RSS

How Patriarchy Crumbled: Silent Assent

02 May

One thing we Patriactionaries all agree on: Patriarchy is the best society for all to live in, and we do not live in a Patriarchy now. We also agree that Western Civilization at some point WAS a Patriarchy, and it was A Good Thing ™. How, then, did Patriarchy crumble into the sad miasma of solipsism, cultural marxism/feminism, and ennui/despair that we see around us today? A couple of recent comments bring forward a thought I have long pondered.

The ever-sage Brendan writes:

But lots of men will either white-knight once they have their own special little snowflake princess daughter, or be very utilitarian and encourage their daughters to use all the advantages they have available to maximum effect.

Indeed, and this is what I have come to think of as the “engine of feminism”. Daddies. It was this sentiment that caused the men in power during the mid 20th Century to back feminism the way they did — they wanted it for their daughters. This is still the case today, for the most part, among “mainstream” men of all political persuasions (including, as everyone here knows, our social conservative friends). At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree. It is sustained largely by this, precisely because any real criticism of the new system runs headlong into an army of mainstream fathers who are very protective of their daughters, and exercise this protection in terms of encouraging maximal viable independence (from men, of course). This is both the engine of feminism and the main obstacle to any serious reform of any of the things we discuss on these blogs, really.

(The first ‘graph is Brendan quoting another commenter)

Commenter Ray follows up with a similar theme:

mothers dont advocate for their sons anywhere near what men do for daughters — overturning our entire God-given and bio-social natures so Their Snowflake can be First in Everything (education, rights, “equality” before the “law,” employment, access to social services, protection from poverty and homelessness, and on and on)
the Homeland Security state is the Gynogulag is the Dotter Daddy state

shit the last time they let a son in the White House, they murdered his father in public (and there have been nothing but Daughter Administrations since)

(And thanks to Ray for pointing out there have been naught but girls living in the White House since Kennedy; Reagan and Bush I’s sons were grown. I did not notice this previously)

Both blame fathers’ advocacy for their daughters’ “rights” to work as being the source of feminism. Brendan places the start of this as “Mid-20th Century.” Without this father-support, the feminist drive would have gone nowhere. Let us look further into this idea.

I have looked at world and generational issues through the lens of The Fourth Turning since the tipping point was reached for me back in late 2008, and I read it. (Those of you without the time to read the whole book should read Grerp’s excellent overview.) The book describes four different generational archetypes, and describes the different generations that fulfill those archetypes in history.

I am a member of Generation X, the “Nomad” archetype, born 1961-1981. Nomads have a childhood where society underprotects them and underinvests in them; the book talks about how, upon being born starting in the 60s, the X generation of nomads immediately replaced the previous generation of nomads, then dying off, the “lost Generation” of WWI-era fame, as the poorest generation of the four extant generations in existence. (let’s not forget the 1/3 of GenX that never got to enjoy anything but the disposal from the vacuum-suction pump) This underprotection leads to alienation and cynicism in the Nomad generation, but this is exactly what is needed when society faces a Crisis, as occurred in the Great Depression/WW2, and has occurred since 2005/2008 (I think we can date the start of the current crisis with the June 2005 Time Magazine cover story, “Why we’re gaga about real estate”). Not being tightly bound or affectionate towards the society and existing order, the Nomads don’t care about it and are willing to make the hard choices needed to build a new, more just society for their children and the next generation, providing the stable, secure childhood environment that the Nomads themselves never enjoyed .

How did society get to the point where it decided that latchkeys were good enough for my generation to let itself into the house where mom was not present, because she was out at a job? There was certainly the economic collapse and societal change; for a very long time, the natural inclination of the Xers has been to blame the Boomers, born 1943-1960, for whose sins we were made to pay (thanks, guys, for doing a bang-up job behind the wheel and getting the drinking age raised just as I got to college, for one example.). But a close read of the book and some other articles I have come across in my life reveals the REAL motivating force and generation, the group that saw that large cohort of well-educated white baby boomers, and decided the best course of action was to turn them into milk-cows for themselves: the Silent Generation, born 1926-1942.

