ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Social policies have long-term consequences

That is Dr. Helen's primary message in Men on Strike. She was interviewed by Jerry Bowyer in Forbes.
Jerry: “It’s interesting – you mention Kay Hymowitz’s book, which is in some ways similar to yours but in other ways very different. Let’s not single her out in particular, but there does tend to be a scold-y tone. Yeah, that’s really going to work with men, right? There does tend to be a scold-y tone in a lot of the “what’s wrong with men” vein, the “failure to launch”, “they’re not going to college”, “they’re not participating in the economy” – a tone that seems to (interestingly for liberals) place no obligation whatsoever or no causal effect whatsoever on larger societal factors.”

Helen: “I definitely think there is a scolding factor and I think people are so used to shaming men, and that’s very prevalent in the culture. I think that we see – I mean, there are so many messages through the commercials, through the media, that men are just no good. And so it’s just so easy to pick up and say that, “Yeah, men are worthless. They’re not good fathers.” We’ve got so many messages out there and I think that’s a really negative thing to be sending to men and particularly young boys in schools and in society. Going back to some of these books like End of Men or Manning Up, you’re right: the message is basically, “You know what, you’re doing this because you’re just an immature man.”

There’s a chapter in Hymowitz’s book about Child-Man in the Promised Land and it’s looking at how men just have so many options and this is why they’re doing what they’re doing. My point in my book is that men are not going to participate in a society that is not going to reward them for that behavior. In other words: if you’re a good father, a good husband, and you do all of the things you’re supposed to do, society still will go after you if you step out of line in any particular way.

In the old days, it was sort of like – fifty years ago a man was head of household, looked up to, treated with respect, and now a married man in many ways is seen as less of a man (not more of one) and it’s doubly so if he has kids.
Men on Strike is a very good book, not so much because it contains anything that will be new to the readers here, but because it is putting those ideas in front of a lot of people who have never considered them before. And one of those things that many people haven't seen before is what the Forbes writer describes as "a lack of scoldiness"; Dr. Helen is one of the few female writers on intersexual relations who is actually sympathetic towards men and understands that the world is not a zero-sum game where the sexes are concerned.

The fact that something is bad for men doesn't mean that it is good for women.

Labels:

96 Comments:

Anonymous Heh January 08, 2014 3:19 PM  

fifty years ago a man was head of household, looked up to, treated with respect

You'll still get that if you insist on it.

Blogger Outlaw X January 08, 2014 3:31 PM  

In the old days, it was sort of like – fifty years ago a man was head of household, looked up to, treated with respect, and now a married man in many ways is seen as less of a man (not more of one) and it’s doubly so if he has kids.

Not among my brothers, and the peace in the family is amazing. Go to an airshow and watch little kids in the reserved section with high paying 800 dollar tables and kids getting the mustard and ketchup packages and stomping them on the ground getting all over my clothes. Then trying to take a picture shaking the fence 200 ft from the runway. Finally I had enough and became their dad and told them to go sit down, then their dad came to me and started on me and I showed him the stains on my clothes and told him he could deal with me or I could go to the security officer and we will straighten it out. My Niece was crying because of mustard on her white shirt. He decided he didn't want to f**k with me because I was mad and he did want me to go to security. So those two little shits sat in their seat for the rest of the show.

Yeah they needed a dad and it was me!

Anonymous Starbuck January 08, 2014 3:31 PM  

no you won't, not from outside the family anyways..

Anonymous ENthePeasant January 08, 2014 3:40 PM  

Interesting story about the book. At Thanksgiving I was talking to my oldest about some of these issues and asked him if, "If I buy the book will you read it?" His reply was classic: "Thanks Dad, I know you like this shit, but I'm going hunting tomorrow and really don't have time for this. I don't care what a bunch of women think anyways." Which probably makes Dr Helen's point.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 08, 2014 4:28 PM  

Our critics seem to believe this discussion is all part of the same negotiation and discussion about what white men are going to do (whether they like it or not) to make white women (and everybody else) happy. What they do not seem to realize is that white men walked away from that negotiation years ago and the white women are now talking only to themselves. So now they are left with black and hispanic men, Mr. Mom, and droning lesbians. I do not get the impression that the men who walked away from the one-sided conversation have any intentions of returning to the bargaining table. White women have already worn out the only cards they actually held..... child-bearing and divorce settlements. That con is getting much more difficult to pull off. It is ironic that the last bastion of family life are those Christian and redneck societies most vilified by the larger society.

There was a similar experience during and after the Viet Nam conflict when millions of capable young men were blamed for what some felt was a very unpopular war. There were no "welcome home" parades, no special effort to find jobs for vets, and there was none of the "thank you for your service" prayers from people who never wore the uniform. In those days, a US flag was more likely to be insulted and spat upon or burned than to be honored. Some of the vets killed themselves, partly because of the psychological effects of combat but more because of not being able to obtain work, one-sided divorces, and overt discrimination. Some of the vets deserted ship (like John Kerry) and were active in the anti-war movement, radical and anarchist protests, and the drug trade. A few went into small business and retreated into their families, ultimately becoming favorite uncles and winning little league coaches.

Anonymous paradox January 08, 2014 4:28 PM  

Outlaw X

Just out of curiosity... Did the father and the kids have a Yankee accent?

Blogger Jehu January 08, 2014 4:36 PM  

I'd say MAYBE 5-10% of the women in the US are good marriage prospects at the get go, and maybe another 10-20% can be made so by a strong personality. Those aren't good numbers from the macro societal perspective. Rational behavior on the part of men would pretty quickly cause a collapse of our system, since frankly there aren't enough suitable mates to go around should men take the red pill in greater numbers than they presently are.

Anonymous WaterBoy January 08, 2014 4:56 PM  

DonReynolds: "It is ironic that the last bastion of family life are those Christian and redneck societies most vilified by the larger society."

Even in Hollywood....:

"The definition I'm using with the word “submissive” is the biblical definition of that. So, it is meekness, it is not weakness. It is strength under control, it is bridled strength...
I love that my man is a leader. I want him to lead and those major decisions to fall on him.
"

Blogger Cinco January 08, 2014 5:02 PM  

@Jehu

Don't be so sure about that. There is extremely high demand for Asian girlfriends right now.

About 7 years ago I went over to a co-workers house immediately after work. He walks in the door and dinner is on the table, steaming hot. He sits on the couch and his wife takes off his shoes off for him. I almost cried at the loveliness of it all. Sadly, she had no sisters. She was a 7 too.

