The Poison Red Pill, Misreading Proverbs 31 and promoting isolation as virtue.

To begin this series, I’ll start with discussing a post by someone blogging as “Girl with a Dragonfly Tattoo”.  It’s part of some interminable series on Proverbs 31, the love of Christian women everywhere.  I love the Proverbs 31 wife too, she’s a comfort and joy to read about along with all the other idealized portraits in the Bible.  It’s nice to see an ideal written up.  But it’s an ideal.  She’s not a real human woman like Miriam or Leah or even mother of God Mary.

Anyway, the basic overview is typical for Red Pill Women.  You’re supposed to get up super early, that part about servants is meaningless.  There’s of course no *real* obstacles to early rising, you just have to want to be holy enough!  She even references her mother as an early riser, because five year old children are great recordkeepers.

But more to my core points, she references *rich people who use stimulants and have paid staff* as her model for what housewives nursing and getting pregnant frequently should do to be more productive.  This is pretty typical of Red Pill Women.  They do the same thing the men they identify with do of hyperfocusing on a narrow group of privileged people as if they are the norm.  Only here SAHMs are supposed to behave like male executives on amphetamines who have wives, nannies and secretaries and personal assistants.  But the SAHM is NOT supposed to have those things, oh no!

Because a maid is “unimaginable luxury”.  Yes, in this TLDR; post about the Proverbs 31 wife, the OP conveniently declares the servant verses to be metaphorical, but the rising early verses to be worth charts and figures and paragraphs of hectoring.  But fifty bucks every other week so you can stay on top of the household cleaning more easily and have a little free time to try that getting up early?  UNIMAGINABLE LUXURY.  And clearly a teenage homeschooled girl coming over every other morning so you can be a little more rested on known busy days, well, that isn’t even in her blog post.  Even though teenaged nursemaids are a thing, historically.

Red Pill Women don’t appear to be aware there are any other women in the Bible except this one imaginary one and then they ignore the fact that she is a wealthy man’s wife and almost certainly the daughter of a wealthy man as well with her own dowered property/jewels/livestock.  The point of this fictional wife was to emphasize the rarity, the uncommonness.  Such a woman is supposed to be rarer than rubies, a beautiful ideal.  She isn’t supposed to have all her qualities peeled away and converted into exciting new ways to overwork married mothers of young children and deny them the historical levels of other-women support they used to have in the patriarchal days of yore.

I even agree with “Girl With A Dragonfly Tattoo” about the importance of sleep.  But you know what?  The average SAHM simply isn’t given the resources to get a full night’s sleep and “go to bed earlier” doesn’t work if you’re combining it with “do whatever your husband wants”.  A lot of men want to stay up late to relax.  You can read old books and see that this is just part of the beautiful sex differences men and women have.  Women used to be allowed to go on to bed on their own so that they could get some extra sleep.

But the Red Pill says that this would not be submissive, respectful, etc.  Essentially all the “tips” she suggests on how to get more sleep assume some or all of a husband who wants to go to bed early every night, kids who sleep well whether nursed or formula fed, kids widely spaced (4+ years apart), fewer than three kids, no special needs kids, a husband who doesn’t want to use electronics or television after hours, and the ability to have private areas to focus on self-care such as the basics of the female toilet and hygiene.  I can keep going, but my point is that under the current anti-social setup most housewives have, her tips and tricks *WILL NOT WORK* for months to years on end.  One bad sleeper can trigger responses in the female body that include phantom screaming or lowered ability to sleep deeply.

So she wants SAHMs to be as productive as executives functioning on very little sleep, but without their resources.  And yet if a woman does prioritize getting that sleep, she’s still somehow a badwife, since she chooses for her example of getting more sleep a woman who didn’t get up early to serve her husband and slept in instead.  Broad social norms are antimatter for Red Pill Women.  But they are the only way women can be protected enough to do their work and serve and love their husbands and families in a consistent way.

Repost: Patriocentricity is not Patriarchy

Some things just have to be endlessly repeated over and over, clearly.  Patriocentricity is father-worship, with an emphasis on individual family units being subservient to unrestrained false “patriarchs” who themselves have no higher authority to be subject to (not even other father-leaders).

Unfortunately, patriocentricity is what a lot of conservatives think of as patriarchy.  It is worst in abusive fundamentalist Christian subcultures like Quiverfull or the now-former Vision Forum and Gothard/ATI subcultures, but it certainly appears over and over among other kinds of conservative or traditionalist Christians.