The Silents have a number of very good facts that describe them in the book: they were the “best” generation in history when it comes to avoiding out-of-wedlock births and juvenile delinquency; Silent mothers were the ONLY generation of mothers where college-educated women had more children, on average, than lesser-educated women (the later Boomers and early Xers); they were a highly professional generation, seeking law, medical and other degrees, and establishing that higher education was a “guaranteed” path to a good life (and this WAS true, given that a previous Nomad generation had had to start companies to employ itself in the Depression, so that that generation was long on entrepreneurial guts and short on educated managerial expertise); they were also the wealthiest generation, having been young adults during the post-war economic and cultural “high,” and middle-aged (peak earning years for any person/generation) during the still-economically-fruitful “awakening,” when the Boomers as young adults decided to upend the existing order, their old age coming during the mostly-booming “unraveling” period from 1982 to 2005, when all their assets would have increased along with the booming stock and housing markets.

But there is a downside to the Silents, and it is major. Having been sheltered, they overlooked what children needed to grow up, (or perhaps did not desire to “stifle” their children as they had been), and so became the parents of most of the X generation of underprotected children. Worse is the generational envy. They did not share the glory of the “hero” generation in front of them that fought and won the “great war,” but they also did not get to be a part of the oversized youth generation that followed, and take part in the free love and sexual revolution. To placate the heroes, they passed all sorts of increases in Social Security, and passed Medicare in 1965 as one last salute to the old guard. To partake of the “liberation” of the Boomers, this was the generation in charge of state legislatures that passed no-fault divorce, with no small part of it being their desire to swing like the Boomers, and passed Roe v. Wade and a whole host of other Boomer-placating monstrosities.

But finance was their worst work. A Forbes magazine article titled “Are we consuming our children” from the late 80s/early 90s made known this shocking fact about the Silents: as a generation, they would pay no net taxes to the Federal government. You see, they collected Medicare, even though taxes for that program were not even collected until the Silents were middle-aged, in 1965; they paid into Social Security for years at a time when the maximum annual contribution was $60, but collected at much-inflated rates later; they borrowed mortgages to buy houses before the great inflation of the 70s would utterly destroy the value of those mortgages; and they would start dying in large numbers before or just as the impoverishing effect of the 2005 crisis began to be felt. This generation went through the revolving door of American life on the Boomers’ and Xers’ push.

So it would make perfect sense that the fathers of this generation would seek to offload the responsibility of paying for their daughters, and seek to offload onto other men the overall tab for the upkeep of society. This is how long-term investing and society-building collapses; if you want to know where and how the problem started, look to the Silents.

About these ads
 
43 Comments

Posted by on May 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

43 responses to “How Patriarchy Crumbled: Silent Assent

  1. The Man Who Was . . .

    May 3, 2012 at 2:03 am

    How, then, did Patriarchy crumble into the sad miasma of solipsism, cultural marxism/feminism, and ennui/despair that we see around us today?

    Uh, because people like it. You and I may not like it and it may not be sustainable, but our modern, hedonistic societies have created human beings that may be the happiest that have ever existed.

     
  2. More Anon

    May 3, 2012 at 2:38 am

    My take on the father-daughter link empowering feminism is a little different.

    Powerful families benefit from feminism because pushing women into prominent business, media or political positions doubles their “manpower” and they don’t have to risk investing too much in a son-in-law who might divorce a daughter. If all the Kennedy daughters are promising, but half of the Kennedy boys are womanizing drunks, why shouldn’t an elite family help break down the barriers to women?

    While there’s a lot of talk about how divorce makes young men less invested in society, it also makes older men less invested in prospective sons-in-law.

    Back in the day an older experienced man might be on the lookout for young male proteges within his company or community he could conceivably mentor and marry off to his daughter, his niece or cousin. Now he’s better off just putting all that effort into advancing his female relatives’ careers.

    The old system kept “alpha cad” behavior in check, since rising young men wouldn’t want to hurt their career prospects by alienating a prospective father-in-law or that man’s friends.

    (Divorce also makes a woman’s brothers less invested in their potential brothers-in-law, with similar effects on community and fraternity.)

     
  3. slumlord

    May 3, 2012 at 7:14 am

    @Thursday

    but our modern, hedonistic societies have created human beings that may be the happiest that have ever existed

    I don’t think they’re that happy, though I will agree that they are the most pleasured. There is a difference.

     
  4. electricangel1978

    May 3, 2012 at 8:33 am

    @Man who was

    slumlord makes my point. I spent a long time struggling with the idea of “pursuit of happiness.” Mortimer Adler, channeling Aquinas channeling Aristotle, tells us that happiness is to be able to live in accord with that which is ACTUALLY good for us. What modern societies call happiness is in fact contentment, not a bad thing, but not necessarily happiness. Imagine if Einstein had been content pushing a baby carriage around Zurich and being a patent clerk?

