Tag Archives: Family

Traditional Family

In my earlier post, lolz commented:

In my humble opinion, the tradcon exchange between husband and wife that you advocate is not really all that equitable – and certainly not what one sees in ancient societies.

He also posted a link (read it all, it’s pretty good, except the conclusion which is too egalitarian and hedonistic for my taste):

In other words, people we call “tradcons” are frequently hewing to a “tradition” that is mostly a recent invention. Throughout virtually all of history, up to and including much of the world still today, “the family” or even “the nuclear family” meant something very different: what it usually was was father+mother+the kids as part of an extended family, with grandmothers and grandfathers and aunts and uncles and/or cousins frequently living under one roof, or in very close proximity to each other, in a mutually supportive environment. “The family” was all these people, usually dedicated to helping each other, often forming alliances with other families to their mutual benefit. Even in societies where it was the norm for the youngsters to move away, they usually moved in mutually supportive groups together only a day or two away from the rest of the extended family, whom they would often get back together with in times of trouble. Even in societies when young men struck out on their own, they usually did so in mutually supportive groups, not alone against the world.

The ancient idea of “the family” was not “we get together and have dinner at holidays and provide each other some emotional support.” It was much more a matter of, “we work together during the day, we make our meals together, we live in one house or adjacent houses, we fight off enemies together, when one of us is sick we all get together to help. Two of our young’uns are getting hitched? We may need to build them a house because we can’t fit them in here right now so let’s give ‘em a new place over on that hill up yonder.”

First, I’ll answer the ‘equitable’ thing. lolz is right, it’s not equitable. Having to work 40-60 hours a week away from your home and family is definitely the shorter end of the stick to raising your own family, as I’ve written before, women definitely benefited from the ‘traditional’ nuclear family. The problem is, unless you’re willing to abandon your kids as latchkey children to daycare and the public schools or you have family that’s willing to take care of them most of the week, you need someone to take care of the kids, and given biological differences between the sexes, the man staying home will result in marital problems and divorce. It makes sense to have the woman stay home.

Which brings us to the next point: both lolz and Esmay are right.

The nuclear family is not ‘traditional’ or the way things were, it was an adaptation to modern industrial society. What the article above failed to mention, is that ‘work’ as we know it today, is a recent invention. Until the industrial revolution, most people’s ‘work’ was either the family farm or or the family home business (or in tribal societies, men hunted, women gathered). There was no real separation between work and home life, they were the same. Sadly, we do not exist in that society. To not starve, most people have to work outside the home. The nuclear family is the best adaptation to that economic reality we have.

Ideally, we’d be able to get back to that tribal, extended family structure. One of my hopes, if that someday I will be able to be able to create a tribal structure among my family, and maybe with my friends as well. We’ll live on a mostly self-sustaining farm subsidized by some small income from a couple projects I’m working on. That will take a lot of work, and will be a lifelong project, but hopefully I’ll get there.

But for now, the realities of modern society constrain me, constrain us. We can try to build a traditional, tribal structure, but that is not going to happen right away. Before that, I have to get a wife, then keep my children from having their souls devoured by the progressive school system, that means the nuclear, breadwinning family is a necessity for now.

****

As an aside, I would actually not mind being a stay-at home dad. A commenter at Vox’s site has described his adventures as such:

Hey man… we don’t JUST play video games all day. I mean sometimes its almost 8am before they finish with their school work for the day. And sometimes we go down to the lake and shoot turtles with the 10/22s… or fish… or have great glorious nerf wars in the tree forts. and there is a swimming pool out there for the really nice days… about 300 of them a year.

Ok well… its mostly video games…

He’s also described the risk of it:

Look the truth is if I wasn’t such a stupendous badass my wife would’ve lost interest years ago. Happens all the time. The stay at home dad thing is basically betting your family’s future on your ability to maintain your badass man credibility with practically the whole deck stacked against you. The risks are huge. Of course.. if you pull it off you get to spend all day with your kids shooting turtles, fishing, playing Black Ops II, and watching Sportcenter. so I mean… its not entirely irrational.

Honestly, that sounds like a lot of fun, and would be much better life than going to the office every day.

Even the risk of the family being destroyed, while much higher, is not as brutally punishing, as you won’t be the one paying child support and alimony, and you’ll probably have a decent chance of getting custody.

The question is, could you find a girl okay with the arrangement and could you stay badass. I figure, if you ran a little hobby farm in the country, fished, and hunted, your odds wouldn’t be too bad. You’d still get the provider rep if the meat on the table was something you slaughtered or hunted yourself.

It would take a lot of work to set up, but I’d be okay with the arrangement of staying home on the acreage with the kids while the wife worked.

Marriage: Take Up Your Cross

When I write or talk of Christian marriage I will get blowback of the type ‘surely you don’t expect a woman to put up with abuse‘ or ‘surely you don’t expect men to put up with a lack of sex.’ ‘How can you possibly require someone to stay in such a horrific situation?’

First, I will quickly establish once again the fundaments of Christian marriage:

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Matthew 19:5-6 ESV)

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:24-27 ESV)

Divorce is not an option, it is illegitimate, and wives are to submit as the church to Christ and husbands are to love their wives as Christ did the church.

If you get married, this is your mission. Love your wife to the point of crucifixion or, alternatively, submit to your husband to the point of crucifixion.

I am not being hyperbolic. This is what is literally what is demanded of you in the Bible.

