The Political is Personal


Dalrock had an interesting post this morning – Black Fathers Don’t Matter – that mends nicely with a topic I was poking at in Obesity Culture:

While HHS (Health and Human Services) says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father, the Census says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father so long as mom says so.  Either way, fathers clearly can’t matter that much to the US government if distinguishing between the actual father and the man currently banging mom isn’t important.

There are other ways we can tell that fathers don’t matter (and therefore Black fathers don’t matter).  Under our current family system fathers are a sort of deputy parent. Just like a sheriff’s deputy serves at the pleasure of the sheriff, a father in an intact family serves at the pleasure of the mother.  Our entire family court structure is designed to facilitate the removal of the father should the mother decide she no longer wants him to be part of the family unit.  How important can fathers really be, when we have a massive and brutal bureaucracy devoted to helping mothers kick them out of the house?

What Dal is pointing out here has a far broader implication than simply how various governments define fatherhood. Many critics of my defining the Feminine Imperative like to think it’s a work in conspiracy. However, as I’ve explained before, there really is no need for a conspiracy; the Feminine Imperative has no centralized power base because feminine-primacy is so ensaturated into our collective social consciousness. It needs no centralization because feminine social primacy is literally part of women’s self-understanding – and by extension men’s understanding of women and what women expect of them.

Thus, on a Hypergamous social scale we see that Protein World’s male focused ad gets no such vandalism. The message is clear – It is Men who must perform, Men who need to change themselves, optimize themselves and strive for the highest physical ideal to be granted female sexual approval. Women should be accepted, respected and expected to inspire genuine desire irrespective of men’s physical ideals.


On more than a few occasions I’ve made the connection that what we see in a feminine-primary societal order is really a reflection of the female sexual strategy writ large. When we see a culture of obesity, a culture of body fat acceptance and a culture that presumes a natural evolved order of innate differences between the sexes should be trumped by self-impressions of female personal worth, we’re viewing a society beholden to the insecurities inherent in women’s Hypergamy.

A feminized, feminist, ordered social structure is one founded on ensuring the most undeserving women, by virtue of being women, are entitled to, and assured of, the best Hypergamous options by conscripting and conditioning men to comply with Hypergamy’s dictates.

I’m quoting this again here because, in light of Dalrock’s observations, it’s important for men to really understand that the power struggle women claim to be engaged in with men has already been settled on a meta, social scale. When a father is whomever a woman says he is, that’s a very powerful tool of social power leveraging.

  • A father is anyone a woman/mother claims he is
  • A father is legally bound to children he didn’t sire
  • A father is prevented at great legal and social effort from access to DNA testing of children he suspects aren’t his own
  • A father is legally responsible for the children resulting from his wife/girlfriend cuckolding him
  • A father is financially obligated to the support of children that he didn’t sire or he had no power in deciding to sire

These aren’t just examples relating to men’s lack of power in parenting; these are examples of determining the degree of control a man can exercise over the direction of his entire life. From Truth to Power:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning around the time of the sexual revolution.

Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

Driver had a good comment from the last post that illustrates another aspect of this feminine-power consolidation (emphasis mine):

“All the “feeling good about your body” that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.”

It’s funny how women are very attracted to a guy who works out, eats rights and takes care of his body but they fully expect men to love them (or be attracted to them) for “who they are” – thin or big. You would think that these overweight women would get the memo by now but women (and more of them) keep getting bigger each year.

Feminine-Primary Social Doctrine is the Extension of Women’s Hypergamy

In a feminine-primary social order women presume, without an afterthought, that they are entitled to an attractive guy who works out and meets or exceeds women’s very stringent and static physical ideal. At the same time they expect an entitlement to absolute control of that attraction/arousal process regardless of, and to the exception of, any influence or difference in men’s control of that process. And they expect this without any thought to meriting it beyond appeals to a nebulous and inflated concept of their personal self-worth.

When we consider the present, ambiguous state of sexual consent laws we begin to understand the latent Hypergamous purpose those laws serve – absolute consolidation of women’s Hypergamous strategies as the motivator of any sexual encounter.

Furthermore, they expect an entitlement, either directly or indirectly, to the material support and provisioning of men for no other reason than they were born female.

Any deviation from this is on the part of  men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.