One reason these subcultures are relatively small is because there is no coherent authority or hierarchy.  At best they are cults of personality, which cannot be lasting sources of invested authority.  At worst it’s a bunch of isolated families being ill used by a man who answers to no-one and does as he pleases, which was not really the case in any historical patriarchy, not even the pagan ones where a patriarch had life or death authority over his familias/clan.

Patriarchy means men have responsibilities and have to answer to other people outside their immediate family.  They also, in addition, have headship in their own individual households, but it doesn’t supersede their hierarchical status within their local community.  I find it quite telling that a lot of self-proclaimed patriarchs on and off the internet fight the hardest against actual patriarchy being implemented.  An unfortunate and recent example is Doug Philips of Vision Forum.  He failed to accede to the authority or intervention of his (supposed) co-elders, which again is rebellion and not patriarchy.  More prosaic examples are the guys who can never attend a church because the leadership just isn’t Godly enough for them and “pastor” their families at home.

For the purposes of those interested in Western traditions and restoring them to the extent possible given time and technology, polygamy is practical patriocentricity rather than patriarchy.  So anyone supporting or encouraging polygamy is not advocating a pro-Christian patriarchy or pro-Western patriarchy position.  Patriocentric systems work against patriarchy, and polygamy tends to degenerate into patriocentricity fairly readily.  While not a common conservative theme, there are nevertheless a noticeable minority who promote polygamy either implicitly or explicitly and this promotion should be discouraged among those who are pro-Christian patriarchy.

H/T to Hester at Scarlet Letters, who is slogging through old Vision Forum stuff and brought the term patriocentricity into play.  It’s a very useful term.

ETA: From the comments, it appears the term was coined several years ago by Karen Campbell over at the blog That Mom.

Conservatives and the IT Ghost Dance

“One of the IT drones who got replaced by H1B Indians testified to Congress the other day, and just endorsed Trump.

It’s a despicable move by Disney, but fortunately they’ll reap the “rewards” of their decision as soon as all the whites they laid off are gone. There’s nothing more dysfunctional than a large group of Indians whose thought process can’t deviate from the flowchart. And there’s nothing more infuriating for the productive types (whites) than a flowchart-reading Indian.

What’ll wind up happening is Disney will either hire their old employees back as consultants, or they’ll have vendors do the real work. Vendors which, not coincidentally, happen to be white and staffed with people who are like the people they laid off. At 3x the rate.”

Another special from the My Posting Career crew.  Stripped of the racial overtones, this excerpt is bog-standard average conservative or right-wing.  It’s the IT Ghost Dance, the belief that (white) guys are all easily able to adapt to endless shifting job sands by getting extremely high paying IT consulting gigs cleaning up the outsourcing mess.

It undergirds the conservative promotion of homeschooling, of SAHMing, of living a rural prepper/homesteader life (just telecommute for six figures!), of having more kids than fingers on a hand, of whatever conservative shibboleth you please.  It’s always there and always lucrative at top 10% or even 1% levels, you just have to want it enough.

It’s really really common.  Perhaps because conservatives can’t have much of a social life in IT offline due to the high amount of libertarians and such, they are all over homesteading and farming online and have been even before we took a stab at our own agrarian LARPing (currently pending due to the same kind of health breakdowns that sent people back to the East from OG homesteading).

It also exposes the core lie of “just reskill, reskill, reskill” that is bipartisan.  There’s IT and healthcare (tons of nurses homesteading because of flex schedules) and not a whole lot else that’s telecommute or flex-schedule friendly and pays anywhere near enough to fund the kind of “self-sufficient” and independent lifestyles mentioned above.

Again, ripped only from my own experiences, but non-IT conservatives who’ve tried these things invariably end up putting the kids in public school or having to be double-income explicitly.

 

Why are conservatives so individualistic and atomized?

My previous post was brought about by seeing promotion of 70s style egalitarian feminism on a pretty right-wing/conservative space and seeing very insistent promotion of individualistic isolated living (Just Marry and Have Kids, and optionally Homeschool ’em!) in several conservative areas ranging from the “Alt Right” to center-libertarians.

Marrying and having kids is good, but it’s not good to tell people that it ends there, that if they just follow that one weird trick everything will be all right.  It’s worth noting that even the male provision part is gone from that across the entire conservative and right-wing spectrum.  They don’t even see how badly they’ve lost the ability to think in terms of a real village, town or city.  The question of where the money is to come from to marry and have kids and optionally homeschool them is always met with quasi-solutions that rely on massive and faceless corporate entities who are completely antagonistic to family life.