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? (Matthew 16:24-26 ESV)

Take up your cross. If you’re a husband, your cross is to love your wife. If you’re a wife, your cross is to submit to your husband.

****

First for the men, this is how much Christ loved the church. Watch and take it to heart:

Christ loved the church so much he allowed himself to be brutally tortured and crucified for the church. This is how much you are to love your wife.

Is your wife disrespecting you worse than that? Is a dead bedroom ? Is nagging? Is your wife assaulting you?

No.

You do not have the right to divorce your wife for any of this. You do not have the right to stop loving your wife for any of this.

If you are married, stop whining, pick up your cross, and love your wife.

Stop being a little bitch.

****

Now for the women, I do not have a video, but here is Paul on his trials:

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? (2 Corinthians 11:23-29 ESV)

According to tradition, Paul was later martyred by beheading. Peter was crucified upside down.

Paul submitted to Christ to the point of where he spent his life enduring extreme loneliness, extreme deprivation, and brutal torture only to have it end in violent death.

Is your husband ignoring your needs worse than this? Is having regular, if uninteresting, sex worse than this? Is being verbally abused worse than this? Is being smacked around worse than this?

No.

If you are married you do not have the right to divorce your husband for any of this. You do not have the right to stop submitting to you husband for any of this.

If you are married, stop complaining, pick up your cross, and submit to your husband.

Stop thinking your situation is oh-so-specially horrible that you are exempted from God’s commandments.

****

Because fools and knaves may try to twist my words, I will state the stupidly obvious.

The husband being required to love his wife no matter what does not give the wife permission to deny her husband sex, to nag, to disrespect, or be violent.

The wife being required to submit to her husband no matter what does not give the husband the right to belittle, ignore, or abuse her.

Quite simply, for both parties, instead of thinking of your rights and how to get the most out of your marriage, think of what you can do for the other. How best can you love your wife? How best can you submit to your husband?

Your spouse and your spouse’s needs come before your own.

If both spouses think and act this way, you will both be much happier and your marriage much stronger.

If you think and act this way, even if your spouse does not agree to do so, it might surprise you what changes you can effect in the other or in yourself. But even if nothing changes, it’s still your Christian duty.

****

Pick up your cross. If necessary, allow yourself to be nailed to it.

It doesn’t matter if your spouse is abusive, unloving, distant, cold, or quarrelsome, your duty, your cross remains.

Does this sound like a tall order? Does this sound like more than you can handle? Are you not prepared for this?

Then don’t get married.

If you aren’t willing to pick up your cross and do what is commanded of you in marriage, whatever may come, do not get married. Stay single. If you do decide to get married, be sure to choose your spouse well, so they are unlikely to become abusive or unloving.

Before you decide to marry count up your costs. If, having counted the costs, you still choose to marry, pick up your cross.

Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ (Luke 14:27-30 ESV)

Repost: Patriarchy: Restraining Males

In light of the Isla Vista massacre, I bring an old post of mine to your attention:

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.

****

Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.

****

In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.

****

So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

****

The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.

****

Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.

****

Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.

****

Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.

****

The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.

****

Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.

****

The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.

Marital Consent

Marriage is a a contract between two people, in which love, of which sex is an implied and fundamental component, is promised to the other. This contract is vowed for life and is binding for life.

With sex being so vowed to the other, sexual consent is given for life by contract.

There can not be sexual non-consent in marriage for sexual consent has already been contractually agreed to.

Marital non-consent is an impossibility: if there is non-consent, there is no marriage; if there is marriage, there can not be non-consent.

****

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9 ESV)

The basis of Christian marriage is laid out in Genesis and reiterated in the Gospels. The man and wife become one flesh.

Can a person commit a non-consensual act upon their own flesh?

The very idea is absurd.

Any statement that there can be non-consent in marriage is an attack on the fundamental basis of Christian marriage and the Christian family.

If you believe you can have non-consent in marriage, you do not have a Christian view of marriage.

If you believe non-consent can occur in your marriage, you do not have a Christian marriage.

****

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5 ESV)

The Bible is very clear that you should not deny your spouse sex. Someone who does is sinning.

Anybody who encourages or tolerates spouses denying each other is encouraging and tolerating sin.

****

Rape is sex without consent. There is a difference between rape and abuse.

Sex can be violent or abusive without being rape.

Words have meaning.

****

All that being said, this should not be taken as encouragement to take your spouse if the spouse is saying no. Your spouse may be sinning and consenting, but it would not be the loving thing to do and might be sinful in itself. As well, from a practical standpoint, the law does frown upon it.

****

Finally, I hypothesize the concept of marital rape hurts those who suffer from ‘marital rape’.

The trauma of rape does not primarily come from its physical aspects, but rather its psychological aspects. The trauma comes from the violation.

If this is so, it stands to reason if there is no sense of psychological violation, there is no trauma.

The creation of the concept of marital rape, creates the idea that a spouse can be violated in marriage where the idea didn’t exist previously. Undesired sex that would have been an unpleasant duty is made traumatic by removing the psychological aspect of duty from it and imputing a psychological aspect of violation to it.

I think it likely, the psychological trauma of marital rape only becomes a reality because of the belief that there can be such a concept as marital rape. Pushing the concept of marital rape increases the likelihood of trauma from marital rape; the very concept of marital rape creates the trauma of marital rape.

****

Vox posted on the same topic the day after I wrote this. I guess great minds think alike.