Legislating Hypergamy

From the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy this amounts to socially shaming men’s sexual imperatives while simultaneously empowering women’s short-term sexual strategies and fomenting men’s societal acceptance of it (i.e. the Sandberg plan for Open Hypergamy). This is further enforced from a legal perspective through consent laws and vague “anti-harassment” legislation to, ideally, optimize women’s hypergamous prospects.

When we read about instances of the conveniently fluid definitions of rape and harassment (not to mention the pseudo-victimhood of not being harassed), this then turns into proposed “rape-by fraud” legislation. Hypergamy wants absolute certainty, absolute veracity, that it will be secured in its optimization. And in an era when the only restraint on Hypergamy depends on an individual woman’s capacity for being self-aware of it, that Hypergamy necessitates men be held legally responsible for optimizing it.

Even the right for women to have safe and legal abortions finds its root in women’s want to mandate an insurance of their Hypergamous impulses. Nothing says “he wasn’t the right guy” like the unilateral power to abort a man’s genetic legacy in utero.

Feminist boilerplate would convince us that expanding definitions of rape is an effort to limit men’s control of women’s bodies – however, the latent purpose of expanding the definition is to consolidate on the insecurity all women experience with regard to optimizing Hypergamy.

The Beta Bucks insurance aspect of Hypergamy is evidenced by cultural expectations of male deference to wives’ authority in all decision making aspects of a marriage or relationship. And once again this expectation of deference is a grasping for assurances of control should a woman’s Hypergamous choosing of a man not meet her expectations. This is actualized covertly under the auspices of egalitarian equalism and the dubious presumptions of support and feminine identification on the part of men.

Beyond this there are of course the ubiquitous divorce, support, child support and domestic violence legalities that grossly favor women’s interests – which should be pointed out are rooted in exactly the same Hypergamous insecurity that her short-term Alpha Fucks mating strategies demand legislation for.

As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

Going Mainstream

I’ve addressed this before, but I’ve never done politics on TRM. I will never do screeds on race or multi-culturalism or religion on TRM for a very good reason – it pollutes the message.

We now are seeing the results of this pollution as the manosphere is attacked from both sides of the political spectrum.

I’ve given this example before, but if you put Gretchen Carlson and Rachel Maddow on the same show and confronted them with red pill truths and Game-awareness they would eagerly close ranks, reserve their political differences and cooperatively fight for the Feminine Imperative.

This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.

That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests.

Religious doctrine, legal and political legislation, cultural norms, labor and economic issues; all are trumped by the Feminine Imperative. All have been subverted to defer to the Feminine Imperative while maintaining a default status of victimhood and oppression of women and women’s interests necessary to perpetuate that covert decentralized power base.

It doesn’t matter what world view, ideology or political stripe the opposition holds; men, masculinity and anything contrary to the feminine-primary social narrative will always be a common enemy of the Feminine Imperative, and both liberal and conservative will climb over one another to throw the first punch if it means defending women and defending the feminine social order by proxy.

This is why anything even marginally pro-masculine is vilified in mainstream society. Anything pro-masculine is always an easy, preferred target because it’s so hated, so incorrect, in a feminine-primary context that it can unite people of hostilely opposed political and ideological differences.

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.

This is what scares the shit out of critics who attempt to define, contain and compartmentalize the manosphere / Red Pill awareness; it’s bigger than social, racial, political or religious strictures can contain. It crosses all of those constructs just as the Feminine Imperative has co-opted all of those cultural constructs. The feminized infrastructure of the MSM that’s just beginning to take the manosphere seriously enough to be critical are discovering this and trying to put the genie back into a bottle defined by their feminine-primary conditioning.

The idea that one of their own, whether in a liberal or conservative context, is genuinely Red Pill aware and educating others of that awareness is unnerving for the Feminine Imperative that’s already established strong footholds in either ideology.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

676 comments on “The Political is Personal

  1. @Jeremy

    “Also, Lone Survivor’s and MYG’s ridiculous point about resources being paramount is laid waste by most high-profile divorce cases.”

    Jeremy, I never said that. In fact, I know plenty of average to attractive non-fat women who had babies by broke guys because “chemistry”. Later on guys with steady careers and incomes wifed them up and are currently playing daddy to their kids, but the kids biologically belong to the broke guys.

  2. Lone –

    “Now, let me turn the question back to you: what do you think a healthy context for having and raising children would be?”

    Answer –

    I’m married 20 years, sixteen year old daughter.

    No one holds my daughter hostage against me.

    I will not allow such and “environment”.

    Because of this and other reasons she is excellent in school, very sharp and responsible. She will become a successful adult in whatever she does. I hops this helps answer your question.