Blogger Outlaw X January 08, 2014 5:11 PM  

Just out of curiosity... Did the father and the kids have a Yankee accent?

No, but it wasn't the Texas Draw more like the Middle America accent(He wasn't from Texas). Didn't care though and he was definitely a gamma letting me put his kids in their seats. I'll bet at home his wife and kids told him what to do. Because when I got down to business with a tongue lashing of those two boys it was like big eyes and a big man ordering us around and they ran to their seats and told daddy to no avail. Daddy tried though but had been so pussy whipped he didn't know what to do when he met a man. That was my impression anyway.

Anonymous MrGreenMan January 08, 2014 5:21 PM  

Going to have to roll back more than fifty years, that's for sure. It's not a reasonable trade to go from expendable sperm donor back to wage-slave bringing the cash tribute to the domestic goddess.

Does anybody remember the book written by a European traveler in the US, similar to the de Tocqueville book but I want to say it was in close proximity to WWI time - and it talked about the American male as the most henpecked, sissified man in the western world? I remember reading an excerpt of this and (I think the guy was Italian) he seemed hung up on how American men let the women choose their clothing so as to hide the most obvious primary sex characteristic.

Ward Cleaver was already quite down the road of estrogenic peonage - Fussell portrayed the contempt the skilled "high prole" - who could piss in your eye and you'd have to pay him anyway because you needed his skills and so would accept the abuse - held for the skittish slave, the middle class corporate drone, keeping the boss happy and in his office down the hall. The 50s was a time of the rise of office jobs and the decline of self employment that was so much more common with a rural/agricultural community. We're in another one of those times of squishing the self employed even further down as a smaller part of the working population. It seems really hard to be strong and independent if you spend 8-12 hours a day focused on the emotional blackmail of a tyrant boss and then you're supposed to compartmentalize that mentality and turn the alpha on; it instead seems like it's easy to accept the nagging wife as just one more task master like all the others, and America has shown that, if nothing, Americans are inclined to the easiest solution to every situation.

Anonymous Jimmy January 08, 2014 5:21 PM  

The scoldy attitude is so infuriating and suffocating that society and women should recognize their repelling nature. Just like men cannot force women to act a certain way, why do women think they can nag men to do things. I consider myself to be easy to get along with, but I can be scolded by women and others for not complying enthusiastically enough. Women do need to adjust their expectations or they will get nothing as opposed to something.

Blogger Outlaw X January 08, 2014 5:23 PM  

Lesson:

Women and children when you boss your husband or daddy around, don't expect much out of him when you need him. Women let your husband be the man and stand back, because that is the only security you have is the confidence in the man of the family. This is an old lesson and one that Vox can tell much better than me. Don't let your children be yard monkeys and don't be a a doormat dad as Vox says.

Blogger Chris Ritchie January 08, 2014 5:28 PM  

MrGreenMan is right. I don't know how it keeps getting missed in Libertarian circles, but there is no freedom without economic freedom. But no one talks about it. I guess escaping the corporate gulag is just too hard. And I'm trapped like most are. I'm sitting here in my office (not a cubicle anymore).

But escape we must. To have a free citizen, to be a man that women respect, you have to be financially independent from the corporations. This isn't to say that coming together to work on a company and its products is always bad, but we can't let that determine the course of our financial lives. I worked contract for many years. The money was much better. The flexibility was great. But so was the risk.

Anonymous civilServant January 08, 2014 5:41 PM  

Going to have to roll back more than fifty years, that's for sure.

Indeed. You just need to start things off right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWFH6U5T9TM

Blogger Outlaw X January 08, 2014 5:44 PM  

But escape we must. To have a free citizen, to be a man that women respect, you have to be financially independent from the corporations. This isn't to say that coming together to work on a company and its products is always bad, but we can't let that determine the course of our financial lives. I worked contract for many years. The money was much better. The flexibility was great. But so was the risk.

If you haven't watch the movie: "The Firm" The Firm

Anonymous Josh January 08, 2014 5:47 PM  

I don't know how it keeps getting missed in Libertarian circles, but there is no freedom without economic freedom. But no one talks about it. I guess escaping the corporate gulag is just too hard.

I'd recommend reading up on Distributism.

Anonymous dh January 08, 2014 5:57 PM  

MrGreenMan--

Prior to WWI, it was widely known in the world that the American man was not a fighting man. I can't remember which conflict earned that reputation, but there was some surprise that the Americans could fight a European style war.

By the end of WWII that image had shifted quite dramatically.

Anonymous Bah January 08, 2014 6:02 PM  

Prior to WWI, it was widely known in the world that the American man was not a fighting man.

"Known" to anyone ignorant of 1861-65 and 1898, anyway.

Anonymous allyn71 January 08, 2014 6:05 PM  

"I'd recommend reading up on Distributism." - Josh January 08, 2014 5:47 PM

Sometimes Josh, you make me wonder if there isn't an inner Catholic waiting to burst out of that Protestant exterior.

Blogger Chris Ritchie January 08, 2014 6:06 PM  

Thanks Josh. At first glance, it looks like something I'd be in favor of. It seems to me that decentralized control structures lead to relative freedom: Church, Government, Business. But what is missing are the economies of scale. How do a bunch of independent businesses pool their resources for innovation? Same thing for an army. I think we have benefited in some ways from mass production. Don't want to go into that rabbit hole here though.

So I believe in the theory of decentralization, but not everyone can own their own auto repair shop or doughnut shop or small car manufacturing plant. 1 large auto plant is surely better than 10 small ones all buying the same metal door stamps, rubber, and plastic. Interesting.

Thanks again Josh. I'll research writers for and against that theory.

Anonymous Josh January 08, 2014 6:11 PM  

Thanks again Josh. I'll research writers for and against that theory.

The best place to start is with Chesterton's Outline of Sanity. Text is available online.

I'm not a diehard distributist myself, but it has some interesting ideas that dovetail with Austrian economics, the economics presented in the Bible, and anti fragile ideas

Anonymous civilServant January 08, 2014 6:12 PM  

By the end of WWII that image had shifted quite dramatically.

Not exactly. America itself was seen as a formidable opponent because of its logistics and technical superiority and vast material superiority especially in aircraft. But american soldiers themselves as such were seldom seen as anything special.

Anonymous Bah January 08, 2014 6:18 PM  

But american soldiers themselves as such were seldom seen as anything special.

