, after all, actual women who will slip up and act normally sometimes in the course of things.

The missing stair here is of course the idea that the plastic unreality of the porn women is safer, less sinful, perhaps even not a sin within a marriage.  I certainly hope one might see the problem with this reasoning.  Women doing that sort of thing are at best having natural feminine impulses distorted all out of human recognition and reduced to strange and increasingly perverse transactional assaults on the senses.  And at worst they’re being drugged and physically coerced into participation.

Any Christian man saying that some women should exist in this plastic evil world so some men can pretend their wives are the obstacle to an ordered and chaste married sex life is promoting sin and evil and maneuvering around an entire missing staircase of sin.