Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Women want to be home with their children

Responding to the post on family breadwinning and caregiving arrangements, William Foster writes:
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.
Something this obviously in accordance with nature and at odds with feminism--but I repeat myself--holds strongly across sexes.

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. To avoid any potential racial confounding, we'll limit it to the white sisterhood.

The higher the score, the more desirable the arrangement. The lower the score, the less desirable, with negative scores indicating generally undesirable arrangements (N = 363; PT = part-time employment; FT = full-time employment):

ArrangementDesirability
Mother PT, Father FT+45.3
Mother home, Father FT+28.9
Both parents PT(4.5)
Mother FT, Father PT(4.6)
Mother FT, Father home(28.7)
Both parents FT(36.3)

If women want to work at all, it's part-time, and there is reason to suspect that the perceived need to be working part-time as opposed to staying home is driven by a sense of necessity. Three of the six options include mothers working full-time. They come in at the bottom of the desirability index, while the three that do not include mothers working full-time fill the top spots.

For ease of visual digestion, the following graph shows the perceived optimal family arrangements, by race and by sex, broken down into three categories--father as breadwinner and mother as caregiver (father FT and mother PT/home), mother as breadwinner and father as caregiver (mother FT and father as PT/home), or shared sex roles (both PT or both FT) (N = 925):


This question was asked in 2012, not 1912. The striving careerist shrike strategy is held in low regard. It's one of the few things men, women, whites and non-whites firmly agree on.

Feminists wept, then bathed in their own tears. But few heard them and no one acknowledged hearing them.

Gregory Cochran has pointed out that no popular ideology acknowledges human biological realities in a serious way. Z-Man recently developed the idea further.

What if, instead of campaigning on helping working women be part-time mothers, as Trump and Clinton most recently did and every major party candidate always does, a candidate campaigned on making family formation affordable enough for women to be able to be full-time mothers? Despite the perceived need for the two-income household, it will happen, and sooner rather than later.

GSS variables used: FAMWKLST, FAMWKBST, RACECEN1(1)(2), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX

18 comments:

Andrew Smith said...

Women choosing to be real women as human nature intended and ignoring societal pressures to act like men...now that's true feminism!

chris said...

Isn't most of the affordability of family formation based around having a high enough income to get into good neighbourhoods and good schools (i.e. away from NAM's)? If so, good schools could be dealt with by making home schooling easier for mothers at home (with the internet, this is very feasible), and the other can be dealt with by allowing communities to regulate who can live amongst them (this would be trickier legally as I believe such covenants were outlawed by the Civil Rights act.)

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Isn't most of the affordability of family formation based around having a high enough income to get into good neighbourhoods and good schools (i.e. away from NAM's)? If so, good schools could be dealt with by making home schooling easier for mothers at home (with the internet, this is very feasible), and the other can be dealt with by allowing communities to regulate who can live amongst them (this would be trickier legally as I believe such covenants were outlawed by the Civil Rights act.)

Part of it. A lot of it is wrapped up in consumerist bullshit. Look at the size of a house in 1957 versus 2017. Now you are considered an awful parent if your kid doesn't have their own tablet and their own cell phone by the age of 12. You can't just throw a ball around with the other neighborhood kids, you gotta have them be in a peewee league, some of which run into the five figures alone! A burger mom was complaining to me one day that her daughter's cheer and tumble league cost $15,000 a year when you factor in all the travel they had to do for competitions.

Raising a child with modern expectations is pretty burdensome even with a dual income household. No wonder people keep putting off having a kid if the expectation is that they're supposed to be doing all those things and more. It's going to require a culture change to where parents no longer care if their son isn't going to be the next Payton Manning, who if he can't be an NFL star quarterback, can fall back on going to Harvard as a backup option. As AE points out, neither political party seem all that interested in solid family formation, it's all about hard charging career women who want nothing more than to be a C-Suite executive. Maybe as the overton window keeps sliding to the right, it will eventually be okay for women to admit that they'd rather be a good mother than the next Sheryl Sandberg.

