The fungibility of frontier females

One of the woes of American women is the influence, not to the good, of frontier culture.  To sprinkle some evolutionary psychology sprinkles on it, on the frontier, women are fungible and men are individual.  Women are not strictly needed to cook, as the camp-style cooking is easy enough to learn and frontier life made hunger-spice the only one really needed.

There was also less opportunity for domestic niceties in setting up a home, since you were talking about stuff like slapped up shacks, lean-tos and dugouts to hold a claim.  They were all meant to be pretty temporary.

Although many frontier women had large families, children’s labor was not as needed either, as during much of the frontier era the homesteaders were on the cutting edge of using as much technology and machinery as possible to minimize how many people they had to share the hoped-for wealth with.  So even in that respect women were more fungible, as plenty of men were bachelor-homesteading.

Frontier culture is anti-domestic, and not terribly encouraging of feminine strengths beyond basic endurance and willingness to do repetitive labor under brutalizing conditions.  And the descendants of frontier culture still treat women as fungible. And this influence has made it much more difficult for women’s strengths and desires to be taken seriously as part of a complete, functional society.

The Poison Red Pill, an Introduction

I am finally going to start fisking and discussing “Red Pill Woman” posts because the political season in the USA has shown that a lot of the craziness the manosphere talks about regarding women’s behavior and thoughts really is more common among conservative women who are not too conservative to vote (Republican).  So for the fishbowl I swim in, it’s 30% of women instead of 10% of women.  Depressing.

Anyhoo, the main issue with Red Pill Women’s advice to other women is that Red Pill women on the internet are so profoundly male-oriented that they can’t give useful advice to other women.   Women repeating bad male advice to women is not useful to women. So I’ll criticize it and point out what’s bad about it.

I’ll also criticize it when people use their own lives as examples of living rightly.  Yes, you can have a clean slate, sort of, on the internet even if you’ve had six divorces and five kids out of wedlock and now you’re a devout Latvian Orthodox Christian at 46, but your advice on how to marry at 24 and stay married should be taken with some shakers of salt.

Red Pill Women mostly don’t introspect about how they got from A to B there.  They just talk about B like they always did it.  Red Pill Men do too, but that issue is kind of resolving itself in real time with other men taking up that task of critique.

 

Conservatives act like 1970s black Americans about male provision

Let me count the ways…

  1. Emphasis on self-employment because the (liberal) Man is prejudiced against their kind, without providing any meaningful reserve or protection against the volatility of this choice.
  2. De-emphasis correspondingly on male provision as an important part of being a husband, including discouraging men who want to do that as cavemen or delusional.
  3. Both overt and covert encouragement of women to produce the primary income in a marriage, either by openly promoting an egalitarian view that women can and do earn as much as men as sole or primary providers, or by defining the SAHM life as incomplete or lazy/leisured if there’s no income-generating going on.
  4. Related, but its own thing, pushing a “working homemaker” ideal where even if you do work full time or close to it, you are still expected to home-make at effectively a full time level too.
  5. Defending the extremely rare stay at home father as a paragon of manliness and as perfectly common and therefore something women should be expected to take seriously as a possible path in their marriages.
  6. Declaring any woman who talks about the importance of financial provision within marriage by the husband as a gold digger or money obsessed or not bringing a supportive and Godly spirit to marriage, etc.
  7. Raising daughters and loving sons.  This means encouraging girls to pursue practical options with education and prepare to earn a living while telling young men to follow their bliss and/or pursue self-employment and encourage this by not expecting them to work.

With immediately post-Civil Rights Act black Americans, some of this was not surprising and they did still have to face actual race prejudice making male employment riskier and more fragile even within marriage.  They also were looking at affirmative action preferences quickly shifting towards favoring black women over black men due to killing two birds with one stone (another reason straight quotas would have been less poisonous).

Conservatives, though, are doing a lot of this for ideological and unstated class reasons.  Many and probably most conservatives are not middle class but rely on declaring themselves such as a major part of their subculture’s cohesiveness.  But these are not middle class behaviors.

World War T and the backlash against breastfeeding, two sides of one misogynist coin

There is a backlash against breastfeeding in which women constantly argue they need their drugs more than they need to breastfeed and it parallels the WWT (World War Transgender, courtesy of one Steve Sailer) demands for drugs to maintain a supposedly inborn gender.  Yep, I totally went there!  But in the case of women, as opposed to the men and teenage boys encouraged to take dangerous drugs with horrible side effects, most of the (usually) psychiatric medications they want to take are compatible with breastfeeding.

Another part of the breastfeeding backlash is defining bizarre edge cases where breastfeeding would not be feasible as normal and typical, like this cancer mom http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-breastfeed-nursing-moms-baby-perspec-1015-20141014-story.html#page=2.

Also, in a country where formula feeding is the social and medical norm, screaming about boob nazis (women defending the right of women to behave in biologically normal ways that were historically part of the public sphere) disturbingly parallels the vicious and astonishing misogyny leveled towards radical feminists, who represent another minority group of women desperately trying to defend the biological reality of femalehood and female existence from the relentless onslaught of surgically unaltered men proclaiming themselves more womanly than any woman born.

If woman is just a feeling a man has sometimes, what rights (even to existence) do real women have?

“Women don’t really exist, they’re just a feeling a man sometimes has”– GallusMag at GenderTrender, a radical feminist clearinghouse on WWT and one of the few sources of real journalism on that topic.

The breastfeeding backlash is pretty virulent and often part of nominally conservative circles that identify as more “moderate” and libertarian.  I was inspired to start this post-topic by the weird fact that I’ve seen soooooooooooooooooooooooo many conservative men bring up OUT OF NOWHERE the “boob nazi” narrative regarding why their wives put some or all the babies on formula.  One notable example was reading a dissident right blog mostly about statistical analysis of various stuff and out of nowhere comes the boob nazi thing at the end of a post.  Another interesting example was an open thread discussion on a center-right/libertarian blog that wasn’t about birth or breastfeeding or pregnancy in any way.  But then a dude just busts out with it.

