Tag Archives: Family

Feminism and Homemaking are not Compatible

TC linked to this article in the Atlantic on feminism and homemakers by Wurtzel.

While the original article has its inaccuracies and slip-shod thinking, it is absolutely correct in its main point:

Let’s please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don’t depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.

A women can not be both a feminist and a stay-at-home mother; the two are mutually exclusive.

And there really is only one kind of equality — it precedes all the emotional hullabaloo — and it’s economic.

Modern feminism (with the possible exception of certain forms of liberal feminism which I am going to ignore for this post, but would probably be easier categorized as libertarianism rather than a form of feminism) is based on the application of marxian methodology to sexual relations. In marxian analysis, all power is, at base, economic power and varying groups are in competition with each other for this power. When marxian analysis is applied to sexual relations, the inevitable conclusion is that women and men are in a power conflict and women are economically oppressed. Only by by gaining economic power can women no longer be oppressed. Hence feminism.

Women are oppressed because they are not financially independent; only the financially independent woman can be free of oppression.

The traditional home-maker and the stay-at-home mother is economically dependent on the male breadwinner and is therefore oppressed.

Economic self-sufficiency is feminism.

****

The augmentation of her main point is dead on as well:

Being a mother isn’t a real job
…
something becomes a job when you are paid for it — and until then, it’s just a part of life.

A job is a relationship where money is exchanged for labour. If you are not getting paid, you do not have a job.

Homemaking is not a job because the homemaker is not being paid.

****

There is one specific way in which being a homemaker can be a job.

If there is a written contract between the homemaker and the breadwinner, in which the breadwinner is contractually obligated to pay the homemaker a clearly defined sum for clearly defined, contractually obligated childcare duties independently of the state of the marriage and marriage contract, the homemaker can be said to have a job.

****

Some guy named Friedersdorf had a response to the original article.

When questioning the main point of the original argument, that being a mother is a job, he pisses all over such petty things as logic. (On the other hand, his destruction of Wurtzel’s analysis of electoral politics is not bad, but her analysis was rather shoddy, so that’s not exactly something to brag about).

His argument essentially boils down to: being a homemaker is a job because it costs a lot to hire a caregiver and because raising children is both important and somewhat difficult.

Just because something requires effort, costs a lot to replace, and is important does not make it a job.

The fallacy of this is obvious. It is important that I fry myself a sausage and the alternative of eating out can be costly, that does not mean I have a job as a chef. Under his argument almost any activity can be considered a job, making the whole concept of a job meaningless.

Something is only a job if you get paid. Homemaking is not a job.

He then goes on with a tale about his mother, of which I’ll only quote a portion:

To describe her as dependent on my father for income is accurate only insofar as my parents decided together that she’d forgo working, plus the wage premium she’d gain from those lost years of work experience, to raise my sister and me, and to do other uncompensated labor

In other words, it’s entirely accurate. That’s very much being dependent; she voluntarily chose to be dependent, but she’s still dependent on a man to provide for her.

One other thing. Contrary to his assertions, his mother was not acting like a feminist. She may have had all the right cant, but she did not live them.

****

As a side note, he then makes this asinine assertion:

The legal recognition of community property was a major, rightfully celebrated feminist victory.

It was not a feminist victory. It was a form of marital law developed from civil law (as opposed to common law) and Catholic social teaching so that children were provided for if the husband died, not because of what it did for women. It preceded feminism by centuries and has only been adopted in less than a dozen states. It was, at most, a partial victory of civil law over common law in some jurisdictions (which is still not good, but that’s currently irrelevant). It was neither feminist, nor anything resembling a victory.

****

Of course, near the end of the article he actually almost begins to stumble upon the reality of the situation, seemingly by pure accident:

GDP is evidently her bottom line.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Although,not GDP per se, economics is feminism’s bottom line. The economic power and independence of women is the central point of feminism. (Other forms of power/independence, such as political power, which are critical to feminism would flow from naturally from economic independence/power).

The notion, implicit in Wurzel’s piece, that men and women should set aside the work arrangements that best suit their families in order to further an ideological agenda

He hits the nail on the head. Feminism is an ideological agenda. It requires that men and women set aside “best suited” work arrangements in favour of the women being economically independent.

That’s exactly the damn point Wurzel was making.

If a family is not willing to do this, they are not feminist.

Feminism may require sacrifice so that a women can be economically independent.