Anonymous said...

This issue was probably 70% of the reason behind my divorce. I worked at a job I hated, traveled 75% of the time in order to be able to afford for my wife to stay home with our two young kids (she made more than me). When I finally got there, I learned she didn’t want to quit.

So then all my ambition was gone. What the hell is worth working so hard for if daycare is raising my children anyway?

IHTG said...

I think "part-time work" is a more accurate description of what women have done for most of history tbh. Your medieval female forebears weren't 19th century-to-1950s housewives.

Feryl said...

A lot of this generational and also due to the strving cycle. In the 1970's, Silent Gen women were between the age of 44 and 24 at the start of the decade. And that's also when striving began. Silents (and eventually, Boomers) were far more likely than G.I.s to become well-credentialed professionals, and that especially goes for the women. Female friendly professions (e.g., journalism, medicine, and the legal realm) saw a massive increase in female participation and credentialism by the 1970's. By 1980, female and male college degree holders reached parity.

Yet striving is often confused with modernity. Why? On a cultural level, Silent and Boomer loudmouths stormed through the gates in the 60's and took over the castle in the 1970's, and they all convinced themselves that they were making things better. It is extremely difficult for people born in the last 50+ years to realize just how quickly mores changed, who did it, and why it was done. A couple generations were driven by ego-focused measures of material and status success, yet they covered up these corrupt motives by claiming that previous eras and generations were deeply repressed and unhappy because society did not let the individual do as they pleased.

Gen X-ers and Millennials, whether they admit or not, or understand why, are deeply unsatisfied with the culture and values of the late 1960's-present day, which is entirely the product of Silents and Boomers. Whereas these generations boldly took a stand against older people and their culture which chafed against them, post-Boomers on the other hand are extremely reluctant to tell Boomers to their face that on the whole, their culture has done more damage than good and it long ago reached diminishing returns.

mark auld said...

I think that the biggest impediment to returning to family oriented thinking by women is the 40 plus years of preaching me first feminism they have been indoctrinated with.

dc.sunsets said...

Blah, blah, blah. Feryl, is there any pernicious trend you can't blame on Silents & Boomers? Are you familiar with the notion that correlation isn't causation?

My wife quit her job, raised our kids, went back to work.
My sons' wives quit their jobs and are raising their kids.

I get sick and tired of reading about people who claim they can't do this. The fad is "mommy works," daycare employee raises kids. Frankly, FUCK people who can't think for themselves and chart their own paths through life, ignoring as necessary the surrounding herd's batshit insanity and utter stupidity.

It's not rocket science to see the trade-offs.

Want to be happy in life? Don't marry a women with a Big Career unless she commits unequivocally to future full-time motherhood. Let the mental-aberration that is "careerist women" die out, culled by Darwin's implacable determination.

dc.sunsets said...

I might add that modern life is a treasure-trove of signaling who is too clueless for words:
--people covered in tattoos/piercings.
--people who provide their kids with cell phones at 6,8,10, 12, or 15.
--people who let their kids do whatever the kid wants.
--people who let their kids use the TV/game console at will.
--people who would rather drive a Lexus than raise their own offspring.
--people who encourage their kids to get into sports, etc., that require insane amounts of time and money.
--people who encourage their sons and daughters to "get the full college experience," AKA fuck their way through the dorm.
--people who send their kids to college when kid has no plan for how the process leads to a career and self-supporting adulthood.

Apparently, the ability to foresee the consequences of actions has become exceedingly rare. I truly wonder how people are able to survive from day to day without it, but that's all I see around me now.

DissidentRight said...

This is why the Right will always win in the end. We are on the side of biology.

@dc.sunsets I get sick and tired of reading about people who claim they can't do this.

Come on, you know MPAI. Anyway, my Boomer parents did it. Mom quit so she could homeschool full time. So NABALT™.