Liberal dudes tend to be super pushy about “posting for their pregnant wife/girlfriend”, which is controlling and weird too, but conservative guys tend to be anti-breastfeeding as a norm.  To brag about how their wife used it as a weight-loss tool, sure, but never as something normal and part of how women birth and nourish infants.  They are also this way about homebirth and midwifery.  Only if they assisted do they support it or speak of it favorably.  One example is the place I purchased some homebirthing supplies from, which was a guy who assisted with his wife’s homebirths enough times that they decided to start a business selling the supplies online.

Breastfeeding for more than a year is especially reviled, which is bitterly funny given the supposed support for SAHMing.

Breastfeeding isn’t always easy and it carries a lot of health issues (like being exhausted from the biological process of milk-making, among other things), but it’s biologically normal, it’s part of the great work that is our womanly form.  We weren’t designed to merely have a baby and then, well, whatever foodwise.  We were designed to breastfeed for many months of an infant’s life, with again a natural decrease in production as the infant matures and can eat more and more solid foods into toddlerhood, where the weaning process is supposed to happen.  These are ideals, and the fallenness of this world makes them not always possible for every woman.  But normalizing *anything but breastfeeding* is definitely anti-woman.  And that happens over and over again among conservatives.  It’s so common to denigrate solely feminine spheres in this way, by only speaking of them when they have some utility as a tool to serve a man’s desires.  It’s not just a thing that gets your body slimmer for funtimes postpartum.  It’s not costless compared to formula, it simply comes with different accounting.  It’s a fearfully and wonderfully made system of infant feeding built right in to start working even before you give birth.  Formula is very clever, but breastmilk production and nursing is so remarkable I do encourage women to try it and support them in doing so in the ways that I can (food, employment for nursing mothers, connecting them with other experienced nursing mothers, etc.)

My position is the same online as it is when I’m helping out women offline to breastfeed at all or for a few months longer than they otherwise would.  Formula is a great invention, but it’s not magical and requires a lot of resources to be a reliable feeding method for infants.  Babies that sleep badly will do so regardless of the food they eat.  And if they sleep pretty good, then they’ll do so with breastmilk as readily as formula.  And making milk is work too, just like growing a baby, so dig in.  But the main way to get more women breastfeeding is to actively support and approve of women staying home all day.  Pumping rooms at a job aren’t going to do it and create many other problems, like pressure on women to run to work ten minutes after delivery.  Anyway this is a hobbyhorse so I’ll hop off and leave additional discussion to the floor.

Being male-identified is bad for conservative women

AKA Conservatives and the Woman Problem

While the problem of male identification is sadly all too real among liberal and conservative women alike, it’s especially a problem for conservative women, as they are supposedly promoters and privilegers of primarily feminine domains.  So being unable to understand that a feminine conception of the world is possible means they can’t be fully effective in the very spheres they claim to support.  It’s own-goaling all the way down.

Being male-identified doesn’t mean “liking men”.  It means that one’s worldview is shaped through the masculine, with no room for a feminine conception of reality.  You may know that women are there, you may even be a woman, but all your assumptions are masculine.  Not all men are male-identified.  It’s not essential to being a man.  People tend to dismiss the problem of male-identification because among inter-feminist flamewars, it’s used to mean “likes men” when that isn’t really what it’s about.  Many male-identified women don’t really like men much, they just can’t view the world through womanly lenses.  But the shorthand has leaked out and makes the topic difficult to discuss.

Some examples of male identification are when a woman argues that all-female spaces of any kind (such as ladies’ Bible studies) should never be permitted, or when a woman thinks it’s normal for her husband to micromanage the domestic sphere.  Or when a woman argues that sex-identification is solely female.  Or statements like “Men just aren’t vain about their looks/stingy with donating money/interested in home decor, that’s just a female thing.” The behavior examples are more often found among women in American culture, but they are still much more than occasionally found in men.  It’s taking 60/40 or 70/30 sex-splits on a behavior and treating them as 100/0 due to identifying so strongly with maleness as primarily positive.  It’s when women think there is only being as close to a (small, inferior) man as possible or being attractive to men.  And conservative women have being a man off the table, so that leaves hypersexualized pursuit of sexual appeal to men.  Bad, bad, bad.

Male identification also leads women to marry men who refuse to provide.  And to marry men they don’t respect or consider adult.  These aren’t things a woman does nearly as frequently if she is either neutral or female-identified (in the latter case, there’s a lot of simply not marrying at all).  I don’t mean androgynous when I say neutral, but something closer to ordinary or average.  Normal, though, in American society is very obviously male-identified.

This male identification is part of why conservatives have so little to offer women, even though they possess the supposed trump card of advocating for what women mostly would do anyway if left to their own devices.  Another way male identification manifests is in not barring the door when men pontificate about female topics.  Most of what I blog about is not contested by other conservative women in general terms.  They tend to agree that yes, women are often isolated and yes, a lot of other historical periods had more women doing household stuff.  At worst the average conservative woman’s rebuttal is “my grandma worked hard and didn’t complain!” or “well if you follow a 293 point organization plan and/or pray harder it can work!”

But conservative men routinely stomp into such discussions about these female matters and overwhelmingly not only dispute the plain facts, they argue that it’s easy and even fun to live a modern housewife’s life and that further, SAHMs have always had it easy and never had to do anything strenuous.  And instead of conservative women shooing such men out, they tend to accept such remarks from men as normative portrayals of female life and behavior through time.