    You should read any of Rollo’s blogs that catch your attention, both his books and the books he references.

  3. “Our surveys show that the incentives of TANF-eligible women with children to cohabit or marry are affected by TANF program rules. The way in which incentives are affected depends on the financial resources of the male with whom the woman might cohabit or marry and on the male’s relationship to the children. ”

    Note: “whom the woman MIGHT cohabit or marry”.

    I was specifically asking Blaximus about his claim regarding men the women were already married to (not might marry) who became unemployed. His claim is that the government actively encouraged these women do divorce their recently unemployed husbands in exchange for food stamps and project housing.

    That was not the reality. The reality was this….

  4. Not Born This Morning

    “No one holds my daughter hostage against me.

    I will not allow such and “environment”.

    Because of this and other reasons she is excellent in school, very sharp and responsible. She will become a successful adult in whatever she does. I hops this helps answer your question.”

    – Do you hold your wife and daughter to different standards?

    1. MYG, again, take anything Aunt Giggles posts with the preknowledge of her c&p’ing stats and studies she thinks the 7 people she allows to comment will agree with.

      She never asks why men might value different traits and the influence a feminine-centric culture has on men being expected to value them.

  5. @MYG,

    You keep overemphasizing what I said.

    Listen, the fact that Uncle Sam was available to provide, but had rules that, IN EFFECT, said that the man couldn’t be present if resources were made available. This is artificial interference in the family courtesy of gov’t program(s).

    It was cool that Liz provided some literature, but I’m 53 years old. I don’t need a study to tell me what I witness over decades.

    I also don’t need someone with no tangible experience discounting what I say without having any real experience. What I say concerning gov’t programs and the destruction of the family ( black and white ) is common knowledge to millions of people who have a reason and curiosity to understand how this came to be.

  6. Also, what you can’t grasp ( because this is just an intellectual exercise for you ) is that the trailer you provide is showing the AFTER EFFECTS of the gov’t interference. This is the generation after the destruction has been wrought.

    You don’t even understand your own video posting.

  7. @MYG

    “Game by itself is a contradiction, it is an attempt of people with no resources, no money and nothing to offer to be at the same level of people who live exciting and fulfilling lives. In other words, PUA are themselves the “betas” they point their fingers at.”

    – Bar Bar elaborates on that in his video and to some extent its true. Of course commenters here will protest because their idea of game is self-improvement … but there is plenty of evidence on the countless PUA sites, forums, videos and workshops of “fake it til you make it” or “fake it even if you never make it” advice.

    Seems like you agree with it, based on your own words.

  8. Fredrick Welfare you make some good points in your long-winded comments.

    “The multi-generational home however was not strictly a combination of lineages, many other people could also be found in these small “villages.”

    – First homes, then vlillages, which one are you talking about? Surely you wouldn’t expect entire villages to be comprised of the same family, would you?

    I am extremely well traveled and all of the several hundred multi-generational homes I’ve visited and lived in are family homes. Obviously the rest of the village doesn’t belong belong biologically or even through marriage to a single family.

    “What I am trying to describe is a possible underlying basis for the reaction to the nuclear family form by the head of household or single-parent family form.”

    – I get it. The nuclear family is a break down of the traditional family, and the single parent family is a natural outcome of, and further breakdown of the nuclear family.

    “A cultural-biological perspective is called for. Mothers are concerned about resources for themselves and the offspring. The nuclear family is an arrangement where two parents manage resource acquisition which includes financial capital, social capital (acceptance), cultural capital (education, training, skillset), etc… Clearly, the nuclear family form is too often dysfunctional especially in the 20th century where economic crises were severe and common, a regular cycle of crises!”

    – Yeah that’s one of the reasons much of the world resists the break down of the traditional family. When both parents have to work their buts off, there needs to be other family in the home to care for the kids and take care of the house and meals, as well as to also contribute financially. The traditional family structure of humans, that is the multi-generational joint family/extended family home is the perfect arrangement for such.

    And about POLYANDRY. Its always been rare and is even rarer now. I’ve been to places where it is practiced and it has nothing to do with “friends”. They are religiously married and living together as wife and husbands. In some cases one woman will marry 2 or more brothers to keep the land in the husbands-brothers family. There are also some who schedule time around her cycle so paternity is not confused. Its done different ways in different cultures but its about family, tradition, culture, god. It wouldn’t work in the US because even something as simple as monogamy doesn’t work here. You’ve explained why below….

