Stay at home mother is a gift from 1970s feminists.

The story of the transformation of the”housewife” into the “stay at home mother” providing “mother-care, not DAYCARE” in American society in the wake of the Pill and Roe v. Wade is an interesting one and there’s not much information on the internet about it because the idea that there was a transition (and that this transition destroyed a substantial amount of soft power among married women) is not compatible with either right wing or left wing narratives about the topic.

We didn’t really have the term before motherhood could be conceivably viewed as entirely intentional/optional, even within marriage.  And nobody seems to ask why it bloomed so suddenly and took over, when by its nature it explicitly separates motherhood from marriage, while housewife emphasizes, well, property benefits of marriage for women foremost.  Homemaker, it’s worth noting, has begun to turn up as a transition away from stay at home mother, but it lacks that wilful connecting of property with marriage and in fact shifts the domestic world to something a woman must make/build, rather than something she is inherently part of and maintaining/managing.

Since this is just thinky thoughts, I will close with the little data point that over half of American SAHMs use center-based daycare for children aged 0-4 and that we hit that point about 10 years ago and this is in every region of the country, not concentrated in one place, it’s about half everywhere.  Employed or not, it’s 80% for BA or higher-possessing mothers.

Advertisements

“I raised a family on 40k and you can too!”

I think a lot of people who have kids, and particularly those who are in the vicinity of conservatives have heard some variation on this theme from older folks.  The exact amount varies, but it’s usually 30-50k.  I took the midpoint for this post.

Anyway, here’s a little chart of what 40k in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 would be in current-year dollars.

Decade Annual Household Income in Dollars What It’s Worth In 2018 Dollars
1970 40,000 260,000
1980 40,000 125,000
1990 40,000 75,000
2000 40,000 55,000

I didn’t go back further because most people who say this were raising kids to college ages in the mid-70s to mid-90s.

Feel free to copy-paste this chart in any discussion of costs to raise kids. Calculator used is here and I lowballed a little.

Hippies of the Religious Right, Chapter Two: The Counterculture

So in Chapter Two, Shires has a brief discussion of the counterculture.  He drops all the right names (Roszak, Ellul) and along the way breaks down the appeal of the counterculture for what became Christian hippies.

The major thing for the “Chrippies” was that they wanted to keep the Golden Rule, freedom and expressive individualism of their parents’ modernist, secular approach to life and belief, but drop the conformism and money-hunger.  They “logic trapped” their parents by pointing out their obvious hypocrisies.

We in the future now might look at how easily and smoothly hypocrisy is dismissed as irrelevant in general political discourse, but the younger Silents and older Boomers were able to pull off confronting hypocrisy because their parents were in fact behaving in an untraditional way.  The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit was two-faced in a way that was historically rather new and thus freshly and particularly susceptible to cries of Hypocrite.  And the children of these parents took advantage of it, pressing that advantage as hard as they could most chances they got.

When you present an adulterer as a moral exemplar people might think you’re a hypocrite.

But the eagerness to trap their parents and authority figures in nets of hypocrisy exposed something Shires presents rather neutrally, the way in which freedom as a movement and ideal superseded the Civil Rights Movement rapidly.  People born from 1944-1960 had an 86% rate of formal religious training (Sunday school, catechism class, and the like) and while this filled many of them (the future Chrippies, what Shires terms the “spiritually sensitive”) with a longing for faith as a seamless garment, with life and belief as one, in practice they sought freedom from orthodox spiritual direction, instead delving into drugs as a path towards that goal of a seamless garment of life-faith.

The use of drugs for individualized spiritual awakening is an interesting contrast to the Dexedrine housewives of the postwar and 1950s timeframe.  The mainstream use of drugs to enforce conformity, particularly with women’s highly constrained and very modern form of the housewife role, is not mentioned by Shires, being outside the scope of his work.  But it something to consider for the era he’s speaking of.

Shires also discusses the original “We have to be intolerant of intolerance!” that was a prominent theme among these seekers and spiritually sensitive youth pursuing an ideal of pure love.  Weirdly, he downplays the sex-cult aspects that arose out of this love-worship.  He mentions an example of humane, saving love from M.A.S.H. the movie, in which a suicidal doctor is brought back with the love of his coworkers via them staging a pretend Last Supper and dosing him with a sleeping draught…only for him to be revived in “Heaven” where a beautiful nurse has sex with him.  Not exactly Biblically grounded (a recurring phrase Shires uses regarding the spiritually sensitive who became what I’m terming Chrippies or Christian hippies).

Shires describes the nurse as “compassionate and compliant”.  This implicit approval for “free love” with Christian sprinkles explains some of the odder acceptable fringes that flowered in the wake of the Jesus movement and the Christian hippies it produced.

Shires’ own language reveals some telling things about what roles women were to play as some of them rebelled against the artificial and novel form of the housewife role their parents and older sisters were performing.

Anyhow.  On to Chapter Three!

Blogging through a book: Hippies of the Religious Right, by Preston Shires.

This is a book about how the counterculture spun off the Religious Right.  It’s by a guy who thinks that was totally awesome and wrote this book laying out the timeline.  This book was written over a decade ago, in 2007, so it will not be covering the Obama era or the impacts of social media on his thesis.  I may attempt that when I am done reading it, though.

Anyway, as I finish a chapter, the link will be added to this post.

I read the preface, which is just a quick summary of my first two sentences using the example of Billy Graham’s son.

Hopefully this will get me back on the reading books silently saddle.

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Notes about twin births

Some quick tidbits about twin birth because it’s yet another factor in the current birth trends and relative robustness of fertility in college moms.

  • Twin birth was around 10 per thousand births for white women and 12 per thousand for black women in 1940 and this was relatively unchanged through 1960. The relatively higher number for black women appears to be almost entirely from black women getting pregnant a lot more often.
  • Current twin births are more than triple those rates of a mere half-century ago.  But the “twin gap” has shrunk, with non-Hispanic whites at around 36 per thousand births and non-Hispanic blacks around 39 per thousand births.  This kind of puts a pin in the notion that it’s substantially genetic in black women.  Maybe, but the rapid changes and closing of the gap suggest environmental factors are the major driver.
  • As recently as 1985, the total twin rate for all races was around 20 per thousand births.
  • Twin births among (white, non-Hispanic) college moms are typically above the national average of around 3%.  They are more like 4-5% in many states, with a lot of it happening in regions where I found third children to be born above the national baseline for third births.
  • Twin births these days are more likely to be second births than first.  I don’t know if that would be the case pre-birth control and pre-ART, it’s hard to find birth order data because live twins were so much rarer until quite recently.

 

The super cool 529 expansion was stripped from the final tax bill. Also, better tax plan calculator

I was going to do a effort post on the whole thing, but I just can’t.  I’ve vented enough about how it’s shocked me that so many Republicans are against more flexible spending of education dollars by parents.  But they are.  Some of them are even whiny that it wasn’t RESTRICTED MORE to homeschoolers only.

Congratulations, Dems.  Y’all play to win and know when to hold ’em.

http://taxplancalculator.com/

That is a better tax plan calculator.  Only about 1 in 20 taxpayers will see an increase in their taxes, nearly all on the higher income side.

 

Facet display and monkeysphere management with pseudonyms online

Carolina is a veil.

If you have been online more than ten years, and especially more than fifteen, you will probably view most of what I’m going to write as nothing much and no big deal.  And this is because in the older days of the internet, people sort of instinctually stumbled into the realization that just using your “real name” or “legal name” everywhere you went online wasn’t really enough to avoid personality disintegration and blurring of social boundaries due to it being so easy online to exceed the natural limits of the monkeysphere, the 150 or so “slots” for real connection most people max out at.

It may not seem like it, but there has always been a real distinction between “Janet Adkins” and “jadk”.  What I’ve used in the title “facet management” is just one way that simply using initials in one forum and full names in another allow people to juggle the fact that the internet can easily take all your monkeysphere slots if you let it.  But minor shifts in the direction of a pseudonym (like dropping down to just initials) can provide just enough distance to save slots for offline and minimize attaching too easily and intensely to people you can only ever have an epistolary connection to.

So many people who have been using the internet for decades have pseudonyms they shift between, showing facets of themselves, but not the whole jewel.  It is not about hiding anything in these cases, in fact the people themselves will often allude to or link to their numerous pseudonyms if it’s relevant to a discussion (“Oh yeah, I went off-topic on that car forum with this post about the space race, yeah, I’m fiatfan in that thread.”)  It’s about a veil of distance to talk about certain things in certain ways, just enough space to have discussion.

Carolina is a veil.  She is a veil to grant emotional distance from the real struggle in my life, which is raising very gifted, very challenging children in a society that has undergone major demographic changes as to which women have kids and is in utter denial about what it means in terms of the type of children that produces.

My marriage is traditional.  I don’t say much about my wifehood because there is little to say about a healthy, longstanding marriage where husband and wife are in traditional accord regarding hierarchy and authority.  I don’t write much about what’s working great and doesn’t have problems.  And that’s my wifehood.

But mothering is hard.  It’s so far outside what T.W.O. and I know from our own childhoods and even from some of the people we know raising children right now that a veil is needed.  There’s just too much emotion there and immediacy.  Translating some of the things that have happened with the kids into Carolina’s voice has granted me some very precious distance and sense of comfort.  When I can stand back behind that frail veil, I can see that it’s not so bad, that we can all pull through, that my kids will probably be okay.

But if I was fool enough to think that I had to use one of my legal names (marriage pretty much gives all women two) for every single word I wrote that was public-viewable, I wouldn’t be able to escape the feeling that it was too much.  I can pull back and have a rational perspective about child development while still sharing what are complex experiences worth revealing to other mothers whose own children may have a few things in common with mine.

Even offline, people kind of understand this because nicknames exist.  It’s pretty clear that while some people are naughty and use pseudonyms to pretend to be something they aren’t (classic examples are the men pretending to be women), this isn’t the normal and typical use, which is why those tricks still work to this day.  Most pseudonyms are about showing a piece of your personal self online, enough to have a conversation and maybe a little more depending on the goals of the online group (like possibly meeting up and taking things offline as friends/peers/etc.), but not so much that you can’t withdraw and still have plenty of slots left in the old monkeysphere.

That’s all.  If you want to pretend it’s 1997, you are free to discuss further in the comments.  All of this used to be regular meta fodder, lol.