****

Edit: 2014/05/25 – To those coming from Patheos (or elsewhere if other pick it up form Patheos). I encourage reasonable comments, and may respond as time permits. Please don’t take a dump all over my blog though. Also, please criticize what I wrote, do not criticize what I didn’t, which invariably happens when this topic comes up.

I would also like to say, I’m not part of the Quiverfull movement and neither am I an MRA, although, I do have sympathies with some of the goals of both.

And yes, divorce is illegitimate and I probably rage against divorce in the Christian church as anyone coming from Patheos.

Why Traditional Sex Roles Benefit Women

I am what many call a “sexist”, and the misogynist label has been sent my way a few times before. The sexism accusations usually come when I say something anti-feminist or acknowledge an unpleasant reality (in RL they also sometimes come when I make an off-colour joke).

But I do not hate women, rather I have a generally benevolent, if cynical, attitude towards them, just as I do to society as a whole. While I don’t particularly care about most women (or most men for that matter), I do generally like to see people get the best in life rather than the worst (other than the occasional bout of schaedenfreude or natural justice for the deserving).

And that is why I’m a sexist, because I wish women the best and they have been conned. The forces of disorder have have so manipulated the dominant narrative that many women (and men) now engage in fundamentally self-destructive behaviour.

So, for the purposes of helping women, I am going to clearly lay out the long con that has been played against you by society, the forces of disorder, ideologues, and the well-meaning but unknowing. This post is going to tie a lot of what I’ve written previously together, so links will be many.

****

Dear woman, you are taught to be independent, to avoid “ruining your life” with early marriage or having children young, to go to university and have your own career, and to avoid home-making. You are taught to be economically self-sufficient, to not be “controlled by your man”

In other words, you are taught to make your own life miserable. The jackals are trying to destroy your happiness, your sense of belonging, and your future family so they can economically exploit you. This may seem outrageous to you, but before being outraged, please finish reading, and consider the information I present. I don’t expect to change your mind now, but if I plant a seed of an idea, maybe you will germinate before you wind up miserable, exploited, alone, and beyond the point of no return.

Before I begin, know this: women nowadays are profoundly unhappy. Their happiness has been steadily declining for the last 4 decades. A quarter of all women use some sort mental health medication, and a quarter of women age 45 or older uses antidepressants. Women use antidepressents 2.5 times more than men and antidepressant use is rising rapidly. Nearly a quarter of women will get a depressive illness in their lifetime.

Women, particularly older women, are literally drugging themselves to escape the horrors of their life.

If you’re young, the choices you make now will determine if you’re part of that 1 in 4 women who needs drugs in middle age simply to get through the day.

So listen to me, and it may help you may avoid this.

****

Now, like most women, you probably want to get married and have children, if not right now, then at some point in the future. I know there are a few outlier women who never want to get married and never want to have children. If you are one of those women, ignore this, none of this will matter to you at all. But if you’re not one of these women, here is a warning for you. This is the trap that has been set for you all your life.

We will start with university. University, at least the liberal arts program you are probably considering, has turned into little more than a resource extracting scam. If you go to college, there is a one-third chance you will drop out with nothing to show for it. If you do graduate you will owe $23k in debt or so (on average), which may not seem like much, but if you are in the one-half of college graduates who are under- or unemployed (ie. you won’t be using your degree), it will hurt. One-half of young people have a job (or no job) that doesn’t require their degree. Choose your degree wisely; avoid liberal arts programs.

As for going to college to become a better person, there is a high chance you will learn almost nothing.

College is a trap to suck money from you. There is only a 1 in 3 chance you will get a degree and a job that requires your degree. You will be stuck with thousands of dollars of student debt either way.

If you find a job, you will be unhappy, maybe not now but eventually. 70% of people are disengaged from their jobs, 40% of people actively dislike their jobs. 67% of mothers wish they didn’t have to work full-time; among married mothers this increases to 77%. The profile of an unhappy worker is a single, 42-year-old professional woman.

Anecdotal accounts of women leaving the workplace to spend time with your children, or wishing they could and being unable to, are legion. 43% of women leave their jobs when they have children. Leaving your child at child care is often painful for many women. Feeling guilty or missing your children while at work is common (don’t worry you’ll adjust, it won’t always be that bad). 2/3′s of parents regret spending too much time at work instead of with their children. Most working women have difficulties with work-life balance.

To many women working is a hindrance to happiness and family life, but surely the extra money is good for the children?

But there is little extra money.

Taxes will take a good 30% of your income. If you’re married, daycare will take about 10% of your household income, which means it will take up about 20% of what you earn (assuming you and your husband earn the same; if he earns more, it will take up a larger share of your earnings). If you’re a single mother it will take up 30-40% of your income.

So half of what you will earn is accounted before you even earn it.

If you’re like most people (which you are), you’ll spend part of that income on a larger home. In fact, 30% of your “extra” income will go to a bigger house (which you’ll barely see, working full-time).

So, for busting your hump, about 20% (probably less) of what you earn will actually go to disposable income or improving your quality of life. That’s not the extra expenses of working: transportation, work clothes, lunches, coffee, etc. That $20 you earn will is more like $4 in the end.

But maybe missing your children and having only $4/hour in disposable income will be worth it because you will be doing exciting things at work?

Don’t count on it. Here’s a chart of the most common jobs women work:

All these jobs, with the exception of accountants and, possibly, managers (depending on what type of manager), can be divided into 6 categories: secretarial, food services, retail, nursing/personal care, housekeeping, and child-raising.

What do you notice about these six categories? With the exception of retail work, they are all things a housewife would be doing anyway.