    “The Western culture is quite different from most oriental, indian, middle eastern, african, and non-white hispanic cultures in having a confused distinction between love relationships and marriage relationships. Some relationships are loving, but marriages without being-in-love are not necessarily otiose and marriage need not fold upon extramarital relations.”

    – BINGO!

    This is why no form of marriage, whether poly, mono or whatever, works here. Curiously, the same cultures where polyandry and polygyny work, monogamy works fabulously too. Why? Because their whole point in marrying is not about personal haaaaaaaaapppiness, sex or any of that individualist crap. Its about family, tradition, culture, and god.

  9. I have read that a good way to tackle this issue is by avoiding civil marriage and doing only a religious ceremony (for those who are catholic).

    Not possible in the United States, at least. The Church (yes, the Catholic Church) requires you to have a civil marriage license and will record the marriage civilly regardless, and will also require a civil divorce before it will entertain annulment proceedings.

  10. Blaximus,

    Again, 25% of black families in 1965 were never married single mom families. That was considered a serious problem back then but now at least 25% of white families are never married single mom families and black has reached 75%. This has nothing to do with MARRIED women with unemployed hubbies.

    Also, I find it interesting how you refer to women who sleep with you as sluts. This betrays to the reader your own opinion about yourself. Rather than thinking, “Of course I’m a sexually attractive man so why wouldn’t a healthy adult female want to engage in a perfectly normal and healthy human exchange with me?” you break it down as something unnatural, abnormal, shameful and borderline sinful.

    Issues, much?


    ” it is an attempt of people with no resources, no money and nothing to offer”

    The something to offer was attraction/chemistry. That’s why those women got preggers by them and then later hunted a man with means to support the kids. It may be that a few of those broke guys had game but the ones I met did not. They were average to slightly above average in looks so maybe that helped. Some of the women they got with I’d consider their socio-economic and educational equals, and some of the women were their betters. When I delved further one of them said “chemistry” so I guess sometimes people just “click” on a hormonal/pheromone level. Those guys would be considered “losers” by most people’s definitions of such.

    If you watch the Bar Bar video he gives as an example dark maned lions who are preferred by lionnesses over light maned lions, who get rejected and beat up on by dark maned lions! He says PUAs are like the light maned lions who smear their manes with dirt to fool the crowd but then at the same time turn on their light maned brethren. So basically PUAs are betas posing as Alphas who then make fun of their beta brethren and we all see how those fale online alphas make fun of betas and say things like, “you deserve to get cheated on” etc, instead of extending friendship to them.

    So yep, I agree with that. I’m not saying guys who get laid are alphas or betas posing as alphas. The cases of baby daddies I personally know are not alpha men with natural or feigned game. Most would be considered losers. They have nothing going for them and they impregnated women who also have nothing going for them along with some women who are attractive and have some brains.

    It seems like a crap shoot to me. I don’t see any rhyme or reason behind any of it. Totally random.

  11. “She never asks why men might value different traits ”

    Rollo, that’s all discussed in the comments. I’m sure women have their differing values for husbands and sons also. I know the baby mamas sure are not teaching their sons to be like their biological fathers but more like the men who wifed them up.

    1. MYG, don’t quote me out of context. Aunt Giggles will NEVER recognize a feminine-centric social order nor its influences on men and women’s perceptions of each other.

  12. I shoulda learned by now to stop trying to engage you in conversation while expecting sensible responses.

    I have issues like most guys, but sluts ain’t one. I do not call the women I sleep with sluts ( unless they are…). You took something I said and ran it through that rats nest you use as a brain and that’s what you took from what I said.

    How about we do this. You are right, I am wrong. You know it all, I’ll just marvel at your bullsh…I mean Brilliance.

    In order for darkness to have significance, there must be light.
    In order for hot to have meaning, there must be cold.

    I enjoy engaging conversation, you…do…something else.

  13. Oh, and just for shits and giggles, my opinion of myself? I’m fucking Superman and Batman rolled into one.

  14. Blaximus, anyway, you’re American. Americans have a madonna/whore complex and are simultaneously the most perverse, oversexed yet repressed and sexually uptight people on the planet. You also have provided no evidence for your assertion that the US government encouraged married women with unemployed hubbies to trade them in for food stamps.

    You still deny there was a significant % of never married single black moms in the 60s. That means a significant % of irresponsible baby daddies on the run.

