Economy and the Household

I wrote an essay for a few members of my class. It is clearly inspired by BAP’s segment on Economy in BAPcast 11.

Class:

Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique was persuasive for a reason, but its time has passed and what developed was not only contrary to Friedan’s wishes, but has proven socially and politically catastrophic. I emphasize a certain old-fashionedness as a countermeasure. What ought to be emphasized does change from age to age: “The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines.” Emerson at times opposed abolitionism and sometimes supported it. “He was inconsistent!” Who cares.

The household in America is turning into a place of misery and bankruptcy—social and financial bankruptcy. Bankruptcy with a capital B. Why do you think there is next to no penalty for bankruptcy these days? You know this is rare in history, that a man can take lots of money from another man and not give it back. How is this possible today? Because they (yes there is a “they”)—they know it is not your fault and if they made it your fault you would be at their throats. The whole market is geared toward plundering the wealth of the middle class, whose denizens need to declare bankruptcy from time to time to save their own necks and breathe a little fresh air. It is a usurer’s market. Why do you think so many of the founders fought tooth and nail against a central bank? This was also Andrew Jackson’s main crusade. The bank was a necessity, I agree—but none, not a single one, of the founders ever thought of detaching money from some standard of value; they used gold. Do you understand the significance of this? Having a standard of value, attaching currency to a thing, makes usury very dangerous and more difficult. You cannot make stupid loans disappear overnight. You cannot protect the usurer as well.

I am not against usury. Lending money is a necessity for national growth. Lending money in itself is not even dangerous to society. But that is not what we have. You might have heard the term for what we have, it is called “crony-capitalism.” The usurers are now insured, they can lend money—they can indebt you—without any risk because they can also make their mistakes disappear. You see why they allow bankruptcy to you? Because they cash out much larger errors, and while your bankruptcies come at the banker’s expense, they amount to nothing compared to the errors bankers and lenders cash out on at the expense of the middle class. They take that money and trust me, contrary to the “promises” that were made in 2008, they do not pay you back. They lie to you when they talk about the GDP or the Stock Market average. A nation can gut itself by destroying its workers’ lives while souping-up its GDP—the very few can enrich themselves while destroying the industrial or economic base of a nation. Yes sometimes they do this cynically—“what do I care?” but any explanation that relies on that is always false. Better: If a nation is not willing or able to defend its wealthy against the wealthy of other nations by, say, protecting their market-share or investments, the wealthy understandably seek to protect themselves. They have to get “big” to protect themselves against the other bigs. So they plunder you to fend off Chinese or Russian or Mexican or whomever billionaires because for DECADES the United States made lopsided economic decisions that pushed them in this direction. You need to understand just how much of our nation’s wealth was piled onto the world in order to fight Communism, and then understand how this supposed “emergency measure” became the norm. Yes, there are nasty and selfish rich people. But there are also rich people who are just trying to maintain their independence in the face of other rich people. I cannot fault them for wanting to keep their independence. For them, you must understand, it is not about “things”—they can have any “thing” they want. No, it is about maintaining some say in how things go, in not being helpless in the course of events. That’s admirable and being helpless is a pitiable condition.

You cannot divorce economy from household so I had to discuss “economy” a little bit. Economy is a Greek word, oeconomie, and simply means “household management.” You cannot have a good economy and have broken households as the norm.

Today almost always two people must have jobs to maintain a household and this was not always the case. You wonder why divorces are so high? Maybe people are miserable. Maybe they are harried at work and do not come home to a clean house or to good food. How would you feel? How will you feel? Whether it is a man working or a woman it doesn’t matter, a worker needs this respite and today he lacks it. The home must be a respite from work if it is to be anything worth a man’s while. Yes, it is “man” who needs this respite, because “no matter what,” the man will–in general–always be the better worker. This title, “worker” … it is not a glorious or honorable title. The slave is also a worker, no?

I had to add “in general” even though it is a disgraceful admission. I will explain why it is disgraceful at the end of this essay.