So, instead of taking care of your family’s schedule, you will take care of your boss’s. Instead of feeding your family, you will feed other families. Instead of caring for your children and your parents, you’ll care of other people’s parents and children. Instead of cleaning your own house, you’ll clean someone else’s. Instead of raising your own child, you’ll raise someone else’s. Or you may be working in retail, which everyone hates.

It is highly likely that at your job you will be doing exactly what you would have done staying home, except you’ll be serving strangers rather than the husband and children you love.

So, in all likelihood you will be working a job you don’t care about or even actively hate, wishing you could work less. You will be missing your children as they are raised by other people so that you can care for other people’s families, all so that you can make a couple bucks an hour in disposable income to spend on consumerist crap and pills to make the depression go away. In addition, you will go into large amounts of debt for this privilege.

Does that sound like a good deal to you, dear woman?

Does that sound like the good life to you?

****

It probably doesn’t. So, what can you do about it?

First, you have to get a husband. If you do not have a husband you will be forced to work that miserable job or starve (or go on welfare). Remember above, single mothers spend 30-40% of their income on child care. Add on 30% of your income for housing and 30% for taxes, and you will have only 10% of income left for everything else (although, your tax burden will likely be lower than average and government handouts will stretch that 10% a bit further). Even so, you will not have the option to avoid working like a dog at a job you hate.

You’re best chance to get a husband is now. The younger you are, the larger your pool of men to choose from and the more willing they will be to sacrifice to get and keep you. Read this post from OKCupid and truly understand that graph. After age 26 your choices in the marriage pool will start to decline rapidly. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to be stuck with an undesirable man and the less likely you will be to find a man who wants you to stay home with your children.

Marry young.

Second, if you want children you have to be able to have children. Study this graph carefully:

If you wait until your 30s you have about a 1/10 chance of being infertile and it rises rapidly after that. I will repeat: if you do not start having children in your 20s there is a 8-15% chance you will never have children. If you wait until your 40s to have children you are as likely to be infertile as you are to conceive.

If you want children, especially if you want more than one, and you don’t want to run the risk of never having children, make sure to start in your 20s. This means marrying in your early-mid 20s.

Marry young.

(As alternative to marrying young, you could sleep around and party, but there’s a strong chance you’ll regret it anyways and there’s always the chance you’ll wait too long and end up miserable and lonely.)

Third is keeping your husband. If you lose your husband, you will lose your chance to stay at home, you will be forced into working, not to mention the unhappiness, poverty, and damage to children that usually accompanies divorce. I have previously analyzed which factors in a woman lead to divorce. I will share them here as things to avoid.

To keep a husband: don’t have sexual partners before marriage, wait until your 20s to marry (but after age 20 the effects of age are minimal), don’t get pregnant until you and your partner are married, get a degree (although, this is probably just a proxy for being intelligent and diligent enough to get a degree), be devout if you are religious, and make less than your future husband.

So, if you want to raise a family and avoid the trap of working a job you dislike, while serving other peoples families and missing your own family, all for almost no actual benefit, marry young, marry a man who wants traditional sex roles, don’t have premarital sex, and go to church.

Make the right choices now, so you don’t have to pop Zoloft throughout your later years out of regret for making the wrong choices.

You, along with many other men and women, have been swindled. Don’t let yourself be swindled further. Don’t engage in feminist self-annihilation.

If the information and advice I have presented here have caused you to consider marrying early, I have a little bit of advice here on how to find and/or make a good husband.

****

This one’s been sitting half done for months now. In celebration of Traditional Sex Roles Week, I’ve decided to finish it. Women, it’s in your own interest to get #BackToTheKitchen.

Building a Life Together

Donal wrote a couple posts on men’s SMV and marriage conundrums and women’s complimentary conundrum.

I’m going to focus on the second, in particular. Not wanting to add to Sigyn’s compassion fatigue, I’m not going to talk of how its easier for women to find a marriage partner at this age than men, but rather I’m going to give advice to the young ladies who want to marry young but can’t find a worthy young man to marry.

****

First, the reality: you won’t be able to.

For you, young woman of average beauty in your late-teens or early-20s, it will be almost impossible to find a worthy young man who wants to marry you. The vast majority of men your age are of naturally low value, they are unworthy. Most of those few that aren’t unworthy will either not desire marriage or would be a poor marriage partner.

To be worthy, a man must be a good man; he must also have experience,  be able to lead, have a mission, have resources, be skilled, be confident, have positive status, and having a little charm would help as well.

Notice what these all of these but being good have in common:

They all take a long time to develop.

A young man in his early-to-mid-20s will not have had that time. At best, most men will develop this in their late-20s or early-30s. Many men will never develop these.

A good young man near your age will not have discovered his mission yet, he will lack confidence, he will be inexperienced, he will be poor, he will lack status, he will be unskilled, and he probably won’t have developed charm yet. He has likely never been in a position of leadership in his life.

Those that do have status, charm, or confidence at this age will usually have it for the wrong reasons. These will be the petty drug dealers, the college sports stars, the rebel musicians, the budding Casanovas, the frat boys, etc. Most will not be desiring marriage because they will be drowning in easy sex from many fresh, young co-eds (you’re not the only girl trying to find a confident, charming young man) and they would likely make poor marriage partners even if they did.