Audacious Epigone said...

Andrew,

Indeed. That is real empowerment. Trying to be men? Not so much.

Chris,

Yeah, generally more so in urban and inner suburban areas, though the Cloud People are trying to change that by pushing NAMs out of gentrifying cities and into the exurbs and smaller towns.

Random Dude,

When my wife and I were talking about our third child, she asked if I was going to move my office into the basement (our house is four bedroom) since each kid would need a room. I laughed and said the two older ones would share a room, and that if we have a fourth, the two younger ones will share another room.

The sports leagues epitomize so much of what's wrong with contemporary family formation, or lack thereof. Unless one of my kids is exceptionally athletic (top 95%+), it'll be the rec leagues with one practice per week and a game at the local Salvation Army on Saturday morning.

Anon,

The horse is out of the stable now, but for the benefit of those who haven't made it that far yet, that's something that should be worked out ahead of time.

IHTG,

Indeed. And so it is still with us now, with lower- and working-class respondents, who are more likely to optimize Father FT/Mother PT than Father FT/Mother home, while middle- and upper-class respondents are more likely to optimize Father FT/Mother home than Father FT/Mother PT.

Mark Auld,

Agreed. Personally for me now much more emphatically than in the past. I always thought of feminism as silly nonsense in teens and twenties, but the more I've looked at the data and thought about its implications, the more nefariously salient it becomes. This Eat, Pray, Love/YOLO crap is poison.

dc.sunsets,

Great point regarding women who have a real desire to try and elbow their way through the rat race (instead of homeschooling, etc)--have kids in the early- and mid-twenties, and you'll be able to get after the career in earnest again in your thirties, with three or four decades of it still in front of you after your kids are in middle/high school. Go full bore with the career first though, and prepare to desperately try to squeeze a single child out in your thirties (when it really will be disruptive if the goal is to climb up the corporate ladder).

DissidentRight,

The Camp of the Saints are on the side of biology, too, though. It's necessary, but it's not sufficient on its own, I don't think.

DissidentRight said...

It's necessary, but it's not sufficient on its own, I don't think.

Sure, there have to be enough people on the side of biology and they have to be sufficiently excited.

The Camp of the Saints are on the side of biology, too, though

Hmm, I disagree. Which is on the side of biology, r or K? Two different strategies. Ours is better.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

I want to believe that if the K-selected become too besieged to give the r-selected access to K-selected technologies, things will sort themselves out in a way that if not favorable to us is at least viable for us. I do not feel as certain about that as I’d like to.

Feryl said...


"Yeah, generally more so in urban and inner suburban areas, though the Cloud People are trying to change that by pushing NAMs out of gentrifying cities and into the exurbs and smaller towns."

After Obamaphones etc. too bad we didn't get Obamacars. Outside of the coastal Northeast, public transit in America if of little use, particularly outside of urban cores.

I suppose by reviving the loan fiasco of the 2000's all over again, for evermore, maybe we'd get more colored folk into single family houses and into cars, thereby making it easier for American elites to try and duplicate Western Europe, in which the urban cores are sought after and elites don't have to put up with too many eyesore neighborhoods and ne'erdowells in the immediate core.

BTW, I read an article in the local paper about employers in exurbs having to run shuttles between their businesses and the shithole ghettos where so many non-white workers are densely concentrated. A lot of Tyrones and Joses don't own their own car, and besides, thru public transit, walking, and mooching a lot of them can get by in the city. Business owners make excuses about urban development being cramped, over-regulated, over-taxed, and so forth. We all know the real reason employers have drifted away from urban cores, esp. in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest: what hard working person wants to get mugged in the parking lot? They now try to have their cake and eat it too; get the good Tyrones and Joses to the job site, avoid being harassed by the bad ones.