****

The paragraph before that he stumbles upon another truth. Friedersdorf states this:

If anything, society benefits from a diversity of arrangements being tried all at once, both because variety is more conducive to fulfilling diverse individuals, and because stay-at-home parents and working parents can likely learn something from their analogs using a somewhat different model.

He is right, society does benefit from a diversity of family arrangements.

****

So, if he understands both that Wurzel is arguing that feminism requires women be economically independent and he understands that society may benefit if not every women is economically independent, what’s his problem?

His problem is that he is unable to connect the two ideas. That is why he makes up all sorts of half-baked justifications for why a homemaker somehow has a job, even though she is not getting paid, and is somehow independent, even though she depends entirely on someone else’s income for sustenance.

He is not able to connect the two ideas because he wants to be labelled a feminist (or supporter of feminism, it’s unclear which from the article and the difference is irrelevant for our purpose) without actually adhering to feminism.

As soon as he connects the two ideas his thinking will become clear and he wouldn’t have to make such logical contortions to continue to hold his own ideas, but then he would have to make a choice.

He would have to choose between feminism and his support for multiple family arrangements, because homemaking and feminism are mutually exclusive. This, of course, presents a dilemma.

If he chose feminism he would have to *shudder* judge other people’s decisions.

If he chose the acceptance of multiple family arrangements, he would *gasp* no longer be supporting feminism.

He is like the liberal Christian deciding whether he wants to follow the Bible or follow worldly wisdom. The “Christian” can’t make choice, so instead he decides to contort the Bible to fit worldly wisdom. Friedersdorf can’t make a decision so he contorts the English language and logic so that independence means dependence and a job includes any activity that requires some skill, effort, and someone somewhere gets paid for.

****

Friedersdorf’s confusion is not solely his own. Many seem to have this confusion; it is often called choice feminism.

Feminism has become very popular; most women want to be identified as strong and independent feminists. Most liberal men want to be seen as supporting female equality and feminism (which are not necessarily the same thing).

Yet, most women do not actually want what feminism is selling. They want to be dependent and have a man upon whom they can depend, they want to stay at home with their children, they don’t want to have to work at a job. Even when they work, a significant number of women choose to work in fields no different from what they would be doing as a homemaker anyway (ie. teaching, non-registered nursing, child care, etc.)

They don’t want feminism, but they want the label of feminism. So, what do they do?

They contort. They twist feminism, the English language, and logic so that they can somehow define themselves as feminist while doing things that are a denial of feminism.

They contort until somehow they have convinced themselves that being a homemaker, totally dependent on a man for income and devoted entirely to children and the home, is somehow a feminist act.

But it can not be. A women can be a homemaker or she can be a feminist. She can not be both.

Trying to be both is nothing more than self-delusion.

Choice feminism isn’t.

****

All this isn’t to say homemaking is a bad thing. In fact, I am opposed to feminism and I am in favour of woman staying home as homemakers and, if I marry, I will marry someone who wants to be a homemaker.

I support families who decide the wife should be a homemaker. I’m not going to say that it’s the hardest job in the world, because it isn’t particularly hard and it’s not a job, but I will say it’s a respectable and worthwhile life path.

But there has to be a choice: feminism or homemaking.

If homemaking is your thing, repudiate feminism. If feminism is your thing, then live it and be economically independent.

If you don’t like that feminism requires economic independence, perhaps you may want to reconsider your attachment to it.

A Good Wife and a Full Quiver

Mentu has an interesting post on his contemplations of his family life as he is in the waiting room for a vasectomy. I’d suggest giving it a read, as it’s an interesting look into a man choosing to make his hedonistic lifestyle permanent, but regretting the things that might have been.

I wish Mentu luck, and hope he does not come to truly regret and doubt his decision in the future, but that is not what I wish to write about. Instead, I’m going remark on something he wrote in the post:

I thought about the Manosphere. In my opinion, pro-marriage and Christian bloggers in these parts talk far too much about how to find a good wife, and not nearly enough about how to find a good mother. After a long and exhaustive search, I have finally given up. I actually gave up about three years ago, to be perfectly honest. Women who might make decent wives pop up every now and then, but women in the 21 to 31 year old age range who would make good mothers have gone the way of the Dodo Bird. It’s not as if they’ve rejected the idea; they’re not even aware that the concept exists.

He’s right, the Christian manosphere does seem talk more about finding a good wife than finding a good mother, but I don’t think it’s a deficiency of our discussion, rather Mentu is making a definitional mistake in separating the two. For myself, and I’m sure for most present and future patriarchs, the distinction between a good wife and a good mother is non-existant.