Now, there will be a very few good young men looking for marriage who have all this. Whether from inheritance, genetic blessing, exceptional parenting, and/or plain dumb luck some good young men will have many or all of these measures of worth, but these men will be very rare indeed. The young Christian sports star (the Tim Tebows of the world) or the grungy-looking worship leader would be the most likely bet.

If you want to have your own Tim Tebow, go back in time and be born a blonde bombshell with a beautiful face and measurements near 36-24-36C.

Don’t have a time machine? You’re not getting a Tim Tebow.

Unless you were born an 8 or a 9 and managed to keep your figure looking smashing, you won’t be getting the worthy young man. These young men are exceedingly rare and will have their pick of the church. Are you the prettiest in your church, your college and career group, and your Christian campus group?

Probably not, otherwise you’d already have one of these men and you wouldn’t be reading this.

Exception: A high-school sweetheart deal. An average young women in high school can snag a higher value man simply by being his first girlfriend and making it so pleasant for him that he marries her right out of high school before he even begins to understand his worth. If you’re reading this, you’ve probably missed that chance, but if you’re still in high school, give it a go; you never know.

****

So, now that you, young woman who is not exceptionally beautiful, know that you will not be able to get a worthy, marriage-minded man near your age, what can you do to get a worthy husband?

There are two options: date older or build one.

Option 1: Date Older

There won’t be a worthy young man your own age, but there will be a few worthy, marriage-minded men in the 28-35 age range.

If you do this, you will essentially be joining the life he will have built up. He will likely be loathe to give up what he has already built, so it will be less a melding of lives together and more you inserting yourself into his pre-built life.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it is what it is.

Also, an age difference to 5-15 years may be looked at askance by society in this fallen age. Be prepared for that.

If you’re fine with both of those go for it. It should be fairly easy; most of these men will be very happy to have a young girl in her late-teens/early-20s interested in them. What man wouldn’t feel proud to have a cute wife 10 years his junior?

Find out where good young men in their late-20s, early-30s hang-out. Then go there, look pretty, be nice, and make yourself available. Or go on a dating site and express an interest in this age group in your profile; a few of the dozens/hundreds of men e-mailing you will be these kinds of man, it’s simply a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

But if marrying a man 5-10 years older than you sounds unappealing, there is a second option: build a worthy man.

****

Option 2: Build a Worthy Man

You won’t be able to find a worthy young man, but you can build one from an unworthy man. This is a 3-step process.

Step One: The Building Clay

Find an honest, good-hearted, marriage-minded young man who displays potential.

Potential is hard to define, but, essentially, is he a decent young man?

Remember, you are looking for a man who has a certain amount of natural virtue; focus on that and ignore the superficial things; you can work on that later.

Some things to look for:

  • Is he building for the future? ie.: Is he going to college, working on his own business, or taking trades training?
  • Does he have a good relationship with his parents?
  • Is he responsible with his money, his time, his gifts?
  • Does he express an interest in marriage and children?
  • Could he be handsome if he stood up straighter, had a better haircut, and lost those dorky-looking glasses?
  • Does he have plans for the future?
  • If you’re Christian, does he go to church regularly?
  • Do other adults who know him (his boss, church elders, his professors, etc.) respect him and speak well of him?
  • Does he have a group of friends who are decent people?

If the answer is yes to most or all of these, he has potential.

Now potential is just that, potential, it is not actuality. He is not going to have everything you want, now. But, if you choose the right base material, you can build the rest into him. So here’s some things to overlook because they will either develop with time, or you will help him develop it:

  • He dresses poorly.
  • He’s not a leader.
  • He’s socially awkward.
  • He’s currently poor.
  • He plays video games.

Choose the right base material and you can fix all these superficial deficits over time.

If you’re in doubt if the man you’re interested in is good base material, bring him to your parent’s home for a night of dinner and board games. Ask your parents about him afterwards (and demand they be honest). If they like him, you’ve got a decent candidate; if they don’t, dump him.

Step 2: Test Him

So, now you’ve found a decent young man, but he hasn’t proven himself yet, so you’re taking a risk.

Here’s a few simple tests of worthiness for a guy you’ve been dating for a few months or for one of those guys who’s been your close friend with for a while and there’s some mutual interest:

1) Tell him you want to spend a special day together and ask him to plan it. Don’t help him plan, don’t criticize, and go along with whatever he plans. His attitude is more important than what you actually end up doing. If he puts in some planning, pulls off something half-decent, and tries to lead while doing so that’s good. If he sloughs it off and phones you at the last minute asking what you feel like doing and you end up hanging out together as normal, that’s not.

2) Say you’d like to go on a day-long road trip to ???? (some park or attraction within an hour’s drive) and ask him to plan it. Look for the same things as #1.

3) Invite him to help you paint your room; tell him you don’t know what you’re doing. Does he show up prepared to work? Does he take the lead? Does he try to show you how? Is he patient? Does he avoid complaining? Look for his attitude.

4) If you’re planning to move, tell him you don’t have any men to help you (make sure to tell your dad, brothers, and male friends to be busy that day) and don’t know how you’re going to move all this big, heavy furniture by yourself. Ask if he can organize some of his friends to help. If he shows up with a couple friends in tow and takes the lead, you’ve got a keeper on your hands.

5) Have your dad invite him over to work on a project together; tell your dad why and let your dad arrange it. Listen to what your dad says about him afterward.

If he passes a few of these or similar tests, you’ve probably got good base material. It will not eliminate the risk of a dud entirely, but it will minimize the risks.

Onto the next step.