The two-income household is usually misery for the man. I do not like to speak of unfortunate facts but have to, on account of the lies you are constantly told. Men age better than women. Older men can marry younger women. Monogamy is not an equal transaction for men, especially when it is an early monogamy, which is why it is always the wives who want equality whereas the husband senses there is something off: when there is “equality” in the household the man is getting cheated because he sacrifices more to make the household. I am sorry but it is true. Not only do men age better but they have to undertake the harder jobs, especially if they are going to support a family. And you expect them to come home to a messy home without any good food? How? I have friends in their thirties who are already serving up platitudes about “living their best life” and some such nonsense. “We fall more in love every day” usually means they aren’t having much sex. I am sorry to say these things, I do not want to. Work, home to crappy meal or go out to restaurant with made-to-order food (almost all restaurants are crap compared to a good meal made in the home—the restaurants, unless you go high-end, have to laden their food down with crap butter and even crappier oils because the food isn’t fresh), and watch TeeVee in the evening is a nightmare not a life. Conservatives come and tell you to “man up” and live that life, suck it up, “you made the decision.” Misery loves company. Beautiful, happy people, always upset the stodgy and staid. Really, look around you. A beautiful young woman whose life is still full of hope will have the nastiest things said about her for no reason whatsoever, and usually by other women. The same sort of jealousy has conservatives telling you to “settle down” and accept the fact that you’ve become a sexless worker-man.

And what happened today in class is exactly what will always be said when men point out this fact. [A student asked if I was single.] Really, I don’t care if you think I don’t have a social life or whatever—that is beside the point. I wish I hadn’t told you about the date because it is totally irrelevant. I can show you that women, too, are miserable under this trash regime.

But before I do, I have to tell you there is a way out. You can live well even though you have to go against the prevailing ideas to do so. You should adopt a mask, this is important. Your best mask will always be natural to you, it will be “you” before you made stronger and deeper commitments and so it will be relatively easy to wear. Outside of this I give no concrete advice. It is possible to break out, but if you cannot then me telling you what to do won’t do any good, and if you can you will anyway. I add the part about the mask because young people often come to grief when they are trying to grow into something beautiful amongst so many ugly and resentful people.

In vague, non-concrete terms, breaking out means going down. Becoming an animal, one of high instinct, refreshes you and improves your senses—if you cannot fill yourself with life to overflowing, if you lack that capacity, you won’t detect the staid rationalizations and self-lies of others. And I am not talking about drugs. The hippies… they tried to break out but wasted themselves on narcotics. Something that could’ve been beautiful was usurped and corrupted. I will only give a concrete negative here, and if that is your only way of going down I am sorry, you will have a hard time.

A powerful woman does not want a constrained man. She will try to put constraints on him to be sure, but ultimately she wants to encounter a man who is beyond her power and yet responsible or capable.

Women do not like how pathetic men have become. They do not like men who cannot say “No” to them or “Yes” to themselves, for the simple fact, and I am speaking to women now, that if he cannot stand up to you, then he will get pushed around by other men almost certainly. And I am not talking “feminist” men, who do not stand up to anyone even though they make a big fuss and White-Knight around in defense of woman-kind. There has to be a hard and deeply internalized personal goal in the man, a goal he will not sacrifice and that has nothing to do with women. Call it “ambition” if you want. The name is beside the point here. This internal-will attracts good women because it is a man’s will that they need. A man without that internalized will is useless to them or will become so in time. Maybe you think I am just a crackpot or something, then whatever, you can go ask authorities about how dissatisfied women are 5 decades after they were “liberated.” Here is one in The Guardian from 2016. Here is one in HuffPost from 2009. The huffpost article is about a study done by 2 Berkeley profs, surely not some “right wing conspiracy theory.” Young people are also having less sex than their grandparents and getting married later. Oh how wonderful! Liberated to be a sexless worker-Queen. “Don’t get married in your early twenties—how about working as a waitress or maybe even middle-management somewhere, where you will grow less attractive but definitely more committed to Women’s Rights.” Keep in mind: I didn’t come to these conclusions because I read some articles, and I only attach the articles because not everyone is going to trust my eyesight.

I have a friend who is my age, is not married and has no kids. She has an excellent govt job. Her boyfriend is lame and she likes to confide in me about how miserable she is. I asked her why she doesn’t get married and have kids, and you would’ve thought I told her “women have no value.” She has no loyalty to her boyfriend, by the way. My sister is married, is a stay at home mom with 2 beautiful boys and she can do this because she married into a wealthy family. She has become an excellent cook and her boys will be good men so long as something catastrophic doesn’t happen. She of course has her moments, but she is both younger than my friend and is far more likely to enjoy the rest of her adult life and old age. You can see desperation creep into the habits and expressions of a 35 year old woman who is marriageless and childless.

But do I blame the girl for not marrying? Not at all and I wonder if she has even found a man who has enough money and is worth a damn.

Did you know there is a whole subculture called “the PUA”—the “pickup artists”? Do you know what their advice is? It’s hilarious: talk to women with confidence (and then they have a thousand ways to do this that aren’t very interesting because everything planned is lame, which I think they themselves admit). Men have gotten so pathetic talking to women is for many (and there are a lot) something they treat like a “skill.” It’s laughable, but it must be annoying to know a guy likes you and have him pussyfoot around. So maybe the PUA are just trying to help women. Or is everything done by Tweets and Texts messages now, where you slowly move into “talking” and then “hanging out” and then maybe some actual date or intimacy who knows. The point is everything has to be “gradual” because everyone is walking on eggshells. Sounds miserable, but I have heard dating life described like that by some young people. My friend showed me this hilarious and telling rap song about “the DM” and so I do not think I am far afield. If women are willing to think highly of men whose main way of first encountering them is through the direct message or text message, then doesn’t that mean they are kind of lonely? I know it will be hard for you to believe, but men can also just say you’re beautiful and ask if you’re taken. This is such a natural way of going about things that I know it still goes on, thank goodness.

I am nearing end of essay. I want to explain what I promised about the disgraceful qualification “in general.” Men do the harder jobs. Of course everyone knows that some women do those jobs as well, but a serious minority of them. So I said “in general” in order to take into account this minority. This is a disgraceful qualification because it means I do not trust you to be charitable readers, which I had hoped you would be. But there is a great lack of charity at present, because there is an overabundance of egalitarian-assertiveness that refuses to recognize the smallest disparities. “I have been chiefly impressed by the difficulty of getting certain initial facts admitted [in discussions with egalitarians]… It is the appalling problem, when it comes to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse.” That was written in 1948 and things have not improved.

The fact that there will always be a small minority of women who can do manual labor like an average man or fight in wars like an average man is completely beside the point, but it is the point used by liberals to level institutions. Look at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the subject of a 1996 Supreme Court ruling. VMI was an all-male military academy. They forced it to admit women and there was so much fuss kicked up in the case about how this would not lower standards because “some” women could meet those standards. VMI lost that case and began admitting women in 1997. The Obama Administration immediately upon assuming power instituted a probe into whether or not VMI was sexist, and after more than a year of harassment the college changed its physical examination requirements, for both men and women. I do not care if these sorts of erosions are by design or just results of the zeitgeist; they are the norm and illustrate the wisdom of keeping women out of fields where men excel without women present. Male camaraderie is ruined by women and the performance of whatever job is worsened across the board. If you do not think an all-male group of laborers is superior to a male-female group, and that the males in the male-female group are less productive than the males in the all-male group, you are not a good psychologist. I give a quote [BAP] about what happens when women enter labor force: “They lower wages. They lower job security, and the bargaining power of employees. They introduce a weird sexual tension and anarchy in the workplace. They destroy male camaraderie. They destroy labor unions, therefore. And most important, they delay the formation of families that would remove them from this consumer system.” Laborers without a good family life are worse laborers and enjoy their jobs less. Men who work with women, especially with women who can ruin their careers with an accusation, are worse employees and enjoy their jobs less.

All of this was bound to happen. You put women into the workplace and a lot of people have a lot of household-destroying sex and there is discontent. The same thing goes on in the military. So you need new coercive measures. Against whom? Against the men. How do you think this can be good for positions and jobs where men will do the job better than women? And yet I felt the need to make a qualification “yes some women could do the job” because of the rank moral fervor that dominates your thinking on this subject.

Anyone who says women can do every job as well as men can and vice versa is just a stooge and not worth confronting, and yet that is what I had to do. The superior strength of men was denied… No one needs to take these sorts of assertions seriously. So the qualification I made was shameful because I took something ridiculous seriously.

That’s all for now.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s