A good wife is necessarily a good mother.

****

The purpose of marriage to the Christian is twofold:

  1. To sate “passion” so as to avoid sin (as per 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 36).
  2. For man to have a helper is his mission, which is in itself twofold: to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth (as per Genesis 1:26-28, 2:18-24).

Some Christians may marry only for the purpose, they need passion and sex and marriage is the only allowed sexual outlet. This is not sinful, but neither is it complete.

A Christian who marries solely for passion, or as we would say today, love, is missing out on a fundamental part of a godly marriage, which is having many children.  His marriage is incomplete.

The Bible repeatedly and consistently talks of the blessing of a large family of many children. It is one of the greatest gifts a man can have and, in the Bible, to bless someone with many children is one of the highest blessings possible.

  • And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
  • And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” (Genesis 9:1)
  • I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22:17-18)
  • And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, “Our sister, may you become thousands of ten thousands, and may your offspring possess the gate of those who hate him!” (Genesis 24:60)
  • Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments! His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed. (Psalm 112:1-3)
  • Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! (Psalm 127:3-5)
  • Blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, who walks in his ways! You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord. (Psalm 128:1-4)
  • Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of children is their fathers. (Proverbs 17:6)

Anybody who does not have a full quiver is robbing themselves of a great blessing.

Patriarchal Christians realize the benefit of this blessing. For the complete picture of marriage, the purposes are intertwined: you marry to sate passion, have support, and have children. Any good wife will fill all three of these functions.

There is no difference between a good wife and a good mother, a good wife is necessarily a good mother. If a woman is not a good mother, she can not, by definition, be a good wife.

So, when a patriarch-to-be declares what he wants in a wife and talks of searching for a wife, it can be implicitly assumed that he is also looking for a mother with those traits. I know I am.

****

Having said that, what are some things to look for in the future mother of your children?

As far as I can recall, the Bible itself does not speak much on what makes a good mother apart from being a good wife.

For the most part, what would make a good wife, would also make a good mother:

  • Someone family oriented.
  • She wants to marry and have children young.
  • She’s loving, patient, understanding, and nurturing.
  • She’s reliable.
  • She’s not lazy.
  • Strongly opposed to divorce.
  • A virgin, or at least very low count.
  • Strongly religious.
  • She’s biblically submissive.
  • She has a good group of friends who display positive traits.
  • She’s not a feminist.

Some other indicators I’d look for that apply primarily to someone looking for a wife and mother, rather than just a wife:

  • She truly desires children from from her teens/early twenties, rather than wanting children later in life simply because the biological clock is ticking.
  • She does not want a career, but would make motherhood a priority. (A career and a job are distinct categories: working part-time or a home business is fine).
  • Her friends are also fruitful and family-oriented, and either have or want children.
  • She has the traits you desire in children.
  • She’s involved in child-oriented activities in church (works in the nursery, Sunday school, or children’s programs).
  • She lights up around other women’s children and coos over babies.
  • She’s good with other people’s children.
  • She’s babysat in the past and was good at it.
  • She has traits you want your children to have.
  • She’s not easily disgusted (especially by children’s excretions).
  • She has the physical indicators of fertility. (This one’s easy, is she physically attractive?)

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, there’s probably more.

****

I’ll end by saying this:

If you are planning to have children, make sure your potential wife would also make a good mother.

On this blog, when I talk about a good wife, a good mother is implicit. For those of you who don’t make that connection implicitly, make sure that your potential wife would also be a good potential mother.

Hanna Rosin: Feminists and the Hook-up Culture

Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, commented on Ann Romney’s speech at Slate. Her article ends with this:

But it’s not her particular marriage that gets in the way of reaching certain women, it’s her entire worldview. In Ann Romney’s world, high-school sweethearts are to be trusted, and women should give in and trust them. They do not fail women and they do not let women down, as she said of Mitt. It’s a little bit like Paul Ryan’s imaginary world where men trek off to the tire plant every day and come home and fix the screen door.

But this is not a world that Obama negated with his economic policies; it’s a world that has been slowly disappearing for decades. Most children born to women under 30 now are born to single mothers and in their world, the men are not really to be trusted and they do let people down.

Compare that to her recent article Boys on the Side, which extolled the hook-up culture as liberating for women.

There is no retreating from the hookup culture to an earlier age, when a young man showed up at the front door with a box of chocolates for his sweetheart, and her father eyed him warily. Even the women most frustrated by the hookup culture don’t really want that. The hookup culture is too bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012—the freedom, the confidence, the knowledge that you can always depend on yourself. The only option is what Hannah’s friends always tell her—stop doing what feels awful, and figure out what doesn’t.

