John Zmirak at The Stream writes in Tucker Carlson is Half Right that Carlson is right about the destruction of the family:
Carlson’s central complaint is serious. The family is collapsing in America, except among the upper and upper middle class. Marriage rates, birth rates, you name it — they’re all trending badly. The crisis of single parenthood that Daniel Patrick Moynihan identified in 1965 among black Americans? Working class white Americans now repeat the same pathology, and it’s far, far worse among blacks.
Kudos to Carlson for speaking truth to power.
The End of Fatherhood
As a rule, boys raised without fathers don’t do well. Many end up in prison. Neither do fatherless girls thrive, in fact. Much of the sexual abuse in America stems from stepfathers and transient boyfriends. Girls without stable father figures get pregnant much younger, and often end up trapped in the welfare system.
The decline of marriage is real. And one of the factors is the decline in male income relative to female. Survey after survey shows that women don’t tend to marry men who earn less (or even the same) as they do. Why? Part of it’s surely grounded in that horror, mammalian biology. Women far more than men are willing to sacrifice career advancement to spend time raising their children. Imagine that, giving up valuable hours spent in a cubicle to ensure your children’s safety, happiness, and avoid the lifelong, IQ-dimming effects of dismal daycare.
But if men can’t earn more to take up the slack, will women feel safe doing that? Since they can’t, lower-income men get locked out of the one institution that makes men healthier, happier, more virtuous and productive: marriage.
Instead they sow seed to the wind, producing more fatherless kids primed for social dysfunction. The welfare system, as George Gilder noticed back in the 1970s, has stepped in and replaced male providers. That makes it “safe” for young girls to get pregnant and bear children while still young, unmarried teens.
This conversation is a catastrophe for our conservative elites, who until Carlson upset the balance had clung to the liberal party line that nothing serious was wrong with our new family policy. Compare Zmirak’s assertion that we have a serious problem to the 2014 NY Times article complaining about misguided “hand wringing” regarding the state of marriage. From The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On
Despite hand-wringing about the institution of marriage, marriages in this country are stronger today than they have been in a long time. The divorce rate peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s and has been declining for the three decades since.
But it wasn’t just liberals at the NY Times trumpeting the “all is well” message. Conservative Christians were in lock step. The Christian Post declared in Author Debunks Myths About Divorce Rates, Including of Churchgoers
Many of the most demoralizing beliefs about marriage, especially when it comes to discouraging statistics commonly passed around, are just not true, says social researcher and best-selling author Shaunti Feldhahn.
“A subconscious sense of futility about marriage is everywhere, as everything we hear says marriage is ‘in trouble,'” states Feldhahn. “And while some of the bad news is accurate (for example, 41% of children are born out of wedlock), many of the most demoralizing beliefs just aren’t true. For example, the notion that half of all marriages end in divorce or that the divorce rate is the same in the church… neither are anywhere close to true.”
Moreover, Feldhan and the Christian Post were merely following in Glenn Stanton’s footsteps in this regard.
Carlson has dramatically changed the very nature of the discussion, from one of condescension for the “hand wringers” who are supposedly misinformed about the real state of the American family, to a conversation about the dire threat the destruction of marriage poses to our social fabric. Under the pre-Carlson regime, conservatives were free to focus on blaming men for not manning up and reaping the wondrous benefits of our new family model. Now we have conservatives openly speaking dangerous truths.
Yet while Zmirak is boldly laying out the problem, his analysis isn’t entirely correct. Zmirak argues that the 1964 Equal Pay Act* is at the root of the problem:
What Carlson’s Too Smart to Say (But I’m Not)
Defenders of the free market such as Ben Shapiro and David French have chimed in to criticize Carlson for blaming these phenomena on the free market, and proposing government action. J.D. Vance offered an eloquent, qualified defense. But I don’t think many commentators are cutting to the dark heart of the issue. And for good reason: it’s radioactive.
The problem isn’t a genuinely free market, but the unfree market that now prevails in America. That’s been a problem at least since 1964. That’s when Southern Democrats, trying to kill the Civil Rights Act, added “sex” to “race” discrimination as part of what we were outlawing. But Republicans went ahead and championed the bill, and it passed. Suddenly, private businesses that used to routinely pay more to attract that desirable quantity — a stable, reliable married man with mouths to feed — could no longer do so.
Quite rightly, defenders of the free market opposed laws mandating a “family wage.” But if private businesses, churches, or others concerned about family stability and promoting marriage wanted to offer it, the state wouldn’t prosecute them. And many did offer it. Beyond social concern, many saw the advantage in hiring and keeping “established” fathers of families rather than rootless single men or women.
Outlawing the American Family
In 1964, that private market choice became illegal sex discrimination. The explosion of radical feminism, of course, went much further, and effectively declared war on “male privilege,” wherever it existed.
The problem with this claim is that after the law was passed, 17 years went by before women’s wages as a percentage of men’s started to climb. Ironically what the feminist law ended up proving was not that businesses were favoring married men, but that businesses were claiming to favor married men in an altruistic effort to help families but were in fact paying individual men and women based on the value they brought to the table:
Something clearly did change the balance between men’s and women’s earnings, but whatever happened didn’t start until the early 1980s. Yet the destruction of the family started much earlier:
Divorce rates only show a partial picture. What we’ve seen is a combination of delayed marriage, a decline in the percentage of the population that ever marries, increased divorce rates, and a reduction in remarriage following divorce. Fortunately there is a single metric that captures the impact of all of these changes combined:
This doesn’t mean that Carlson and Zmirak are incorrect in asserting that men’s falling relative wages is an important factor in the destruction of the American family. I’m convinced they are correct in this regard. But it does mean that the Equal Pay Act of 1964* can’t have been what kicked the problem off.
At any rate, the most important thing is the genie is out of the bottle. Our conservative elites will have a very difficult time getting back to the good old days when they could ignore the destruction of the family and pretend that if men would merely put a ring on it everything would be just fine. Like Carlson, Zmirak is bravely telling the truth, and is to be commended for his courage.
*The act was passed in June of 1963 but did not come into effect until 1964.
According to this guy, we don’t even know if traditional monogamy is beneficial anymore (start at 15:00 mark).
