Thursday, June 19, 2014

Who's marrying now?

More evidence that a culture of family life is in decline amongst those with less education:
Mothers with four or more years of college tend to wait until marriage before giving birth (68 per cent) followed by mothers with one to three years of college (33 per cent), and mothers with a high school diploma (29 per cent). Lastly, among mothers with no high school diploma, only 13 per cent waited to get married before they had their first child.
However, all is not well either amongst the best educated. Another Daily Mail post tells the story of a English mother with five well-educated sons who is surprised by how reluctant her sons are to marry and support a wife. She writes:
Born in 1960, I was brought up to believe that being a good wife and mother was the best life could offer us. My own mother would say to me: ‘To go to sleep in the arms of the man you love, to wake up at his side, to bring up children with him, this is what makes a life worth living.’

One of her son's girlfriends confided in her that she had similar beliefs:
Not so long ago, the girlfriend of one of my sons confided in me while clearing away Sunday lunch that what she really wanted — despite being a lawyer with a top firm in London — was to live in a cottage in the country and have lots of children.

She wanted to spend her days reading stories to them, making jam and chutney, having long walks in the middle of the day, and feel somehow that she was alive.

But her sons are generally against this kind of family idyll:
Will and his brother Tom, 30, my eldest, are positively vituperative in their avoidance of a life filled with nappies. Well-educated, kind and polite they may be, but they’d do anything rather than settle down and have babies.

Tom...baulked at the very question.

‘I hate that word “marriage”,’ he told me. ‘Marriage belongs to another era. I prefer the word “partnership” because that’s what it should be, a partnership of equals right from the start. Both man and woman should contribute financially to the home, and both should do domestic work.

‘What really annoys me is when the woman has children and somehow thinks it’s all right to skive and stay at home with them. ‘The baby should be sent to a nursery as soon as possible and the woman should get back to work. Aren’t women supposed to have the same aspirations in their careers as men? Then they should prove it and not expect a whole year’s maternity leave. It’s scandalous!’

The mum does an OK job of thinking through why her sons might have such attitudes:
Perhaps it’s no wonder. For so long, women have insisted that they can be just like the boys. So can we really be surprised when our young men refuse to countenance treating their female partners differently from how they are treated themselves?

If it's drummed constantly into men that there are no differences between the sexes, and that there are no sex roles tied to masculinity or femininity, then why would young men think of supporting a wife to be at home? Her son Tom has so much bought into this reigning principle that he even hates the word "marriage," presumably as he associates it with differences between the sexes. He prefers the word "partnership".

I suspect too that the reluctance to commit stems from how late in life upper class people tend to marry. It means that the more solid of young men can be shunned by their female peers in their teens and early 20s, only to become a sought after commodity in their late 20s or 30s. I'm not sure the "make him wait while I play around and then give him endless options when I really need him" is a great strategy for women to pursue.

And if a society wants men to take on the stresses and strains of supporting a family, in order to create a more protected space for women to raise their children, then there has to be a more positive attitude to the role of men in society. Less emphasis on men as enemies of women; less emphasis on the idea that men are privileged oppressors holding back the advance of working women; and more recognition of the sacrifices that men traditionally made for the benefit of their families.

44 comments:

  1. This article, the previous one you wrote about and a few others I have seen recently, leads me to believe that there is a new emerging form of feminism. The equal when beneficial but different when not beneficial feminist. Sadly I think many Traditionalist might latch on to this new strain even if it no way benefits/rewards men for any sacrifices made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, interesting comment. I think there would have to be some major change for this to happen. Perhaps if the state was no longer able to play the role of replacement husband; perhaps if there were a real threat militarily. You might then see a more open defence from some feminists of aspects of traditional sex roles. At the moment, feminists can probably still afford to complacently go on with the "sex roles are oppressive social constructs" mantra; make unprincipled exceptions when they feel they need to; and suppress the voices of women who take it all too literally and miss out.

      The challenge I'd like to see is the kind of one happening in France, a revolt against the imposition of feminist theory on society.

      Delete
    2. For a hefty dose of that sort of Entitled Feminism, try this list of things men can do to be more feminist in day-to-day life. It's packed full of subtle and overt female privilege.

      http://m.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps

      For instance, consider point #1: "Do 50% (or more) of housework."

      There's no mention that he can count on the feminist he's co-habiting with to set a leadership example by doing 50% or more of the "blue" jobs around the house and yard.

      That seems an odd omission, given the injunction to "Find female mentors/leaders. (i.e., Be subordinate to women.)... because "there’s a lot you can learn from women in positions of authority."

      Surely a woman like that would regularly beat him to snow-shoveling, lawn-mowing, gutter-cleaning, etc. so it would be natural for him to respond by taking over a big chunk of the housework.



      Delete
    3. Lastango, how do you like this one:

      34. Get in the habit of treating your maleness as an unearned privilege that you have to actively work to cede rather than femaleness being an unearned disadvantage that women have to work to overcome.

      Good grief, the stuff that modern men have to put up with.

      Delete
    4. But... but... WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING! How can being a woman be a disadvantage if women are just as good as men and often better???

      Delete
  2. This young man named Tom does mouth all of the feminist platitudes, but consumerism is the engine driving his life. "The woman" should "get back to work" so she can "contribute financially." We err when we think that this sort of a couple is "married" without benefit of clergy. They are in a eroticized business partnership. The purpose of the partnership is to make money, not children. Tom understands this, which is why he scoffs at the idea that the partnership might mature into a marriage. The mother and daughter don't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reading through this, I get the sense that Tom isn't just for equality. He strikes me as bitter: bitter that, through all his life, he's been attacked for being a man by women who were constantly saying they wanted equality. And now, after spending some thirty years getting metaphorically slugged day and night by women, suddenly some of the women turn around and say "You know what? We don't want equality so much after all." It seems to me that he's saying " All my life you've attacked me for who I am, and now you turn around and want it the other way? Forget it. You've made your bed, you can sleep in it." Of course he's probably a solid liberal too, but I think there's that element of bitterness mixed with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That could well be true. Let's think of this from the male point of view. All of your female peers are hyped up careerists when you are 20 years old. There is nowhere for your traditional instincts of being a protector and provider to go. So what are you supposed to do? What is the purpose of making commitments to work or to relationships? One option, the one taken by Tom it seems, is to say "Right, I can't have the traditional thing, so I'll look on my career as a status/money thing and having a woman as a status/money thing." And having been pushed toward this, as you point out, they are then determined to hold women to this new standard.

      What else can such men do? I think some of them take a different approach. They still think in more traditional terms of wanting a romantic relationship and being husbands and fathers - and they then marry somewhat older women. I see it increasingly that a 25-year-old upper class man will marry a 30 year-old woman, presumably because it's at about 30 that women start to allow themselves the possibility of marriage and children.

      Another option, not often taken, is for such men to reach down out of their own social class to women who are less careerist.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I can understand how Tom probably feels, and in a way I don't fault him for it. In fact, at times I've been tempted to feel the same way. At the same time, we men cannot allow ourselves to indulge in this kind of revenge. We have to get society back on track, and we can't do so if we're maintaining liberalism to get back at those liberals that have second thoughts (in this case, certain feminist women). We need to take every opportunity to build a traditional society, and that means being ready to welcome those that turn from liberalism.

      As for what men are to do, I think we need to start standing up, start saying we're not taking it anymore. For too long men have ducked their responsibility for guiding society and have instead kept their heads down to keep from getting attacked. Men have also allowed women to dictate all the terms. I think it's time for men to start dictating our own terms. If we don't, we'll essentially be waiting for women to leave liberalism on their own, which I doubt will happen soon enough to save the west. Men need to recognize their role as the leaders of society and begin leading society away from liberalism. Yes, this will result in broken relationships, social alienation, and probably a number of permanently single men, but what other choice do we have? In war there are always casualties, and this one against liberalism will be no different. I don't say this lightly either. I, and others I know, have no true, close friends, because of our traditionalism.