****

Step Three: Build Him

He’s probably a bit dorky, awkward, or weird, but don’t worry, you’re going to change that.

Is he a poor engineering student now? Don’t worry; that means 10 years from now he will be a highly-paid engineer. Just let time take its course.

Does he dress like a dork? No problem. He doesn’t realize he looks like a dork, and he likely really doesn’t care how he dresses (as long as it’s not fruity). He’ll be happy to change for you, if you do it right.

Next time he goes clothes shopping, go with him. Recommend a few things you like; when he tries something on and it looks good in it, make it known. Compliment him on how handsome he is, smile coyly, lick your lips, make a big deal of how handsome, sexy, and manly he looks while rubbing your hand casually but enticingly up his arm. I know it sounds kind of stupid, but it will be almost impossible to go overboard. Most young men very rarely get complimented by cute, young girls, so the rush he’ll get from from your effusive praise will make him ignore such petty things as logic and reality. If possible, convince another female cashier to comment on how handsome he looks in those clothes. He will buy that outfit; if not this time, the next. He might not wear it for a while, but when he does, do it all over again; gush over how handsome he looks in it and get your other female friends to do so as well. Do this for one item a shopping trip; in a few years you’ll have replaced his whole wardrobe, he’ll be looking good, and he’ll think it was all his idea.

One important rule: Do not nag; do not ask or demand he buy or wear the new clothes. That will backfire and create resistance. Simply stay positive and compliment and encourage him; it will work wonders.

Does he have a dorky haircut, stupid-looking glasses, a nerdy watch? Do exactly what you did with the clothes and soon he’ll have contacts, a great haircut, and a stylish watch.

Does he lack confidence? No problem. With a cute, young girl like you telling him what a great man he is every day and supporting him in everything he does, he’ll gain some pretty fast. Nothing boosts a man’s confidence like a pretty young lady’s compliments. Make sure not to criticize him; remain positive.

Does he lack leadership? Don’t worry about it. He may not be a leader now, but when you submit to him, he’ll be forced to lead and, in being forced, will learn to do so. With a cute, young girl, like you, looking to him for guidance, submitting to his decisions, and regularly praising his decisiveness, great decisions, and excellent leadership, he’ll quickly become the dominant leader you’re looking for.  Whatever you do, don’t criticize his decisions when he does lead; that will backfire and he will be less likely to lead in the future.

Is he socially awkward? No problem. Get him to read this and this. Talk with him and make him comfortable talking with you. Bring him to hang out in large groups. With you at his side, supporting him in social situations, he’ll slowly gain the social skills you want him to have. A few years from now, you’ll look back and wonder whatever happened to the socially awkward man you once knew.

Does he have less ambition than you like? That’s a bit of a problem, but easily remedied as long as it’s not a complete lack. Encourage him to be proactive (again, no criticism).

Does he idly come up with a decent business idea? “That’s an amazing idea, honey, I’m sure you could make it work.” Then, when out socially with him, mention to your friends/family this great idea he had. Eventually, he’ll try simply because you’ve built so much positive expectation that he would feel horrible about not doing so. Then support him fully as he tries.

Is there a job or schooling opportunity you think he should go for? “Did you hear about this dear. It looks like an amazing opportunity and I think you’re so good at this that you’d be a shoe-in.” Then, when he does try, support him fully and unreservedly. When he gets the job, praise him and tell him how you knew he’d do it.

Again, do not nag. Remain positive.

Another important rule: If he tries and fails, do not complain about his failure or criticize him. A simple “some things are not meant to be” or “circumstances just weren’t right” is okay. Follow that up with a “You’re so amazing, I’m sure next time you’ll do it. Have you seen this? I’m sure you’d be great at it.”

Does he play too many video games? Understand an hour or two a day is not that big a deal. If he plays a lot more than that: find out what he likes doing otherwise, then sign you both up for it, or get him and one of his friends to sign up for it if it’s a male activity. Be supportive and positive, don’t nag. “You know how you’ve always wanted to ????, well I’ve signed us up. It will be so much fun doing this with you.”

Is he in poorer shape than you’d like? Cook him some good meals. Then join a gym, go a couple times, and mention how you wish you had someone to go with. If guys hit on you at the gym, be sure to let slip how you wish “there was someone to go to the gym with as guys are always hitting on me.” At other times mention how much more handsome he would look with a little less weight or a little more muscle.

Eventually, he’ll come with you. After the workout, mention how hot he looks when he’s lifting or dripping with sweat or something related to working out. After he’s been coming to the gym with you for a while, take care to notice that new muscle (“it feels so big and hard“, said admiringly while putting your hand over it) or the lost weight. After that, he’ll keep going with you.

You’ll notice a them through all of this: positivity and support.

For most decent men, they will rise up to what is expected of them. If you go into a relationship expecting the best out of a good man and encouraging him to reach his full potential, he will rise to the challenge. There is nothing in life that will drive a man to self-improvement like having a cute, young woman support and compliment him in doing so.

Young lady of average looks, if you want to marry a man your own age who will be worthy:

Choose a good man with potential, test him, then build him up.

Do all this and in a few years you’ll be married to worthy man of whom you’ll be proud and he will love more than you could possibly understand for helping make him so.

****

One other thing: make sure to improve yourself so that good men are attracted to you.

  • Keep fit; little will drive men off more than being fat.
  • Be happy and pleasant. Most men like a girl who’s positive and enjoyable to be around.
  • Be of good character. A man of good character wants a wife of good character.

See here and here for other things a good young man might be looking for in a wife.