They were by Germans and Japanese who actually fought Americans.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 08, 2014 6:25 PM  

Here's the online relevant "mini sermon" and I'll spell it out in mixed metaphor black and white.
"If two Israelite men are fighting and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man,. Deut 25.11. ............ cut her hand off.

the attempted neutering of society for perceived individual gain is the issue. Female and Male eunuchs alike - the dehumanized.. Point to these mini sermons is the subliminal commentary: Society was meant to be the church. Economics was meant to be the church. Science, politics, education, economics, philosophy, biology, was meant to be the church.

Suffragettes to Germaine Greer to Hilary Clinton. One a childless academic [post abortion] the other a mother of one politician the "grabbing another woman's husband by the balls" is applicable.

the point of relevance is the circumlocutory and the parabolic sweep that overshoots the minutiae. Hoped you might have spotted the perfectly relevant.

Anonymous civilServant January 08, 2014 6:26 PM  

They were by Germans and Japanese who actually fought Americans.

In a book about the German General Staff the author as a young private held captive a german colonel. He asked the colonel if the Germans were superior men then why was he holding the officer captive. The colonel replied that he had commanded a battery of 88's on a hill. The Americans sent a tank up the road and he destroyed it. The Americans sent another tank up the road and he destroyed that too. And so on. Finally he ran out of shells while the Americans still had tanks.

This same author pointed out that in every even engagement between American and German troops the Germans were winning until American aircraft showed up. He demonstrated that American air power was the decisive factor in most encounters.

Blogger James Dixon January 08, 2014 6:38 PM  

> t seems really hard to be strong and independent if you spend 8-12 hours a day focused on the emotional blackmail of a tyrant boss ...

Well, yeah. But you're also working the wrong job.

> 1 large auto plant is surely better than 10 small ones all buying the same metal door stamps,

Why? Efficiencies of scale are most effective only on mass produced mass market items. We moved away from a one size fits all economy a long time ago.

Anonymous lozozlo January 08, 2014 6:39 PM  

Well, yeah. But you're also working the wrong job.

Almost all corporate jobs are like that nowadays.

Anonymous VanDerMerwe January 08, 2014 6:39 PM  

"In a book about the German General Staff the author as a young private held captive a german colonel. He asked the colonel if the Germans were superior men then why was he holding the officer captive."

Germans were however very effective against women and children in Warsaw in '44 and in many other occasions too. 200,000 ordinary civilians executed after the uprising in a reprisal action and for no tactical purpose, other than to help the advancing Soviets have less trouble "liberating" the city. In warfare against poorly armed Polish Home Army and boy scouts they fared rather poorly.

Anonymous lozozlo January 08, 2014 6:45 PM  

Thanks MrGreenMan and Chris Ritchie for bringing that up.

The modern american man can be best likened to boxer from animal farm...who would keep just 'working harder' no matter what - thinking himself a noble beast of burden...used up until he was too tired to keep going then disposed of for profit.

Going to have to roll back more than fifty years, that's for sure. It's not a reasonable trade to go from expendable sperm donor back to wage-slave bringing the cash tribute to the domestic goddess

I always found it so amusing when all the trad cons talk about going back to the 'patriarchal man as provider, woman as housewife' model - it wasn't like that wasn't brutal male slavery in and of itself.

Proverbs 31 makes it clear that men aren't to be be the family pack mule.

Anonymous paradox January 08, 2014 6:48 PM  

Josh

Toward a Truly Free Market is a good Distributist book. Medaille leans Left though.

Anonymous Josh January 08, 2014 6:51 PM  

1 large auto plant is surely better than 10 small ones all buying the same metal door stamps, rubber, and plastic. Interesting.

A town has 1 large plant. Another town has 10 small plants. Each town loses 1 plant. Which town fares better?

Anonymous lozozlo January 08, 2014 6:56 PM  

I suspect that part of the brutality and needless long hours of modern corporate america has less to do with the economy and productivity and far more to do with furthering secular progressive goals.

Blogger James Dixon January 08, 2014 6:56 PM  

> Almost all corporate jobs are like that nowadays.

And your point is? That doesn't change my point. As they're finding out with GenX-er's and later, loyalty and respect are two way streets.

Anonymous dh January 08, 2014 6:59 PM  

A town has 1 large plant. Another town has 10 small plants. Each town loses 1 plant. Which town fares better?

Large plants don't really die like that. They lose, lose, lose and the nfinally die.

That's because large well run companies don't just shutdown. As they start to fail, they start to cut the stuff that doesn't work, and that leads to down stream job losses.

So 10 plants making the same end product, versus 1 plant making 1 end product, doesn't matter if the product gets cancelled, you lose 10 or the 1 just as easy.

Now the benefit is if the 10 plants are making separate products and separate product lines for different customers and different markets. That's the recipe for continued success. But it is very, very, very hard to make work logistically.

Anonymous lozozlo January 08, 2014 7:06 PM  

And your point is? That doesn't change my point. As they're finding out with GenX-er's and later, loyalty and respect are two way streets.

My point was:

You said that MrGreenMan's example was 'working the wrong job' - but if all jobs are 'like that' - then which one is right?

Blogger Chris Ritchie January 08, 2014 7:13 PM  

Good stuff lozozlo. I'll look it up later tonight.

Anonymous zen0 January 08, 2014 7:17 PM  

with high paying 800 dollar tables

Better be one damn fine airshow, I reckon.

Anonymous SirHamster January 08, 2014 7:27 PM  

>>>Prior to WWI, it was widely known in the world that the American man was not a fighting man.

>>"Known" to anyone ignorant of 1861-65 and 1898, anyway.


As far as such a reputation existed, I'd expect it to be from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 where the US militia had a habit of fleeing mid-battle.

Though I would be interested in seeing historical documentation of such "common knowledge"

Anonymous ENthePeasant January 08, 2014 7:29 PM  

"Prior to WWI, it was widely known in the world that the American man was not a fighting man. I can't remember which conflict earned that reputation

No conflict earned us that reputation. That was the real issue, we didn't participate in largers wars which Europeans were (and maybe still are) addicted to. The other issue was Euros didn't really cover our Civil War honestly. In fact the last two years of the war are now considered the model for the last 3 years of WW I... but at the time it was seen cowardly by European officers who still thought stand up regiments were the way to true military success.

Anonymous zen0 January 08, 2014 7:33 PM  

we didn't participate in largers wars which Europeans were (and maybe still are) addicted to.