Young men and women have discovered a sexual freedom unbridled by the conventions of marriage, or any conventions. But that’s not how the story ends. They will need time, as one young woman at Yale told me, to figure out what they want and how to ask for it. Ultimately, the desire for a deeper human connection always wins out, for both men and women. Even for those business-school women, their hookup years are likely to end up as a series of photographs, buried somewhere on their Facebook page, that they do or don’t share with their husband—a memory that they recall fondly or sourly, but that hardly defines them.

How she can not see the contradiction between these two modes of thinking is beyond me, especially given how these two articles were published only about a week apart.

How can the hook-up culture be both something that is liberating to females and supported by females, yet at the same time be something in which women are let down by men?

It can’t.

****

As one commenter at Slate named TheDude commented:

“Most children born to women under 30 now are born to single mothers and in their world, the men are not really to be trusted and they do let people down.”

I don’t sweat this. Double X has taught me that single motherhood is a fine lifestyle to choose, many women choose to do it voluntarily, and that women don’t need men anymore. Who exactly are these guys letting down?

I’ve also learned from Double X that it is in fact men who need women, so the question should be, why are these women letting down the men who need them?

****

The hook-up culture is bad for women (and for men for that matter) but it is a necessary implication of the feminism. Women do not really want the hook-up culture. In fact, except for a minority of high testosterone women, most women do not want most of what feminism is selling.

But the hook-up culture is the natural end-game of feminism. Once traditional marriage, an “oppressive patriarchal” family system, declines, men, no longer constrained by patriarchy, revert to their more primitive instincts. One of the of these instincts is consequence-free sex, the hook-up culture.

The hook-up culture leaves women unable to commit and leaves men unwilling to commit. Given that most women want commitment, at some point, this hurts women.

So, feminists like Rosen know the hook-up culture is the necessary consequence of feminism and is necessary to feminism, but they also know it hurts women. So what do they do, they try to pretend that women like the hook-up culture. Some do, ie. high testosterone feminists, but the rest have to be convinced. So, you speak out of both sides of your mouth: you poison gender relations by blaming men for being unreliable while supporting the very system that makes men unreliable, then tell women that they actually like the system that’s destroying their ability to gain what they actually desire: love, a husband, motherhood, and family.

****

So you get this:

But then, sometime during sophomore year, her feelings changed. She got tired of relation­ships that just faded away, “no end, no beginning.” Like many of the other college women I talked with, Tali and her friends seemed much more sexually experienced and knowing than my friends at college. They were as blasé about blow jobs and anal sex as the one girl I remember from my junior year whom we all considered destined for a tragic early marriage or an asylum. But they were also more innocent. When I asked Tali what she really wanted, she didn’t say anything about commitment or marriage or a return to a more chival­rous age. “Some guy to ask me out on a date to the frozen-­yogurt place,” she said. That’s it. A $3 date.

But the soda-fountain nostalgia of this answer quickly dissipated when I asked Tali and her peers a related question: Did they want the hookup culture to go away—might they prefer the mores of an earlier age, with formal dating and slightly more obvious rules? This question, each time, prompted a look of horror. Reform the culture, maybe, teach women to “advocate for themselves”—a phrase I heard many times—but end it? Never. Even one of the women who had initiated the Title IX complaint, Alexandra Brodsky, felt this way. “I would never come down on the hookup culture,” she said. “Plenty of women enjoy having casual sex.”

Women whose emotional being has been so warped that she wants more emotionally but can’t conceive of an emotional connection beyond going for yogurt. These emotionally scarred women then turn around and defend the system that withered their emotional being because “plenty of women” enjoy it. Note, not because she personally enjoyed it, but because “plenty of women” enjoyed it. Most of these “plenty of women” didn’t really enjoy it themselves, but acted as if they did, because who wants to be the weird person out who don’t enjoy it.

Now some women probably do like the hook-up lifestyle, and some more women probably enjoy it in the moment, but most do not, simply defending it because it is expected of them because others enjoyed it. In the long-term most women suffer the female version of the player’s curse.

Then, instead of blaming the feminism-created system that has left women alone, divorced, and emotionally-scarred, feminists blame men for being unreliable, poisoning gender relations further.