  15. Yup. I am American.

    Everything you said after that is irrelevant.

    I’m heading to the pantry to try to find a can of give-a-fuck.


    MYG understand things out of context.

  16. 70’sAntiHero

    May 6th, 2015 at 10:38 am

    @Frerick Welfare

    You have thoroughly outlined as to ‘why’ the nuclear family has out lived it’s usefulness in a modern day context.

    The American two parent home/nuclear family has not outlived its usefulness. Studies and statistics still show that kids raised in such a home have an advantage over kids raised by single parents. Kids raised by 2 gay parents? In 20 years we’ll have stats on that.

    Til then, the modern (though considered “traditional” for some reason) two heterosexual parent/nuclear family model is still the gold standard in this country and I would still recommend it as best for American kids.

    1. Gold Standard? The modern 2-parent father-mother family does transmit advantages but it is not clear how advantages are transmitted from parent to child. (see the work by Annette Lareau from Temple University, PA who researches family relationships, I have articles no links, JSTOR). These family forms are considered stable and they are considered to transfer more advantages but there are social class differences and there are inequalities within and between families.

      One argument pertains to family formation: which is the best form, should the state intervene, are alternative forms acceptable, etc.

      The other argument addresses inequality in its multifaceted effects. Just because you have this ideal family form does not mean that your personality or disposition is crystalline.

      When we speak of family the key factor is conflict: why is there conflict, how does it get resolved, does it get resolved. The results on this are not good.

  17. @Rugby

    Ha haaaa!!! That’s why I distinctly said I was Superman, and not Clark Kent.

  18. @Mad Yale Grad

    Yes I agree, thought that I made that clear. I was responding to Fredrick Welfare and what I interpreted as his argument that the ‘West’ has and needs to move on from such a paradigm.

    I do however, disagree with you regards to the idea that individualism is not contrary to tradition, family values or God. “individualism crap”.

    Off to apply some charisma. . . cheers

  19. Lone, “A truly masculine man does not need “a wingman”,”

    Says who?

    “A truly masculine man does not learn “game” in women’s territory (clubs/bars/ecc), he is capable of standing and saying: “laydees, you are now going to play by my rules; because I get my dose of pussy either from you or from prostitutes”.

    LOL yeah I’d like to see some guy stand in front of a group of women and say that.

  20. “I was responding to Fredrick Welfare and what I interpreted as his argument that the ‘West’ has and needs to move on from such a paradigm.”

    It has moved on. That’s clear. Did it “need” to? I don’t think so. So far the moving on has not given good results. Maybe in the future it will?

    Frederik Welfare, what do you see family culture looking like in the West 40 years from now?

    1. The Family in 40 years will probably be considerably nicer than it is today because the conflict over fertility will be settled by technology and medicine. The biological role status will be less important than social skills. Families will probably rarely be more than 2 offspring but there will be more families. The family-medical-school connection will probably be much easier to navigate for parents and children because schooling will be less unequal across regions and social classes. Biological parenting will still be reinforced by government policies, especially tax policies, but community workers will become even more important than they are today. More better education and nicer perhaps less policing. Parental leaves will be granted for both parents by all employers and work settings will modify policies to accept parenting as part of work, but work hours will be less across all occupations. The therapeutic issues in families will become more prominent in the media as individual differences become more acceptable. All children will go to college and family formation will be entered into during one’s 30’s. There will be a more exacting division of labor concerning who becomes a parent, when and how, and who opts out even though everyone will acknowledge that care and concern for each cohort/generation is a priority. Improvements in surveillance technology, and particularly communications, will solve the problems of illegal violence against or between children. I imagine that transgendered persons, spinsters and bachelors will still receive some flack but it may be less as education improves and social tolerance becomes more of a democratic norm.

  21. @Sun

    “Man Table question: how many folks would we have available to talk this Sunday afternoon vs. next?”

    I would like to participate again but can’t this Sunday. Going out of town and not returning till Sun eve.

    1. @MYG
      “I’d like to see some guy stand in front of a group of women and say that.”

      That’s something I agree with as well…

    2. @MYG
      I mean I can agree you may think you need a wingman but than maybe you don’t after approaching and learning about how life is…

  22. @Frederick Welfare

    “The modern 2-parent father-mother family does transmit advantages but it is not clear how advantages are transmitted from parent to child”.

    The answer to that is complex, too complex for me to undersdtand and for all of us to elaborate in a blog.