     
  5. electricangel1978

    May 3, 2012 at 8:40 am

    @Moreanon

    Back in the day an older experienced man might be on the lookout for young male proteges within his company or community he could conceivably mentor and marry off to his daughter, his niece or cousin. Now he’s better off just putting all that effort into advancing his female relatives’ careers.

    A great point I had not thought about. another way the acid of feminism eats at society.

    I recall reading an article YEARS ago on incest, and why people in Papua New Guinea did not favor it. It went something like “if a man marry his Sister, he will have no brother-in-law to go hunting with.” The logic you have outlined would indicate a future rise of incestuous relationships as trust breaks down, like the cousin-marriages amongst the Druze and other middle-easterners.

     
  6. Elspeth

    May 3, 2012 at 8:59 am

    I don’t think they’re that happy, though I will agree that they are the most pleasured. There is a difference.

    Excellent point.

     
  7. katmandutu

    May 3, 2012 at 9:21 am

    @ Thursday: ” but our modern, hedonistic societies have created human beings that may be the happiest that have ever existed

    @ slumlord: “I don’t think they’re that happy, though I will agree that they are the most pleasured. There is a difference.”

    Indeed slumlord!

    What makes me happy.. What gives me a reason for being,

    Is love of my Lord.

    Without him, all is for naught in this world.

    There can be no true happiness on this Earth without God in our lives.

    Without that deep spiritual connection.. Life is devoid of any purpose and meaning.

    It is that deep connection with God that has solidified and cemented my marriage.

    There has never ever in our 16 years of marriage been talk of separation or divorce..

    Even in times of hardship.. Never.

    We are bound.. inextricably to one another.

    The bond is unbreakable..

    God, Husband and wife.

    The eternal triangle.

    Therein lies true happiness. :D

     
  8. Ulysses

    May 3, 2012 at 10:46 am

    As a man who is going to have three daughters, I’m looking to eventually offload the costs. I’m just planning to offload it on husbands.

     
  9. The Continental Op

    May 3, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    I’ve often wondered what was wrong with that generation. I’ve seen elders in churches who were completely incapable of dealing with things, and they were all of this generation. I theorised back then (about 15 years ago) it had something to do with growing up in TGD and WWII, and then just being too exhausted to resist change, happy to sit in front of the TV and hope society bumps along as always and lets them die in peace.

     
  10. electricangel1978

    May 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    @Ulysses,

    the ability to work replaced the dowry in getting rid of daughters. Now fathers might pay for a wedding, but that is little benefit to the husband. many young women come with a NEGATIVE dowry of student loan debt, driving marriage rates down further.

    If you provide some future young man with a chaste, loyal, submissive wife, however, I think that will be value enough.

     
  11. Ulysses

    May 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    @EA – Student loans, mostly dumped on us by the inlaws, are the primary reason my wife works. I’m not going to tell my girls they can’t go, but I’m not paying for nonsense degrees or letting them take out loans for nonsense degrees.

     
  12. slumlord

    May 3, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Apropos to my reply to Thursday.

    Interesting article in local left wing rag.

     
  13. Carnivore

    May 3, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Nah, I don’t like sourcing the cause to a generation. It leaves out the leader/led dynamic. And we were definitely led to where we are today, or we can say the path was engineered. But, then, I like conspiracy theories.

     
  14. electricangel1978

    May 3, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    @Carnivore,

    I assign responsibility, but I really cannot blame the Silents. (Well, generational envy, yes.) When they passed the ridiculously expensive entitlements in the 60s like Medicare/Medicaid, and the Great Society, they were doing so in a society where the economy had been getting better for 20 years straight. Now, as we used to say on Wall Street, trees don’t grow to the sky, but it’s awfully hard to think you cannot afford all that social welfare when every year of your life has been wealthier, with improving conditions for all.

    It is impossible for a young or middle-aged person of today to even understand how bright and unlimited the future must have looked in 1965, before the Watts and Detroit riots, before Nixon’s inflation caused by closing the gold window. They were also a little naive: they predicted when they started Medicare that total expenditures in 1990 would be 1 Billion dollars, underestimating by 109Billion unadjusted dollars.

     
  15. samsonsjawbone

    May 3, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    Brendan’s comment is entirely accurate. I have previously criticized my blogger-friend Phi for this; he claims to be a “conservative” (and he really is, in most ways!), yet he wants his daughter to attend West Point and become a military physician. Does. Not. Compute.