      Delete
    3. Men need to reject the Liberal frame, understand that men are not the same as women, and understand that most women are as much victims of the propaganda as they are. Liberalism & Feminism don't make most women happy any more than they make men happy. Reject the frame, and treat women as they actually want to be treated, not as they have been misled into thinking they should be treated. But most of all, don't treat them _as men_! I think that's the big mistake modern men make, being fooled into thinking that women are the same as men in their minds, treating them as men, and finding it all goes horribly wrong, often much too late. Very few women want a true 'equal partnership', it does NOT make them happy. They want a man they can look up to, and feel protected by. Liberalism/Feminism tries to stop men taking on that responsibility, but it's vital.

      Delete
    4. Simon, agreed. The longer I've been married the clearer this becomes.

      Delete
  4. "The challenge I'd like to see is the kind of one happening in France, a revolt against the imposition of feminist theory on society"

    You are dreaming here. There is no chance of that happening in an Anglo Saxon society. Anglo societies are not European. They don't have the strong religious, ethnic and nationalistic values and sentiments and communal solidarity which characterises European and Asian societies. Essentially liberal and individualistic, the family and civil society are weak, tribalism is virtually absent and there are few people who are really prepared to make great sacrifices to defend them. The Anglo blood lines have been watered down to such an extent that the family as in Europe no longer exists. In Europe there are still patriarchal extended families of pure bloodline and people who will fight to defend them. Most Anglo families are now polygamous with a series of couplings and abandoned offspring. As such they have more in common with an African tribe than a European family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, you've said this before, but I think you're exaggerating, particularly from the non-American point of view. Australia in 1945 was a lot less far gone than the countries of continental Europe. Cultural modernism had been better resisted; the Church was strong; the ethnic identity was still strong and there were plenty of men who had made big sacrifices for their nation. The problem is that the intellectual class had dropped the ball in the interwar period and so rapid decline was about to set in.

      I agree with you that right now the Anglo countries are in the worst shape, but go back a few generations and that wasn't so much the case.

      Delete
    2. "Anglo societies are not European"

      The Angles are/were a Germanic tribe. So were the Saxons. Germanic people are the heart of Europe. What an moronic statement you made.

      I'm guessing you mean that the English people are Protestant. If you are a Roman Catholic who hates the Anglo Saxon English for being Protestant, just say it.

      Delete
    3. That comment is not true. Cultural modernism has been resisted considerably more forcefully in Europe than Australia. Some parts of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy have never been significantly influenced by it. Ethnic identity in Europe is blood and soil with strong attachment to land, owned over centuries , family blood lines preserved over centuries and traditions handed down unchanged for centuries.

      What ethnic identity exists in Australia apart from Aborigines who can claim justly to be the native peoples? There is no such thing as an ethnic Australian. An Australian is an immigrant from somewhere else, each group bringing their own baggage and identity. The majority may still be British origin or descent but they are no longer British in culture.

      Delete
    4. "Anglo societies are not European"

      The Angles are/were a Germanic tribe. So were the Saxons. Germanic people are the heart of Europe.

      I'm guessing you mean that the English people are Protestant. If you are a Roman Catholic who hates the Anglo Saxon English for being Protestant, just say it.

      Delete
    5. What ethnic identity exists in Australia apart from Aborigines

      Anon, until recently there was a strong ethnic identity. The problem is that people run the idea of "we have no culture, we're just a group of immigrants" line about all Western nations. I've seen an Austrian leftist in the middle of Vienna ask "what is Austrian culture anyway?"; the Swedish political class queries the existence of a distinct Swedish culture; British leftists claim that the British are just a collection of immigrant groups and so on.

      This has little to do with reality, and more to do with the outlook of an intellectual class which wishes to detach itself from the mainstream and identify instead with itself as a class of people consuming at will the "vibrant" cultures of others.

      In the early 1900s, the intellectual class in Australia was still mostly patriotic and they feared the cultural modernism that was brewing on the continent in places like Germany, France and Russia. It was seen as an old world decadence, unfit for a young nation.

      But the wheel has turned and it is now Australia and other Anglosphere countries which have fallen hardest.

      Delete
    6. The irony is that Russia, France and Germany are all highly nationalistic pursuers of their own interests and each has a strong cultural identity. To which culture were the Australians patriotic? The Anglo Protestant culture of Britain? A high percentage of them would not have origins in that culture and so what would be the basis of their allegiance to it? There is no association between Australian family names, origins and land and no dynastic heritage. Any nationalistic or patriotic sense in Australia is therefore not grounded in a solid foundational heritage. It is really just an attachment to the heritage of Britain grafted on to another state.

      Delete
    7. Grafted or conquered we'll take it thank you very much. If you can't work out nor ask what binds us, then you're not looking hard enough.

      Delete
    8. The irony is that Russia, France and Germany are all highly nationalistic pursuers of their own interests and each has a strong cultural identity.

      It's true that right now these countries are in a somewhat better position than Australia, but let's not exaggerate things - all three have similar problems. France has a liberal political class which is intent on a radical programme of changing the family and on encouraging a polyglot communal identity - it is the radicalism which has provoked a level of resistance there. The Germans are involved in a pan-European project and have millions of "guest workers" living in their midst. There are still no major non-liberal parties there - even the new Alternative for Germany party only represents a relatively small shift away from the others. Yes, the Russians are now breaking with some aspects of liberalism, but the political class is committed to an imperial view of Russia which means that the Russian heartlands have an influx of non-Russian residents.

      Delete
    9. To which culture were the Australians patriotic?

      Umm, to their own. Look, it's only in relatively recent times that Australia's urban culture has taken on an international tone. Even when I was a boy in the 1970s, there was a sense of the rest of the world being a long way away. There was still a sense of a settled, enclosed culture back then. There had even developed, as subsets of the national culture, distinct class cultures - a certain way of life and understanding of life that people identified with and sought to preserve.

      Anon, why wouldn't a distinctive Australian national culture develop between 1788 and 1945? That's quite a long time of being separated from the rest of the world, in a unique landscape, for a separate culture to emerge. It would be extraordinary if one hadn't come about.

      Delete
    10. Distinctive cultures emerge from aristocratic family bloodlines, hierarchical traditional societies with values and traditions and behaviours passed down through centuries. In other words a people bound by a common genetic heritage and history as well as specific values, beliefs and ways of doing things. This is the way civilisations emerged and were built from the cradles of all major civilisations - Europe and Asia.

      Australian national culture is not built upon these distinctions. It is a deracinated Anglican culture. What are you claiming are its separate features?

      Delete
    11. Distinctive cultures emerge from aristocratic family bloodlines, hierarchical traditional societies with values and traditions and behaviours passed down through centuries. In other words a people bound by a common genetic heritage and history as well as specific values, beliefs and ways of doing things.

      Well, apart from the aristocratic bloodlines, Australia had all these things. In 1945 Australia was one of the most homogeneous places around. It was 80% of British stock and 15% Irish Catholic, with the rest being mostly other European(particularly German).

      The majority thought of themselves as having a heritage that stemmed prior to 1788 from that of Great Britain, but which developed its own unique forms from the time of settlement.

      As far as the "aristocratic, hierarchical" tradition goes, there was something of a split. For the majority, loyalty to the crown was very important, although there was a significant republican element as well. The private boys school tradition was very strong amongst upper class Australians and added an element of tradition and hierarchy, as did the relatively strong position of the Anglican and Catholic Churches. A very large number of Australian men had served in the armed forces and that too flavoured Australian culture.

      I don't think it should be assumed that the relatively flattened, technocratic, cosmopolitan culture of today should be read backwards to define the Australia of yesteryear.

      As for being "deracinated" that had to be forced onto rank and file Australians. Past Prime Ministers have boasted of how they achieved this through bipartisanship against the wishes of the population.

      Delete
    12. The heritage of Great Britain does not exist as an entity. The heritage of Scotland and England and Wales are separate and distinct, the Anglican culture of England and Wales being very different from the tribal, clan based structure of Scotland. The two cultures have created very different institutions and societies. The education and legal systems are the prime examples of different systems with Scotland much closer to the systems of Europe particularly Germany and Holland. Civil Law is the Scottish legal system (also that of Europe from Russia right down to Portugal and also Latin America), Common Law is Anglican, no non Anglo countries having adopted it.

      Australia is therefore an Anglo society based upon English institutions of Common Law and the English educational system. The Anglo culture provides an equitable impersonal way of dealing with people in which the emphasis is on equal treatment. The Scottish and European models are not based upon these features. They are based upon a more personal approach where tribal and ethnic concerns trump equality. The Anglo society is therefore an easy one to gain power and subvert whilst the others are very difficult places for the outsider to assimilate.

      Anglo private education is largely based upon money rather than family pedigree. Lower class people who make money can go to good schools in Anglo countries unlike in Europe and traditional hierarchies are based upon family pedigree and not money which fluctuates. The Anglo church is not hierarchial and the RC Church which is, is a firm opponent of the House of Windsor and the Protestant monarchs of Britain which is believes massacred the legitimate Stuart Monarchs.

      I would say that the Anglo class structure is non traditional as it replaced family pedigree with money as the basis of hierarchy and as a consequence of that has progressively lost all tradition.

      Delete
  5. "And if a society wants men to take on the stresses and strains of supporting a family, in order to create a more protected space for women to raise their children, then there has to be a more positive attitude to the role of men in society."

    Men are supposed to be the leaders of society and should assume that role of their own volition instead of acting like passive victims. To the Christian, marriage is a gift from God which serves the purpose of God (note the purpose of God and not man). The purpose of God is defined by the Church as the 3 Ps in this order - public order, procreation and personal relationships.

    Male reluctance to marry has little to do with feminism. It is an expression of apostasy, placing oneself above God and putting the fulfilment of ones own narcissistic desires above a sense of duty to society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, but a lot of young men are demoralised. The lesson is: it's possible for a society to demoralise its young men.

      I believe that I have a much stronger masculine ethos than most of the younger men I know. But then I grew up with much better influences. When I went to primary school there were murals on the wall showing my Anglo forebears proudly stepping onto Australian shores. If I were at school these days, I would have it drummed into me every week that I and my forebears were horrible racists responsible for committing terrible evils across the planet. Similarly, when I was 10 there was a sense of pride in Australian manhood: we were tough pioneers, soldiers and sportsmen. But the next generation grew up being told that men who went out to work deprived women of their rights; that men should be more feminine; that dads were goofy and so on.

      Yes, in theory men should be strong enough to rise above it all unscathed, but unfortunately culture is a powerful thing.

      Delete
    2. Culture starts initially with the family and strongly ethic family can resist the external culture to a large degree. One does not see the demoralisation of men you discuss within the ethnic minorities - Indians, Chinese, Jews and even the Arabs. That's because their family and ethnic culture which is preserved by their families is strong. Their values and traditions are passed down from generation to generation unchanged. And these cultures have higher rates of female careerism than whites.

      The weakness of the male comes from the weakness of his family commitment and tradition which he has recklessly dissipated in pursuit of narcissism.

      Delete
    3. "Male reluctance to marry has little to do with feminism"

      It has everything to do with feminism.

      "It is an expression of apostasy"

      Oh, so it's the mens fault for not being Roman Catholic or Protestant enough. So here we have another christian who denies the destructive influence of feminsim. And instead blames it on men because they don't follow HIS religion. This is one of the reasons why I stopped attended church at 18 yrs old.

      Delete
    4. Culture starts initially with the family and strongly ethic family can resist the external culture to a large degree.

      I think it's a mistake to take the attitude that strong families can resist the forces of modernity. The truth is that a modern economy often means that dad is too busy working to have as much influence as he ought to have, and his place is taken by schools, television, popular music and books. What this means is:

      1. Traditionalists ought to be sympathetic to the idea of limits to the working week for men wherever possible, so that fathers can be more than just breadwinners

      2. Controlling the institutions is really significant. Culture matters.

      I'm not sure that all religious people understand this. I sometimes get the sense that the religious are happy for the left to control all the secular institutions and culture, as long as they have church and family. That's a big mistake in my view and the long term social outcomes seem to back me up on this.

      One does not see the demoralisation of men you discuss within the ethnic minorities - Indians, Chinese, Jews and even the Arabs.

      Modern Western culture does not target Indian, Chinese, Jewish or Arab men in the same way it targets white Christian men. I teach at a school. Every day of the week in English class white men are targeted as racist oppressors of others. It is unrelenting. The message is that it is shameful to be a white man.

      Even so, I do think there is demoralisation when it comes to relationships amongst other groups of men. Asian men don't always prosper in the dating scene; there are also non-orthodox Jewish men who have expressed frustration about the influence of feminism within their culture.

      I grew up in a very stable culture of family life; we were not raised to be narcissistic at all - we expected to study hard, to get a good job and from that to have a chance to marry and have children.

      But the schools were promoting other values amongst our female peers. They were being raised to see family life as a hindrance to the main aim of having a career; they were being raised to see femininity as a patriarchal ploy to oppress women; they were being raised to believe that men were privileged and had it easy and that therefore they were simply entitled to get things from men.

      It made family formation very difficult for many men. It's not as if there were crowds of traditionally minded women wanting to marry but the men suddenly decided to be narcissists and to pursue a bachelor lifestyle instead.

      I can remember men who wanted to marry and support a wife being derided as dinosaurs; I can also remember women committing to a single girl lifestyle of career, casual sex and consumerism.

      There were women who carried on this way and who left things too late who ended up complaining "but nobody told us we ought to think about marriage or motherhood, we just thought it would happen of itself".

      You won't effectively counteract the effects of culture and education by relying on individual parents to exert a counterforce. A few dedicated parents might be up to this, but most won't.

      Delete
    5. The family is the strongest cultural influence on the young and men who take their role as fathers seriously can ground their children in tradition before the other influences have a chance to make their mark. The economic excuse is not a serious one. Men have worked hard in previous eras too. The modern man differs, not because he is busy with work, but because he abrogates his responsibilities and allows his children to be indoctrinated. If fathers refused to allow their children to watch poor films and TV programmes and complained to schools about what their children were taught then cinemas and TV Stations would go bankrupt, If schools met with serious opposition to their teaching then they would have to review that teaching.

      In other words it starts and finishes with the family. If they family resists then the state, institutions and corporations cannot impose. No film company can continue to produce films no one pays to see. They go bust. The moral and cultural collapse happened with the complicity and participation of the men and not with their opposition.

      You overstate the influence of what you call feminism. When women see men as weak losers who cannot enforce standards on society then they lose respect for them. Women admire strength in men and not passivity. Family formation is difficult for men who are losers. Men who are strong have no difficulty finding wives. That is a truth universally.

      Delete
    6. Anon, you make some good specific points, but it worries me that there is something in your set of beliefs which makes you stop at the gates rather than going forward and claiming some cultural and institutional support of your own. Why stop at church and family? Why should fathers always have to work against the state and culture? Why can't we make culture our own?

      You stated "family formation is difficult for men who are losers. Men who are strong have no difficulty finding wives". That is not always the case. What, for instance, if women are so determined to avoid marriage in their 20s, that they deliberately reject the stronger kind of men (precisely because they would make good husbands which is what they are seeking to avoid) and choose instead men they know will only be short term options?

      And, anyway, if you are interested in conserving your own people, you will want marriage to be available to a large majority of young people, not just to the small percentage strong enough to battle their way through.

      Delete
    7. "What, for instance, if women are so determined to avoid marriage in their 20s, that they deliberately reject the stronger kind of men..."

      It could happen, especially with women from the top social strata who do have serious career options. But my impression is that most women from the broad middle of society are not actively set against marriage and children. They're not actively rejecting marriage proposals from strong men. They just sort-of drift along. No one is pushing them to get married, so they don't. In the UK they typically do acquire a 'partner', and have one or two children eventually. But most of these women in their early-mid 20s would have jumped at a marriage proposal from a strong man. They never got such a proposal.

      Delete
    8. @anonymous

      Well you know Jesus hated losers and only cared about people at the top of the socioeconomic status heap anyway. If the bottom half of society can't form successful marriages it really doesn't bother him. God gave us marriage because it was meant for the genetically and materially blessed, its not meant for a bunch of losers.

      Delete
    9. " I teach at a school. Every day of the week in English class white men are targeted as racist oppressors of others. It is unrelenting. The message is that it is shameful to be a white man."

      The obvious question is why do you continue to teach at a school which promotes such evil propaganda? Surely this must be a violation of the Education Acts? Why don't you take a stand over this and challenge it. Silence and passivity indicate complicity.

