Friday, October 27, 2017

Breadwinning father, homemaking mother remains ideal in The Current Year

Via AmRen, an article on the unique roles of barbarian women in the insurgency:
The simple answer to the question of what to do with the growing number of women who wish to be more active in the white nationalist movement is to support their increased involvement—but only in the right ways. Women need not “co-opt” the areas where men are thriving in order to become relevant members of our community; we need to focus, instead, on strengthening our own sphere, on using available platforms in our own ways, and on showing other women the beautiful alternatives we offer to the lonely, impoverished, hedonistic existence that is now on offer.
Those marching through the institutions are still susceptible to being utterly routed if middle America were to find the organization and motivation to take to the field. That's easier said than done, of course, but many of the necessary sentiments are there.

In 2012, the GSS asked about the best and worst ways to organize "a family with a child under school age" in the context of parental breadwinning and homemaking responsibilities.

The following table shows the net desirability score for the six possible arrangements, computed by taking the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the best of the six and subtracting from it the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the worst of the six.

The higher the score, the more desirable the arrangement. The lower the score, the less desirable, with negative scores indicating generally undesirable arrangements (N = 977; PT = part-time employment; FT = full-time employment):

ArrangementDesirability
Mother PT, Father FT+39.9
Mother home, Father FT+34.3
Mother FT, Father PT(4.7)
Both parents PT(6.1)
Both parents FT(25.0)
Mother FT, Father home(38.3)

Implicit in the questions is the understanding that the parent more desired at home is making a material trade off by foregoing paid work. Having that parent work part-time instead of staying home or working full-time is a way of trying to split the difference.

The conventional nuclear family arrangements--the ones that accord not only with millennia of human experience but also with the biological and psychological realities of human nature--are the most desirable.

The Mr. Mom, femcunt lawyer setup is perceived, by far, as the least desirable.

Inverting sex roles is viewed less favorably than is the attempt to make them indistinguishable. That flattening out, in turn, is viewed less favorably than living in accordance with Nature by letting men be men and women be women is.

We had it figured out. Now the progress takes away what forever took to find.

GSS variables used: FAMWKBST, FAMWKLST

13 comments:

mark auld said...

You mean common sense is in accord with nature? Will wonders never cease. ...

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I've mentioned this before and while I understand that anecdotal evidence is meaningless but most of the girl friends I have would rather just stay home and raise kids instead of progress their careers, most of which are the equivalent of generating PowerPoints for HR. I don't know how common that consensus is today vs. 1997 vs. 1977 but I was pretty surprised at how many women were up front about rather wanting to be a mother instead of having a career. It's a good sign. Not as good of a sign as actually dropping out of the workforce to raise white babies but better than pretending to be some hard charger who can't wait to sit on an executive board room meeting at the expense of everything else.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mark,

To see what is in front of our eyes requires a constant struggle.

Random Dude,

There is nothing more beautiful or more powerful than the bond between mother and child. No amount of cultural conditioning will ever be enough to snuff it--and the desire to realize it--out.

William Foster said...

Can you break that out by gender? That is, what does the distribution look like if only women are surveyed; and what does it look like if only men are surveyed?

It might be a useful red-pill to women to let them know that their fellow women would generally prefer to stay at home.

Audacious Epigone said...

William,

Yes, will do a follow up. It looks similar. Men are more traditional, but not significantly so. Women still overwhelmingly express the desire to be primarily be mothers.

Andrew Smith said...

Can this be broken down by income?

I would assume a wealthier man would be more in favor of his wife staying home, because it's a real option for him.

A man who doesn't make as much is probably more in favor of his wife at least working part time.

Yes, I understand that this is measuring "Desiriability", so their respective realities shouldn't play a role. I'm more curious if one's reality plays a part in this.

Feryl said...

http://democracyfundvoice.org/stranger-in-my-own-country/

"The findings in this study are the product of in-depth interviews, a national public opinion survey, and message testing carried out by a group of Republican-led researchers in the fall of 2016 as a part of an effort to better understand the attitudes driving the behavior of supporters of Donald Trump."

Our preliminary findings revealed deep cultural anxiety around four themes:
1.Americanism: Fear of losing core, defining values that make America unique.
2.Race: Fear that demographic change is weakening community ties and excluding people.
3.Immigration: Fear of losing control of our borders and endangering ourselves.
4.Islam: Fear of letting people into the country who are hostile to America.

There ya go. Of course, economic issues matter too (healthcare, trade, etc.) but the (Republican) forces behind this study focused on "cultural" (ethnic) issues.
It's not clear what "excluding" people is supposed to mean; excluding trad. stock people, non-whites, or causing people in general to go into a shell?

"democracy Fund Voice will continue to ask difficult questions and support the efforts of researchers and leaders across the political spectrum to engage with voters in ways that address underlying anxieties, frustrations, and concerns, resulting in greater unity and understanding among an increasingly diverse America"

Cuck Inc. will stop at nothing to keep shoving a square peg into a round hole. Of course, it just happens to pay well be the equivalent of Catholic orthodoxy in the face of Newton's heresy. It simply does not matter that, full stop, the surest way to introduce drama is to put two different kinds of people together, and the greater the differences, the greater the drama. And both above and in a recent local fish wrap article, the "increasing diversity" meme is dropped; ya see, we're helpless and it's inevitable. Lay back and enjoy it. Hell, make a career out of it! And don't bother fleeing to (most) mostly white states, since they're in the frigid north and who gives a shit about them anymore, at least outside of the big metro areas and ski resorts?

While we're on the subject, don't you for one damn second think that American whites in the lower 2/3 of the country will ever be in a South Africa type situation. No way, buster. Neither should you ever consider China and Russia to have a competitive advantage on account of ethnic homogeneity.

Feryl said...

I meant Galileo's heresy.

Audacious Epigone said...

Andrew,

Keen insight.

For just the most desirable setup (without least desirable taken into account), the distributions of Father FT/Mother home and Father FT/Mother PT, for lower/working classes and middle/upper classes:

Lower/working -- 36.7%, 43.6%
Middle/upper -- 43.0%, 39.3%

So the differences aren't huge, but among the majority of those who think the father as the breadwinner, mother as homemaker dynamic is ideal, the middle/upper tends towards the mother staying while the lower/working tends towards the mother working part-time. This is quite plausibly the consequence of necessity.

Feryl,

Fear, fear, fear, fear.

Frustration, disappointment, anger--these are all better descriptors. There is fear, too, of course, but it's hardly the whole story. Getting over this putative "fear" does nothing to address the underlying concerns which are predicated on far more than emotional feelings.

Feryl said...

Replace "fear" with "noticing reality", or "knowledge". Something is being lost, and we can tell.

Western elites never challenge the constitutional racial happy talk of Brazil and other Latin countries, seeing as how it served as a precursor to the nonsense now being pushed on Western white nations, although the media does acknowledge how generally screwed up most of Latin America is.

We're all supposed to (superficially) adopt a national identity that is pan-racial, pretend that beneath the different hair textures, skin tones, IQs, and BO we're all the same. The rich are (reasonably) comfortable just about everywhere, Brazil included, so what (negative) difference does diversity make if we can embrace a Latin style racial identity system? I mean, the Bushes sure like Mexico, and Texas has always been quasi-Mexican, and Texas is, like, conservative or somethin', so who cares if more of the population gets more melanin?

Reading about the depth of Soros' depravity (including funding "harm-reduction" horseshit and trying to bust more slimebags from prison), I'm really beginning to understand why the guillotine was invented. And we sure need to start sharpening the blade again.....

Feryl said...

The fixation on "fear" I think is the legacy of rhetoric created by older and much less diverse generations (remember, the ones who complained so bitterly about how culturally and ethnically "bland" the West became in the 30's-50's). Since they didn't get to experience much diversity growing up, or it felt like diversity possibilities were always being squelched by The Man, they concluded that surely, it is a sign of "fearful" bigotry to avoid and suppress diversity. As usual, they derided and mischaracterized the culture over seen by the then aging and now mostly dead generations born in the 1800's and early 1900's; did it ever occur to them that Hitler's generation was doing a favor to younger generations, who would not see hard child labor, packed tenements, disease epidemics, violent labor disputes, and so forth that were all charming features of the "diverse" culture of the late 1800's and early 1900's.

White X-ers and Millennials got to experience diversity good and hard (esp. if they lived in a large metro area or a more Southern region), and thus attributing modern diversity discomfort to "fear of the unknown" makes no sense. Even Islamic terrorists have become tangible and effective in the good ole US of A; disgust, contempt, frustration are all better ways to describe how people feel after decades of immersion in diversity.

And, liberals always attribute conservative fears to ignorant prejudice; um, maybe there's a reason whites in the Deep South vote in a bloc to keep the black party from getting more power?

Anonymous said...

Aren't high IQ women more likely to work.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Not sure. Unemployment rates are higher for less educated women, but of course unemployment only counts people who are actively looking for work.