Here's hoping. Put an end to Euro-Fascism right quick.

Anonymous Bah January 08, 2014 7:54 PM  

This same author pointed out that in every even engagement between American and German troops the Germans were winning until American aircraft showed up. He demonstrated that American air power was the decisive factor in most encounters.

Nah. Trevor Dupuy's work has largely been debunked.

Blogger James Dixon January 08, 2014 7:57 PM  

> but if all jobs are 'like that' - then which one is right?

a) Not all jobs are like that.
b) No one has to take the ones which are. If no one takes them you'll see corporate attitudes change very quickly.

Anonymous ENthePeasant January 08, 2014 8:08 PM  

"He demonstrated that American air power was the decisive factor in most encounters.

"Liddel Hart's, The German Generals Speak" and Van Creveld's "Fighting Power". However, some of this doesn't ring true, but it's hardly unusual for the losers to assert there greatness and were only defeated by magic, politicians, or the press. The enemy never winds in the minds of the defeated... except by said magic. Imagine the example of the tanks coming up the road. There's a good deal of stupid in American tank crews early in the war, often times based on infantrymen made into crews as Tanks arrived in theater. but let's talk a bit here. Do any of you seriously think Americans are so stupid as to keep going up the road after five or six tanks have been destroyed? NONSENSE! It might be true that his battery of 6 "88s" were short of ammo, but let's not go crazy thinking that they had less than ten rds a weapon, which comes out to 60 rds and more than enough power to stop a bn, which no battery of 88s ever accomplished, as good, as accurate and robust as the system was. Not even the Red Army fought like that, despite what was often taught within our military establishment. What may be true is that we knew the .88s were out of ammo and just kept coming... but we never had the kind of resources he indicates. If I had to name one factor that cost the Germans the war it's their mania with over engineered, obscenely expensive, and hand built, weapons systems. There's a lot of truth to our use of Air Power gave us an advantage and in a stand up fight (plt against plt) the Germans did very well in their maneuver warfare doctrine, but they were like a one trick pony... we had a lot more tricks, the biggest one being we preferred to use overwhelming force which saved lives and cheap but extremely durable weapons systems. Some units like Airborne and Ranger bns actually fought just as well and much better than the Germans, not to mention that as the war progressed our infantry got much better... what didn't get better was our officer corps, probably to this day one of the sorriest (and largest in proportion to enlisted) organizations in the world. if those tanks did go down that road like he suggests the hand of an officer would be responsible. But that's an issue of being a rich country. Ok, I better stop. If I go down this road to far I'll get banned for being incredibly OT.

Blogger Breadbasket January 08, 2014 8:14 PM  

In the circle of friends at my old job, there were six men that divorced and all of them received custody of their children. That's right, the women did not want custody, which was unheard of even 20 years ago.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 08, 2014 8:32 PM  

Back to the topic? Men on Strike.

Men not "striking", with the fist anyway?

Chains of command whether military or civil are meant to be 'respected', right? "Salute the office, not the man" is a refrain in the military - everyone knows that.

Cue the modern man. How can anyone with a shred of integrity respect that "office" or "office bearer" when the offices themselves are turned against the same Jesus who is the head of everything. Think about that. Heads of households, governments, need a head covering / a crown/ their own authority. Without God all pyramids collapse because both the capstone and base are removed simultaneously.

Having sworn on a bible to uphold the laws the officers destroy their own testimony by trashing same bible.

[See: the fruit of that secular tree about to be cut down]
another off topic micro sermon for the editors floor.

Anonymous Godfrey January 08, 2014 8:32 PM  

The devil works through the woman. He's a sly dog.

Anonymous Tom White January 08, 2014 8:42 PM  

@ allyn71: catholicism = being completely subservient to an elite central authority )to the point an old man in a bad hat tells you what to believe) which is the complete opposite of distributism.

or is your point that chesterton was catholic?

@ josh: are you familiar with belloc's the servile state?

Anonymous zen0 January 08, 2014 9:02 PM  

If I go down this road to far I'll get banned for being incredibly OT.

Ranting and raving about an obscure point is not like being OT in an argumentative sense, so I think you maybe ok.

But who knows. Vox may wake up in a capricious mood and nuke your ass.

Anonymous allyn71 January 08, 2014 9:03 PM  

"@ allyn71: catholicism = being completely subservient to an elite central authority )to the point an old man in a bad hat tells you what to believe) which is the complete opposite of distributism." - Tom White January 08, 2014 8:42 PM


@ Tom White: see Quadragesimo Anno and Rerum Novarum

Looks like those old men in a bad hats might know a little about distributism.

As far as my point it was just a little poke at Josh highlighting the fact that often times around here he makes a better Catholic apologist than the Catholics.

Anonymous lozozlo January 08, 2014 9:47 PM  

a) Not all jobs are like that.
b) No one has to take the ones which are. If no one takes them you'll see corporate attitudes change very quickly.


a.) Not from where I am standing - both in my personal life and via the news, blogs, etc... it seems that only the 'wrong jobs' are out there now.

b.) If these jobs are in fact out there, then why are people not taking them and keeping the shitty ones?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 08, 2014 10:38 PM  

Bah: "Nah. Trevor Dupuy's work has largely been debunked."

It's certainly been rebutted. "Debunked" would be a matter of opinion.

(On which I am agnostic, except that I don't think it's time to go all Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming on it and start saying "the science is settled!" In that sense only I have a side. When it comes to theories of combat, the science is not settled.)

Blogger rycamor January 08, 2014 10:45 PM  

lozozlo January 08, 2014 9:47 PM
b.) If these jobs are in fact out there, then why are people not taking them and keeping the shitty ones?


Because most people aren't ready for the sacrifice of living a more self-reliant life, stepping outside of comfort zone, etc..., and they are scared to DEATH of any sort of randomness or chaos in their income. Josh mentioned antifragility (a la Nassim Taleb's thinking)... this concept means you accept a certain amount of unpredictability in your life, but in return you no longer have to depend on any one person or career path in order to survive.

It starts with such things as adding a garden to your back yard, raising a few chickens, learning a few homesteading skills, learning a sustainable trade that you can sell directly to customers or starting a business of a fluid nature such that you can pull up stakes and take it with you wherever you go.

This is antifragility. And this is what civilization irons out of you if you let it.

Anonymous Scintan January 08, 2014 11:05 PM  

The great weakness of the scolding approach is that it has no real counter to the IDGAF factor that some of us 'less enlightened' makes have.

