It’s utterly silly to endlessly deconstruct liberal precepts. They are dissemblers and dishonest, leave it at that and use your own emotional gambits and actual history. Liberals won’t accept all the facts, but they do reach a point where if it’s incontestable, they’ll shut up. So there is no need to weedhead around (and that is just what it is, college bolsheviking sessions) recasting first principles.
The last broadly influential classically educated individual in the West was Mary Daly. Interestingly, this is partly why there is some continuity of tradition in radical feminism despite their distinctly non-traditional views of male and female roles.
Reasoning from first principles chronically and insisting that it must be done to effectively rebut liberal precepts means you are doing worse at maintaining links to traditional ways of thinking and living than radical lesbian separatist feminists.
In the ongoing annals of having to systematize what used to be typical traditional relationships, conservatives could do a lot for the long-term singles that populate their churches and neighborhoods by reviving the ideas of the spinster aunt and the adopted bachelor.
One thing that is hard to accept is that conservatives cannot rely on blood and soil, so to speak. Patriarchy that is functional and effective has a complex, interlocking web of kinship and community/city/nation bonds with obligations. All that has been expertly demolished and the work of restoring even the idea that those bonds and obligations are real, crucial and important will be the work of generations.
A start on that, though, is finding ways for people to step back into some of those roles. And adopt an auntie/bachelor is a way to bring back the social utility of those roles and restore the perfectly normal interactions of older adults with promising young kids and mentoring families.
Ideally this would not be a church ministry, but something formed outside of that. Another day I’ll have to get into why the church can’t be the place all these things happen even though it often is the only institution many people have now. But it used to be that aunties and bachelors paid for schooling, provided for basic needs and sometimes arranged/provided care for the babies and old as needed. And also were among the folks throwing the parties that connected people to their future spouses or employers. Basically, they were connected to other families because marriage wasn’t the only lifelong, deep relationship one had with other people.
Part of community is finding ways to include people who aren’t in the tiny community of nuclear family.
The example for today is a wife taking her husband’s name. There are many functional, traditional marriage cultures where this is not a requirement. Some cultures practice hyphenation to demonstrate two families melding into one, rather than taking the husband’s name. Others use taking the wife’s name to represent the wife granting her husband authority over all that she possesses. The problem is not with a wife taking her husband’s name, the problem is that it is quite ridiculous to take a practice that is not universal to the practice of patriarchy and extrapolate that it is (or about as bad, that it is the most superior patriarchal approach, also untrue).
Conservatives in America, which is where I live, would do well to stop committing this ridiculous fallacy all the time about loads of other things, although the married name one is a chronic offender across the conservative spectrum.
From a previous comment, a great example on localism that makes sense. The era of ultracheap textile production is rapidly fading away and we are already at the point where local production even of cloth is on the table. Those skills are not entirely lost, for all that it may seem so when glancing around at people very proud of their uneven wool mittens on etsy.
Anyway, all women shouldn’t do it, but the women who have a talent and a flair should be supported by their fellow neighborhood peers. I’ve supported local seamstresses in the past and plan to do so in the future. The problem with the mostly-liberal promotion of localism is that everything has never been local once humans figured out how to travel elsewhere. Some local production makes more sense than other local production, even if it costs more upfront. This is a real tradeoff that conservatives reliant on endless supplies of cheap goods at thrift shops and big box stores like to handwave in their idolatry of frugality achieved by exploitation and poor treatment of workers. It’s not pure goodness that socks are cheaper (for now) to replace than to darn. Shipping abuse of workers to other countries wasn’t a win, either.
And yeah, you can have less than fabulous working conditions without exploiting the workers. A lot of (white) workers still do fiber mill production for small-batch wool goods and it’s dusty and dirty and hard work, but they are generally treated decently by the fiber mill employer.
Clothing being mostly local is not necessarily a bad thing, if the quality can be maintained. And there is much more precious than rubies. Keeping respectable, traditionally female trades viable for women with drafting, cutting, sewing knitting and weaving talents should be worth owning fewer clothes of high quality, durability and pleasing cut.
Stop declaring homeschooling the cure for all educational ills. Make money and start proper academies. And if you haven’t the chops to be Mr. Bingley’s grandfather, accept your proper place and stop acting like an authority.
And the core sadness of it all is that conservatives promoting this (those who aren’t con artists profiting by selling poor quality curricula) remain liberal, deracinated and atomistic, unable to think of the world in terms larger than their individual efforts or their individual family’s efforts. Thus, homeschooling is the cure for the destruction of the neighborhood school because a few individual homeschool families got their kids into Ivy League colleges. The idea that this is a measure of success that only a SWPL could love never enters into their heads. For pity’s sake, one can’t complain about liberals and then desperately seek to become part of their turf and sneer at any other alternative. College has never been for all, full, active good lives were had and can still be had without being on the SWPLtastic college treadmill, homeschool edition. But it would mean accepting hierarchy, true authority and real order. And it would mean accepting being lower on the totem rather than higher for many of the lower middle types promoting homeschool as the cure for all ills.
This fragility is hardly sustainable or robust or even terribly conservative.
Conservatives, especially the ones drawn to homeschooling, homesteading and other self-sufficient/independent type movements (check that irony!) really have a blind spot a mile wide on this one. IT employment is in fact subversive and crimethinky, but the fact that it disproportionately has conservative, traditionally living people employed in it doesn’t make it conservative or traditional at all. The fact that IT employment can and does allow many a white Christian conservative male to make 60k+ a year and support a private homeschooling and homesteading household is a temporary phenomenon and the really rich types who run the industry are working hard to ensure that this phenomenon doesn’t persist much longer.
Probably in another short post I will explain in more detail why IT employment is subversive and threatening, but for now, let’s just take that as a given because the IT titans sure are. Thus, conservatives relying on an endless supply of decent, well-paying IT jobs (particularly without a college degree required) to support a homeschooling SAHM and 4-6 kids are putting their eggs in a fragile basket. It’s no Galt moment to move out to the sticks but be chained to telecommuting for large corporations who have every incentive to destroy that option for you and your family. It’s also completely antithetical to the loudly proclaimed localism and community focus of these sorts of sufficiency-driven conservatives.
Now, I am not saying nobody should be employed in IT. What I am saying is that it is not practical or conservative to promote IT employment as basically the One True Path to self-sufficiency. A cushy IT telecommuting work at home gig is nearly always lurking behind so much conservative spiel about self-sufficiency and crunchy conservative localism, etc. etc. I’ve seen the pattern over and over and over, that sticking it to the librulz is done by the guy getting some IT gig that lets him work from home a lot and the woman stays home raising and teaching kids and growing all the food. I’ve already covered a little bit how silly and unfeasible the latter part is, but putting so much hope and reliance on a single industry that *doesn’t like your beliefs or you and is working to push you out entirely* is even more economically insane. This is not how to build a sustainable alternative economic structure.
But, don’t quit that cushy IT gig just yet. Just stop promoting it as a sign of how off the grid and “independent” you are.
Conservatives, who make up a sizable proportion of nerds and mechanically inclined types even on the internet, have a golden opportunity to be practical by subverting the ongoing push to regulate the usefulness out of ordinary technology like showers, toilets, lawn equipment and farming equipment like chainsaws and tractors, to name a few prominent examples. Light bulbs, washing machines and detergent are other examples. Detergent’s useful ingredient was removed due to a mixture of confusion about the chemical nature of the ingredient and outright violation of the laws of physics to serve a political agenda. Conservatives have the opportunity to reverse engineer these things explicitly and then confront the mostly liberal “sustainability” advocates with the reality that their regulatory changes are ecologically unsound and carbon-promoting, while the reverse engineering is safer, cleaner and supports small, local, community-based businesses and families.
Then they have to actually deal with the implications of their talk about ecological practices being practiced, lived and promoted by conservatives and decide whether to dissemble or move aside. Because liberalism is emotion-driven, facts and data, true data are powerful when steadfastly applied. This is why liberals repeat canards about data even though they don’t know anything about the data and in many cases are referencing opinions declared to be data. But videos of a chainsaw starting are much harder to make false accusations about, especially when a local regulator is standing right there watching.