    But let me tell you and advantage right off the bat. The loss of the traditional family (father as authority and provider, mother as nurse, teacher of children as a caring entity to his man) is resulting in a shift on the way information is transmitted. Society swithced from a father-son transmission of knowledge to a “peer-to-peer” model where we, the sons of dysfunctional families, turn to PUA, coaching or blogs such as this one to know how to deal with women.

    We see 18-24 y.o. guys trying to convince the more experienced ones about their distorted vision of the world. Everybody’s voice here has the same value (except for Rolo’s, because he owns the blog, yet his blog is as valid as any other blog to the eyes of the young inexperienced).

    In healthy families (they still exist and WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST) fathers help sons learn how to deal with women, by setting the example at home and by transmitting their knowledge to children.

    With the nuclear family as the rule, this blog and PUA shit would not even exist.

    It is no coincidence that PUA origins date back to the 1970’s, an era polluted by the dawn of radical feminism, fucktard hippies, adolescent or middle-aged sons of fatherless WWII families.

    These blogs are a (failed) attempt to substitute for the parental role.

    1. It is a complex question but what is implied in the posit is that parents differentially inform or teach their children: one child gets the scoop the other are left in the lurch sort of thing. Parents differentially prefer their children is the moral.

      On top of this situation is the simple fact that every individual is different and some individuals are literally sex-addicts and their behavior easily gets conditioned into parental behavior whereas other people are simply not very interested in sex and are not easily strapped into the straitjacket of family and parenting. It is also a matter of degree. But at some point you need to explain the revulsion towards having children which contraception facilitates and is evident in the low fertility rate and high number of childless marriages!

      Now this leads to a deeper issue in the interactions men and women, and between mothers and fathers. Every person is raised or socialized under large social structures like social class, religion, and education. There is a significant difference in the religion-social class connect for the 4 major religions which is often not recognized in terms of social-sexual interaction. We also assume that the appending of patriarchy to these 4 religions is a given but it is not. There is a significant difference between jewish-catholic and protestant-Islamic. Jewish-Catholic are much more matriarchal institutions, especially in the home, than are protestants and islamists. The results however are varied: protestants are more patriarchal and more focused on work and economics or social class achievement, whereas catholics are less focused on work and finances, catholicism has often been understood as accepting poverty or low income which is not acceptable for protestants. This catholic orientation is similar to the jewish orientation where the home and the religion of the offspring are determined by the mother. Islamists are most authoritarian of the 4 religions, e.g. polygamy is accepted.

      These are sweeping generalizations but the point is that there are large social structures which over-determine individuals dispositions and orientations. The father role in the family and the male role in social interaction is highly variable because of the over-arching structural factors. This example is merely the part of the iceberg that you see.

      The point is that fathers do not serve as role models for boys in families for a variety of reasons but one of the main reasons is that the father competes with the boy and one-ups him continuously, interferes with him on every occasion and does this unconsciously as a form of conditioned behavior due to structural effects. The authority relation always trumps the teacher-learner relation. Sure, there is some direct instruction but what is always more significant is the authority behavior of the father towards the son, e.g. discipline. AND, this authority relation is moderated by the role of the mother and wife in the family. Given the orientation and disposition of the mother, religious and otherwise, the father’s authority is modulated, which can mean that it is amplified in many cases, or more likely that the mother has the final word. And, of course there are exceptions.

  23. “Improvements in surveillance technology, and particularly communications, will solve the problems of illegal violence against or between children.”

    Big brother watching everyone in every home. Making sure there’s no “illegal violence”. For our own good. That’s living the dream.

    1. Technological surveillance is merely the extension of the norm of community surveillance where people are actively looking out for wrongdoing. This gets a pejorative stigma because it also includes nosiness, gossip, paranoia, and many instances of overreaching. But, the reverse side is that the lack of observation of each other runs into deviance. It is arguable whether deviance is an individual intention or a result of social structural conditions. But, adding in the technology at least gives us the option of using it to prevent crime or to prosecute crime where without it we could only rely on eye-witnesses and you know that is not reliable. The safety factor should be the priority, especially safety in social interactions. When people know they are being watched they behave differently and perhaps better. But, humans are extremely sneaky and may find ways to subvert even recording equipment as in the old Mission: Impossible shows! 🙂

  24. Frederick Welfare,

    “The safety factor should be the priority, especially safety in social interactions. When people know they are being watched they behave differently and perhaps better. But, humans are extremely sneaky and may find ways to subvert even recording equipment as in the old Mission: Impossible shows! ”

    I’m well traveled and have lived extensively in shame based cultures where everyone is surveiling everyone and commenting about their behavior and shaming them, all day long. Parents, grandparents and in-laws are very controling in these cultures, and neighbors are nosey as hell. I can say that on the surface it keeps everyone conforming and behaving as expected but there’s a also a strong component of sneakiness and deception going on. .