    But I’ll tell you, speaking as a father of daughters, it is very, very hard to buck the cultural trend. We really do want what’s best for our daughters, and so the question is: what do we really believe is best for our daughters? Our actions reflect our inner thoughts, whatever we might say. I plan genuinely to teach mine why (among other things) “careers” are not as rewarding as advertised.

     
  16. katmandutu

    May 3, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    “We really do want what’s best for our daughters,”

    Indeed. And for your sons.

    I do think it is a little rough of Brendan to criticize fathers who have daughters. (He has a son and no daughters) ;)

    “At some point mid-to-second-half-Century the mainstream agenda of American fathers of daughters flipped from being primarily oriented toward marrying them well towards being primarily oriented toward equipping them to be maximally viably independent. Without this massive flip by most mainstream fathers of daughters, feminism would have fizzled to a large degree.”

    I am sure this played some part. However, it was influential feminists like Friedan and Steinem et al that told women that they were not haaappppy being housewives and that they needed to go to college and realize their full potential.(whatever that means) who caused most of the problems.

    As we became more affluent and had the means to send women to college, there were probably many fathers who did not see the harm in this, at the time.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

    Speaking for myself, I was never encouraged by my father to go to college.. I could have gone if I wanted to. He would not have said no.. In fact I DID apply and was accepted.. But I changed my mind and got a job instead. I am not sorry that I did that. I made good money; got much on the job training and attended courses run by the company..I also learned how to interact with a vast array of people. To accept responsibility.. I matured on the job I suppose you could say…

    In fact looking back on those years, I worked hard and learnt a hell of a lot!

    My elder brother on the other hand got a college education, and worked part- time and obtained his doctorate. He is now a Professor at a University in Canada.

    My two very good female friends, never went to college either..They married young had their kids and worked in part-time jobs. One recently going full time as her kids have grown up.

    They had no student debt. They have no mortgages either. These are intelligent women.

    The trouble now, is that women think that they should have the same opportunities as men. They think that it is their right to attend college. Sigh….

    Tell me now, how is a father to dissuade his daughter when she has been so influenced by educators, the government and media (feminism) from thinking it is her right to go to college?. (brainwashed)

    My husband and I found it very easy in that respect with our daughter.(That same rigid mindset about women getting a college education does not really exist here in Australia)

    We have a very traditional household and I have never worked outside the home. (though I know many women with part-time jobs who do but are always at home when the kids get out of school) My husband and I have a good and loving marriage, so I guess you could say we lead by example.

    Never discussed going to college with our daughter. As a natural progression she told us that she wanted to work in child care, because she had no career aspirations. She wanted to marry young and have kids.

     
  17. Prinz Eugen

    May 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    OT/ but take a look at this picture – http://truthandcharity.net/photo-the-new-chivalry/

    Weakling of the year.

    [EA: Ewww!]

     
  18. David Collard

    May 4, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Kathy, it is hard for us Australians to understand how deeply feminist America has always been. It seems that the character of the feminism has changed, though, and it is now overtly anti-male. American women used to be strong for their family; now they are strong for themselves.

     
  19. Svar

    May 4, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    “My husband and I found it very easy in that respect with our daughter.(That same rigid mindset about women getting a college education does not really exist here in Australia)

    We have a very traditional household and I have never worked outside the home. (though I know many women with part-time jobs who do but are always at home when the kids get out of school) My husband and I have a good and loving marriage, so I guess you could say we lead by example.

    Never discussed going to college with our daughter. As a natural progression she told us that she wanted to work in child care, because she had no career aspirations. She wanted to marry young and have kids.”

    We, unfortunately, do have that rigid mindset in America, including in Texas. In fact, I’d say that Texas is very credentialist. Over in Texas, everyone has to go to college. The thought of anyone not going, even a girl, is considered to be unthinkable.

    Of course, it is better your way. That way you don’t have to pay off even more student debt when you get married to a girl.

     
  20. Gay State Girl

    May 4, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    I’m not particular about getting post secondary education, though I think women shuld study more practical fields, and attend school on a tighter budget (only $3,807 for a two year technical certificate from a community college in Business, Health Care, Information Technology, Secretaarial and Paralegal, Child Care, Hospitality and Culinary Arts, Agriculture, and Human Services) Some sort of higher education/career/ technical training is necessary for woman (if for no other reason than the potential premature death of her husband), but I wished I could have graduated high school at 16 so I could have finished a degree by the time I turned 18 and be ready to marry at 21.

     
  21. Laceagate

    May 5, 2012 at 10:37 am

    but I wished I could have graduated high school at 16 so I could have finished a degree by the time I turned 18 and be ready to marry at 21.