****

Finally some theory.

Today, marriage is treated as a capstone. People think getting married is something they do once they’ve completed all the others bricks in the wall.

Once I finish college, get a good job, and buy a house, then I’ll be ready for marriage.”

This is not how marriage is supposed to be. Marriage is supposed to be a cornerstone.

Marriage is about building the wall together. The proper attitude is:

We’ll get married, we’ll support each other through college, we’ll support each other in starting our careers, and then we’ll buy a house together and make a family. We’ll build a life together.”

When I recommend  building a man, this is what I am talking about.

You don’t have to try to go after the fully formed man who has it all together; you can marry the solid, young guy who has unrealized potential.

He may not be much now, but if you join to him while young and build a life together as he becomes a fully realized man, he will love you more than you can imagine, for he will not be able to imagine a life apart from you, because you will have been there with him building the wall together.

That is my advice to both young men and young women. Find a good person while young, if you can, and build a life together.

Child Support is not Fatherhood

I was reading this post, An E-mail from a Proud Deadbeat Dad.

Matt is correct that fathers are important and that a man abandoning his child is an awful human being, but, while he does give a cursory out for men who have been kicked out their homes, he is far too accepting of the “women get pregnant and men abandon them myth”.

Matt, in the unlikely event you read this, the women who wish they had a man around are as much requiring of exorciation as men who abandon their children.

What kind of despicable women has children with a man who is not going to be there?

Why are these women not picking out better men to have children with, instead of cads who pump and dump them?

You should ask this question in your next blog.

(I sent him a e-mail asking him this, but in a more polite manner, we’ll see if he has a response).

****

BW is the product of feminism. “His body, his choice.”

When women can renounce motherhood by destroying their child in the womb, how can society judge a man for renouncing fatherhood?

How is BW any worse a person than the women who has serial abortions?

****

I came across this comment, by one gastronaut76:

I raise a daughter alone, after her father- who I was engaged to- whose idea it was to have a child, who was so excited to have a baby, who I realized I couldn’t make a life and separated from, slipped out of my daughter’s life, stopped paying child support, and owes me thousands. Your reductionist argument that I’m not only somehow defective because I was in love, believed a man who promised to support me and bore his child, only to be left holding the bag, but also AT FAULT for his actions? I have no words.

This gastronaut is obviously entirely at fault here, yet she seems to blame the man.

She kicks the father of her child out of her house for undisclosed (which likely means immature) reasons and then he’s the deadbeat for not paying child support.

This kind of crooked thinking can only be the result of a complete lack of understanding of what fatherhood is.

Child support is not fatherhood.

Every second weekend is not fatherhood.

Visitation rights are not fatherhood.

A man who has been removed from his own children and his own home can not engage in fatherhood. He can try to father the best he can, and any man that does gets my respect, but there is simply no way a father, no matter how great a man he may be, can fulfill the functions of fatherhood while removed from his children’s lives.

Even soldiers, sacrificing everything and fighting wars on the other side of the world, get home leave to spend quantity and quality time with their families.

A father needs to be there for his children, to spend time with them, to teach them, to discipline them, to love them, to nurture them. A father need quantity time with his children.

Every second weekend, no matter how “quality” it is is not enough.

Fatherhood is not disposable, and child support is not fatherhood.

Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990′s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.

Christian Marriage

Man was created to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. It is not good for Man to be alone, so Woman was created from Man as Man’s helper. Once united in marriage the two become one flesh, indivisible. This union is as the union of Christ and the Church. The sex act, by itself, is enough to create this union. Any sexual relation outside of this union of this is a sin against God and against one’s own body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is taken very seriously by God. Marriage is to be held in honour by all and the marriage bed is not to be defiled by sin.

The fall led to Man’s work being unyielding and ultimately fruitless and Woman’s submission being to a fallen Man who can never fully be what she needs. Yet, in Christ and His kingdom, Man can build a home eternal where his treasures never rust or decay. In Christ, Woman can submit to Man as to Christ.

Marriage is not eternal; it is made for this world. The dead and the resurrected do not marry for they cannot die. Marriage does not carry from this world to the next; marriage ends with death, and with death alone.

Some men are meant to be alone; they are made eunuchs by birth, by men, and for the sake of the kingdom. It is good for a man not to have sex and not to marry, for he can devote himself fully to the Lord. But not every man is given the gift to remain chaste, remember, Man was not meant to be alone. It is better to marry than burn with passion; if a man cannot exercise sexual self-control, he should marry. Each man unable to do so should each take his own wife. Both marriage and celibacy are good, neither is a sin, but neither Man nor Woman should primarily be focusing on either marriage or being free from marriage. Young women, particularly widows, are given extra encouragement to marry. One should not be burdened or restrained whatever one’s choice, as the choice of whether to marry is for a person’s own benefit, to best promote order and devotion to the Lord. Those who forbid marriage are deceitful; each man should live as he is called. The unmarried should be devoted to the Lord, while the married will necessarily split their devotion.

Marriage has two biblical purposes: to sate passion to avoid sin and for man to have a helper in his mission (to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth). In addition to the commandment to be fruitful, Women will be saved from responsibility for the fall through child-bearing. Any marriage taken should be for one, but optimally both, of these purposes.

To marry a divorced man or woman is to commit adultery. For a man to marry a prostitute or non-virgin or marry more than one woman is less sanctified and may prevent a man from having a position of leadership, but is not necessarily sin.

Christ is the head of man and the husband is the head of his wife for Woman was created for Man.  A wife is to submit in everything to her husband, as the Church to Christ, for the Church is Christ’s bride. No woman should have spiritual authority over a man, yet a wife has authority over her husband’s body, while the husband has the same over hers.  Likewise husbands should love their wives as Christ does the church and as they love their own bodies. A Christian’s submission to Christ and God is to be total and absolute, so should a wife’s submission to her husband. As well, Christ’s love for the church was absolute and self-sacrificing, so should a husband’s love for his wife. Neither man nor women are independent.

To divorce and remarry is sin. A woman is bound to her husband until he dies and a husband should not  divorce his wife, for it is to commit violence. There are only two acceptable justifications for divorce and remarriage: adultery and abandonment by a unbelieving spouse. Separation without remarriage and with attempts to reconcile is acceptable, but not recommended.

****

With all the discussion of marriage around these parts I decided to create a summary for myself of what I could find in the Bible on the issue.

Marriage is both a less important and more important than much of modern Christianity makes of it. It is less important In that being married is not necessary to the faith, as some seem to advocate.

But it’s more in that if you do become married, it is a major dedication for both men and women. Men are to be as Christ, women are to fully submit; there are no outs and there is Biblically no such thing as asking too much in a marriage, for either men or women. Also, Simon is right, Woman was created for Man, and a married woman does not submit to God and is not accountable to God, but to her husband.

The common manosphere meme of divorcing if your wife doesn’t provide sex does not seem to have any support, unless adultery is defined far more broadly than would seem prudent. You have to love her anyway.

So, before you marry, count your costs and be prepared to carry your cross. Biblically, it is a huge, irreversible step with very limited escape clauses.

Marketing Marriage

f you follow Dalrock you’ve seen is recent posts on this little advertisement on Mark Driscoll’s new man-up and marry series:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdcYB8YhfyI]

Dalrock has already pointed out the moral problems with the ad, I’m going to focus the advertisement aspects. Dalrock argues that the ad is aimed at churchian feminist woman, and I agree because otherwise, the proponents of marriage suck at advertising.

Instead of making marriage look like something men would want to pursue and would be willing to sacrifice for, they make it look horrible.

In the little skit in the middle, the man is the thoroughly henpecked, seemingly unhappy husband of a fat, dumpy, controlling wife. He’s so thoroughly beaten down that he’s afraid to have a little masculine bonding time with his son, with the video implying that there’s something wrong with him wanting to do so.

Watching this, my main thought was”is this really how they want to advertise marriage to men?”

I’m lean more towards the more pro-marriage part of the manosphere, but this would drive me away from marriage more than any other possible effect it could have. What kind of man would desire to become that husband?

What young man could possibly watch that and say, “yeah, I want to man-up and marry so I too can be a the ball-less husband of an ugly, dominating shrew who’s afraid to play pool with his son.”

C’mon guys. If you want men to man-up and marry how about making marriage look good? How about making marriage seem like a rewarding experience?

In fact, I’ll give you guys an awesome marketing campaign. A marketing idea this good would generally cost thousands of dollars from a slick New York agency, but I’ll give it to you for free because I love western civilization and we need working marriages to keep the remnant chugging.

Here’s my ad campaign for a man-up series:

It starts with an average-looking man in a suit, someone most guys could identify with, coming home from a day at the office. He looks kind of worn-out and stressed. He parks his car, sighs a bit, then walks up to his house. He opens the door.

The first thing seen when the door opens is his non-offensively pretty wife dressed femininely. She looks up from working in the kitchen and sees he’s stressed, so she comes up to him with a smile on her face and gives him a hug and quick kiss on the lips. She takes his bag and says, “Dinner is almost ready, why don’t you sit down?” He gets into his recliner and leans back, his stress visibly fading away. She joyfully brings him a small plate of freshly made cookies and some milk. He thanks her with an expression of mingled gratitude and relief and takes the cookie. While he snacks she says, “How about later…” and bends over and whispers something in his ear while brushing her hand up his leg. The man responds with a large, expectant smile.

Cut to her calling out that dinner is ready. The man goes to the table to find a delicious home-cooked meal of steak and potatoes, his cute, happy children run up to the table. His wife wipes the dirt smudges off of one of the rascals as they sit down. The man looks on proudly as he sits at the head of the table. His wife sits to his right. She looks at him with an expectant smile, her hand on his arm, and he proudly says grace for the family.

During the prayer fade to black and end with the tagline: Worth being a man for.

Boom. I’d want buy that product. I don’t know a man who wouldn’t.

I’d happily man-up to come home to that; I’d happily work 70 hour weeks to come home to that; I would happily sacrifice quite a bit to come home to that. So, would most men. Most men would willingly sacrifice their left nut for that.

So, some marketing advice to Mr. Driscoll. If you want men to man-up and marry, make marriage seem like something rewarding for men.

McDonald’s doesn’t sell cheeseburgers by having a fat, ugly man eat them in his dingy basement while playing WoW and sobbing to himself. They sell cheeseburgers by showing groups of realistically attractive people having fun together while eating cheeseburgers.

Likewise, you don’t make men desire to man-up and marry by showing marriage as a demasculating process of having your pride, virility, and freedom slowly drained from you by an ugly, domineering shrew. You make men want to get married by showing marriage as a refuge from the cares of the world occupied by a pretty, loving, nurturing woman.

Then again, my campaign might be false advertising for most men. Driscoll might get sued.