What’s interesting is that he shows that unlike Puritanical American attitudes on marriage, Europeans for a long time have had de facto wife swapping/polygamous marriages with mistresses, cohabitation, etc. So, who is to say American’s decline in marriage is a bad thing. We’ll just have polyamory, lgbtq, bdsm to replace it as the new norm.
All this is nothing new, but I do have a question for our European commenters. Why do so many in Europe, like the French let’s say, get a pass on having affairs, mistresses. Yet, no one else seems to in the Christian world. It’s almost like the African converts to Christianity who are able to keep all their wives. They get a pass.
@ Damn Crackers
Yeah, let’s be like Europe. Because that’s working out splendidly for Europe.
Dalrock, I have a fun article for you.
Notice how the author actually says explicitly that being chivalrous means you’re as deferential to the lady as a subject to his king.
There are commentators on this site who were passed over because of “affirmative action”. Why bother going to college or university. Not to mention working in an office environment is like working in a Communist/National Socialist(Nazi) system where you have to watch what you do and say. Even then you can be subject to false accusations. Many women will not go with a man who is not considered educated, even though they work in industries where they make more income than the woman. Liberal arts, gender studies are considered “education” in the west. Hungary bans gender studies as it is an ideology, not a science. Many Hungarians know what it was like under socialism.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The situation is not sustainable and will go on only as long as the U.S. government is able to keep interest rates low, rack up more debt and inflate the currency. No idea how long that will continue.
Along with the moral, social, cultural and religious issues, there is the economic one. As Vox Day’s video on socio-sexual hierarchy explains, deltas are the backbone of civilization. They’re the average guys primarily interested in gaining respect through their competence and hard work. Their modest ambitions provide stability to a community.
What made Western Civilization succeed, and America in particular, is a regime of monogamy allowing the average man the chance to marry and have a family. He didn’t have to be rich or royalty; all he had to do was find a decent job and do it well. Monogamy also made it very difficult for average women to abandon the deltas in favor of the alpha or beta’s harem.
That model has been essentially destroyed over the last 60 years, and it is why despite the “strong economy” we have record numbers of men within work ages not in the labor force. Why work, when you don’t have to and one can expect no reward in the form of a wife and family? Telling the average man to “put a ring on it” makes no sense when the women they would normally marry aren’t interested, because those men have been replaced by the state.
Equal pay act is just jumping in front of the parade and pretending you are leading it. The elites pretend that they don’t understand that every government intervention requires another intervention to fix the problems they create with the previous one. Remove all the bad laws and watch people build families and reproduce again.
Such a thing is not self-enforcing when passed. Especially the more aggressive interpretations of it. It might be interesting to chart the funding for the EEOC, and in particular how much was designated over time for enforcement of sex discrimination issues.
Nonetheless, I’m inclined to agree that there was much more involved than just this.
We might expect a short delay between passage of the act and full traction/enforcement. But a 17 year lag is too long to suggest this was what happened. Moreover, what is being claimed is that employers were acting like a sort of labor purchasers cartel, underpaying for women’s labor and overpaying for men’s labor. But cartels need an enforcement mechanism, otherwise each member will loudly extol the virtues of the cartel while acting in their own best interest. This means they need a way to both identify and punish cheaters. The law would immediately make it impossible to do either. So if a cartel had been in place, it would have very quickly fallen apart. That it didn’t indicates that everyone was cheating, even if they weren’t really aware of this reality. I wrote about this here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/the-cheating-hearts-of-the-patriarchal-cartel/
I think that the primary drivers of the increase in women’s earnings beginning in the early 1980s were (1) the beginning of the trend of offshoring manufacturing and closing plants domestically, which took on even more steam in the 90s with NAFTA, but started in the 80s, and almost all of that docked male earnings and (2) the increased numbers of women graduating from college and earning reasonably well. When those are both going on at the same time I think you get the graph we see beginning in the early 80s and continuing into the 90s after NAFTA.
In defense of Zmirak’s argument, the 1964 Equal Pay Act was a signal for women to prioritize work over family. A seventeen year gap is almost exactly one generation of women; the children of the women who had just married and started families at the time of the 1964 EPA’s passage. We’d need to see rates of employment among women over time to know, but it could be that the market always paid market wages, yet it prioritized hiring men, and only the somewhat extraordinary women t the same rate. The EPA of 1964 would change the cultural incentives more than the pay, i.e., more women prioritizing careers over family. The overall increase in combined income would make individual pay rates go down by comparison. That hurts men trying to signal provider status for marriage.
What do you consider to be the best advice regarding marriage and family formation for marry-minded sons in 2019?
More to the point, do you agree with (recommend) men (for example, your sons), age 30+ deciding to get married today given the current gender war, feminism and frivolous divorce climate in the United States?
One test of the veracity of these propositions and statistics will be the reply from the academic super-cognoscenti and the SJW crowd. Will they dispute these trends and statistics?
My steakhouse dinner bet is that they will NOT dispute them but in essence will confirm them – then tell us it’s all a GOOD thing. It will hasten the destruction of the patriamalarkey. The detoxifying of masculinity into an opalescent mummifying goo. Ensuring that the unfortunate children who are pulled our of the chute will be the best Adderal-sedated cyphers they can be.
Remember the December 2018 Atlantic article “The Sex Recession”? (Discussed here and elsewhere). The response to it from the left was not that it was bad, but that it was good. As some of your favorite feminists have said: So women aren’t having sex anymore! Well why should they if the sex they’re offered isn’t any good at best or at worst unwanted if the men are too beta to have the bucks? Why make time for a family when you can Lean In with Meanin’, bank your own bucks, and have your own Fantastic Beastly life untethered to some Fortnite fiend?
@Oscar – Relax dude. I’m not advocating anything like that. I’m just pointing it out. Maybe you think I’m from the Trobriand Islander:
Why shouldn’t my sons toss your wrinkled old butt off the cliff a la Paul Ryan when you come to the hospital with life-threatening injuries from your starving cats in old age?
@Oscar – My apologizes if you’re talking about the researcher and not me. I unfortunately get too personally attached to many of these comments here.