The question of how your theoretical children are to be “well-reared” when social interaction with adults outside a workplace is waved away as unimportant (yes, including “church folk”, apparently hanging out with them is irrelevant to the whole marriage and properly reared kids project), where being embedded and part of a local community is dismissed as stupid to even worry about is an open one.

The question of how to raise kids with an understanding of household maintenance, management of finances and ability to save capital towards wealth-building or civic donations is also left unanswered.  There is very little discussion, even far from the internet, about what young couples who manage to marry are supposed to do for their individual families.  Again, the problem is not that for the most part we’re all reliant on the system and Business as Usual (BAU, from the peak-oil and doom-mongering crowd term for the status quo). That sucks, but you work with the situation you have.  The problem is the bizarre doubling down on the pretense that we aren’t if we just “marry and have kids”, that our choices aren’t incredibly narrow and constrained due to that reliance on BAU, that there’s no finding a way around BAU until you acknowledge you’re, well, subject to it.

But you know, this is conservatives we’re talking about.  They are leaving the development of anything meaningful to a weird guy who lives in Italy because you can live like a king on 40k a year USD because it’s so much easier to sit around complaining about how the billionaires are SJWs instead of getting funding from millionaires.  They sit around talking about how just marrying and having kids will magically produce the necessaries to feed, clothe and house them, and oh, if you do choose to homeschool, why they’ll totally be educated at an Oxford level by a worn out high school dropout mother and also simultaneously have Davy Crockett level wilderness and woodcraft skills…somehow while living in a tarmac-covered exurb without even a quarter acre parklet of grass.

And if you ask where the other people who aren’t your nuclear family are in all this, well, a surprising amount of the time it’s just a bunch of ???, because the solipsism is off the charts.  And most of the rest of the time, you’re told other people suck too much to hang out with.  The question of who your “well-reared” (in tablet-heavy isolation in the cheapest exurbs while you wreck your health with long car commuting) children will marry and have kids with themselves just leads to scary and weird places and also fails to seriously answer the question.

 

Immigration restriction led to Sex in the City lifestyles for young women.

There is a narrative among the more reactionary and dissident conservatives out there that immigration restriction in America in the 1920s led to a (white) paradise of family wages and happy housewives until 1965.  One of the subtexts of this narrative is that the women were purer and less scandalous because they could easily count on marrying at 18-19 to a 21 year old husband who was already making a middle class income.

Good thing it’s a subtext, because it’s not really real history at all.

As early as 1940, young women were flooding out to live alone, something they pulled ahead of young men in doing by 1960.  After all, nearly half of the supposedly glorious immigration restriction period of American history was the Great Depression.  This gets left out of the “easy middle class income on one salary” reinvention of history.

Prior to immigration restriction, almost nobody (including young men) lived alone.  As immigrants flooded in, boarding and rooming houses accommodated them.  And extended family living was more common even among “nuclear” German and English descent households.  People also labored for room and board and other barter goods rather than wages.

Once the labor pool was restricted, though, the resultant increase in wage work (along with urbanization) allowed even young women to move out and live alone in larger and larger numbers.  The median age of first marriage for white women was around 23 until the 1950s and two decades later had already begun the return back to that level, with the current age of 26 mirroring historical levels from before the late 19th century.  The window of time in which young white American women were barely twenty when they married was a small one historically, hardly a generation in length.

The white middle class needs black dysfunction and government handouts to exist as a middle class.

It is a canard of the alternative or dissident right that the black middle class is purely government jobs and could not otherwise exist.  It is a canard because the dissident right is astonishing in its historical ignorance and corresponding pretentious arrogance about history.  But the truth is that the white middle class is a government-funded creation too.  The massive edifice of expensively credentialed whites who are paid middle class wages and pensions to administer to (mostly) black dysfunction is just as much a bunch of makework projects as, say, the apocryphal angry black employees at the DMV.

And it is massive, consisting of psychologists, teachers, lawyers, nominally private sector business owners, and so forth.  Not to mention Information Technology, the industry that wouldn’t even exist without FDR’s cheap energy infrastructure projects.  Including rural electrification so that “self-sufficient” white people can indulge their “homesteading” pretensions funded by telecommuting jobs in IT.

This has been sitting around a long time, and while it was, some very naughty and unsafe for work alternative right folks came up with a podcast (podcasts I simply never listen to on general principle, but someone sent me the link with a summary of the podcast) in which they reverse the usual canards and agree with this post, which is pretty hilarious.

Related, the California dream was funded by Vietnam War spending.  Those good engineering jobs were bought with the blood of less connected and poorer whites (and some blacks as well).