    1. Very Good. In Critical Social Science, the “axiom” is that the social is criticism. So, humans have adapted and are also very deceptive and sneaky. Betrayal is a constant and a ‘rational expectation.’ (Machiavelli’s ‘Discourses on Livy’ should be required reading.)

      So we live in cultures as overarching structures which legitimate shaming and criticism and we try to adapt, conform, oppose, etc. And the criticism can become tyrannical in which retaliation is committed. The criticism is considered normative and the retaliation is considered illegal so the solution is to either ‘Damn the Torpedoes’ or avoid detection.

      But, in our context, the problem is sex, marriage, and reproduction including its sequela: the responsibilities of socialization. What we get is a low fertility rate and high expense for reproduction with exceptions where some individuals solve the problem of conformity and conflict by just having the kid come what may regardless of affordance and without a partner. This motive is what we question in its multiple forms: single parents, poor parents, teen pregnancy, abortions, child abuse etc.. including now transgender parenting.

      It seems obvious that the social criticism exercised as instinct or cultural form and extended into policing and discipline, dominance hierarchies and identity politics is misplaced and immoral. It makes me want to avoid the cultural, the social, except under very strict conditions in which I can control voice and exit.

  25. Are you familiar with the Sudbury method of education, Frederick? What’s your take on it?

    Regarding the intrinsic flaws of the monogamous nuclear family model I don’t think those flaws are unique to that model. They can, and do, rear their heads in other family structures as well. The problem is not so much with the model but with human nature. We will screw up any model to one or another extent because we are flawed. But we can do our best to be our best and thus improve upon each and any model of family structure, organization or human interface.

    “It seems obvious that the social criticism exercised as instinct or cultural form and extended into policing and discipline, dominance hierarchies and identity politics is misplaced and immoral.”

    Humans are flawed and we make mistakes. But there are transpersonal methodologies by which we can gradually overcome our greed and control issues.

    “It makes me want to avoid the cultural, the social, except under very strict conditions in which I can control voice and exit.”

    Public speakers seem to be able to do that. Present their views, field a question or comment or two, and then bounce.

  26. “I have finished teaching High School Science in New York City after 26 years.”

    How was it?

  27. OMG Glenn… haha I’m reading through the comments, and every time your name comes up it’s just like….

    Glenn…… “Marxists, money, status… blah blah blah… I know more than fucking everybody!!!! blah blah blah…. NO one knows as much ME… blah blah blah….

    “Rollo, don’t you know you’re full of shit? … blah blah blah…. you always avoid politics, something I know everything about…. blah blah blah… Nope, you clearly don’t know anything ABOUT politics, Rollo, blah blah blah

    “Because no one here knows as much as me!”

    I love it!! It’s entertaining as hell!!!! haha

  28. “I love it!! It’s entertaining as hell!!!!”

    Don’t you have a husband and kids to care of?

    Why so much attention seeking on a mens’ blog when you supposedly have a man at home to fill that void for you, hmmmmm?

  29. That the best you’ve got, Mad Hatter?

    My husband has worked 9 days out of this month, and 7 have had substantial overtime. I find it really hard to sleep without him, so I tend to stay up (even though I try to wake up at 5am, I’m really a morning person that needs 7-8 hours of sleep, but such is life). So I stay up reading books or sometimes online dialogue… especially hilarious things like you forcing yourself into Sun Wukong’s male group – that conversation had me laughing aloud as well! I stay up if he’s really late because I miss him, or am still waiting for that text or call that lets me know he’s ok.

  30. Women have their own life and right to live. They have their own opinions. Its their life they have the right to take the decision whether they want to continue the relation or want divorce, they want the baby or need to go for abortion.

  31. As an addendum and/or aside: Of the women who experience post-natal depression, how many of them might because of “hypergamy fail”, i.e. the baby was sired by a guy assumed Alpha, but deemed Beta too late into the pregnancy for abortion to be an option, or because the Alpha or Beta replacement dad bailed?

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: