It's really pretty simple. Feminine is there for love and nourishment, masculine is there for fun and discipline. If you remove all the abstract crud, it's actually what comes naturally too.
Mother's struggle with discipline, and so they should, Dads are wired different and will bring the thunder when it is required. Dad's are also more relaxed with dangerous situations.
When either one dominates too much (within each parent too) it leads to shadow archetypes, whether that be the tyrannical father or devouring mother.
Great essay! My husband is very ill and out of the house at the moment, and man do I hate having to be the disciplinarian. It really does not come naturally to me. I was thinking about what made my grandma and my aunts effective disciplinarians. My grandmother was a wonderful lady, she was an Irish nurse. She was like an Irish nun crossed with I Love Lucy. I adored her. But she could stop us in our tracks with a look (probably the same look that Cú Chúlainn used to stop his enemies in their tracks). If she had to, she would grab you by the earlobe and whisper something in your ear; it was usually something like ‘I’ll have ye hung drawn and quartered’ that she whispered.
We behaved for her.
Then I realized it. My grandfather was a gentle, good humored man, a man of Chesterton-like demeanour. I heard him raise his voice maybe three times in my life. The only thing that made him go berserk was disrespecting my grandmother. And you didn’t want him to go berserk.
My mom said she was never spanked - a rarity in the 1930s. She said all her mother had to do was give her "the look" and say "Virginia..." and she knew to stop misbehaving! :-)
Insightful breakdown and many good points addressed, thanks for sharing. Many parents blur lines between wanting to be liked and a friend rather than a hard and firm example. Furthermore, this is probably a good place to mention the decline of the nuclear family and percent of single (mom) patents. Let the kids drink from the hose, bring back muscular Christian for both sexes of children.
I have often thought that gentle parenting makes parenting incredibly unpleasant, potentially contributing to parents not wanting to have more children.
I know this is unwelcome, but there's a serious error in the beginning. Salem did not hang "teenage girls" for witchcraft. It hanged *adults accused by teenage girls*.
The girls were used to persecute and kill old people. Most who were killed were elderly. No teen girls were killed.
It jumped out at me because the Salem trials are a model I use to illustrate a recurring dynamic in times of political repression:
Using and stoking the hysteria of teen girls to persecute or kill politically unfavored people. We see it in Mao's cultural revolution. We see it today with legions of hysterical girls and women un-personing and cancelling others over trans. Indeed "trans" is nothing but the spectral evidence of the Salem courthouse.
1. The Y chromosome is responsible for 95 percent of crimes in the USA and around the world world.
2. Most of the world's males have been pussified, beta-lized, or softened. (talk, not duel)
3. The world is less violent and murderous today than at anytime in human history.
Coincidence?
You are much safer living on a 100% female island with no food or resources than a 100% male island with plenty of food. The Y chromosome will rape you and steal your food just because you have the wrong skin color.
Roughing up kids to make them tough to kill causes some of them to actually kill, enough to bring back a human history full of violence and unstability.
This is the one of the better arguments I’ve seen for the Longhouse, but the XX utopia you describe sounds awfully nagging and tedious.
Also, not sure if you read the article. I don’t argue for “roughing-up” kids in the way you insinuate. I’m making claims about resiliency. However, boys do need rough housing. In fact, boys get a similar oxytocin hit from wrestling with Dad as they do with hugging their mother. Vice-versa does not release the same endorphin reaction.
Turning parenting into a political argument does not work. We have to transcend that. I have 5 children. I have yet to see or read any evidence that Liberal or Conservative parents raise better children into adulthood in today's world.
These progressive young women are also the only ones self-reporting because God forbid a conservative young shall do so, Jesus is her boyfriend and savior.
“You can't argue with their success: progressives have captured literally every major institution in America.”
Yes, but only because hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives to win the absolute luxury of upper-middle-class progressivism.