WRT small towns, I believe it's mainly a Mexican/Mestizo issue that comes about from various industries, mainly agribusiness, bussing in cheap immigrant labor. Anecdotally, I've heard prairie dwellers say that their cow town was basically 100% white for decades, then seemingly overnight, they hear Spanish. Of course, this process was already well underway in the Sunbelt by the 80's (for that matter, agribusiness insisted on a Mexican labor program even in the 1950's!), but people living in Iowa didn't expect to see it happen.

Feryl said...

"Blah, blah, blah. Feryl, is there any pernicious trend you can't blame on Silents & Boomers? Are you familiar with the notion that correlation isn't causation?"

Hey, it's not like in the 70's and 80's, virtually all serial killers were born after 1925. Oh, wait...Who started the divorce epidemic of the 1970's? Who burnt their neighborhoods to the ground in the 1960's and 70's?

There are key generational differences. Silents and Boomers lucked into prosperity, and not appreciating what they had, proceeded to piss and moan about everything they perceived to be wrong in the world, which they of course often blamed on older generations.

I dunno what you mean about correlation; I'm giving specific incidents of behavior patterns. If generational differences did not exist, then every single generation would have the same over all outlook on things and the same values. But they sure as hell don't. Silents and Boomers ended up being way more perverted and hedonistic than G.I.s; if generational differences did not exist, than G.I.s in their 40's and 50's in the 1970's ought to have been molesting kids and raping hitch-hikers. But G.I.s seldom engaged in violent or sexual crimes. And it wasn't because they were older; in the 1980's and 90's plenty of middle aged Silents and Boomers were committing crimes.

Feryl said...

"I might add that modern life is a treasure-trove of signaling who is too clueless for words:
--people covered in tattoos/piercings.
--people who provide their kids with cell phones at 6,8,10, 12, or 15.
--people who let their kids do whatever the kid wants."

Get off my lawn, amiright? The average person's behavior (be they a child, a teen, a young adult, or a middle-aged adult) is much better now that it was in the 1970's-1990's.

Anecdotally, a lot of young Boomers got their skin belted off in the 60's, but what difference did it make? Youth delinquency became more noticeable in the 60's and then it soared in the 70's; rude and threatening remarks, stealing, fighting, vandalism, you name it.

Some Boomers need to put the bong down and stop idealizing the past. Auto fatalities peaked in the 70's, BTW.

I'll give you that mass murders are more common these days, but that's likely a sign of rage and frustration with decades of mistakes piling on top of each other. If we can pull through this and get back on track, people will relax and stop mowing each other down.

DissidentRight said...

I want to believe that if the K-selected become too besieged to give the r-selected access to K-selected technologies, things will sort themselves out in a way that if not favorable to us is at least viable for us. I do not feel as certain about that as I’d like to.

Right, I think we talked about this before. I don’t doubt that some K-selected nations will perish, but this will encourage the others to get their K-selected butts in gear. At that point it becomes an impossible geographic and strategy/logistics problem for the r-selected. It’s like invading Russia in the winter.

The real threat comes from alien K-selected peoples (like the Chinese) using the r-selected as pawns and bargaining chips, which also works in the case of (((peace))) such as we’re currently experiencing…as long as you don’t actually start believing your own Diversity™ hype. They are probably beginning to understand just how historic Hillary’s loss was. This is what comes of counting your chickens before they hatch.

Corvinus said...

dc--"Want to be happy in life? Don't marry a women with a Big Career unless she commits unequivocally to future full-time motherhood. Let the mental-aberration that is "careerist women" die out, culled by Darwin's implacable determination."

That would be your personal take on how to live. We normies, however, make our own decisions about marriage, race, and culture, and need not be badgered by your incessant virtue signaling.

Dissident--"I don’t doubt that some K-selected nations will perish, but this will encourage the others to get their K-selected butts in gear. At that point it becomes an impossible geographic and strategy/logistics problem for the r-selected."

You promote scientific fraud.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/28/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-anonymous-conservative/