This narrative (that lifelong monogamy is harmful) has been around for a while and is rising in prominence. It’s yet another tool with which to decimate the family.
I understand the label of Carlson’s detractors as “weak men are screwing feminism up”.
I think that’s oversimplifying it. What’s happening, and what Carlson and Zmirak are kind of sort of describing without actually saying so, is what naturally happens when men get pushed out of any market, be it sexual, relational or occupational.
When we tell men they’re not wanted, they just go away. Men weigh the costs and benefits, and if they conclude the costs outweigh the benefits or the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, they stop trying. They go within themselves, withdraw, and do their own thing. Hence David Bahnsen’s complaint about young men playing Fortnite for 11 hours every day. That’s overstating it, but we all get the point. They’re not getting the signals to start preparing for marriage. So they work only when they have to, earn only what they must to support themselves and their own pursuits, and otherwise disengage.
This is what men always do when faced with insurmountable odds and the knowledge that further effort is futile – they stop, and go do something else. They stop doing what they can see doesn’t work or what will never work, and they try another angle or approach. But no one, except maybe Dalrock and some other people around these parts, want to point this out.
At any rate, the most important thing is the genie is out of the bottle. Our conservative elites will have a very difficult time getting back to the good old days when they could ignore the destruction of the family and pretend that if men would merely put a ring on it everything would be just fine.
I sure hope you’re right. Things have changed radically in the last 10 years.
Another way to fight God…. Oppose His plan and structure for marriage. The results will never be pretty.
ConstrainedLocus, in my 5 1/2 years of reading the manosphere (3 1/2 years unmarried, 2 years married) I have found that DeepStrength has given the best advice on vetting a wife. Cane Caldo has given the best advice on living with her. I recommend that your sons read both of their blogs.
I don’t think the author of the other piece is suggesting that employers were conspiring to pay men more than women. I think he is suggesting that, prior to the passage of the law, each employer was independently acting in its own perceived best interest by being willing to pay a premium for married men because those men were perceived to be more reliable employees due to their financial obligations. May have been true at the time – might be less true now. I don’t know. But I don’t think he’s claiming any cartel-like collusion.
But my off-the-cuff intuition is to agree with more with Novaseeker’s analysis above. I also suspect that the overall change is more from death by 10,000 cuts of legislative and government administrative action. But the sudden start of the trend in 1982 is curious. I suppose this all implicitly presumes validity of the published data, which is another matter altogether.
January 10, 2019 at 2:55 pm
It occurs to me that the western white male is the ONLY one of God’s children upon whom “society” places the expectation that he live his life in a manner that not only does not in any way benefit him, but that actually HARMS him over the long term – that is, working and producing himself into an early grave for people who not only do not appreciate the fruits of his labors that they consider themselves entitled to, but who are at best indifferent to him, or at worst hate his guts and want him dead and gone.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban [..] signed the decree, which went into effect Saturday, removing gender studies from a list of approved master’s programs
There’s one leader that understands what it means to defend your people’s long-term interests.
The seventeen year gap is simple. CRA ’64 made ALL U.S. females Protected Class citizens. Along with EPA ’63, this was the American death-blow, following passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
Laws as broad and vast in scope as EPA ’63 and CRA ’64 take time to filter into both mass social consciousness and mass social consequences. It doesn’t happen instantaneously just because somebody passed a law. Roughly two decades is about right, in combo with the huge explosion of feminist and NWO propaganda fed into the U.S. and other Western systems beginning largely in the Fifties.
Carlson’s tentative quibble with Feminist America hardly ‘dramatically changes the nature of the discussion’. Hubris aside. It was a slight concession forced by the reality of Western nations dying fast under the rule of FeMarxism. As the patient continues to croak, and America continues to shatter, expect a few more such nods to reality. When folks start to get desperate, some will turn grudgingly to the truth. Seeing that the scams and comfortable delusions have failed.
There are so few American Christian pastors willing to tell the truth about this. Delighted that Carlson and Zmirak are willing to tell the truth about these issues instead of beating the Man Up! drum like most choose to do.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not signed into law by President Johnson until July 2, 1964. It was introduced into Congress in 1963 but took a year to be passed by both houses of Congress.
Of course, neither Tucker nor his followers will go near the real reason why many women are not willing to marry men who make less than them: women’s hypergamous nature.
@ Cane Caldo
There’s that word again. It’s almost as though our “conservative” betters keep missing it on purpose.
Pingback: John Zmirak is mostly right. | Reaction Times
A very prescient question…
Funny thing about that last chart.39% Black men married, vs 32% Black women married = WHERE DA WHITE WOMEN AT. Marriage-minded (responsible) black men are opting for other races in a big way.
On the “what kicked it off” question, again it goes back to the same: The ratio of reproductive aged males to that of females. You could also add details, starting around the time of Women’s Suffrage, the strongest men, those able to dismiss feminist demands, began to waver. Successive wars reduced the population of those strong males (globally) and left the reminders weakened and exhausted, while women entered the workforce never to be denied again. All other men were 4Fs and opted toward acquiescence as a strategy to access the poon. Post WWII Baby Boom replenished the male population and subsequent generations and improved life expectancy only made the problem worse.
tl/dr, the weakened male population allowed hypergamy to get a controlling foothold in the first place. Hypergamy, or feminists goals are contrary to (traditional) family building – that is your root cause of the decline in marriages.
Things that affect generations or whole societies are NEVER the result of top-down decisions or individuals. Leaders are chosen (or allowed) by masses of people and that is where you need to look as to the direction a population wants to go. Women got a huge say in where society should go and that direction is “feminine primary” (as Rollo says). Low pay is a result of women in the workforce and women deciding to allow in masses of immigrants, driving down wages. Simple supply and demand.
The environment that allows all this to even work is again the overabundance of men who can keep all the infrastructure going, producing good and services, writing laws and enforcing them in favor of hypergamy, competing against each other for access to the poon, funding the operations that support single mommyhood.
I think you’re giving this Zmirak too much credit. ‘conservative’ elites are just mourning the societal loss of Dalrock’s Partriarchy Dividend.
It’s fine to give men a fair shake in the job market, but without addressing no-fault-divorce they will just increase women’s (waning) incentive for divorce – more cash and prizes gals!
Men need more power in marriage. At the very least, that would require the reversal of no fault divorce.
Then, if men played by the rules they know they wouldn’t be fleeced. You can build a civilization on this.
The first comment here is from Damn Crackers who asks any European to explain why French men always have a mistress. I will (temporarily and with great distaste) place upon my head a European hat and say: I spent my childhood holidays with a French family. They were very well off yet never flaunted their wealth – only the nouveau riche do that. The wife was very good looking of the Jackie O type and detested ‘le rock and roll’ – would not allow it to be played in the Chateau. Her husband (my father’s childhood friend) had been a POW. He was an industrialist and had a mistress whom he had ensconsed in an apartment in Paris. Roman Catholics, of course. Sadly (but perhaps appropriately) he died comparatively young.
That is the French. The French talk of ‘le vice Anglais’ by which they mean that the English like to be whipped and flogged (which reminds us of our school days). You can always tell a lot about a nation from its pornography: the Italians are into anally abusing Nuns, the Germans are into FKK (naturism), and whatever the Scandinavians do it is very very very boring and unerotic. These people are all Christians.
As for American Porn – it simply imitates mainstream Hollywood and is as fake and manicured and as such its performers (e.g. Tracy Lords) actually act – and quite well too: all female Porn Stars in America sooner or later find Jesus and become born-again #metoo Xtians. Praise the Lord.
I agree with @Crank. If a business wants a long-term employee who is unwilling to move for better offers and eager to rise in the company a family man is going to be worth more than a young women who might get married and quit, or a young man who might get involved with the secretaries, arrive hung-over, or take a job in another city.
The EEOC didn’t have enforcement powers until 1972–the same year AT&T was forced to make a large settlement and abolish their mostly separate career tracks for men and woman (i.e. male technicians & engineers, female secretaries and switchboard operators). I don’t think it’s too surprising that it would take a while for any effect of this enforcement precedent to show up in wage statistics.
Not only did the 1964 act make the traditional “family man” positions illegal, the labor market in the US was changing. De-industrialization was in full swing by the ’80s, unions were in severe decline, and the growth of services catered to women’s strengths.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not signed into law by President Johnson until July 2, 1964. It was introduced into Congress in 1963 but took a year to be passed by both houses of Congress.”
Yes. The Kennedy Administration presented it, but he was removed in favor of a masonic insider — someone whose loyalties were not divided by Christianity (in JFK’s case, Catholicism). After the 1963 hit, the Full Agenda was rolled out, and rolled out damn quick. Fatboy Johnson ran all over Washington trying to pass it post haste. Guess why?
But like EPA ’63, CRA(P) ’64 was in the works for a long time before actual passage. Indeed, since well before the nation was officially founded. Building a Homeland for the Goddess always has been the secret intent of many powerful elements on this planet. And they got what they wanted in U.S.
“Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah?
And he said unto me, To build it an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set there upon her own base.” (Zechariah 5, referring to the Statue of Liberty, correctly, Statue of Goddess Libertas.)
The crafting of CRA ’64 is instructive. Here’s a page with details.
Guess who wrote that joke? It’d be the same personage who is still laughing at it. America never recovered, and likely never will.
Interesting to see such a long lag following the Equal Pay Act of 1964. That is important to recognize. As for John Zmirak, he’s not afraid to discuss the negative changes the Second Vatican Council had on the life of a typical good Catholic boy growing up afterwards.
“His mailman father went door to door collecting nickels and dimes to build the Catholic school John attended in Queens, New York and all along he was unaware of the demonic piffle the priests and nuns were teaching his own son. A ‘stocky nun; in a pants suit and red lipstick explained to the kids all about the wicked patriarchy… He offers the rather startling statistic that the actual population of authentically faithful Catholics in America is no more than 1.2 million. The remaining 95 percent slipped into heresy likely beginning with contraception, a teaching they do not understand.” -Austin Ruse
At any rate, the most important thing is the genie is out of the bottle. Our conservative elites will have a very difficult time getting back to the good old days when they could ignore the destruction of the family and pretend that if men would merely put a ring on it everything would be just fine.
But don’t put it past them to keep on trying. This is slightly OT, but The Gospel Coalition just published a piece showing that as far as our elites in the church are concerned, the problem is still that weak men are screwing up feminism. You might have heard that the American Psychological Association just declared that “traditional masculinity” is harmful to society and needs to be discouraged. The Gospel Coalition thinks that this is a very bad thing. Why?
Because it means that fewer women will be treated chivalrously.
Is it possible to white knight any harder than this? A professional medical organization makes a broad denunciation of men in general and demands they modify their behavior to a state many would find unnatural and uncomfortable . . . and all the church can find wrong with that is that it might hurt women.
Contrast the reaction that TGC offered to what you see from someone like Mike Cernovich:
That’s coming from a man who was raised Christian, but left the faith in his adulthood, no longer attends any church, and now declares himself an agnostic. As much as I hate to say this, I suspect that may have been for the best, because he understands what this story means much better than any of the professional “Christians” do. They have all of the same problems that were present in David French’s criticism of Tucker Carlson: While they sympathize with the idea of traditional sex roles, they’re ultimately terrified of confronting feminism and acknowledging sin on the part of women. So instead, they simply double down on their demands for responsibility from men while expecting nothing from the women, and thus end up preaching a bastardized prosperity gospel in which the men of the church are told that all of the problems faced by families in modern society would be solved if only they would “step up,” work harder, and defer even more to the whims and desires of the women.
The church at this point is worse than an enemy to men; It’s more akin to a Judas Iscariot who sells them out to their enemies for money and favors, but then insists that doing so was both good and righteous because it was an act that ultimately allowed for God’s will to be accomplished on earth.
Link to TGC article is here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/american-psychological-association-claims-traditional-masculinity-is-psychologically-harmful/
@ Darwinian Arminian
A professional medical organization makes a broad denunciation of men in general and demands they modify their behavior to a state many would find unnatural and uncomfortable . . . and all the church can find wrong with that is that it might hurt women.
I hope you won’t mind if I use your succinct evaluation of the TGC position when this subject comes up around me.
From the article you linked I took note of this as well:
“But androgyny is more than mere fashion. It’s a mixing of characteristics in a way that almost always privileges men.”
The TGC is so far out in left field that emasculating men also privileges them.
This whole Tucker Carlson episode, I’ve been completely glued to National Review. It’s pretty much ALL they talk about, Tucker Carlson (and Trump) all the time. They are full scramble mode but I was enthused that half of the writers are actually starting to defend Carlson on this one. I’m shocked really.
I thought the goal was “equal pay for equal work” so individuals in the same job title would be paid the same. Jobs that were traditionally filled by men were higher paying than those filled by women, but the pay would have to be the same for jobs that require the same education for the entry level position. As employers hired more qualified women to fill those jobs traditionally held by men and promoted those women, lest they be accused of discrimination by the Affirmative Action Officer, women’s wages as a percentage of men’s began to climb.
Also during the decade of the 1970’s the country experienced some extremely high inflation and unemployment rates which gave rise to the “misery index.” Individuals were lucky to have a job, any job.
Therefore, its possible that the lack of education required for jobs traditionally filled by men and high unemployment rates contributed to the delay (17 years) in decreasing the wage gap.
Wow, what a post up there. It’s something the redpill led me to understand as well; the idea that Western, white males are the ONLY demographic that has self-sacrifice as a characteristic, or instinct, or expectation–whatever you want to call it. Duty, ‘man-up,’ responsibility. It’s so ingrained in us that we can hardly acknowledge or even recognize our burden. No other demographic has any of those traits or expectations whatsoever. Every other demographic seems to have the feral self-interest of raccoons in comparison to us.
Maybe it’s time for us to stop lamenting the solipsism of females and the opportunistic DGAF mentality of non-whites and realize that they are simply human animals acting in their own interests for the current day. They’re not as bad as we think, it’s just that we’ve been so ultra-good.
Time to see how true self-interest feels. It actually sounds kind of fun. Eat, drink and be merry. I wish the best of luck to a world in which the white boys start to play around with solipsism/self-interest, and find that they like it. Good luck to the world when that gets underway. It’s coming too. There is simply no other way.
Pingback: Tucker Carlson finds populism. Can he set America ablaze? - Fabius Maximus website
It seems conservatives in the 1960s understood the connection between welfare and the destruction of the family better than they do today. I noticed Republicans tried (and succeeded?) cutting off food stamps to non-workers with no dependents. It is far more important to cut food stamps (and all welfare) to unwed mothers. This is the only way the family will make a comeback among the lower class.
If no food stamps and wefare existed for single moms lower class women would want to get married to the fine young gentlemen they reject today. Getting pregnant by a bad boy or thug would be extremely risky without welfare. Many of the decent young men who play video games all day today would become family men because they would be in demand. TrueCons can shame them and call them weak all day long and it will make no difference because they can not compete against Uncle Sam.
Jonathan Castle says:
Men need more power in marriage. At the very least, that would require the reversal of no fault divorce. Then, if men played by the rules they know they wouldn’t be fleeced. You can build a civilization on this.
This! This! This! DIng, Ding Ding! We have a winner!
Darwinian Arminian says:
… the American Psychological Association just declared that “traditional masculinity” is harmful to society and needs to be discouraged. …
Is it possible to white knight any harder than this? A professional medical organization makes a broad denunciation of men in general and demands they modify their behavior to a state many would find unnatural and uncomfortable . . . and all the church can find wrong with that is that it might hurt women. …
While they sympathize with the idea of traditional sex roles, they’re ultimately terrified of confronting feminism and acknowledging sin on the part of women. So instead, they simply double down on their demands for responsibility from men while expecting nothing from the women, and thus end up preaching a bastardized prosperity gospel in which the men of the church are told that all of the problems faced by families in modern society would be solved if only they would “step up,” work harder, and defer even more to the whims and desires of the women.
The church at this point is worse than an enemy to men; It’s more akin to a Judas Iscariot who sells them out to their enemies for money and favors, but then insists that doing so was both good and righteous…
I know many on here disagree, but the churchian houses of harlotry preach satanic shit plastering it over with the name of Jesus. They are “Great Whores”, feeding their sheep whitewashed piles of excrement adorned with the name of our Lord. Get out, or stay shit stained. He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith
The church needs an enema! There is just too much lies and impacted bullshit up in there to risk being there when it all comes out bearing fruit that stinks to high heaven. The church has gone whoring after the world and left the fear of God and the following of His word.
What we need is repentance! No revival starts with anything other than repentance. A church gone whoring, calls out to God in vain. God will not hear their unrepentant calls, so she will sit in front of every tent peg and open her quiver to the arrow.
You can’t repent along with whores! They don’t repent! Proverbs 30:20 Such is the way also of an adulterous woman: she eateth and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have not committed iniquity.
Unbowdlerized that reads: She takes it in, and wipeth her opening, and saith, I have not committed iniquity. That’s most churches. They’re in bed with the world, cuckolding Jesus, calling out to Him to bring them some tissues, to sop up Satan’s seed, not knowing Jesus is coming with a rod of iron instead. Get out before the beatdown.
Proverbs 27:12 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.
My heart has been saddened by two things, and I was made angry because of a third:
a warrior who is needy and impoverished,
intelligent people who are treated with contempt,
and people who are turned from righteousness to sin—
the Lord will prepare them for the sword.
Depart from the great whore of souls, repent with shame unto God, and flee from the evil to come, warning others to do likewise. Perhaps, like Lot, vexed in his righteous soul by their unlawful deeds, you may be spirited out and spared from the destruction of Sodom. Do not tarry, don’t even turn back to look longingly on your old church home. The lot is cast, as the Lord lives they will not go unrepentant and yet unpunished. You don’t want to be gnashing your teeth with them when the smoke of their torment rises up for ever and ever! Repent! Fear God, and flee from evil.
Your salvation will not be found in anything but repentance. Your consolation will not be in this present life. Harden yourself for battle. Only when you have fought the good fight and passed over will you enter into His rest. You can’t fight a battle as part of a squad of whores wanting to surrender their pussies to every tent peg. Get out of the churchian squads of Satans “comfort women”, and fight for the Lord. He will lead you Himself, He will go before you. The head of every man is Christ.
Thanks to Dalrock for faithfully planting the seminal seed of God’s word here. The man-o-sphere red-pilled ideas are catching on with some people as they feel their lives fouled by the evil around them. And come looking for answers. Help pull them out of the fire, out of delusion, out of false religion. Glory be to God our Father, and Jesus Christ His son. His blood has bought our pardon, and we will prevail by the Word of our testimony of His overcoming of sin and death and hell. I, for one, won’t be going back to flock where those cunt worshippers try to blasphemously emasculate the things of God. Lord, wash me whiter than snow! Don’t let their feminized churchian shit stick to me. Free my mind with the truth of your word. Make me, and us all, mighty in you Spirit, to break down their strongholds with your holy word. Amen!
Good sermon sharkly.
What little male bonding remains after high school is usually at the work place.
Putting females into male work situations changes the Entire male social relationship.
This effective solidarity tactic is why the Marxists demand it occur in ALL places.
The epitome of male sanctuary,the football locker room, raped by female presence.
All places males congregate: Open targets for social extermination.
The only thing Zmirak left out, was that the Equal Pay Act told women what their itching ears wanted to hear.
After that, all social issues manifest in Western civilization have been due to the dismantling of restraints on women’s hypergamy.
What good did the Equal Pay Act do? It made women want work over children. That was okay if they exercised restraint, but women are incapable of restraint. Now, children come a distant second-last, after education, travel, spending money and “freedom” (promiscuity).
A distant second-last. Last ,of course, is the husband.
Me thinks you nitpick too much. Zmirak is entirely correct, because he used the example of the passage of that particular law in 1964 as the starting point of radical feminism, which is the cause of all the issue with marriage in modern Western society at the moment. That is how I interpreted what he wrote
That this is finally being talked about in conservative circles openly gives me a tiny ray of sunshine & hope. However, much more has to be done.. We now need some brave pastors and priests to start doing the same in our churches.. A good start for the Roman Catholic Church would be to get ride if their current leftist Marxist pope…….
Lets check the tape:
It flat out isn’t true. It is a cherished myth, facts be damned.
How many paid married men more? How widespread was that? I have no idea and I am not sure how to research it well.
Good take on this dalrock.
Sharkly at January 11, 2019 at 2:22 am:
Very well written. Now how many religious professionals will say even half of that from their monied position of authority in man-made religious organizations?
I began working in the late 1960’s as college graduate with a degree in mechanical engineering for an extremely large defense contractor. This is my experience –
Out of perhaps a hundred engineers, there were no female engineers and one black engineer who was extremely competent. At that time, women didn’t study engineering. Promotions were based on merit, but preference was given to married men because they needed the money for the family. Their wives were stay at home. Single men were promoted, but it took much longer – like many years. Today, many women study engineering, get rapidly promoted and placed in management positions bypassing many men (married or not) who have substantially greater experience. The rationale is they need to know how to manage and not how to do the work.
If women entering the workforce was an after effect and not a cause of the decline of marriage, what is? From the graphs, the white cohorts trail the black cohorts decline in marriage rates after 1960. Maybe the rise of the welfare state is the real culprit we’re dealing with here.
How many paid married men more? How widespread was that? I have no idea and I am not sure how to research it well.
I once worked with an emeritus-status man on a little applied research. He had been in the military right between WW II and Korea for a few years, then went to engineering school on the GI money. One time when he was cleaning out old boxes from storage he found a stack of his own documents and showed them to me.
This man had started work in 1955 as an entry level engineer. HIs starting pay was something like $3,000 per year but he got an extra 10% after the first year ($3300) because he got married. So 60+ years ago, at least in one sector of what we would now call “tech”, married men got 10% more than single men in some cases. Is that a “family wage”? No idea.
White men and black men are married at higher rates than white and black women, respectively. These four groups comprise a very large fraction of the total population. Does this imply that some other racial group has *many* more married women than men?
Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The illegal immigrants are illegal edition. – Adam Piggott
But if married men were paid more, was it because they were regarded as more desirable employees, or essentially as an act of generosity, because they needed the money more?
The data I shared doesn’t tell us how many women entered the workforce. It only tells us the relative pay (compared to men) for those who did.
This seems like the most logical explanation. In recent decades economists and sociologists have studied the “premium” married men receive. There is much controversy over exactly why married men are more productive than unmarried men, but I haven’t seen any claims that employers are tracking who is married and who isn’t and paying the married men more. The consensus is married men really are more productive. The question among the researchers is why. The answer there is obvious: Because married men have to work harder to support a family than they would have to work if they were single. Feminists are forever trying to prove that the man’s increased productivity is really something he stole from his wife (doing less housework, etc). This is nonsense.
I can think of no reason to suggest that married men in the 1950s and early 1960s had less pressure to support their families financially than men do today. If anything, they should have had more pressure in a time when single earner households were more common. This explains why we hear anecdotal stories like the one Anon Reader shared while the data shows that companies weren’t really overpaying married men. Both are true.
1) Married men earned more (just like today).
2) Married men weren’t paid a premium simply for being married men (just like today).
You are incorrectly assuming that the male and female population is of equal size. Almost all societies have more women than men, so in countries which outlaw polygamy, there will always be more unmarried women than unmarried men, simply because there are not enough men to go around. China, of course, is an exception, but that is due to government manipulation through the one child policy, and the cultural preference for sons.
Biologically, more males are conceived than females, but males fetuses die more commonly in utero, more male infants die, more male children die, more male teenagers die through risky behaviors, and even in adulthood more men die due to dangerous jobs and warfare. So any non-manipulated population will always have more female adults than male adults. This, btw, is one of the better arguments against voting rights for women.
I recall a long-ago sociology survey asking men in tough lines of work – such as fishermen, lumberjacks coal miners (then all more physically demanding and dangerous jobs than those of police and firemen) – why they took those jobs. A garbage collector (this was when that was one of the most back-breaking and dangerous jobs) said the question was stupid: “for his family, of course.”
They didn’t do it for fulfillment or to validate their toxic masculinity. These were jobs at which men with little education could support a family. Otherwise many men elected, as some always have, to work just hard enough to get by. With booze, drugs, sports, and games keeping them happy.
Social scientists are still seeking answers to this question. It is still a stupid question.
I don’t have the data handy to prove this one way or another, but as I recall Asian women were more likely to be married than Asian men. The other factor would simply be a mismatch in the population sizes of men and women. Slightly more boys are born than girls, but men have a higher mortality rate than women. So the older the age group, the more it will start to skew female. Also, men are more likely to be imprisoned than women.
A link I ran across today to a copy of The American Mercury from October 1937. It was a conservative magazine in the style of The Atlantic.
If you read a few of the articles, you realize that there is nothing new under the sun.
Click to access american_mercury_october_1937_2.pdf
“men are more likely to be imprisoned than women.”
Many of these surveys look at the non-institutionalized population. Since men are more likely to be imprisoned or in an asylum (due to their larger variance in attributes), that creates a bias.
The gender tilt is even large in studies using employment data, much of which uses civilian non-institutionalized adults.
Zmirak is perhaps placing himself sotto voce on one side of an inside-the-beltway Catholic dispute, in which free market fans like Zmirak are squaring off against those who think the Catholic Church requires employers to pay married men a “family wage” come what may (Exhibit A: Zippy, God rest his soul).
This may explain the disparity between his claim of a sudden collapse in married men’s pay, and Dalrock’s figures showing a generation-long delay in pay equalization. He is perhaps too keen to pinpoint a specific market failure, and unwilling to acknowledge the more nuanced causes.
Zmirak is a mensch and I’ve thanked him in the past for helping me become a Catholic, but I suspect his efforts to avoid sounding like an Integralist are tripping him up here.
Interesting anonymous_ng for Wikipedia states that The American Mercury didn’t start to really attract conservative writers until after a change of ownership in the 1940s. That 1931 publication might look conservative by today’s leftist standards but apparently it was moderate by 1931 standards.
@ Mountain Man
The difference isn’t that big. In the USA, there is 1 man for 1 woman in the 25-55-year-old cohort. In younger cohorts there are slightly more men. In older cohorts there are more women. That’s why every polygamous country is a shithole*. Men without families (and without any hope of acquiring one) have very little incentive to be productive.
* Oil-rich Arab countries are an exception, because productive foreign men make them wealthy.
Forgot the link.
I think you are correct about the condition of countries which approve of polygamy. My comment was not advocating for polygamy, merely noting a demographic trend and biological basis for understanding the discrepancy Darin noticed.
“Promotions were based on merit, but preference was given to married men because they needed the money for the family.”
This was standard, at least in most small/medium size towns, in the Fifties and Sixties. Married men first, single men after. The culture recognized generally that preference to males encouraged family formation, social stability, and a robust and competent infrastructure and institutions. That made most peoples’ lives easier and better, for reasons explicated herein frequently. Then fallen authorities and the Deep State stepped in to capitalize on the prior century of simmering American female rebellion, rising goddess cults, and neo-pagan affiliations.
Male preference was exchanged for female preference and male disenfranchisement, and the place inevitably went to shit, elite and UMC largely excepted, with the frag-detonation of EPA ’63 and the pride of New Amerika, CRA ’64. Their poison worked slowly but surely.
@Oscar @Mountain man
Not to mention that the difference is only substantial when women are Middle aged or Elderly.
What matters is that ratio of single young women 18-30 to men. And single men outnumber women.
Have a look:
Women outnumber men in the middle age to Elderly Age Range. Single Men outnumber women who are 18-30 years old:
Just searched this site for ‘Wiley’ and didn’t see any references to this author: Any thoughts? https://www.patheos.com/blogs/gloryseed/2018/10/advice-for-a-single-woman-who-is-looking-for-a-masculine-man/ https://www.amazon.com/Man-House-Handbook-Building-Shelter/dp/1532614772/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Pingback: Tucker Carlson says unmentionable things about marriage - Fabius Maximus website
The question among the researchers is why. The answer there is obvious: Because married men have to work harder to support a family than they would have to work if they were single.
This is obvious, although I supposed hard to prove conclusively.
Feminists are forever trying to prove that the man’s increased productivity is really something he stole from his wife (doing less housework, etc).
They are? I might look that up, although I can only stomach reading feminist theory in small doses.
But you’d be right. Although we have some evidence, mostly anecdotal, of married men receiving a higher base pay and preference for employment, even where this occurred it would have been a small factor in married men earning more. The main factor was that married men tend to work longer and harder.
And I’m not sure if employers ever have had a marked preference for married men. For the great majority of jobs I can’t see employers really caring either way. Where they did give a higher pay to married men, this would have been out of social pressure and fear of a community backlash if they didn’t.
In the military married men do receive higher pay and other benefits. Some interpret this as a preference for married men, truth is I get the impression the military prefer single men. They are obligated to pay more to married men and not discriminate against them however.
The endless free meals are coming to an end. No more sneating.
The inescapable conclusion seems to be that we Christian men need to start more businesses and hire our fellow Christian men preferentially.
Captain Marvel is a woman:
Yep. Another movie role that is essentially a man with boobs.
OT: Don’t believe in slippery slopes? You’re on one, whether you believe it or not.
Pedophilia is being normalized right in front of our eyes, just as transgenderism and homosexuality were before that. And the trajectory is getting steeper and slipperier.
Also note; it’s always the mother.
“How many paid married men more? How widespread was that? I have no idea and I am not sure how to research it well.”
I worked in one UK financial institution where one of the ‘old boys’ had preserved the literature from his recruitment in 1974.
There were two entirely separate career paths – careers for men, careers for women. Careers for men were better paid and had longer hours (men started at 8, women at 9). Part-time roles were exclusively for women and were tailored to school hours and holidays.
It was taken for granted that women would neither want nor need to work til retirement, and that men would.
“Yep. Another movie role that is essentially a man with boobs.”
OT: There are two Captain Marvels. The first one was published by Fawcett Comics decades ago. He’s the kid who says “shazam” and turns into Captain Marvel, a Superman like character. DC acquired Fawcett comics and Captain Marvel was tossed into the “vault” for decades. During that time DC forgot to renew the copyright on Captain Marvel and Marvel comics jumped on the name and they now own the copyright. They also came out with their own Captain Marvel, the man with boobs.
The leaves the original Captain Marvel in a sort of limbo. Because of prior art, DC can still call him Captain Marvel, but because they lost the copyright they can’t call use that name in any comic book, TV show or movie title, so thye have resorted to using “Shazam” for that, and now DC appears to have completely thrown in the towel and are calling Captain Marvel “Shazam”.
As for the man with boobs, I have zero interest in her movie. Also, there are strong rumors that she is going to be the one to vanquish Thanos in the next Avengers movie. I guess I’ll be skipping that one too.
I am wonder how long until we are fed sympathetic pedos in prime time TV. I wouldn’t be surprised if the big push is this year. We are also going to be hammered with some notion that kids have an inalienable right to sex, with anyone they want, meaning that if some creep shows up at your door for for a date with your kid, and if your child is willing, there will be nothing you can do to stop it, and if you try, the boys in blue with Child Protection Services will show up and seize your children, because you are an abuser. I can see this happening in as little as 5 years,
There are a LOT of MGTOWs jumping on Carlson for not going all the way with this. Women’s empowerment, women in the workforce out earning increasing % of men, women being the primary consumers in western society and women out classing men educationally for the past 30-40 years is always ignored in these bits. Carlson deserves praise for at least broaching the subject (for which he lost Red Lobster as ad revenue) but he’s just this side of crossing the line none shall dare.
I’ll be impressed if he makes the connection of this women’s empowerment destruction of the American family with the fertility rate decline that CNN reported on (and excused away on men) this week.
Poor little sneaters get a bit of online shaming.
Here’s what happens when a male sneats;
Good question. Is transgenderism “normalized”? The media pushed like hell with Bruce Jenner, then there was some other youtube mass push about a male to female. Will we see outright pushing for pedos in the next year or two?
Sad part is there is truly no way to fix that politically. You win by going above and beyond what the opposition is willing to do. The Right, so far, is not willing to match the Left, much less surpass it…
And no, they didn’t replace the DC Captain Marvel with a woman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6GEIrcvFY
Carol Danvers was a pilot and she was in things like the old X-Men cartoons, they did boost her femiknist pride from Miss Marvel to Captain Marvel, but no, they didn’t gender swap the SHAZAM! Superhero to a girl. So not that bad yet.
Look at it this way, Corporate America treated North Carolina as a pariah when it passed a law to keep men out of the ladies room, threatening to ban it from hosting superbowls and NCAA events, North Carolina buckled under the pressure and partially repealed the ban.
Now it’s possible that the average Joe still thinks that only women should be able to use the ladies room, but if that’s the case then most are too afraid to speak up or tell the NFL to stick the Superbowl where the sun doesn’t shine.
Correct, they are two separate characters, owned by different companies.
Yes. Just try speaking up against transgenderism, if you don’t believe me.
Whomever you’re not allowed to criticize rules you.
They already are.
As I stated before, the normalization of pedophilia is already built into transgenderism. Think about it. If a 10-year-old boy can consent to having a 35-year-old surgeon cut off his genitals, what’s the logical objection to that same 10-year-old boy consenting to having that same 35-year-old surgeon fondle his genitals? Which is worse? Which is more permanent? Which does more damage?
Free speech is a fine thing, as long as you don’t say something horrible, such as that Bruce Jenner is a man…
Captain Marvel from Marvel Comics had been a former Kree warrior and ended up dying at some point. Carol Danvers took it over a fair bit later. They have mixed in a fair bit of lesbianism into that area as well, with related characters being girl pals as it were.
Completely different from the DC Captain Marvel, though I wouldn’t put it past DC to make such a shift at some point.
Marvel already wrote out Peter Parker apparently, with Miles Moralez (sp?) now being the “real timeline” Spiderman. These are not your father’s comics any more, nor probably your own.
Off-topic: my Mom’s cancer is active again. Prayers would be appreciated.
@AR Free speech is a fine thing, as long as you don’t say something horrible, such as that Bruce Jenner is a man…
In this case he “voluntarily” resigned, but was basically pressed by almost all the members of his congregation to leave. So this is not so much an issue of free speech, but of the common objection of Christians against taking orthodox positions in the gender debate.
Pastor Hoke updated his Facebook post on 1/14/19 with:
That doesn’t sound the same as “voluntarily resigned” to me, but ….
Men with convictions need to start forcing them to fire us, not just voluntarily getting out of the way. Let them stand on the record for their perversity. Though that church is hosed as it doesn’t stand for anything firm. A house built on sand….
@OK No that doesn’t sound like voluntarily, which was mentioned in the quoted article:
“The pastor also noted that he wasn’t “fired,” but that the church faced a potential fracture in the wake of the fervor surrounding the sign, and that in order to keep the church intact, he felt it was best to vacate his position.”
And his own words were recorded as : “Therefore it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the local body for us (TBPC and the Hoke family) to part ways.”
So we’re not hearing the complete story for sure.
* the council (?) determined it was best if he stepped down
* he wasn’t fired
* he did not want to leave
* he did not quit
* he was willing to stay
* he felt it was best to vacate his position
I think his last statement most accurately describes the situation without contradicting his other statements.
Purge 187, I’ll think about you. I wish you strength in that difficult time!
Ray at January 11, 2019 at 9:38 pm:
Linked from that article is a real classic:
Don’t be fooled by the title. The author (a woman) is a flaming feminist who states that women were only freed from the “slavery” of traditional marriage 50 yrs. ago, but who is angry at “feminism” (an abstract idea; wouldn’t want to blame any actual women for anything) for not providing her with the steaming hot fried ice that she craves and needs.
She perceives correctly that feminism achieved what it was (to any sane person) obviously designed to do, i.e., force women into male roles and destroy their feminine nature and therefore the family, the real target of the leftist/feminist ideologues, and now she’s not happy with that result. She wants to see “real feminism” which will create a loving ,nurturing Utopia of feminized men and the women who will rule them. (OK, I assume she wants to keep a few sexy bad boys around to service her needs from time to time, as well.)
If Dalrock has time, I think this would be worthy of his analysis.
Pingback: Not According To Plan | Spawny's Space