****

The old family system is dying, purposefully killed by minority ideologies of progressivism and feminism. The right knows what is missing and rages at what it is losing, while not being able to free itself from the symptoms of the sickness. The left can not acknowledge that it is sick, because doing so would shatter their ideological myths.

But the left see some who have not been inflicted, and they rage against them, seething at what what they are missing and rage at having it shoved in their face by those like Ann Romney and Sarah Palin, who have and are everything they can not acknowledge they desire.

Meanwhile, the average women laments how she can’t find a good man, while the average man laments how he can’t find a good women. Both emotionally scarred, with their ability to have a loving marriage crippled by the system they support (because its the politically correct thing to support) but don’t understand. They wonder why they just can’t find the love they so desperately want, not being able to see the system that is taking it away for what it is.

They exchange love for pleasure, but in their deepest being they know the pleasure always leaves them feeling hollow. They yearn for love, but are unable to find it because the continual quest for the pleasure necessary to stave of the void in their heart destroys their very ability to experience that love.

The “gender war” continues, pushed by the hurting and the ideologues who need someone to blame for their loneliness and emptiness, but either can not see or can not acknowledge the system that is doing this to them.

Is it any wonder why women’s happiness has been steadily declining?

What is to be done?

Aurini writes:

I am a Patriot.  During my life I hope to actually see the True North Strong and Free – not just sing it in the National Anthem.  To find a wife and raise a family, with hope for a future.  Gaming girls in foreign countries is better than marital theft, certainly – and it’s probably a fair bit better than Heroin – but it doesn’t leave much of a Legacy.

Running away will protect us for a time, but the Enemies of Life are implacable; this is a global ideology more infectious than proselytizing Christianity could ever hope to be.  It’ll reach Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia sooner than you think – only by the time it gets there it won’t be called Feminism any more.  Like the common cold, this virus mutates fast.

The MRM fell because it was premised upon weakness.  Any true hope for the future will have to be premised upon Strength.

I agree fully.

But that leaves the questions of what is to be done. How can we destroy the system that is destroying us?

How can we avoid the Bonobo Masturbation Society?

****

The options we have:

1) The Blue Pill: Play along with the system.

2) MRM: Fight the current legal system for equal rights from within the system.

3) Game/MGTOW: These options are essentially the same: retreat. You withdraw from the system.

4) Patriarchy: This is outwardly similar to the blue pill, with all the attendant risks, but is done intentionally with red pill frame and knowledge,  rather than leaped into blindly.

5) Violence: Overthrow the current system with violent revolution.

****

The blue pill may work. For you, for now. But you could always wind up on the wrong end of the divorce or economic statistics with one bad week, and it leaves the system intact. This is no fight at all.

MRM may make the legal system more fair, but that’s all it will do. It will make divorce sting less, it will remove affirmative action to allow fair employment competitions, and it may do some other good things, but it is still based on progressive ideas of equality, fairness, human rights, social justice, and all that jazz and is still corrupt. In the long run it merely preserves the corrupt system, but blunts its edges, reducing consciousness, fixing the system further in place.

Game/MGTOW may work. For you, for now. But it is retreat; it is conceding that the system wins and hoping that if you either avoid or succeed at playing by the new rules of the system it might not eat you. You might avoid family court, unemployment, or unhappy marriage,  but you are still a Bonobo happily masturbating away, enjoying yourself to avoid thinking if there isn’t something more fulfilling out there.

Violence won’t work. Right now the system is not corrupt enough to get enough people fired up for violence. In addition, the anti-progressive movement is small and is like herding bulls. There would be no way to win. Starting violence would turn the decline into a collapse and most revolutions end up eating their own children. Small scale violence accomplishes nothing except making the violent person’s ideology look bad. Violence should be avoided.

That leave patriarchy as the only hope.

****

So how does patriarchy help us win?

We must realize that any fight against the current progressivist system will take time, possibly generations. The war against progressivism is a war of ideology and ideas; changing the dominant paradigm is (usually) a slow process. It took progressivism and feminism over a century to bring our country to this point. It will take just as long to bring it back.

So, that leaves us with two things we must do: push our ideas and develop our ideology and breed the next generation.

First, we need to develop our ideas and put them out there; we must push the overton window. We have to put red pill knowledge out there, make it acceptable, and bring people to the cause. This is already being done; you can occasionally see red pill knowledge creep into the MSM. The manosphere is great for this.

More importantly to pushing our ideas, we have to live lives that are enviable. Ideas are great, but unless people see what’s in it for them, ideas alone will not suffice. We have to demonstrate what we are arguing for.