    There’s also Post-Secondary Enrollment Option, where you can take college classes in your junior and/or senior year of high school. I agree with you, and looking back, I know I could have skipped my senior year and graduated early and gone to college earlier. Would have saved more money and sped up the maturity process. Too often young women are told to indulge in “the college experience,” or “the high school senior experience.” I’ll say what my brother told me about the “senior year experience”:

    It blows.

     
  22. Brendan

    May 5, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Thursday –

    Wilkinson can have that world — I want none of it.

     
  23. Carnivore

    May 5, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    I’m not particular about getting post secondary education, though I think women shuld study more practical fields, and attend school on a tighter budget (only $3,807 for a two year technical certificate from a community college in Business, Health Care, Information Technology, Secretaarial and Paralegal, Child Care, Hospitality and Culinary Arts, Agriculture, and Human Services) Some sort of higher education/career/ technical training is necessary for woman (if for no other reason than the potential premature death of her husband)

    And for one additional reason – so a woman can take her position according to her station in life. That is, a doctor’s or business president’s wife has to know the social graces and be able to speak intelligently in her and her husband’s social circle. There used to be the concept of “finishing school”. Man, I’m getting old. I still remember that concept being bandied about in the 1960′s. I don’t mean the expensive, private schools in France or Switzerland. From Wikipedia:

    The term finishing school is occasionally used in American parlance to refer to certain small women’s colleges, primarily on the East Coast, that were known for serving to prepare their female students for marriage. Since the 1960s, many of these schools have become defunct as a result of financial difficulties stemming from parents’ decreased interest in paying for such an education for their daughters, and changing societal norms making it easier for daughters to pursue academic and professional paths not open to previous generations.

    For middle and lower classes, there were the practical schools, not necessarily public community colleges, such as secretarial schools which taught women a skill but didn’t cost a lot or take a long time. Of course, even into the late 1970′s, a woman (or man, for that matter) who graduated from high school was reasonably well educated, could calculate change in her head, had been exposed to great literature, etc. That is, the HS diploma actually meant something. These days, it all depends on the school district with most high school graduates being very well educated in PC crap but hardly at all in the basics.

     
  24. katmandutu

    May 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    “There are many reasons increasing freedom of choice has made millions of people happier all around the world. The growing freedom to choose our commitments is, to my mind, the most profound”

    Absolute BS! A superficial, simplistic and humanistic view devoid of God and soul.

    Another example of how we are all going to hell in a handbasket..

    I want no part of that world, either!

     
  25. katmandutu

    May 5, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    “Of course, even into the late 1970′s, a woman (or man, for that matter) who graduated from high school was reasonably well educated, could calculate change in her head, had been exposed to great literature, etc. That is, the HS diploma actually meant something. These days, it all depends on the school district with most high school graduates being very well educated in PC crap but hardly at all in the basics.”

    A very good point, Carnivore.

    I was fortunate to attend a very good private( Catholic) high school. It was there that I developed a love for poetry and literature.

    I had some very good passionate teachers, who taught me to appreciate great literature.

    Probably also part of the reason why I only ever picked up a Mills and Boon romance novel, once, flicked through the pages , then threw it aside in disgust. ;)

     
  26. Laceagate

    May 5, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    And for one additional reason – so a woman can take her position according to her station in life. That is, a doctor’s or business president’s wife has to know the social graces and be able to speak intelligently in her and her husband’s social circle.

    I’m glad you mentioned this, as many people believe education is a waste on women.

     
  27. David Collard

    May 5, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Kathy, I think the idea used to be that girls would get trained in useful skills, including in the best of the culture, such as literature. This was to have two good effects. To give her some lifelong interests she would have when she took up her place as wife and mother. And, secondly, to allow her to provide a cultured home.

    It was not expected that she would go into business or the professions, because that would be her husband’s field. Exceptions were made for very clever girls from wealthy families. In many cases, even clever men did not go to university because of a lack of money.

    I studied science, but this was a fairly new thing for a boy in my family. It was helped by my family’s fairly good income and my obtaining a scholarship. Do you remember the Wyndham Scheme, Kathy, which brought better science teaching to more schools? As it was, my father thought I should do something more useful, like Law. He had a point, although the growth of government involvement in ecology and public health gave me a pretty good career.

    My point is that social attitudes have mostly been tough and practical in earlier years. The idea of lengthy career preparation for women is a new one, and ignores the opportunity cost of distracting a woman from her most likely true career, being a wife and mother.

     
  28. Svar

    May 5, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    “I’m glad you mentioned this, as many people believe education is a waste on women.”

    I actually think that it is a good idea to have women educated-but that doesn’t necessarily mean going to college. Earning an education and acquiring credentials are two different things. College is for the latter and who needs credentials for running a household?

     
  29. slumlord

    May 6, 2012 at 9:39 am

    @Thursday

    Thanks for the links. Though this study seems to refute yours.

     
  30. The Man Who Was . . .

    May 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Slumlord:

    There has been a slight decline in female happiness in the West, though male happiness remains as high as ever.

    But those are small effects compared to the big effect of freedom to do what you want has on happiness.

    Which is why I still think, unlike a lot of reactionaries, that freedom is an important value, though I disagree with liberal that it (along with equality) is the only value.

    Brenden:

    You and I may not like it (and it almost certainly isn’t sustainable), but most people do.

     
  31. electricangel1978

    May 7, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    @Thursday,

    I have to ask your definition of happiness; I know the article writers actually mean “contentment.” In this comment, I allude to Aquinas’ definition. Recall the Greeks’ admonition to consider no man happy who was still alive.

     
  32. The Man Who Was . . .

    May 7, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    I am aware of the difference between the Aristotelian “flourishing” which includes other elements than just subjective feeling and the utilitarian “happiness” which does not. In any event the conclusion is inescapable, people in liberal societies feel better, even over the course of a lifetime.

     
  33. Ulysses

    May 7, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    The Man Who Was. . . is hitting an important point. It is not up to us to define happiness. Most define happiness by choice, even if those choices are illusory. Men might choose to have the cushion and material possessions that can come from a dual-income modern life; women may choose to work for similar reasons, plus “freedom,” or “choose” to work because the truth became apparent a tad too late. From the latter flows the logical result of a decrease in women’s overall happiness. But overall general happiness is up so everyone tolerates things and pretends that there will never be a day of reckoning. ‘Tis hard to do battle with the power of wishful thinking.

     
  34. Ulysses

    May 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Us being the commenters to this post.

     
  35. electricangel1978

    May 8, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    @Ulysses

    How would you define “a well-regulated militia?”

     
  36. Laceagate

    May 8, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    actually think that it is a good idea to have women educated-but that doesn’t necessarily mean going to college. Earning an education and acquiring credentials are two different things. College is for the latter and who needs credentials for running a household?

    See, that’s the trouble with nowadays. “Finishing schools” as Carnivore mentioned don’t exist anymore, and the main avenue for education is through colleges. However, it depends where you go. The culture in a community college is vastly different than that of a large university offering bachelor’s degrees. I agree with Alte in obtaining a liberal education, which involves subjects requiring critical thinking, analysis, and basic knowledge. A lot of private schools offer a classical education, which has some overlap with a liberal education. Going to college for an associate’s can be a wise investment because it’s cheaper and there are practical degrees.

    Credentialism occurs when the master’s and doctorate’s degrees are earned, along with the post-doc and whatever it is they do in academia while ignoring the realities and practice of real life. Practical certifications are a wise investment, and they require less money and time. An associates degree in IT is a far more worthy investment (and practical, as you can do this from home) than a degree in women’s studies (coughs).

    It’s tricky with a lot of fathers because on one hand many of them want to see their daughters get married and have families. On the other, a lot of fathers don’t trust men. Sad to say, but I’ve heard fathers say this before, and don’t have too much faith in men being able to provide for their daughters, so the college path serves as a safety net.

     
  37. David Collard

    May 9, 2012 at 12:27 am

    My wife did an Arts (humanities) degree, followed by a diploma in librarianship. I think this was a good mix of cultural training and a practical qualification. She married me thereafter, and she has been able to earn money when appropriate, as well as having some good training in the liberal arts. Reading is one of her hobbies.

    My daughter will probably go to university next year and do Arts (English). Not sure after that.

     
  38. Author Empiricus

    May 9, 2012 at 3:00 am

    Interestingly, Rothbard lays heavy emphasis on the affluent daughters of wealthy businessmen in his analysis of the rise of the welfare state: http://www.mises.org/daily/2225 See the section “Yankee Women Progressives”.

    That covers the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it appears akin to your thesis, a predecessor.

     
  39. infowarrior1

    April 3, 2014 at 8:33 am

    This may be late but what do you think of this guy’s theory?
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zcJeqAp-5gQ

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 238 other followers