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.