Live a red pill life that others are envious off and want to emulate. Praxis.

Second, breeding. The future of our society is determined by the next generation, so we need to create the next generation. On one hand, we have an advantage because progressivists are breeding themselves out of existence. On the other hand, if we all go MTGOW or PUA, then we aren’t breeding either.

So, marry a good women, have lots of kids, and raise them traditionally. Your life will be better, your life will be full and meaningful, and you’ll have a legacy you can be proud of.

Make sure to avoid a few pitfalls. Refuse to marry those who aren’t worthy of bearing your children (no rings for sluts). Be wary of the public school system; make sure to raise your kids right. Live as an example you want your kids to emulate.

Creating the next generation and developing our ideas is how an ideological war is won. So, do it.

****

That’s not to say game and MGTOW don’t help some. Both spread red pill ideas. In addition, PUA’s make promiscuity rougher and less fair, thus making promiscuity, already unattractive, less attractive for females. Both reduce the amount of marriageable men who will “man up”, leaving women asking “where did all the men go”, showing the corruption of the “sacred path for marriage”.

While they’re still acting the part of bonobos, they do have some positive impact in the ideological war.

Lightning Round – 2012/08/08

Is this a depression? Bill thinks so.
So, does Aurini, who thinks it will be permanent.
The Captain also weighs in.
Related: An we wonder why we’re in a recession.

“People used to have decent aspirations. They wanted to have families. They wanted to do good work. They wanted to be good citizens, good Christians, good people. Now everyone wants to be a player and a porn star.”

If true this is sickening. Pass it around.

Dalrock argues Christians need game because the church has kneecapped marriage. Sad.
Related: Another argument for why game is necessary.

You are not entitled to happiness, so make your own.

A question I ask myself?

The difference between failures and haters. Failures are actually worth something.

I’d disagree, Canada is probably (slightly) better than the US when it comes to family law. At least in Canada, alimony usually has a time limit and alimony payments are set by law, so there is less arbitrary cruelty to the system.

Wright talks of sexual standards and nails it.

The media is the enemy.
I repeat: the media is the enemy.

The rape of Sweden: the sad result of multiculturalism gone wild.

Woman love drama. Once again science shows what we already know.

HAHAHAHA... She’s not someone I know so I can engage in some schadenfreude.

Zombies!
Related.

“The downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness.”

Why men are frustrated:
“What is the ultimate male status symbol?”  41% of males answered a family.
“What defines a “real woman” in 2012?” 14% of females answered being a great mother and wife.

Answer: Because hard analysis usually requires complex math and most women don’t like complex math.

Amanda Marcotte demonstrates why women can’t be free.

A very wise, unnervingly intelligent, and most assuredly humble person has guest posts at both Patriactionary and Captain Capitalism.

(H/T: Glorio-US Bastard, OMMAG, Save Capitalism, FFY, Thinking Housewife, Partial Objects)

Lightning Round – 2012/06/19

Another long Lightning Round today.

Roissy talks on post-scarcity; he’s not positive on it.

Aurini exposes the idiocy of mainstream discussion on demographics.

Patriactionary has a great list of quips.

Athol explains why men running the MAP have power.
Vox explains why most wives shouldn’t worry about that power and why it’s tragic when older women divorce; it’s kind of touching.

Dicipres finds a couple neat studies.

Dogsquat has a good post on the starter version of the approach attitude.

Forney points out the obvious; game’s pointless if you’re a loser.
The Last Psychiatrist explains how self-loathing protects you from stopping being a loser.

The Poet argues against “enjoying the decline”. Wonder how the Captain will respond?

Frost has a post on his father that is both touching and heartrending.
Related: Walsh shows very clearly how important fathers are.

Glorious Bastard asks what is a women?
Meanwhile, Wintery Knight discusses how feminists want to dominate men.
Related: If a feminist makes poor choices and regrets them the next day, the man should be punished.

A feminist admits there’s no war on women because, get this, not all women are the same. My question: why haven’t anti-abortionists started a “war on babies” meme? It seems like it could be effective.

Gender “equality” creates economic “inequality”.

Britain takes a pro-fatherhood stance on family law. Seems MRA’s have had some impact.

The atrocity you’ve never heard of; when the allies forcibly migrated  conquered foes and forced them into slave labour.

Fox has some good news on the black community. If more of them escape the hell of public schooling, there might be some improvement in their lot.
Related: Bribing the natives not to destroy their own homes.

When diversity hurts those it supposedly helps.