Anonymous Scintan January 08, 2014 11:07 PM  

Edit for the above: 'less enlightened' makes should be 'less enlightened' males.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter January 08, 2014 11:18 PM  

Some people will do anything:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/vagina-as-holster-675432

Anonymous Desiderius January 09, 2014 1:00 AM  

"the fruit of that secular tree about to be cut down"

The saecular is the fruit of the sacred.

That tree has been cut down before. It's a tough bastard; it will grow again from the seeds of that fruit. Likely fertilized by all the bullshit we're currently drowning in.

Anonymous hv January 09, 2014 1:59 AM  

Singing the Masculinity Blues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmjKNGsQG7g

Blogger papabear January 09, 2014 2:10 AM  

"And this is what civilization irons out of you if you let it."

Civilization shouldn't be equated with the progression of the modern nation-state...

Blogger James Dixon January 09, 2014 6:02 AM  

> a.) Not from where I am standing ...

Well, mine isn't. I'm sure a bit of thought on your part will identify a number of others that aren't.

> b.) If these jobs are in fact out there, then why are people not taking them and keeping the shitty ones?

I didn't say most jobs weren't like that. I said not all were. From almost 40 years in the work place, I'd guess at least 60% are. The reasons people stay at lousy jobs could be a 300 post article in itself. There are lots of broad categorical reasons, but each person's combination of reasons is probably unique.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 9:17 AM  

Boy, I go to bed, and the things people say...

Jehu: I'd say MAYBE 5-10% of the women in the US are good marriage prospects at the get go, and maybe another 10-20% can be made so by a strong personality.

Sounds like a solid argument against legalizing polygamy.

Cinco: ...He walks in the door and dinner is on the table, steaming hot. He sits on the couch and his wife takes off his shoes off for him...She was a 7 too.

Do they have children, or is she basically the upstairs maid?

lozozlo: Proverbs 31 makes it clear that men aren't to be be the family pack mule.

Tell me more about the Israelite women working all day in the fields, please--you know, the non-widowed ones.

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 10:23 AM  

Tell me more about the Israelite women working all day in the fields, please--you know, the non-widowed ones.

The other women in the field with Ruth as a quick example.

Anyway you avoided the question - you did not address proverbs 31 at all.

You trad con women are sure jealous in holding on to your gynocentric privileges!

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 09, 2014 10:28 AM  

It's a good book, though far from perfect. I've used it as a sort of 'gateway text' for a couple of women in my circle who complain that men (including yours truly) won't commit.

Nature always finds a way, however, and family-minded women WILL find men [betas] with whom to have children. I've been seeing increasing numbers of young white women shacking up not with blacks and metizos, but with Asian guys.

On a lighter note, this made me smile:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.567260

Let's hope this is represents a stirring in the European soul, prior to throwing off the shackles.

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 10:35 AM  

More on tradcon sigyn-style wives with pack mule husbands

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 09, 2014 10:55 AM  

"Secular" is an adjective. "Secular" what? Secular Jewish, secular Christian, secular Muslim, secular Hindu, secular Buddhist, secular Marxist, secular Political Correctness, secular pagan (pick brand, they are not interchangeable), secular retarded and unable to process religious concepts, secular astrologer, secular what?

Blogger Bob Wallace January 09, 2014 11:02 AM  

"This same author pointed out that in every even engagement between American and German troops the Germans were winning until American aircraft showed up."

It's commonly accepted that 100 German troops were equal to 120 American troops...the difference is considered to be the officers.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 11:09 AM  

The other women in the field with Ruth as a quick example.

Hey, did you know that Ruth was a widow? And she was gleaning, not reaping, which was what "the needy" were allowed to do by law?

Try again, this time with a non-widow actually laboring in the fields, like I asked. For clarity, she does it to support her husband. Go for it. If it was normal, you should be able to find me many examples.

Anyway you avoided the question - you did not address proverbs 31 at all.

What question? You made a vague assertion about pack mules and women working, so I put you on your proof. Now: Tell me about something more than, say, kitchen gardens and odd bits of sewing, which is what Prov. 31:10-31 specifically describes.

You trad con women are sure jealous in holding on to your gynocentric privileges!

Facts, give me facts. Why do you expect any rational human being to believe something based on insults and arm-waving about "oppression" and "fairness"?

More on tradcon sigyn-style wives with pack mule husbands

Lack of reading comprehension does not impress me. Neither does an attempt at guilt by association when the association is both unproven and unprovable.

Facts, Lozzy. Less hyperventilation and assumptions, more facts.

...Dealing with Lozzy today is like arguing with a feminist on PMS, I swear. Is he always like this?

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 11:25 AM  

*sigh* Speaking of reading comprehension, I shall now follow through on "the other women":

They were Boaz' maidservants, not his wives, and behold, when he said to Ruth "stay here with my maids", she had "been sitting in the house for a little while."

If I check against Scripture and find that the things you're saying aren't so...

Blogger rycamor January 09, 2014 11:36 AM  

papabear January 09, 2014 2:10 AM

"And this is what civilization irons out of you if you let it."

Civilization shouldn't be equated with the progression of the modern nation-state...


No, even good civilization in the vein of traditional Western Christianity can lull one into a fragile position. There is such a thing as too much structure, too much interdependence. Civilization brings structure, regularity, predictability, and specialization. You couldn't have it without those elements. Accepting and profiting from those attributes is fine. Depending on them exclusively is the temptation that should be avoided. For example, civilization brought currency, trade, and banking, but it also made it possible to play with the fire of credit and debt.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 12:03 PM  

No, even good civilization in the vein of traditional Western Christianity can lull one into a fragile position. There is such a thing as too much structure, too much interdependence. Civilization brings structure, regularity, predictability, and specialization. You couldn't have it without those elements. Accepting and profiting from those attributes is fine. Depending on them exclusively is the temptation that should be avoided. For example, civilization brought currency, trade, and banking, but it also made it possible to play with the fire of credit and debt.

Prosperity makes laziness of all kinds. The industrious will always find something to do because they're already so inclined, but most people prefer to do the minimum and call it a day afterwards.

I wonder how to preclude that, if at all. Small government doesn't seem like it would be enough, based on historical record.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 12:08 PM  

...I'm sorry that that last comment was so scattershot. I should be angling for quality of comments rather than just putting forward thoughts half-formed. Let me try again:

Prosperity enables laziness of all kinds. The industrious will always find something to do just because they're already so inclined, but most people aren't, and will happily do the bare minimum and call it a day if they can get away with it.

Time preferences tie into this, too.

Granted, a small government with limited powers would limit society's ability to indulge and enable the lazy and short-term thinkers, but eventually the government always grows when prosperity rises and the lazy start getting envious of the industrious. It almost always works like that, history demonstrates.

Is it even possible to "manage" prosperity so that you don't get the bubble to inflate and then burst?

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 12:38 PM  

She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. (v13-14)

She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. (v16)

She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. (v19)

She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. (v21)

She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. (v22)

She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. (v24)


Sounds like more than Tell me about something more than, say, kitchen gardens and odd bits of sewing, now doesn't it.

I don't think it's my reading comprehension is at issue here...

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 12:40 PM  

@Sigyn

You should read the linked posts before commenting further.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter January 09, 2014 12:55 PM  

Why the mea culpas now?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/01/bbc-editor-bbc-blackballed-immigration.html

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 1:06 PM  

Heh heh...

She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. (v13-14)

She spins cloth, which is later mentioned as used to drape her bed and make clothes for her family. She makes sure there is good food on the table, including things that can't be had locally or that she can't grow herself.

She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. (v16)

Word "kerem", derived of uncertain root, typically means "vineyard", but can often refer to a garden, not a farm field. It is unreasonable to assume that she goes out and plows, tills, and reaps 40 acres in this context. This passage can as easily be talking about how she takes money she got from her little embroidery business and planted a little garden plot--which is actually something nobody takes issue with, silly goose.

Furthermore, she is the boss/owner in this instance, not the laborer, so you still have to demonstrate how women did labor we now associate with the masculine realm.

She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. (v19)

Clothwork again, spinning and weaving, fairly standard work for your average wife back in the day and still associated with women. How does this contradict the "odd sewing job" I mentioned?

She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. (v21)

Where'd she get it? Oh yeah, she made it. She didn't sell it to someone else, did she?

She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. (v22)

Sewing for her family and herself, yes; how is this her going out and making money to support her husband, exactly?

She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. (v24)

Ahhh, here we go, this is closer. She spins flax into linen, sometimes embroiders it into pretty belts, and consigns them to a merchant to sell. But you'll notice she isn't running the shop, threshing grain, or building houses, is she?

You have yet to demonstrate that any of this proves she supports her husband financially. All I see is you quoting things without reference to their context.

Blogger rycamor January 09, 2014 1:08 PM  

Sigyn January 09, 2014 12:08 PM

...I'm sorry that that last comment was so scattershot. I should be angling for quality of comments rather than just putting forward thoughts half-formed. Let me try again:

Prosperity enables laziness of all kinds. The industrious will always find something to do just because they're already so inclined, but most people aren't, and will happily do the bare minimum and call it a day if they can get away with it.

Time preferences tie into this, too.

Granted, a small government with limited powers would limit society's ability to indulge and enable the lazy and short-term thinkers, but eventually the government always grows when prosperity rises and the lazy start getting envious of the industrious. It almost always works like that, history demonstrates.

Is it even possible to "manage" prosperity so that you don't get the bubble to inflate and then burst?


It's not just about laziness vs industriousness. One can be very hard-working and careful, but if all that work is focused on one dependent aspect of society, that is a very fragile life strategy.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2014 1:14 PM  

Because most people aren't ready for the sacrifice of living a more self-reliant life, stepping outside of comfort zone, etc..., and they are scared to DEATH of any sort of randomness or chaos in their income.

Most men aren't cut out to run their own companies, and any time the rest of us who are decide "screw 'em, the world belongs to those bold enough to grab it" we fairly quickly find out we're wrong. There's way more of them then are of us, and they're not all bungling retards either - they're mostly perfectly capable men who can accomplish a lot given a little leadership. Betas don't want to be serfs or slaves, they want to be valued workers who can look to somebody else for leadership without being completely taken advantage of.

So, circling back to the topic, the magic of civilization is giving these guys a place in society where, even if they have a boss, they still can enjoy respect. Part of that comes from creating the expectation among bosses to respect their workers, part of that comes from creating the expectation among the working men that they ought to be respectable themselves (i.e. show a little Alpha), and the third leg is expecting women to keep their hypergamy in check enough to respect their husband for whatever amount of Alpha he can muster. Mostly I think that last part comes from preventing women from forming an SMV bubble: from thinking their SMV is equal to the SMV of the hottest Alpha guy that ever paid them any attention, and avoiding the delusions of grandeur that come from their SMV peaking 15 years before it does for men.




Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 1:26 PM  

It's not just about laziness vs industriousness. One can be very hard-working and careful, but if all that work is focused on one dependent aspect of society, that is a very fragile life strategy.

Well, all right. I had a broader view of "laziness" in mind when I started to comment--having to do with intellectual and spiritual laziness as well--so I tripped up a bit. Investing all of oneself into a single dependent facet of anything (overspecialization is what you have in mind?) is a species of intellectual laziness, if you want to be harsh about it, because you don't have to learn to do anything else or exert yourself to do it.

There's way more of them then are of us, and they're not all bungling retards either - they're mostly perfectly capable men who can accomplish a lot given a little leadership. Betas don't want to be serfs or slaves, they want to be valued workers who can look to somebody else for leadership without being completely taken advantage of.

So, circling back to the topic, the magic of civilization is giving these guys a place in society where, even if they have a boss, they still can enjoy respect.


This isn't wrong, but the problem is when they have no incentive to fill out as much potential as they can. There are probably a lot more men capable of relative independence/leadership than currently exercise them, because they've been feminized/marginalized/undereducated/undermined/never given a chance.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2014 1:37 PM  

Well, yes Siggy but you cut off your quote of my comment just before I went into that. Bosses (e.g. Alphas) aren't taught to respect workers, workers aren't taught to respect their own masculinity, and women are spoiled through inflating their self-esteem at absolutely the wrong point in their lives (e.g. when they're young and as desirable as they will ever be). It's a winner-take-all society where you don't get any respect for doing well but not making the top tier. It's Glengarry Glen Ross, 1st place is a Caddy and 2nd place is a set of steak knives (but a salary that means you can't afford to buy any steak).

