T.W.O. and I being immensely silly.
T.W.O. and I being immensely silly.
In the first chapter, Shires begins to lay out the groundwork for his exploration of how the counterculture spun off Christianized hippies. He does this by pointing to the rise of modernism, with its whispers of neophilia and materialism that carried a clinical yet intense passion for material gain and economic security. He doesn’t get quite as blunt as what the Third Child study researchers found, that the Boomers’ parents were people who thought hiding your Christian faith was fine if it meant getting a raise. But he does point out that the Boomers’ parents were very invested in Getting Paid and that they accepted the idea that church is just for Sundays easily.
When I started hanging around in evangelical circles, there was a free-floating idea that “Church is just for Sundays” was a recent thing and that in the 1950s, say, it wasn’t like that. This is completely wrong. “Church is just for Sundays” is roughly a century old at this point in terms of American religious practice. By the 1950s it was even codified that there was no particular immorality or degenerancy attached to not attending.
One very interesting thing Shires does in the first chapter is explain that the liberal-material Christian view was an accommodation with the advances of technology and scientific thinking. He briefly mentions something I’ve encountered in some of the early 20th century American writers I’ve read, the pushback against early-stage Affluenza which predated the counterculture by a couple of generations. It is beyond the scope of his book, but the post-frontier Nature-love types like Gene Stratton-Porter were forerunners to the counterculture Christian-hippies.
Part of the fallout of the high highs and low lows of technology-driven rapid prosperity was liberal Christianity and wider social mores adopting conformism as a tool against unchecked greed and lust for profits and as a way to preserve economic prosperity and social stability. They were anti-technocrats, but ones who integrated a technocratic perspective into their faith, secularizing the story of the loaves and fishes as merely a model of sharing. That watered-down, materialist approach was already a dominant force in American Christianity prior to the counterculture.
The modernist, liberal Christians whose perspective dominated much of the middle classes that Christian-hippies came from were essentially Pelagian individualist materialists. There was nothing supernatural about God and faith, it was just about love, and further, love that could be expressed by just living a good life and not being too greedy. There was no Again to be Born.
The “Chrippies” rejected this idea of worship being a Sunday thing and optional at that as too private and self-contained a way to be Christian. They wanted a more muscular, open, light blazing kind of faith. Which leads to Chapter Two, a discussion of the counterculture.
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.
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.
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.
The White Oppressor meant to say “former Commonwealth Nations other than Canada don’t have birthright citizenship.” Like MacDuff, it came out wrong.
Back to the less politically charged stuff next time.
I haven’t done a real book review in a long time, and I’d like to start with this fascinating little book by Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie. As I note above, this book is a strong triple, just short of a home run in quickly and simply explaining what SJWs are, how they operate and how to deal with an attack from them and keep them out of one’s organizations and institutions.
Mr. Day begins simply, saying that SJWs are “unpaid amateur propagandists” who believe in Narrative above anything else. This keeps the reader focused when he moves on to examples of their behavior.
In what is the weakest part of the book in Chapters 2 and 4, Mr. Day uses overly complex examples taken from nerd spheres and gets a little too into the weeds with them (like in his discussion of Gamergate in Chapter 4, where video gamers protested gaming journalists being literally in bed with game developers and other ethical/conflict of interest breaches), but soon enough his video game background kicks in and the reader still gets a coherent walkthrough of how SJWs operated in those nerd spheres.
In Chapter 3, Mr. Day provides a breakdown of the eight-step process of SJW attacks (available as a free pdf download, also serves as a great sample of the book) and also of the way SJWs use Codes of Conduct, volunteerism and qualifications over skills to take over organizations. As a housewife, this called to mind a non-nerd example that happened to La Leche League, a grassroots breastfeeding organization started by upper-middle class housewives in the 1970s and which has at the statewide level imploded due to SJW entryism of the very kind described in this little book.
With ten chapters, the book has a lot of good bits once he moves into the realm of corporate and civic life. The discussion of SJW proofing one’s organization in Chapter 10 is incredibly valuable and worth the very reasonable price by itself.
Along the way to that last chapter, Mr. Day brings up some common roadblocks that conservatives are all too familiar with. The “moderate” who would rather lose the institution the right way (pun intended) instead of kick SJWs out. The incredibly fragile reliance on megacorporations and the Establishment (media and academic “experts” with no practical knowledge) as a bottleneck and how taking the risk to be free (or freer) of those entities can preserve a more normal organization or community.
I’ve been letting the perfect be the enemy of the “just get it online”, so here this review is, very belatedly. As we see in America a surge of right-wing populism and possible election of a right-wing populist and as we see the basic idea of an SJW slowly start being defined as “problematic” even among progressives and liberals, I think this little book is an interesting and useful bit of practical description and advice. A strong triple, due to being a little too inside-baseball and understandably not delving into where the really impossible SJW infestations are: female-specific institutions and organizations. Perhaps it will be for another to solve the riddle of how us ladies can SJW-proof our spaces and get them back to useful and discrete from male ones.