A discussion on measuring happiness. It’s good if you can get over the overly flowery language.

Mainstream economists discovers the obvious.
Some (only some?) mainstream economists are stupid.

The young are the new helots. If they knew what was good for them, they’d join the Tea Party.

The pathologizing of grief.

A libertarian wishlist.
Related: A nice bit of libertarian satire.
Related: Some people do not understand libertarianism at all.

If you want to remove the influence of money in politics, remove the power from politics.

(H/T: SDA, IP)

Economic Costs of Children

Here’s another installment of  my economic analysis of marriage. This time we’re calculating the cost of children.

Conveniently,the USDA has done a study, and it costs $235,000 to raise a child (in a family of two) through age 17 for a middle-income family, about the price of a 2012 Ferrari.

So the question is, over time, which do you think would bring you more utility, a Ferrari or Junior (or a medium sized house, or 4 years off work if you make $60k, etc.)?

That’s that.

****

But that doesn’t really make much of a blog post, so more in-depth analysis of the study.

annual expenses ranged from $8,760 to $9,970 for families with a before-tax income less than $59,410, from $12,290 to $14,320 for families with a before-tax income between $59,410 and $102,870, and from $20,420 to $24,510 for families with a before-tax income more than $102,870. (p. 10)
….
As can be seen, total family expenses on a child through age 17 would be $212,370 for households in the lowest income group, $295,560 for those in the middle, and $490,830 for those in the highest income group. In 2011 dollar values, these figures would be $169,080, $234,900, and $389,670, respectively. (p. 20-21)

Here we can see that a lot of the cost of child rearing is likely optional. Low income people can do it for $170,000, so they could only get a 2008 Lexus instead.

If we look at page 26, there’s a complete breakdown of the numbers. Low income people made on average $38k, medium made $80k, and high made $180k. So, we can calculate that, low income people spent about 1/4 of their yearly income on a child, medium income spent about 1/6, and high income spent about 1/9. Because this number is based on having two children, it means you average poor 2-child family would spend half their income on a child, medium would spent a third, and high would spend about a quarter. So, as you get money, you spent a smaller proportion of it on children.

****

housing accounted for the largest share across income groups, comprising 30 to 32 percent of total expenses on a child in a two-child, husband-wife family. For families in the middle-income group, child care/education (for those with the expense) and food were the next largest average expenditures on a child. (p. iv)
…
Food was the second largest expense on a child for families in the lowest income group, accounting for 18 percent of total expenditures. Food was the third largest expense on a child for families in the middle income group, accounting for 16 percent of total expenditures. Transportation made up 13 to 15 percent of total child-rearing expenses over the income groups. (p. 11)

Housing is the biggest expense. The study calculated housing by the cost of adding extra bedrooms to the price of a house. You could save money by buying cheaper real estate or jamming or making your kids share rooms or change the basement into the room (both strategies my family used at various times).

If we look at page 26, you can see that costs vary a lost, although, food, clothing, and healthcare vary less, while child care, miscellaneous, transportation, and housing vary by a much larger proportion. This suggests you can only save (or overspend) so much on eating, clothes, and health, but a lot of housing, transportation, and miscellaneous costs are optional. Child care varied the most, so this could either be optional, or simply be that higher income people used proportionately more of it to gain those higher incomes.

****

Overall annual child-rearing expenses were highest for husband-wife families in the urban Northeast, followed by families in the urban West and urban Midwest; families in the urban South and rural areas had the lowest child-rearing expenses. (p. iv)

So, choose where you live when you want a family to save on housing costs. If you live in a lower cost area, it costs less. Pretty self-explanatory. Steve Sailer wrote an interesting article on this kind of thing before, give it a check.

****

For all three income groups, food, transportation, clothing, and health care expenses on a child generally increased as the child grew older. As children age, they have greater nutritional needs so consume more food. Transportation expenses were highest for a child age 15 to 17, when he or she would start driving. Child care and education expenses were generally highest for a child under age 6. (p. 12)

Interesting, I though babies would be more expensive. Kids eat more as they age and young children use more child care. Makes sense. Learning to drive increases transportation expenses, probably due to buying your kid a car, so tell your kid to get a job and buy his own car.

****

Compared with expenditures for each child in a husband-wife, two-child family, husband-wife households with one child spend an average of 25 percent more on the single child, and those with three or more children spend an average of 22 percent less on each child. (p. 17).

So, as Bryan Caplan pointed out, children get cheaper the more  you have of them. For the middle income family, a single child would cost $294k, 2 children would cost $470k ($235k each), and 3 would cost $550k ($183k each). For a lower income family, one would cost $211k, 2 would cost you $338k,  and 3 would cost $395k.

For a middle income family: the first child costs you $294k, the second costs you $176k (60% of the cost of the first), while the third costs you only $80k (27% of the first).

For a lower income family: the first child costs you $211k, the second costs you $127k (60% of the cost of the first), while the third costs you only $57k (27% of the first).

So if you decide to have children, have three or more. Your third child has a 73% discount on the cost of the first, a steal. You can also save a lot by adopting a lower income lifestyle.

****

Conclusion:

Kids cost a lot, about as much as a Ferrari, but which would add more value to your life?

A lot of child rearing expenses are optional as evinced by the fact low income families can raise kids on less costs than other families. Housing is the biggest expense and a lot of the costs are optional. Children can be a lot cheaper if you buy less house, squeeze the kids in, and buy in a cheaper area.

Your first kid costs a lot of money, your second costs a fair amount, but your third kid and beyond cost very little, so, if you do have children have a lot. The marginal costs of the additional children after the second are very low.

The Bookshelf: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids

I previously mentioned that I was reading Bryan Caplan’s Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Having now completed reading the book, here’s the review.

The book is a pro-natalist book arguing that your self-interest should lead you to have more children, that having kids should be easier than you think, and that you’re parenting style is not really going to affect your children’s long-term outcomes.

The book is written in a typical popular economics manner: a light-hearted tone, but keen on being technically accurate and precise. It’s very readable and simplifies the issues and studies to be understandable to all. The arguments are well-supported by scientific studies, common-sense, and coherent logical arguments. THe Overall, it’s a well-written book.

As for content, the book is divided into eight chapters and is fairly short at less than 200 pages (238 pages if you include references and indices).

The first chapter argues that the parent’s happiness counts too and that a parent should lessen their own parental workload for their own benefit (and their family’s).

The second chapter shows very clearly that, as long as you are a typical first world parent, your method of parenting has no real long-term effect on your children’s futures and you should not feel guilty about lessening your workload.

Having demonstrated that your parenting has no long-term effect on your children’s future, the third chapter lays out how this should practically effect your family life.

The fourth chapter attacks the notion that society is more dangerous for children now than and the past, and shows clearly that kids are safer than they have ever been.

The fifth chapter argues that if you fully look at the long-term consequences of having children, you will have more than you currently have, because you overestimate the work of children in the near future and underestimate the value of children when you are older.

The sixth chapter argues that, contrary to the arguments of the over-population crowd, more children are not bad for the world, rather a larger population and more children are a positive benefit for the world.

The seventh chapter gives some tips for increasing the number of grandchildren you have.

The eighth chapter talks up the benefits of fertility technology.

The ninth chapter and final chapter is Caplan’s clarifications and responses to common hesitations and counter-arguments presented in a dialog format.

Overall, I would recommend reading this book. The subject matter is interesting, the book is well written, the arguments are clear and persuasive, and more information on one of the most important decisions in your life is always a good thing.

Conclusion:

If you’re married, plan to marry, have kids, or are considering having kids, I would fully recommend you read this book so you can make family decisions with accurate knowledge.

If you never plan to get married and/or have children, this book will may not be relevant to you, so you may not want to read it. You may still want to read it if you are interested in natalism or family issues or simply to consider (re)evaluate the long-term impacts of your choices.

Lightning Round – 2012/05/29

Mentu writes one of the best posts I’ve read on Christian game, a must for budding patriarchs. Read it now. I think I’m going to start learning game now.

Also, for patriarchs: a great list of things to teach your son.

Increasingly worthless. Related. Related to the related.

The state as God produces some odd thinking.

As an example: the left goes into the vapours whenever someone thinks about even touching their internet privacy, but you’re crazy if you don’t want the government forcing you to reveal personal aspects of your life for the census.

They sold themselves to the state under the social gospel and are reaping the rewards.

I wonder how common this actually is. Am I a sock-puppet?

I’m sure someone on the manosphere will object to this. Assuming any Quebecers are actually part of the manosphere.

Men’s centres are not welcome; men are too irresponsible and not educated enough on gender issues to have them.

The punishment for false rape accusations should be brutal.

Hehe.

Mugabe as UN tourism ambassador. About what I’d expect.

Sometimes you worry about the next generation.

(h/t SDA, Althouse, Smallest Minority)

Patriarchy: Restraining Males

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.