Dolearchy Trumps Patriarchy

The easiest way to sell divorce is to make it advantageous to wimmynz “financial independence”.

Readership: All
Length: 2,700 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes
Reader’s Note: In this essay, a few terms are introduced for the sake of brevity.

  • Dolearchy (dole + archy) is here defined as government sponsored aid programs and certain legislative policies having ultimate control over society (or a segment of society).
  • Free Income refers to income from alimony, child support, federal and state benefits and programs, imputed income, and the like. “Free” means it is available to her whether she gets out of bed in the morning or not.
  • Financial Independence is not used in the sense of becoming independently wealthy, but in the sense that the woman is able to manage her own finances (supported by “free income”) outside of a man’s authority.
  • Upper-middle (and higher) class marriages are referred to as UMC/+ marriages, while lower middle (and lower) class marriages are referred to as LMC/- marriages.

Introduction

NovaSeeker’s post, Is Patriarchy for Deplorables? (2021 May 31), brought up the question of why upper-middle (and higher) class marriages (UMC/+) are more egalitarian and more feminized yet less prone to divorce, while lower middle (and lower) class marriages (LMC/-) tend to be more patriarchal, yet more prone to divorce. Several reasons were given in a follow up post, Patriarchy is the Default Setting (2021 June 2).

However, NovaSeeker doubted whether certain facts and statistics surrounding single parent households are indeed trustworthy. As he wrote,

“In fact, the data are even worse than this, when one takes into account family formation. In that data, the percentage of kids raised in intact families by “class” is compared. However, that data looks at “couples” only — in lower SES segments, single parenthood is much more common. Because of this, the data concerning how people who aren’t in the couples category are doing, with respect to breadwinning in the lower levels, dramatically overstates the difference, I think, because it omits the data that relates to the children that are raised outside stable couples in those classes — situations where there isn’t any “intact patriarchal model” at all, because there isn’t an intact family of any kind.

This does, indeed, break down by the mother’s education levels, married and unmarried, as seen in this article from EconoFact: Widening Socioeconomic Differences in Childrens Family Structure. And, the data also “leaves out” the highly educated high-income people who are not coupled, or do not have children, too. So it skews on that side, too, although the overall tendency is for uncoupled UMC and higher people, who are not divorced, not to have children regardless of their sex.”

This post will take a closer look at some more data to find the truth of the matter. Namely, the following questions will be addressed.

  • What is the percentage of single and married parent homes?
  • What is the percentage of single and married parent homes by socio-economic class?
  • What is the percentage of single parent homes headed by men vs. by women?
  • How do government sponsored aid programs affect the institution of marriage?
  • What is the impact on men?
  • Is patriarchy truly for deplorables, or is this merely a misinterpretation of badly skewed statistics?

The Decline of Married Parent Homes

The article cited by NovaSeeker above offers the following data on family structure. The article says,

Only 63 percent of children in the U.S. today live with married parents (defined as either biological, adopted, or step parents), down from 73 percent in 1990 and 77 in 1980. The next most common type of family structure for children to be living in is with a lone mother: 21 percent of children live with a mother with no likely partner present, up 3 percentage points since 1990. Another 7 percent of children live with an unmarried parent and partner, up 4 percentage points since 1990. Five percent of children live with a lone father, up two percentage points since 1990. Four percent of children now live in households with no parent present. That number has been roughly stable since 1990.”

As can be seen in the following bar chart (Fig. 1), single mother homes make up the grand majority of single parent homes. This is because (1) having children out of wedlock is slowly becoming more fashionable, and (2) divorcing women are routinely awarded custody for various reasons, namely the Tender Years Doctrine coupled with legislation that favors women.

Figure 1.

The article also states a deplorable fact…

“There are large gaps in the share of children living with married parents across racial and ethnic groups, even within education groups. Non-Hispanic White and Asian children are significantly more likely to live with married parents, as compared to Hispanic and black children.”

Racial inequalities are simply unacceptable to monochromatic social engineering! Since any talk about racial differences is taboo, I’ll just say that an intact marriage smells more like Patriarchy with each passing year! It’s truly deplorable!

But in spite of all the inequalities, we cannot overlook the plight of single mothers — many of whom willingly chose their fate.

“Gaps in children’s outcomes between those with married and unmarried mothers – what we might call a “marriage premium for children” – depend on the resources the mother has herself, the resources her partner would bring to the family, and the ways in which children’s outcomes are affected by parental resources.”

The problem is that the “marriage premium for children” doesn’t register on the LMC/- female radar.* So the article cites several scientific studies that show children who grow up in an intact family fare better in life (as if that were ever in doubt), and then concludes that…

These trends and gaps matter because research has shown that on average, children from married-parent homes benefit from the extra resources that a married-parent home offers relative to other types of household arrangements. Conditional on other family and parental characteristics, children who grow up with an unmarried mother have lower levels of educational attainment and higher levels of teen childbearing…”

Of course, our gubmint overlords believe the best and easiest way to “fix” this inequality (shriek!) is to put single mothers on the dole!

* H/T: Kentucky Headhunter

Wimmyn Follow the Money…

In addition to the data on married parent homes, let’s take a closer look at single parent homes.