So long as there is peace and plenty it will thrive. The moment things go sideways, no one will want the advice of a vegan male feminist, a blue-haired harpy or a gentle parenting expert.
> You can't argue with their success: progressives have captured literally every major institution in America.
I don't follow your logic here. Surely you don't mean to imply that just because an idea is *effective*, it must have some redeeming qualities? What if we thought this way about particularly contagious viruses?
Sure, but being the most virulent is not the same as being the best. It is absurd to argue that since human group A lacked immunity to smallpox, then smallpox is *better* than human group A. Thinking along those lines is an example of the kind of solipsistic thinking that leads to moral relativism. As the linked Law & Liberty article on gentle parenting suggests, we should strive to impart some notion of objectivity about what is right and what is wrong, what is truthful and what is not, wholly separate and independent from the question of what or who is powerful (and by extension effective or virulent) vs. powerless.
To reduce the moral universe to the study of power dynamics is precisely the aim of critical theory, and in pursuit of that goal it has been heartbreakingly effective.
It's really pretty simple. Feminine is there for love and nourishment, masculine is there for fun and discipline. If you remove all the abstract crud, it's actually what comes naturally too.
Mother's struggle with discipline, and so they should, Dads are wired different and will bring the thunder when it is required. Dad's are also more relaxed with dangerous situations.
When either one dominates too much (within each parent too) it leads to shadow archetypes, whether that be the tyrannical father or devouring mother.
Great essay! My husband is very ill and out of the house at the moment, and man do I hate having to be the disciplinarian. It really does not come naturally to me. I was thinking about what made my grandma and my aunts effective disciplinarians. My grandmother was a wonderful lady, she was an Irish nurse. She was like an Irish nun crossed with I Love Lucy. I adored her. But she could stop us in our tracks with a look (probably the same look that Cú Chúlainn used to stop his enemies in their tracks). If she had to, she would grab you by the earlobe and whisper something in your ear; it was usually something like ‘I’ll have ye hung drawn and quartered’ that she whispered.
We behaved for her.
Then I realized it. My grandfather was a gentle, good humored man, a man of Chesterton-like demeanour. I heard him raise his voice maybe three times in my life. The only thing that made him go berserk was disrespecting my grandmother. And you didn’t want him to go berserk.
I love this. Reminds me of my own grandparents. My grandma was ferocious and my grandpa was a jovial garden gnome
My mom said she was never spanked - a rarity in the 1930s. She said all her mother had to do was give her "the look" and say "Virginia..." and she knew to stop misbehaving! :-)
Insightful breakdown and many good points addressed, thanks for sharing. Many parents blur lines between wanting to be liked and a friend rather than a hard and firm example. Furthermore, this is probably a good place to mention the decline of the nuclear family and percent of single (mom) patents. Let the kids drink from the hose, bring back muscular Christian for both sexes of children.
That PsychCentral article looks like AI slop.
I have often thought that gentle parenting makes parenting incredibly unpleasant, potentially contributing to parents not wanting to have more children.
The Hardy Boys—my childhood favorite reads.
The Prussians knew what they were doing (Sparta plus industrial workers/farmers instead of Helots).
The Americans mostly didn’t, the ones that did were evil.
I’ll like for the title
Wow!
Shine on you crazy Diamond Boy
You are correct, only candy asses are being raised today! No negotiations with a child.
I know this is unwelcome, but there's a serious error in the beginning. Salem did not hang "teenage girls" for witchcraft. It hanged *adults accused by teenage girls*.
The girls were used to persecute and kill old people. Most who were killed were elderly. No teen girls were killed.
No, it's very welcome. It means you are engaged! I do most of my posts from memory.
And the research I doo-doo is usually ex-post facto sanity checks. What I'm saying is you're hired!
Well, thanks! Your post is great and makes its point very well.