      Delete
    10. "Anon, you make some good specific points, but it worries me that there is something in your set of beliefs which makes you stop at the gates rather than going forward and claiming some cultural and institutional support of your own. Why stop at church and family? Why should fathers always have to work against the state and culture? Why can't we make culture our own? "

      You misrepresent the points I made. I stated that the family is the first and most important social institution of a civilisation. In the family is preserved the genetic heritage of a people and its values, behaviours and beliefs. If the family goes, the civilisation goes. A man who cannot control his own family and maintain his civilisation at a micro level will never be able to control a larger institution.

      At the present time, the larger institutions are controlled by powerful forces which
      the individual cannot control. But by collective resistance against them, the individual can minimise their impact and force them to modify their agenda.

      Delete
    11. The obvious question is why do you continue to teach at a school which promotes such evil propaganda??

      I'm not making the point clear. At both of the schools I have taught at, there was the same sort of thing. In fact, early on at both schools the principals apologised to me for there being so many Anglo students at the school, presuming that I would agree with such sentiments. This has to do with the mindset of the Anglo liberal political class, rather than any one particular institution.

      I have challenged various things and had a reasonable impact for one person. But you don't change the mindset of a whole class of people by resigning your job. The more serious thing to do is to try to reshape the political assumptions driving the whole show

      Delete
    12. I disagree. A resignation on grounds of conscience can be a powerful statement and a wake up call to others. It just takes one and then others follow. It is vitally important to stand firmly against evil and not be complicit with it.

      Delete
    13. "But you don't change the mindset of a whole class of people by resigning your job. "

      Yes, we need to work within the system. I do have red lines - I told our Disability Tutor (a kind of Political Loyalty Commissar) that I would not teach a student with the full face veil. But mostly I just try to give my views and let my students make up their minds.
      I will say that active hatred of white people isn't generally taught in UK school & Universities to anything like the extent it is in USA, Oz etc. There isn't an indigenous or formerly enslaved non-white population to feel guilty about. What there is, is population replacement - there just aren't many white kids in London schools or Universities anymore.

      Delete
    14. I disagree. A resignation on grounds of conscience can be a powerful statement

      Anon, that strikes me more as tokenism. What we need people to do right now is:

      a) not only jettison liberalism, but jettison the "hobbled" forms of right-wing thinking, the ones which don't get anywhere

      b) commit to building up a genuine alternative political movement

      That's the main game. The truth is that everyone is "complicit" in one sense or another in what the liberal state does. If you pay any taxes at all then in one sense you are "complicit" in funding evil. The point is not to seek moral purity and feel good about yourself by having nothing to do with it (which would mean radically dropping out of society altogether and living solo in the bush as some sort of hunter gatherer), but to really seek to challenge it.

      Delete
  6. "despite being a lawyer with a top firm in London- was to live in a cottage in the country and have lots of children"

    I don't believe that for a second. A trained female lawyer has spent her teenage years and young adulthood studying, then spent her twenties focusing on her career. All the while competing with men. Female lawyers have a masculine mindset. Those females are not the type of women who want to be housewives raising lots of children. These women were brought up to see their life goal as having a career. Why would they, all of a sudden, totally change their idea of what they think their life should be? Female lawyers are said to be the worst type of women to marry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They regret what they missed out on. Few of them are truly male-brained; they just did what was expected of them.

      Delete
  7. I wonder what the mother and her husband told their sons when they were growing up, that they have such attitudes now. Perhaps they said nothing, and allowed their brains to be filled by the media?
    My young son seems keen on marrying and having lots of children, which I tell him is the most important thing to do - he strongly agrees, he doesn't need persuading. I worry that even good parents (better than me!) are way too trusting of 'society' to give their children the right messages, or expect their children to form their own opinions in a vacuum and somehow it'll all work out. I know growing up my own parents always emphasised education, and career to a much lesser extent. They never once mentioned marriage and family, except my mother might occasionally say "no one will want you if you fail to do X" sort of stuff. There was never a positive life plan. My mother in law was the only one to occasionally express a desire that my wife & I have children; if she had not done so we might have had none at all.

    Parents: give your children a life plan. Emphasise the importance of marriage and family as a priority, not just education and career. Sure they might reject the message - but so few children even _hear_ this message at all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, very much agree with this. My young son also seems to have the right instincts, which I am very much encouraging. I hope I can have a positive influence in this.

      Delete