That's a primitive society, and it ends up with the majority of men either squandering their abilities squabbling with each other for the spoils, or else checking out and giving up. Roosh wrote a book for the first group, Dr. Helen chronicled the second.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 2:04 PM  

Well, Jack, I was saying I suspect there's a larger pool of potential top-tier men than we currently realize, who would have a better chance if they (like you say) respected their own masculinity--but there's the question of maleducation, too, which can seriously damp someone's ability to perceive and capitalize on opportunities. But I guess it's all part of the same thing, in the end.

That's a primitive society, and it ends up with the majority of men either squandering their abilities squabbling with each other for the spoils, or else checking out and giving up. Roosh wrote a book for the first group, Dr. Helen chronicled the second.

Pretty much. Funny how civilization always comes around to barbarism in the end. It's almost like human nature doesn't change. *dry grin*

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 2:14 PM  

@sigyn

On my smartphone now so respond later.

Quick note: making stuff for your family and also selling it is financial support by definition so it's not clear what you are getting at.

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 2:15 PM  

Oops meant to write

On my smartphone now I will respond more later

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 2:35 PM  

Quick note: making stuff for your family and also selling it is financial support by definition so it's not clear what you are getting at.

Quick note: "Making stuff for your family and selling" some of it does not logically indicate that she supports her husband in any sense of the word typically used, particularly not if he is earning an income of his own.

It also doesn't indicate that she works in realms we now regard as masculine (farmhand, construction, professional, etc.), which is what I was asking you to prove up, and which is what you have thus far failed to do.

To be clear, because you seem to think this, I do not take the position that a woman can or should be idle while her husband does literally everything. I simply disagree that the measure of her merit as a wife or a human being is whether her hard work earns income--which is a feminist conceit that caused the mass exodus of women from the home and into the control of "alpha dogs"--and I disagree that a woman not earning income necessarily means she regards her husband as a "pack mule".

I hope this helps you not have another OMG OPPRESSION meltdown.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 2:46 PM  

That said, Lozzy, I may not be back to this thread after you return, so if I don't respond, it is most probable that I just had to re-prioritize.

Husband and baby come first. I'm just a bad wife like that.

Blogger rycamor January 09, 2014 4:45 PM  

Jack Amok January 09, 2014 1:14 PM

Because most people aren't ready for the sacrifice of living a more self-reliant life, stepping outside of comfort zone, etc..., and they are scared to DEATH of any sort of randomness or chaos in their income.

Most men aren't cut out to run their own companies, and any time the rest of us who are decide "screw 'em, the world belongs to those bold enough to grab it" we fairly quickly find out we're wrong. There's way more of them then are of us, and they're not all bungling retards either - they're mostly perfectly capable men who can accomplish a lot given a little leadership. Betas don't want to be serfs or slaves, they want to be valued workers who can look to somebody else for leadership without being completely taken advantage of.


The things I'm talking about aren't quite on the same axis, Jack. It's not about Alpha/Beta, winners vs. losers and risk-takers vs play-it-safers. I highly recommend anyone here read Nassim Taleb's "Antifragile". It provides a very good perspective on the problem of societal complexity and tendency toward creating brittle structures that can fall like a house of cards.

There's nothing Alpha about starting a garden in your back yard. That's an avocation available to any man from omega on up, as long as he has an available yard (you can even garden indoors to a degree). Teaching yourself to fix things is a good solid old-school Beta skill, but if there is an economic collapse you become very much in demand. Ditto with the garden. If you make it produce more than you need, you become a very valuable person if there is any sort of economic turmoil (although, keep your guns clean and your powder dry).

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 8:53 PM  

@Sigyn

Husband and baby come first. I'm just a bad wife like that.

Nah. That is to your credit. (Yes i recongize the sarcasm). My disagreement with you is on this one proverbs 31 thing - beyond that I'm sure Loki is a lucky man.

Anyway,

It also doesn't indicate that she works in realms we now regard as masculine (farmhand, construction, professional, etc.),

You are moving the goalposts - Proverbs 31 clearly shows her being industrious, productive, and helping to support the household. The work you mentioned above is generally too difficult for females to perform - but there is plenty of other stuff they can do such as She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant and the like. You are trying to cast *any* aspect of providership as a subset of providership that would be, by nature if nothing else, male. It fails to address my point in the least.

To be clear, because you seem to think this, I do not take the position that a woman can or should be idle while her husband does literally everything. I simply disagree that the measure of her merit as a wife or a human being is whether her hard work earns income

In contrast to most trad-con women (see the provided links) who regard the worth of men as exactly that - disposable pack mules and cannon fodder.

--which is a feminist conceit that caused the mass exodus of women from the home and into the control of "alpha dogs"--and I disagree that a woman not earning income necessarily means she regards her husband as a "pack mule".

Again - modern industrial/formal employment market is one subset of provision and not the whole enchildada. Until we get past that notion, there is no point in further discussion.

Anonymous lozozlo January 09, 2014 8:56 PM  

She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.


Yup the proverbs 31 woman is a busy little bee (and bringing in income as well, as you can see.

Anonymous daniel January 09, 2014 10:16 PM  

How did Detroit go from one of the most remarkable cities in the world - when it was all white - to, well, the Detroit of today? Thomas Sowell and other conservatives would have you believe it was all about liberal policies and socialism, yet those same policies have helped a country like Norway ,Denmark, Sweden and Finland flourish. Innovation and entrepreneurial activities are commonplace in Norway, similar to the commonplace high rates of illiteracy, corruption among the elected officials, and crime found in Detroit.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2014 10:23 PM  

Sigyn:

I was saying I suspect there's a larger pool of potential top-tier men than we currently realize, who would have a better chance if they (like you say) respected their own masculinity--but there's the question of maleducation, too,

Definitely maleducation, but there's a slight disagreement I have with you - the pool isn't "top-tier" men. It's second tier. The problem is, we're drifting to a society that only values the top tier, and that second tier can be very useful and productive (to say nothing of being generally decent people). Glengarry Glen Ross again, second prize isn't anything to bust your ass over - it's not even much of an improvement over third place. A society where the big reward gap is between 2nd and 3rd place is a society were people first make sure they don't screw up (because 3rd place is for screw-ups), and then once they've got the basics covered, they can try to excel. The people who come in first tend to really be the best, because they're the ones able to do their jobs and then do them well. That's a fairly productive society.

Now, a society where the big gap is between 1st and 2nd place is a society where people are encouraged to take insane risks to get into 1st place because if they fail, well, 3rd place isn't much worse than 2nd so roll the dice. Once any significant number of people start rolling dice, everybody has to and pretty soon the winners aren't the best, they're the luckiest, but luck isn't a skill. Sooner or later they crap out, and since we've put them in charge of more and more resources, we all get to crap out with them.