Quite by coincidence (or the hand of God, if you prefer), I came across an old post from Artisanal Toad’s Hall entitled, Following the Money… (2013 August 17), which addresses this topic. (I know some readers will be shaking their heads at the mention of ATH, but this post is about finance, not polygamy.) Below, I’ve reposted this essay in its entirety (separated by star bars). I’ve taken the liberty to update the numerical figures cited to the current 2021 values, and I’ve edited the text for clarity and ease of reading.

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

According to the 2012 data, there are about 12,279,000 single parent households in the United States.  The vast majority of them are headed by women, as can be seen in the chart below:

Figure 2.

What we immediately notice is that single-family households are dominated by households headed by women, with an almost even split between the never-married and the divorced or separated.  Looking at the income of single family households (Fig. 3), we see that almost half of all single-parent households headed by women (45.6%) have a household income less than $25,000 a year (<$2,083 per month).

Figure 3.

Included in the census definition of income is child support, alimony, federal and state benefits, and other income.  This distinction is important to properly understand Fig. 3, because “income” as described by the Census Bureau goes beyond even the IRS definitions of taxable income, to include literally all monies received.  The only thing missing (and a major omission in most accounts) is imputed income, such as in cases in which the ex-wife lives in the home purchased by her ex-husband and he is required to continue paying the mortgage.  Another example is the state-run health-care programs for children that operate on an ad hoc basis, essentially for free.  There is no accounting for these benefits, which would cost a significant amount if purchased on the open market.

As an illustration*, let’s consider the situation of a divorced mother with two children. The average monthly child support payment is $430 per child. If we assume she is receiving child support payments, then she would be receiving around $960/month in child support.  The average SNAP** benefit is around $127 per month per person. The SNAP benefits for three people (two children and herself) amounts to $381/month. If we only count these two sources of income ($11,520/year in child support and $12,000/year from SNAP), that is a total of $23,520/year!  In other words, a significant number of single mother households (~40%) are supported entirely by the father of their children and the state.  In this case, the state is using its police powers to expropriate money from the biological father.

The next chart (Fig. 4) shows a comparison of single parent households by adjusted income, which does not include “free income”. As you can see, once the “free income” is removed, around 28% of single parent homes headed by women have an income below $10,000/year. Over half of these single mother families (~52%) have earnings of less than $25,000/year! In contrast, 41.7% of all single-parent households headed by men have an income of greater than $50,000/year.

Figure 4.

As can be seen by the chart above (Fig. 4), single, divorced, and separated mothers are effectively married to the state!

* This illustration only considers child support and SNAP benefits, but there are many other programs as well, including medical insurance for the children (such as the Well Kids program) that account for an “on demand” benefit that would otherwise cost a significant amount of money each month.
** Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The Impact on Men

The next chart (Fig. 5) considers men fifteen years of age and older, and compares the earnings of married men to men who are either never married, separated, divorced, or widowed. Note that the percentages listed in this chart are all men.  Here, we see that married men have a strong tendency to earn more than their never-married or no-longer married counterparts. And yet, the “not married” men in the chart below, who earn significantly less than married men, are the same men typically paying out child support and alimony!  As the saying goes, “When it rains, it pours!”

Figure 5.

From age fifteen and up, many men will spend some ten years pursuing an education (effectively investing in themselves) without earning any income.  Thus, just below 14% of all men who have no earnings are married, a percentage only surpassed by the cohort of married men earning $40,000 to $75,000 per year.  Given the economy and long-term unemployment of many men, it is believed chronic unemployment and a shift to grey-market employment accounts for the significant percentage of married men with no official earnings.

Once past $25,000 per year, married men consistently out-earn not-married men in every category, especially the $40k-$75k quintile, and the relative differences get bigger as the income rises.  One inference that might be drawn from this observation is that the not-married men do not have as much incentive to earn more money as their married peers do, given that increases in earnings will result in increased child support and alimony payments.

By comparing Figs. 3, 4, and 5, it can be seen that the “free income” allowance for single parent households headed by men is insignificant, because on the low end of the scale, men receive no statistically significant child support from women, and tend not to apply for or receive welfare benefits.

In addition, there is very much a double standard for men and women in family court as witnessed by the fact that women receive primary custody of the children 80% of the time.  Anecdotal evidence indicates only men who are able to hire competent counsel and afford investigative services to prove the woman is less fit than they are to receive custody are actually able to gain custody, such is the power of the bias against men. So perhaps the most reasonable way to view these charts is that only men with enough money to afford good counsel and investigative services are able to gain custody of their children in the current legal environment.

If one accepts that the destruction of marriage creates a disincentive for men to be productive, this is proof that feminism is destroying the US economy.

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

I’ll add another observation to Toad’s analysis.

As to why married men out-earn not-married/divorced men on average, I want to point out that it is not only because marriage apparently incentivizes men to work and to earn. Another reason is because women are more likely to divorce those men who earn less. This is revealed in Figs. 6 and 7.

Figure 6.

Yes, the destruction of marriage creates a disincentive for men to be productive. To be more specific, men lose heart and become hopeless because of (1) the forced redistribution of his income, (2) the insurmountable challenge to his socio-economic self-determination, (3) the utter loss of his Patriarchal authority, (4) the erosion of marital stability, (5) the dishonor men are subjected to by the government (and media), and (6) the disrespect and disloyalty of women who choose “financial independence” over husband, marriage, and family.

The Gynogubmint Money Funnel Undermines Marriage (and Patriarchy)

As Dalrock, Toad, and NovaSeeker suggest, independence, finances, and having a comfortable lifestyle appear to be the preeminent priorities of women of all classes (except in cases where a functioning Headship prevails).

The relative ease of women obtaining “free income” from child support, alimony, and other state funded benefits creates an incentive for women to divorce not only lower earning men, but men from all strata (since child support and alimony is calculated from the man’s earnings).

If a woman can maintain the same income after a divorce (or more, judging by Fig. 4), then getting a divorce cuts out the “middle man” (i.e. her husband), and allows her to pursue “financial independence” – not in the sense of becoming independently wealthy, but in the sense that the woman is able to manage her own finances (supported by “free money”) outside of a man’s authority.

Therefore, if natural affection (i.e. tingles) is absent, and the convenient, comfortable trappings of a moderately wealthy lifestyle are not present in a marriage, then she’ll soon be serving him divorce papers, especially when the state is offering generous assistance programs. In short, there is no incentive for a secular woman to stay in a marriage – unless she actually loves the man and can accept a Headship structure. To those well read in the Manosphere, this comes as no surprise, but Fig. 7 makes this fact abundantly clear.

Figure 7.

As the saying goes, “No money, no honey!” But Uncle Sam’s got money! So there she goes!

Mind you, this is all backed by state and federal legislation and various state sponsored social programs!

Conclusions

In summary, there seems to be a concerted effort by the state to “sell” divorce to a wide swath of women who happen to find themselves in unhaaapy marriages as a consequence of any number of factors. This phenomenon was well covered by Dalrock. (See the posts listed below.) In light of the above information, we see that divorce is not being “sold” per se, but rather, it’s being doled out through “free income”!

All this easily explains why there are so many single-parent households hosted by women, and especially in the LMC/-.

Finally, in regard to NovaSeeker’s question, Is Patriarchy for Deplorables?, we come to the same conclusion that was reached in the previous post: LMC/- marriages are not LMC/- because they are patriarchal, nor are they patriarchal because they are LMC/-, but simply because only the patriarchal marriages survive!

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Collective Strength, Conspiracy Theories, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Female Power, Food, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Headship and Patriarchy, Models of Failure, Organization and Structure, Psychology, Relationships, SEC Studies, Statistics Reports, Stewardship, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Dolearchy Trumps Patriarchy

  1. Liz says:

    Good writeup.
    Also, for years there were programs designed to help young men who lacked a paternal role model of any kind… But woke scolds have struck down those as well.

    At our last location, there was a big brother program designed to help boys at risk in the community who had no father figures. A tranny (woman dressed as a man) wanted to serve as a brother and was (understandably) rejected by the recipient family. They were forced to shut the program down.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Scott says:

      Yes.

      I’ve been arguing a part of this point for some time now, without much luck getting people to listen.

      The MAIN (if not the ENTIRE) task of an institution is to STAY THE SAME.

      This is because the mission and point of of an institution is to propagate and propel a set of values into the future. Every institution form marriage, to the church to the Boy Scouts must keep this task in clear eyed focus in front of it at all times.

      The deepest, most maleficent factors on the left know this. The problem is, once they take over an institution, they are stuck with the conundrum of knowing why institutions exist, while being ambivalent about “values” in the first place.

      “We own and run this thing. Its purpose is to keep the status quo. But we hate the status quo. What do we do now?”

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “We own and run this thing. Its purpose is to keep the status quo. But we hate the status quo. What do we do now?”

        The options are: (1) change the institution from the inside out (feminism has been trying to do this with marriage, gay marriage is another tool to do this) or (2) “hollow out” the institution so that it collapses under either its own weight (which it can no longer support, as the substance of it has been removed in the hollowing-out process) or under its contradictions, which are highlighted by the same people who control the institution.

        The political system is another example of the same thing taking place — hollowing out with a view to having it collapse under its contradictions and emptiness of substance, while at the same time trying to change it from the inside out. You do both at the same time, all of it at the same time, because under no circumstances do you want the current institution, as currently constituted, to survive. So, in working both to undermine it and to change it from within, you ensure that the current institution is either changed to what you want it to be, or it is destroyed — and either way, the current version is gone, which is really what you want in the end.

        Pretty effective approach if you are bent on fundamental social change. Once faced with the nightmare scenario of a possible institutional collapse, the opposition to social change can generally be co-opted into making changes to the institution under the guise of preventing its destruction, and then those institutional changes also serve to further undermine the institution.

        Essentially it takes some ironclad powerful institutional force to prevent this, and that was never going to be present in the United States, because the country is founded on the principles of liberation.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Nova-

        All that is why those of us who are psychologically constituted toward more conservative values no longer have faith in any institutions whatsoever. We are on our own, to maybe, create new ones, or something.

        Its (one of) the reasons I gravitated toward Holy Orthodoxy. No doctrinal change since 787AD. I LOVE that.

        Everything I was part of (Boy Scouts, the Church of Christ, marriage) is totally unrecognizable to me, and therefore has lost purpose to exist, and is useless to me and my children.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Its (one of) the reasons I gravitated toward Holy Orthodoxy. No doctrinal change since 787AD. I LOVE that.

        Everything I was part of (Boy Scouts, the Church of Christ, marriage) is totally unrecognizable to me, and therefore has lost purpose to exist, and is useless to me and my children.”

        Yes, me too.

        Of course, this is a significant part of the liberationist strategy as well — hollow-out the institutions enough such that people like us leave them, which hollows them out more and so on until they either disappear or remain technically present but are virtually unrecognizable. But what can you do? At the end of the day, we have to do what’s best in our own lives, really.

        One of the nice things about the structural dysfunctionality of Orthodoxy is that it actually offers a profound advantage in this era, where change is rampant and rapid. An institutional inability to change, in a structural sense, has its advantages in a time like this one.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. The marriage premium for children is on women’s radar, but only UC/UMC women.

    Patriarchy exists more frequently in the LMC/LC because that is where sex differences are most emphasized. MMC and up men are not likely to beat the crap out of their women if dinner isn’t ready when they get home.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Higher SES people tend to have emotional control (low impulsivity, delayed gratification) and forethought which tends to be a trait of higher intelligence people. My take is that people who are smart enough to create decent plans for their future and have the control to carry out those plans are the same people that think through the painful long term consequences of divorce. They either suck it up and deal or figure out ways to make the relationship better. Hence, the lower rate of UMC+ men not beating the crap out of their women if dinner is not on time.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      KHH,

      “The marriage premium for children is on women’s radar, but only UC/UMC women.”

      That’s right. I made a casual omission. My mistake. Thanks~!

      Liked by 2 people

  3. dpmonahan says:

    The idea that patriarchy exists among the lower classes is absurd. Lower-class and matriarchy are interchangeable terms.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      The article doesn’t say the patriarchy predominantly exists in the lower-class. It argues that those marriages that exist in that SES tend to have a higher percentage that are patriarchal. The matriarchy produces baby mamas and baby daddies, not husbands and wives that stay together. So for that small percentage of lower SES marriages that last, the patriarchy is more prevalent.

      Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        Yes, this is true. Well, mostly. Where we started out from (and my husband came from a LMC integrated community, the marriages that lasted and seemed happy were patriarchal.

        Where I came from, that was the case usually, but there were also marriages (more prevalent in the non-integrated community I grew up in), where the woman was the major breadwinner while the husband was either not working at all or always working on his dream business of some sort.

        Some of those latter marriages lasted. A few were patriarchal in the sense that the wife was still very deferential to the husband despite his being a subpar provider. Many were clearly matriarchal where she wore the pants and he flexed his manhood in other ways, usually involving other women.

        Jack’s point still stands. Insomuch as an LMC marriage is lasting and happy, it’s patriarchal.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        elspeth – I let out an important point that your comment reminded me of. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both wrote quite frequently about how move between classes, at least from an income standpoint, through different stages of life. So some of the data we are looking at assumes a certain level of income immobility, when the reality is that during the time the data was collected people’s income, and the assumed class based on that income, most likely fluctuated with the stage of life they were in.

        My guess is that since the Bible does a half way decent job of laying out the principals of how to build a marriage to God’s design, those people who follow the Bible’s teaching on work and patriarchal marriage move up in class at a greater rate than those who don’t. At this should be the case based on income figures.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        Red Pill Apostle:

        My guess is that since the Bible does a half way decent job of laying out the principals of how to build a marriage to God’s design, those people who follow the Bible’s teaching on work and patriarchal marriage move up in class at a greater rate than those who don’t. At this should be the case based on income figures.

        I think you’re right. A driving factor is that men work harder when they have a family to work for. Aside from those UMC values we talk about, many men are hard pressed to work hard just for themselves. We ignore Adam’s part of the curse in Genesis 3 to our peril. The man has to work hard, and the woman has to suffer in childbirth and be ruled by her husband. Both of these things are struggles men and women must contend with.

        I thought of this recently as we -SAM and I- worked together to make a presentation for a potential client. He got the contract. He has a day job, and independent consulting work. We’ve decided dependence solely on corporations for one’s living is a foolish thing for a conservative Christian. So we are building other income streams. If it wasn’t for his family, he wouldn’t be working this hard, which is the reason why we “made good”, moved up in the first place. Also, I think we had a better economy when we were starting out.

        If we were egalitarian in practice or I earned a large share of the income here, we probably would have been class stationary rather than moving up. The work that I do is very minimal 5%-7% of our income at best, and I’ve only been doing it quite recently. It’s something I do because I like it and he thinks it’s a good exercise of my talents and expertise. Keep my mind and skills sharp. It’s not something we depend on to pay the bills, so I can’t use it as an excuse to call shots or flex my independence.

        We believe very strongly in Biblical marital hierarchy. There are things we can do to strengthen that, and things we can do to undermine it. Not saying all couples have to do it our way, but a bit of self-awareness goes a long way.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Why is patriarchy talked about here?When most SLUTS&MANGINAS love worshipping the matriarchy of the not-great diana/satan of the ephesians!?While abusing all the boys&men they can?Anybody think their going to clean-up the SMP/MMP like they think they can the MANosphere!?Lots of vlad lenins out here nowadays who will lose as did other ones like athol!See if the redpill+ will go along with it!!Think I hav’nt noticed nobody talks of certain things anymore since matt showed up especialy with his fake patriarchy genderist talk!?I’ll donate a big kick to his FEMINAZI imperative ass!!!He talks headship but tells men to suffer?Thats not patriarchy, genderists!!!

    Liked by 3 people

  5. thedeti says:

    What I had said before kind of ties into this. In the Dolearchy, the main concern is how life will be financed. Who will pay, how the money will be earned to pay for it, who will earn that money, and who will decide how the money will be distributed.

    Patriarchy: “We must make sure everyone is doing OK.”

    Dolearchy: “We must make sure it gets paid for and decide who will pay for it.”

    Liked by 7 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      The Dolearchy certainly has attributes of making sure we know who pays and who gets paid, but there is also the Cloward Piven strategy aspect of who does the paying. The 60’s radical leftists had the idea of using social programs to collapse the free market system and republic government system we had at the time so it could be replaced with the breadlines of their communist dreams. What they didn’t comprehend is that leftists only like to take and use other people’s money, but they are, in fact, very fond of keeping as much of their own money as they can, giving them an incentive to make the leftist pose but not really live out their ideals (Exhibit A Bernie who is a true believer with only 3 homes and Exhibit B Tom Steyer who is merely a the average person billionaire). They also underestimated how good even a somewhat-free-market system is at generating wealth and so the Dolearchy is bigger than they probably ever imagined possible with the system still yet not fully succumbed to government redistribution and largesse.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Is everybody pretending they fdon’t know who I’m talking about above?Do your own RESEARCH&you’ll know what its about!!Heres another hint!!I’m from the old-school of the MANosphere&patriarchy!!! And we called feral wimminz SLUTS&their FEMINAZI enablers MANGINAS!!!We were’nt part of the decency police as we gave them middle fingers too!!!Nobody is going to rewrite history while the GBFM lives!!!A purplepill patriarchy is no patriarchy at all!!
    Dal’ called it right with his ”were trapped on SLUT&MANGINA island&purplepillers are our gilligan”post back in’11!!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Ed Hurst says:

    Background: During my military service, I was stationed in Europe in a job that had me, as an enlisted man, constantly brushing up against brass and embassy staff. I spent a lot of time with their kids, too, as part of a job that exposed me to all the kids in the US military/embassy communities.

    Those upper staff people are simply a different kind of people entirely. They could make their way through any lower class social situation with no trouble, but they remained a world apart. Their education is not the whole story; there’s a mass of cultural exposure that is hard to explain. Their kids had a completely different orientation on life, a sense of purpose and future that made them tolerant of things for which the lower class kids would whine and rebel. The the UMC kids in that setting could get along with the other kids, but they knew they weren’t part of the common society.

    Sometimes their parents let things slip to me for reasons hard to explain. These people had a vision of ruling the system, and their commitment to that is overwhelming. Even for all their apparently very sincere involvement in chapel activities, they never forgot their destiny, as it were. They absorbed my gaffes in ways that made it painfully clear when someone in their ranks was not a part of their society, in that those who didn’t actually belong would through a fit. That experience was so formative that it forever changed the way I look at human activity at large.

    Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Those upper staff people are simply a different kind of people entirely. They could make their way through any lower class social situation with no trouble, but they remained a world apart.Their education is not the whole story; there’s a mass of cultural exposure that is hard to explain. Their kids had a completely different orientation on life, a sense of purpose and future that made them tolerant of things for which the lower class kids would whine and rebel.”

      I dealt with them through my military career as well, and my family became one eventually, took a bit longer but we did it, e.g moved up a class, MC to UMC (at least UMC in the red state part of the country). What I saw was that in these families the parents PLURAL were committed to their values: achievement>advancement>progression>not derailing a ‘good thing,’ i.e. not f’ing it up with divorce, drugs and alcohol, or anything that would significantly interfere with the family’s ‘prime directive.’ These values showed up in their kids (achievement>advancement>progression upwards). Their kids populated the traveling sports teams, were in the music lessons, did well in school (or had tutors), attended church youth groups, etc AND you almost ALWAYS saw a mom AND a dad involved in those kids lives. Patriarchy anyone? Maybe with a pinch of egalitarianism thrown in the mix, e.g Momma bear was not just a ‘cookie baker,’ but she usually had some side gig going on while she shuttled those kids to all those activities they were involved in–maybe real estate or something, or going to school to get a degree (not gender studies or some ridiculous degree, something like an education degree) so she could produce future income once the kids were old enough to take care of themselves, by their late teens. One other thing, they generally speaking kept a low profile on anything controversial–politics, etc. Quiet, focused and ENVIED/DESPISED by many who thought they had some advantage that others didn’t have, aka were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth. Probably their advantage was their mom and dad did something similar and passed it down to their kids to include an inheritance when they died. Definitely not the PC way in our culture anymore nowadays–except among the ones who still get it, i.e. understand that it STILL works, that it STILL produces results: ‘old fashioned, out-dated, and….damn effective!’

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah the non-military upper middle lives that way, too, sans patriarchy. Their marriages are egalitarian, the woman has a career that is high-powered like the man does, but they follow the same “prime directive” approach, and they instill this in their kids.

        That “prime directive” approach is, I think, a key factor. It’s why, for example, they tend to be sanguine about late marriage, fornication in the 20s, experimentation in college and the like … because almost all of the kids (not all, some do go off the rail, but most don’t) follow the “prime directive” of “achievement>advancement>progression>not derailing a ‘good thing,’”, as you say, and so they indulge, but only to the extent it doesn’t mess up the prime directive. And so it’s understood that there are limits — and all the kids who grew up that way understand this intuitively.

        I first saw this when I was in college, because I came from the LMC and was thrust into an environment with a lot of people who grew up UMC and UMC+. They had the “prime directive” approach. They joined sororities and partied and had a grand old fornicative, drunken time in college, but when it came time to bear down for papers and exams, bear down they did with gusto and got those grades. Got those MCATs and med school admissions, LSATs and law school admissions, those spots at McKinsey. Boys and girls alike. There was more hooking up than BF/GF relationships (and this was back in the 1980s, when that wasn’t the norm in the broader culture yet) in the college set, because the “prime directive” mandated that they not be limited by a relationship in pursuing the path of “achievement>advancement>progression” in an unfettered way after graduation, following the “logic” of where the “prime directive” mandates they go, and not be “held back” by “feeling conflicted” about relationships. So far fewer relationships than were happening on other campuses with a different kind of student, and also the relationships that did happen were mostly ended within the last 3-6 months prior to graduation — a few survived, but they are notable for their exceptional nature. The prime directive was, for the most part, vindicated, and this wasn’t questioned by most — the kids who grew up in this class knew that this was the way it had to be, and they accepted it (for the most part). They were raised with this logic, this directive — it was a part of them.

        This continues with decisions later in life, too. Indulge, yes, but not in a way that interferes with the prime directive. That’s the basic approach to life, and they simply do not understand how other social classes who were not raised that way behave differently. And among those of their own class who fail to follow the directive? Well, there is substantial disregard for them, frankly. Borders on disgust.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Novaseeker

        Will there be a reckoning somewhere down the generation of UMC or will they thrive even as they continue to thrust God aside.

        Is there a sign of that changing in the same way the peace and prosperity of the Israelites continuing in Idolatry came to an end as a result of judgment?

        Like

      • Scott says:

        achievement>advancement>progression>not derailing a ‘good thing,’ i.e. not f’ing it up with divorce, drugs and alcohol, or anything that would significantly interfere with the family’s ‘prime directive.’ These values showed up in their kids (achievement>advancement>progression upwards). Their kids populated the traveling sports teams, were in the music lessons, did well in school (or had tutors), attended church youth groups, etc AND you almost ALWAYS saw a mom AND a dad involved in those kids lives. Patriarchy anyone? Maybe with a pinch of egalitarianism thrown in the mix, e.g Momma bear was not just a ‘cookie baker,’ but she usually had some side gig going on while she shuttled those kids to all those activities they were involved in–maybe real estate or something, or going to school to get a degree (not gender studies or some ridiculous degree, something like an education degree) so she could produce future income once the kids were old enough to take care of themselves, by their late teens. One other thing, they generally speaking kept a low profile on anything controversial–politics, etc. Quiet, focused and ENVIED/DESPISED by many who thought they had some advantage that others didn’t have, aka were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth. Probably their advantage was their mom and dad did something similar and passed it down to their kids to include an inheritance when they died. Definitely not the PC way in our culture anymore nowadays–except among the ones who still get it, i.e. understand that it STILL works, that it STILL produces results: ‘old fashioned, out-dated, and….damn effective!’

        Man, I feel like my life was cut and pasted into your comment. Mychael is now back in school (working on her Nurse Practitioner license) and has also started a side business of skin rejuvenation, botox injections (which is basically going to run as a sub clinic out of my office) kids are in private school, music lessons, and we have met and are engaged with some pretty important people here in town. We stay mostly quiet, maybe a little local activism on vaccines and reform issues. I just did a little LinkedIn post yesterday about how crazy busy our life is getting.

        https://ibb.co/D4zTW0F

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Will there be a reckoning somewhere down the generation of UMC or will they thrive even as they continue to thrust God aside.

        Is there a sign of that changing in the same way the peace and prosperity of the Israelites continuing in Idolatry came to an end as a result of judgment?

        Everything comes to an end. Surely the current regime and its enablers will come to an end as well.

        But … the end of it can take a long time to come.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        “Maybe with a pinch of egalitarianism thrown in the mix, e.g Momma bear was not just a ‘cookie baker,’ but she usually had some side gig going . . .”

        Don’t know if I would call it egalitarian. Sounds more like the Proverbs 31 woman. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

    • Liz says:

      Upper level brass are not the same people they were earlier on. They can’t be they are too subject to scrutiny 24/7 (their families are too). You have protocol staff, jags to handle all questions about whom you can socialize with and when, and all that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Wow. A lot HAS changed then since I retired!
        Social media has had a huge impact.
        While I’m on the subject, my spouse recently went to a retirement ceremony and met up with (retired) General Franklin. He was a three star, forced to retired as a two star and unemployable for about five years following the Lt Colonel Wilkerson trial. This happened about eight years ago in Aviano. He was the convening authority and based on the evidence he could not agree to convict the man of sexual assault. This was a huge deal at the time, Congress tried to take away convening authorities for sexual assault trials (Constitutionally they could not, the USSC has already ruled on this because court martial trials convict by majority, non unanimity and there is a very limited appeals process).
        Anyway, they ruined the life of this man and his family.
        And he knew it would happened when he decided not to convict, but did the right thing anyway.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        I went and read an article about Lt Col Wilkerson’s UCMJ conviction getting overturned. I got that it was a sexual assault charge, and even though the article was quite lengthy, they never said exactly what he was accused of doing when he assaulted the civilian contractor. They AF PA typically spoke all around the subject, but never specifically said what he was accused of with the contractor. Was it something he allegedly said to her, or something he allegedly did to her?

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Was it something he allegedly said to her, or something he allegedly did to her?

        It is a long, long convoluted story but it was something he allegedly did to her.
        I could go into great detail but there is a book published that talks about it if you’re interested. All of this was public information at the time, but most isn’t accessible any more. The press has made many false claims but one is that the General knew Wilkerson, personally. He did not. There are usually about five character witness testimonies submitted on behalf of the accused. In the case of Wilkerson there were over 90.
        The alleged victim has since alleged more assaults against her person (as she did before this claim). It was the subject of a War College study, I was told.

        Just checked and it looks like the book is no longer available.
        The take down is, a few people went to Wllkerson’s home for drinks after a concert. The woman stayed the night and alleged that Wilkerson came to her room in the night and assaulted her. She could not identify the room she was in nor whether he had a mustache or not. Wilkerson’s wife was watching some other children that evening who were sleeping and the accuser went into their room and stomped around the threw her shoes in there. She was loudly talking on the cell phone so Wilkerson’s wife got up around midnight and served her tea. The accuser was on the phone with a friend at the time and said the wife just gave her tea, so there was a witness. The alleged crime happened about an hour later, after which the accuser continued to stomp around and the wife finally told her to leave. She stomped out with only one shoe because the other was in the sleeping childrens room and she could not find it. A friend picked her up.
        It failed the presumption of innocence test on many levels, and there was no evidence with the exception of the accuser’s very sketchy and changing testimony.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Just to add, Wilkerson himself was in bed during all of this, only the wife was up so presumably he rose right after his wife served the accuser tea, skulked into her room and attacked her, then went back to bed.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Looks like that have some used ones still:

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Hey I think you can read the whole thing right there. Woohoo!

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        Back when I was on active duty I had a Division Officer, a Navy Lieutenant, whose husband was a Marine Corps Major on the staff of a Major General at the Pentagon. She told me her husband had decided that he never wanted to get promoted above Colonel because once you make flag rank, your life is absolutely no longer your own, ever. That I can easily believe. The thought of being locked into that group, no matter how (supoosedly) prestigious and influential, fills most normal human beings with a sense of revulsion, especially considering the state of today’s military.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “She told me her husband had decided that he never wanted to get promoted above Colonel because once you make flag rank, your life is absolutely no longer your own, ever.”

        They are lucky they realized this so early on.
        Most folks have no idea. It’s lonely also. Very lonely.
        I do wish they would subject politicians to the same level of scrutiny they do commanders.
        It would eliminate conflicts of interest (a commander is required to submit all financial information, yearly, and cannot participate in any decisions where there is a conflict of interest).

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        Read the Wilkerson story. Travesty. I remember that era, 2012-14, when Sexual Assault seemed be a ‘larger than life’ issue with all the SA training we had to attend, SARCs giving briefings in the units, etc. It seemed like Sexual Assault was even more important than the mission itself. I don’t know what happened after MeToo became an issue, I think that was 2016, I was retired by then, thank God. The Wilkerson story took place in the backdrop of an Air Force that had changed since I came in the mid-80s. The big thing I saw going on, what I call the intense focus on ‘social engineering type issues,’ it had become really big, like on par with the mission itself, and in some ways, eclipsing it at times. We were creating, in my opinion, very skewed views of daily AF life. For example, with Sexual Assault, the implication in the training was that it was happening EVERYWHERE in the Air Force and that no female could make it through her career without experiencing it at some point, like it was just a given it would happen. I thought at the time, “Wow, I’ve been in a long time, heard and witnessed some tales of ‘promotion couches, class B Bachelor’s and Bachelorettes (married people TDY acting like they were single and hooking-up), Air Evac training missions dubbed ‘The Love Boat’ for obvious reasons, etc….plus your standard adultery and fornication going on, but it NEVER occurred to me, NOT ONCE, that any of this stuff was normal and widespread.” I don’t doubt that it happened, know about some it myself (never participated, even as a single officer), but this idea of EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE in the Air Force is CAPABLE OF IT or is actually doing it? That was new to me and it was strongly implied and inescapable in the mandatory sexual assault training that I attended–ALL male members of the USAF were potentially sexual predators, and ALL females in the AF were at risk. I thought, that ain’t reality folks and you’re putting it out there like it is–utter BS!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Yes. If what the media said was true, living in USAF base housing would be more dangerous than a midnight walk in Liberty City, Miami. On the contrary, it’s about the safest place anyone can live.
        There was another case (well there are innumerable ones I know but this was another national headline news one) that the NY Times covered. An enlisted airman with a well known history of getting drunk and dancing on tables told her “brave” story now that she’s too old to dance on tables. From Shaw AFB.
        She rummaged around the squadron and her boss’ offices to find anything that could be construed as inappropriate in a business setting. So…confiscated song books from old war history, nose art replicas and so forth. By the time they were done children princess leia action figures were removed.
        If you go to Kunsan AFB now even the old black and white war photos have been removed because some of the airmen were making hand gestures snowflakes might find offensive.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. lastmod says:

    OT….I rented a Uhaul and moved all my stuff to my new apartment in Pasadena. Unloaded it. Got a few hours sleep, and drove back to Fresno. My last day of work here is on June 11. I report into my new position on Monday June 14. All I have to do now is pack my laptop, some clothing, toiletries, sleeping bag, air mattress and the cat. I was not going to drive a 22′ Uhaul 275 miles with a 21′ traier with my new car on it to Pasadena over the Grapevine. From sea level in the valley to over 4,000′ before descending into LA traffic. No way. Worked out well. Just freaking exhausted. At least all my stuff is there. Gonna miss Fresno. It was that sad but tough valley city where I got my life back together. Never have lived in the Southland / LA area. Though everyone was giving my stinkeye because I was wearing my SF Giants baseball cap. Night all

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      The glory days of Southern California are over.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        When I arrived in California as a transplant from New York State in May 1994 (IBM hired me out of grad school into their now gone San Jose operations) California was already past its prime. The Golden Age was over. Pete Wilson was the governor then (I went to undergrad with his niece in Vermont) and it was a big deal when Governor Wilson came to my tiny Vermont college in 1992 for her graduation (we were in the same class). The Vermont media and papers swamped the campus.

        Wilson was okay but he just slowed the blood loss, compression on a wound that had already been bleeding out badly for awhile. He was an empty suit Republican. The end of California per say as a cultural and political force ended with Reagan leaving the national stage in January 1989. Sure, there was a hurrah here and there…the dot.com boom……

        San Francisco, and the Bay Area became more of a force in state politics (Willie Brown, Jerry Brown, Pelosi, Feinstein, Newsom….all northerners)

        I am a Californian. Its my home. Has been for over half my life. I lived four years in Vermont, but was domiciled in New York State (voted there, worked there in summers back home). I love this place, and its a shame what Sacramento has allowed it to become. It has been overall on a deep slide and decline since arrived.

        It’s too bad. Some of the most beautiful places in the USA are here. Yosemite. Kings Canyon. The Mojave. The Golden hills of live oaks and hot brassy blue skies. The clear vastness of the topography and open sky.

        If I was 24 right now…I don’t think I would move here…but me leaving is impossible for the most part and staying seems like I am giving up. Logans Run out here…..can’t afford to leave, and can’t afford to stay.

        It’s my home.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        My dad came in 61. I was born in 71. He lived in El Segundo, Inglewood, the Antelope Valley, and finally, Santa Clarita. From the time he arrived until the time I left for good (in 2001 with a 4 year stint in graduate school 2004-2008) it went from the jewel in the crown of the republic to stupid wasteland of entitlement and garbage everywhere. I am California native, and I absolutely love my childhood. I mourn the loss of it always, but it was a wild ride.

        Like

    • lastmod says:

      When I first moved here, I lived in Santa Cruz for about a year, then moved to San Jose. That commute over the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Jose was too much. I spent a year in San Jose (Willow Glen neighborhood, beautiful area of old 1920’s San Jose) and then springboarded to San Francisco in the spring of 1996 and stayed there until 2008. I continued to work in San Jose until 2005.

      When I left The City and landed in Fresno, I thought life was indeed “over” for me. Anyone who moves to “the big valley” from the Coast usually is viewed with suspicion (an affair with the pastors wife…absconding with church funds, urinating on a picture of any politician with a letter “D” for the party affiliation…or the classic, drug and alcohol problems forced you off the Coast to the valley)

      After a brief stint back in wine country in 2018-2020 I noticed my new career…..I was on a massive upswing…..back to Fresno, and now into Corporate. Fitting to be happening as I enter my fifties in area where I never lived. Exciting in a way.

      Before the bridge was burned….the drugs got out of control……before the anger….when I still had a nice full head of blonde hair……there was a time in San Francisco when everything was “okay” running on fog-soaked streets, dancing, ‘Friends” on TV…… endless possibilities seemed to lurk around every corner in that city. Beneath that diamond sky. Every Victorian entablature seemed to speak, the hills and the windswept hair with my smirk….always knowing more than I let on. Some good times in this state…….and memories of the end of an era.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Scott says:

    (achievement>advancement>progression upwards). Their kids populated the traveling sports teams, were in the music lessons, did well in school (or had tutors), attended church youth groups, etc AND you almost ALWAYS saw a mom AND a dad involved in those kids lives. Patriarchy anyone? Maybe with a pinch of egalitarianism thrown in the mix, e.g Momma bear was not just a ‘cookie baker,’ but she usually had some side gig going on while she shuttled those kids to all those activities they were involved in

    Man, its like you cut and pasted my life into a comment.

    Mychael is going back to school for her Nurse Practitioner degree/license. The kids are in private school. We are involved in local politics/issues, (some Covid vaccine related stuff, zoning, that sort of thing (but building a network of local friends at more or less the same level of community involvement as us takes finesse, and you can’t be too politically obtuse. Kids are in music lesson, daughter is already an accomplished ballerina. Mychael is starting a skin rejuvenation (botox) business on the side. Just did a LinkedIn post about it.

    https://ibb.co/9bNKwTh

    Like

  10. Pingback: Prime Directive Vision | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Infiltration and Disruption of the Continuity of Values | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s