It jumped out at me because the Salem trials are a model I use to illustrate a recurring dynamic in times of political repression:
Using and stoking the hysteria of teen girls to persecute or kill politically unfavored people. We see it in Mao's cultural revolution. We see it today with legions of hysterical girls and women un-personing and cancelling others over trans. Indeed "trans" is nothing but the spectral evidence of the Salem courthouse.
1. The Y chromosome is responsible for 95 percent of crimes in the USA and around the world world.
2. Most of the world's males have been pussified, beta-lized, or softened. (talk, not duel)
3. The world is less violent and murderous today than at anytime in human history.
Coincidence?
You are much safer living on a 100% female island with no food or resources than a 100% male island with plenty of food. The Y chromosome will rape you and steal your food just because you have the wrong skin color.
Roughing up kids to make them tough to kill causes some of them to actually kill, enough to bring back a human history full of violence and unstability.
This is the one of the better arguments I’ve seen for the Longhouse, but the XX utopia you describe sounds awfully nagging and tedious.
Also, not sure if you read the article. I don’t argue for “roughing-up” kids in the way you insinuate. I’m making claims about resiliency. However, boys do need rough housing. In fact, boys get a similar oxytocin hit from wrestling with Dad as they do with hugging their mother. Vice-versa does not release the same endorphin reaction.
Not just boys, girls do to from wrestling their dad.
You are a cretin and illustrate the reason the world is so fucked up today.
Oh you turkey.
Brb - gonna give Eowyn the people’s elbow
Turning parenting into a political argument does not work. We have to transcend that. I have 5 children. I have yet to see or read any evidence that Liberal or Conservative parents raise better children into adulthood in today's world.
Counterpoint: today, young women who identify as liberal have an insane level of self-reported mental illness.
These progressive young women are also the only ones self-reporting because God forbid a conservative young shall do so, Jesus is her boyfriend and savior.
Better to date Jesus than some black guy, am I right?
Better to be delusional, lol..Yes.
I disagree with "progressives have captured literally every major institution in America."
The most consequential institutions in America are:
News media (captured by Liberals)
Entertainment (captured by Liberals)
Education (captured by Liberals)
Military (captured by conservatives)
Police/LE (captured by conservatives)
Religion (captured by conservatives)
Economy/Finances (tie)
Justice/Law (tie)
Sports (tie)
Politics (tie)
Marriage/Divorce (tie)
I hate to assign homework, but this is important:
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/
“You can't argue with their success: progressives have captured literally every major institution in America.”
Yes, but only because hundreds of thousands of men gave their lives to win the absolute luxury of upper-middle-class progressivism.
So long as there is peace and plenty it will thrive. The moment things go sideways, no one will want the advice of a vegan male feminist, a blue-haired harpy or a gentle parenting expert.
Taking some license here, but try to keep an open mind.
Lenin: Bolsheviks as
FDR: Blue Hairs
Great article and to the point. But:
> You can't argue with their success: progressives have captured literally every major institution in America.
I don't follow your logic here. Surely you don't mean to imply that just because an idea is *effective*, it must have some redeeming qualities? What if we thought this way about particularly contagious viruses?
Just giving the devil his due. Don't we think that way about viruses though? The most successful viruses are the most "virulent".
Native Americans couldn't argue with the success of smallpox.
Sure, but being the most virulent is not the same as being the best. It is absurd to argue that since human group A lacked immunity to smallpox, then smallpox is *better* than human group A. Thinking along those lines is an example of the kind of solipsistic thinking that leads to moral relativism. As the linked Law & Liberty article on gentle parenting suggests, we should strive to impart some notion of objectivity about what is right and what is wrong, what is truthful and what is not, wholly separate and independent from the question of what or who is powerful (and by extension effective or virulent) vs. powerless.
To reduce the moral universe to the study of power dynamics is precisely the aim of critical theory, and in pursuit of that goal it has been heartbreakingly effective.
I think we agree 99% on this. I am no moral relativist, just a contrarian. Although as a solipsist, I am frankly surprised there aren't more of us.