In a lot of ways, civilization is about making 2nd place worth more than a set of steak knives.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2014 10:32 PM  

rycamor,

I agree there's a ton of value to those things, but I do think there's some measure of "alpha" to be found in fixing stuff and growing your own food etc. But then I lean more towards Athol's MMSL concept of Alpha and Beta being different aspects of the same personality vs the Roissy britght line based on volume of sexual conquests. To me, Alpha is a measure of a man's desire to impose his will up on the world. Fixing a broken lawn mower is doing just that. Maybe not in quite the same way that convincing your horde of warriors to storm the walls and loot the city, but both are instances of a man seeking to change the world so that's it's more to his liking.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 10:56 PM  

It would appear that we've been talking past each other, Lozozlo. I am accustomed to seeing your argument made to support the "man sits around doing nothing productive while woman does everything" model. (And leave us face it, you did propose that the Book of Ruth had women farmhands.) If that is not your position, then all the better.

Now, as to the industrial/modern workplace thing, do tell me where else a woman is to earn more than pin money. Etsy shops? Opening a restaurant in her kitchen? Babysitting? Does she take one of those amazing "earn $10,000 a month doing medical coding" jobs and try to work from home? What can she do to make an income that more than offsets the cost and doesn't put her under the thumb of someone other than her husband? The correct answer is "not much", so it necessarily falls to men to shoulder the majority of the burden. Sorry, that's how the world is right now; there's no getting past the corporate universe for the extreme majority of cases.

You see, I don't have this narrow view that a woman is a bad wife if she's not pulling down cash for the household, and I will continue to hold that position because you have yet to prove otherwise. Industry does not always lend itself to the making of money--kind of like corporate-nobody jobs.

You keep trying to redefine "provision" as anything a person does for the furtherance of the household's well-being, but that is not what the word is typically used to mean, and I do not care to redefine words to make you right ex post facto. You are wrong, and you have been wrong, and calling me all the names in the world and stuffing me with straw won't change that.

Anonymous Sigyn January 09, 2014 11:02 PM  

Ah, Jack, I keep using the wrong term. I guess I don't think like most folks, so my translation conventions need work.

When I say "top-tier", I mean "good men who are capable of doing what's needed." The top tier is naturally really big from where I sit, because I don't put value in alpha-hype and traditional success.

Maybe it's because I'm not really all that fussy. Or I could be insane.

But in more traditional terms, yes. Coming in "second" needs more love. It should definitely be okay not to be Donald Trump or Adam Levine (*gag* please don't be Adam Levine, he has an annoying voice). The only "win" in life is salvation.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 09, 2014 11:36 PM  

Ah, Jack, I keep using the wrong term. I guess I don't think like most folks, so my translation conventions need work.

Possibly, but in any case, the phrase you chose helped highlight the critical issue about a winner-take-all society.

As far as being like Adam Levine, I haven't the foggiest idea who he is. Since you mentioned his voice, I'll assume he's another one of those sparklepants cardboard American Idol contestants.

Blogger papabear January 10, 2014 1:36 AM  

"No, even good civilization in the vein of traditional Western Christianity can lull one into a fragile position. There is such a thing as too much structure, too much interdependence. Civilization brings structure, regularity, predictability, and specialization. You couldn't have it without those elements. Accepting and profiting from those attributes is fine. Depending on them exclusively is the temptation that should be avoided. For example, civilization brought currency, trade, and banking, but it also made it possible to play with the fire of credit and debt."

I don't think medieval European polities were fragile; fragility may have increased with the centralization of economic and political power and with colonialism/imperialism in the 'modern' period, but it has accelerated with the era of cheap energy.

Anonymous lozozlo January 11, 2014 1:11 PM  

@Sigyn

Sigh...now I am reminded of why Vox, on both this site and alpha game, has always been so disparaging of woman's ability to reason and think. You are solipsistic and incapable of reason. You enjoy your tradcon enabled privileges to do a little bit of easy housework whilst your husband works like a dog, and thus you cannot understand arguments against such an arrangement (not that your husbands minds - I am not the only one to have noted on alpha game that he is a tradcon/mark driscoll expy) - you are too selflish to understand this.

I should have just ignored you in the first place.

Now, as to the industrial/modern workplace thing, do tell me where else a woman is to earn more than pin money.

Millions of americans run profitable at home businesses. Only your desire to have a pack mule tradcon husband prevents you from investigating this.

I am accustomed to seeing your argument made to support the "man sits around doing nothing productive while woman does everything" model.

I never said this so your arguments were wrong, as they were based on assuming facts not in evidence. Fail.

You still can't worm your little tradcon mind around the clear statements of proverbs 31 where the woman is helping to support the household - naturally much of her labor is not financial in nature, but some still is, and more would be today since much of her non-financial labor (cooking, cleaning, etc) is made *much* easier with modern technology.

Mr GreenMan at the top had it right. You tradcon women are domestic goddesses with your whipped slave husbands bringing you nightly tribute in the form of a paycheck.

Since you are a woman, I know that convincing you of anything that your selfish desires don't want to believe is impossible due to your solipsism and womanly irrationality - (and you still never responded to the linked material) so I will drop this here - if you and your husband want to live a man as slave, woman as tradcon master lifestyle that is an artifact of the extremely gynocentric modern west, then fine - that is not my place to judge.

I consider this matter finished and will be moving on from this thread.



Blogger SarahsDaughter January 12, 2014 12:55 PM  

It's unfortunate, lozozlo, that you have resorted to dismissing what Sigyn has said and assigning motive to her and her husband with tired cries of "solipsism" and "unable to reason" - while you are not wrong, this is the tendency of women, nothing Sigyn has said here indicates what you accuse her of, in fact you refuse to even read what she has written and clarified and you continue to appeal to other bloggers even when speaking of what the Bible says/doesn't say regarding the issue.

What I find most amusing is that you are defensive of a perceived societal norm assuming that norm is what dictates the conditions of a household. It doesn't, the head of the household does, i.e. the Husband. Should the husband of a household require monetary provision via labor from the wife, that is what she must do - should she be committed to biblical marriage. While there are many examples of how women lived in biblical times, the most important theme presented throughout is found in Ephesians 5:23 "The husband is the head of the wife." Our opinions/judgments of how different households operate are irrelevant.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts