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.

 

 

Dear conservatives, men should desire to be the sole breadwinner

Even non-conservative Penelope Trunk says so, and explains why in simple, obvious terms.

While I disagree with her about mothers providing sole childcare at young ages, she is correct that it’s Just Better for one person to focus on income and the other to focus on home and children.  We live in a society molded around working outside the home, and if both husband and wife are doing that, it’s way harder to have kids and raise them in a way that conservatives claim to want.

“There are two jobs for adults in a family. Kids or money. Grow up and take one of those jobs. Because while yes, it is a lot of pressure to be an adult and earn the money, it’s a lot harder to be a kid who doesn’t have a parent around when they need one.”

The comments are also enlightening (when they aren’t horrifying).  Women with rare and expensively compensated STEM skills, along with women who are CEOs or CTOs of companies pop up to argue that working outside the home part-time without losing career opportunity is easily doable, after all, they do!  Other women also pop up to talk about the shame of a husband berating a pregnant wife about her desire to stay home with her baby when he could be taking college classes and continuing to live off her instead, doesn’t she understand how UNFAIR she is being?

A lot of young men are being encouraged to use cheat codes even in marriage rather than accept tradeoffs and responsibility.  Women can’t do it all, and men can’t either.

 

Why Diversity is Bad for Sustainable Farming

Sustainable farming is all about the horrible exploitation of Mexican single mothers and slightly smarter brown women creating one middle-income job with benefits for themselves along the way as administrators of various “incubators” for small-scale vegetable farming.

What does it have to do with conservatives?  They could Notice that the stable farms producing local or regional food are not part of some baksheesh scam, but in fact are family enterprises that return profits and are mostly farmed by intact Christian families.  They could also point out that the “diversity” push is actively removing farmland from production and leading to less food produced over time, rather than more.  In the examples above, most of the land isn’t being farmed and what is being farmed is plots barely larger than a backyard garden.  The women farming those plots are worse off than actual sharecropping, because they’re never given enough land to make a full time income from, but they’re also not allowed to farm the entire plot as a group for the “incubator”.  It is the worst of independent “farming” of a backyard plot combined with all the regulatory hassles of having many masters as in a full-on collective.

There’s also fun stuff like requiring the immigrant single mothers to take college courses (that they have to pay for) to maintain access to the plots they do farm.

 

This is so horrifying I’m just going to put it up as it is and not try to expand on the numerous other examples of “sustainable” evil out there.

 

 

 

 

Leftism and liberalism are sociopathic ways to talk about real and obvious truths

What it says on the tin.

One of my favorite bloggers is Zippy Catholic, who is fond of saying that many problems of liberalism can be explained as sociopathic manifestations of reality pushing through.  That is, liberalism may be ideologically confused and contradictory, especially the form known as leftism, but all this means is that it treats normal things sociopathically.

We can see this with leftism and its extremist views on race, sex, family and so forth.  Clan and kin matter, who you are and where you come from matter, but leftists are sociopathic about this obvious set of truths.  They say clan and kin don’t matter while making very sure to save some job slots for their own children, spouses and fellow travelers.  Racial and even ethnic groups where everyone’s the same skin color are different in behavior and preferred hobbies and forms of government and civilization (towns, villages, etc.)  Again, an obvious truth, but leftists go all sociopathic on it by pretending those differences are trivial while demanding everyone behave like specific subcultures of white ethnic leftists in a handful of Anglo-descended nations (aka, the sociopathy of the SWPL).

We can also see this with women and politics. Women pursue politics as a response to the ways that industrialization and mass society scale larger and larger, peeling away the roles they would otherwise have.  Liberalism sociopathically encourages women to pursue political solutions to their social problems, while stripping more and more traditional roles and protections away from them.

I think this is a key major point in having a normal society and a properly ordered hestia, understanding that sociopathic (anti-social, perverse, distorted) descriptions of real things are still describing real things that should be preserved.  We should care about clan and kin.  We should want women to be productive and happy in their home-focused spheres, with exceptional women being treated as just that.  We should want men to be able to lead and support their families and have masculine spheres for the men (including but not limited to holy spheres, as not all are called to such lives) who are not married.  The American conservative “colorblind” “patriotic” thing is frail and unnatural and doesn’t cut to the heart of why people are so alone and disordered.  Some of the wacky hijinks of the leftists do, though, under all the rhetorical tricks and misdirection.

 

Repost:There are more news headlines about gay marriage than gay marriages

This is according to the American Community Survey, which can’t be considered a conservative bastion by anyone anywhere.  Even with massive incentives to round up or estimate high, the ACS could only find about 500k gay and lesbian “marriages” in the United States.  The actual number of legal marriages or civil unions is around 200k, or about 4k per state for all 50 states.  The number with children is even fewer, around 100k, even though the ACS does “round up” here for all practical purposes by not separating out children acquired during the union from children brought along via a previous (heterosexual) relationship.  Even with that maximization tactic, “gaymarried with kids” is a pathetically infinitesimal number of couples.  Because gays are not even 2% of the general population.

Gay people don’t want to marry.  They are, for all statistical purposes, uninterested in being married to anyone and they are certainly not interested in lifelong monogamous marriage, as evidenced by cases in Texas where gays were whining that they took their marriages so seriously that Texas needed to let them have gay divorces.  Texas in at least one case argued that they could have an annulment rather than a divorce or stay gaymarried and work it out.  Somehow this proved Texas was a bastion of homophobia.  Funny how that works.

Surveys of gays repeatedly show that they want to cohabit or identify as married at a maximum ceiling of about 20%, with half that being more typical, and that is not necessarily monogamous (although such surveys tend to not ask about that, as it is inconvenient to the advocacy for gay marriage that gays aren’t serious about that whole “two people in wuv, just of the same sex” thing).  Gays are in fact different in their desires.  They don’t want lifelong monogamous unions with kids.  They don’t even want monogamous unions.  And they definitely don’t want kids harshing their game.

You have to consider that 100k figure in light of the total number of gays, which, being generous, tops out around 9 million in the United States.  200k gay people out of 9 million is… a statistical rounding error.  Now here is where gay marriage advocates want to jump in with some other country’s gay marriage rates, but it’s the same everywhere else, including places that have had gay marriage in place for nearly a generation.  About 5% of the civil marriages is the ceiling, not the floor when it comes to gaymarriage.  And that is initially, when the pent-up demand from narcissistic gay Boomers and Silents is flowing.  Once they’ve checked that box of approval, the rates drop to more like 2-3% of the civil marriages.

That’s the math we’re really dealing with here.  A trivial, pathetically small number of mostly Boomer and Silent gays who require official civil recognition of their sexual preferences because they remain the Me Generation.  The reality that gays donwanna marry is why it serves as such an ingenious proxy for status wars.  If gays really wanted to marry, the propaganda wouldn’t be so intense and abrasive.  It wouldn’t need to be.  That is the real difference between it and interracial marriage.  Laws were passed against interracial marriage because people were marrying and having kids together within wedlock interracially.  There were no laws passed against gay marriage because nobody was doing it and gays can’t have children together.

ETA 6/29/2015: I recently received a comment on this post, but it’s in moderation because the person didn’t read the blog post.  I think I’ll move comments back to moderation going forward if you don’t show signs of having read the post before commenting.  This blog is not required reading, but I see no reason to let comments through, even polite ones, that are just excuses to soapbox the usual polemic about love and rainbows instead of engaging with the actual blog post.

There are more news headlines about gay marriage than gay marriages

This is according to the American Community Survey, which can’t be considered a conservative bastion by anyone anywhere.  Even with massive incentives to round up or estimate high, the ACS could only find about 500k gay and lesbian “marriages” in the United States.  The actual number of legal marriages or civil unions is around 200k, or about 4k per state for all 50 states.  The number with children is even fewer, around 100k, even though the ACS does “round up” here for all practical purposes by not separating out children acquired during the union from children brought along via a previous (heterosexual) relationship.  Even with that maximization tactic, “gaymarried with kids” is a pathetically infinitesimal number of couples.  Because gays are not even 2% of the general population.

Gay people don’t want to marry.  They are, for all statistical purposes, uninterested in being married to anyone and they are certainly not interested in lifelong monogamous marriage, as evidenced by cases in Texas where gays were whining that they took their marriages so seriously that Texas needed to let them have gay divorces.  Texas in at least one case argued that they could have an annulment rather than a divorce or stay gaymarried and work it out.  Somehow this proved Texas was a bastion of homophobia.  Funny how that works.

Surveys of gays repeatedly show that they want to cohabit or identify as married at a maximum ceiling of about 20%, with half that being more typical, and that is not necessarily monogamous (although such surveys tend to not ask about that, as it is inconvenient to the advocacy for gay marriage that gays aren’t serious about that whole “two people in wuv, just of the same sex” thing).  Gays are in fact different in their desires.  They don’t want lifelong monogamous unions with kids.  They don’t even want monogamous unions.  And they definitely don’t want kids harshing their game.

You have to consider that 100k figure in light of the total number of gays, which, being generous, tops out around 9 million in the United States.  200k gay people out of 9 million is… a statistical rounding error.  Now here is where gay marriage advocates want to jump in with some other country’s gay marriage rates, but it’s the same everywhere else, including places that have had gay marriage in place for nearly a generation.  About 5% of the civil marriages is the ceiling, not the floor when it comes to gaymarriage.  And that is initially, when the pent-up demand from narcissistic gay Boomers and Silents is flowing.  Once they’ve checked that box of approval, the rates drop to more like 2-3% of the civil marriages.

That’s the math we’re really dealing with here.  A trivial, pathetically small number of mostly Boomer and Silent gays who require official civil recognition of their sexual preferences because they remain the Me Generation.  The reality that gays donwanna marry is why it serves as such an ingenious proxy for status wars.  If gays really wanted to marry, the propaganda wouldn’t be so intense and abrasive.  It wouldn’t need to be.  That is the real difference between it and interracial marriage.  Laws were passed against interracial marriage because people were marrying and having kids together within wedlock interracially.  There were no laws passed against gay marriage because nobody was doing it and gays can’t have children together.

Conservatives and Obama agree that women shouldn’t stay home

So Obama made some comments at a Rhode Island college on Halloween.  Amidst his usual pablum and recitation of Democrat party talking points, he threw out this little gem. “And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result.  And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make. ” Conservatives at various blogs and the fringier parts of the right-wing news media are complaining about this, but it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing.  They agree with Obama.  They certainly don’t want American women staying home with their kids either.  Conservatives just want a small, symbolic number of women to stay home as tribal fertility totems, but they aren’t interested in the average woman doing so.  Obama, in referencing the only women he likes, Second Wave feminists who didn’t think women should make the choice to stay home, is just saying what Americans support with their actions, including conservative Americans. What are some of those actions?

  • Encouraging women in higher education regardless of whether it would provide income potential.  White women have a negative earnings premium for finishing college, not a positive one. Sending a white girl to college reduces her lifetime earnings.  Since conservatives are overwhelmingly white, they might want to reconsider their zest for sticking their daughters in college.
  • Failing to support SAHMs with childcare and housecleaning help, and in fact pressuring them to work part-time in the home on top of all their other work.
  • Either saying daycare is evil (conservatives) or daycare will fix everything (liberals and progressives) without asking WHO STAFFS THOSE DAYCARES?  And who watches their kids, hmm?  Yeah, I thought so.  Daycare comes in a lot of flavors, some very bad (infant) and others potentially ok (toddler, if it’s local/neighborhood, as is usually the way of it outside the USA).
  • Encouraging female employment outside the home of childless and older women, i.e., driving the pool of other women who used to be there as part of the village for mothers at home out into cubicleland with nary a look back at the SAHMs left behind.

Americans do lots and lots of other things to make it nearly impossible for women to stay home with their kids, and especially stay home 4eva, but well, that’s past, present and future blog posts for other days.  Obama is pretty regrettable as a political leader, but the complete rejection of the domestic sphere in American society is far more regrettable and in that, conservatives totally have his back, same as the rest of the country.