0 sats \ 14 replies \ @k00b 13 Aug \ parent \ on: Vote With Your Feet, A Short Story BooksAndArticles
Where socialism is theft, it's nonconsensual. Where trad is abuse, it's nonconsensual.
The devil is non-consent not the system people might volunteer to organize themselves under.
Codifying and negotiating the sacrifices we make to trade for the sacrifices of someone else, or others, is not necessarily abusive. I imagine the steelman of trad is that it's, vaguely, consensual gender specialization premised on some belief about gender nature/competence/role. It may be a shitty relationship blueprint, but it's just a blueprint, which isn't abusive imo even if there's some presumption of consensual non-consent.
If I had to guess why trad is popular, why men aren't dating or "manning" up, and family formation is down, I'd say it's because opposing tradition doesn't imply a working alternative anymore than anarchy, on its own, implies an alternative to governments.
I see what you're saying, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the steelmanning, but I would argue that poison taken by consent will still poison a person.
"Isolation, condescension, control, gaslighting, name calling, demeaning someone, infantilization, telling someone what they feel, telling someone what they want, fearing for one's life, taking away what one loves doing, triangulation, preventing education"
These things are poisonous to human souls. They simply ARE. Even consented to, although I would argue that the vast majority of time the manipulation is so severe that it can not be called true consent.
The only time I could even conceptualize of these things NOT being poisonous to a human soul would be during some kind of kinky role play that is therapeutic to a person in some way. Personally I don't comprehend it, but I've certainly heard people say it's a very real thing, and on some level it makes sense.
The difference then though is that the second the sub says "I'm no longer ok with this", it INSTANTLY stops, period, for good. It's a game, a role play.
In these relationships, what would happen if the wife said, "I'm not into this anymore, I'd like to stop?" Is that even an option? If not, the possibility of true consent is not really there.
Socrates consented to drink his own poison, did he not? It was still an execution.
And the kids born into this shitty relationship blueprint do not consent.
I think trad is popular because traditional nuclear families are extremely valuable... although I'm not sure that's the natural way of things. I've known too many families from asian villages, and the importance of extended family cannot be overstated. Another topic. But I suspect THAT is what our souls really long for, and it's very traditional.
I do appreciate the point about anarchy.
Trad/redpill/frame.... these aren't traditional relationships anyway. They're 1950s vacuum advertising larping codifying abuse. Something completely different, attractive because it's masquerading as the healthy real thing.
reply
I would argue that poison taken by consent will still poison a person.
We'd both argue that, but I wouldn't call the poison maker an abuser.
I appreciate the fair dialog. Beyond semantics and personal biases, we probably agree enough. I take trad to mean tradition, not whatever its social media rebrand is, but we probably both agree that good, non-abusive, consensual tradition is good.
I think trad is popular because traditional nuclear families are extremely valuable... although I'm not sure that's the natural way of things.
This is a really important point. There may be other family philosophies that produce stable families, but they aren't well articulated and certainly aren't being practiced much.
To be completely honest, and I only mean to share my experience even if it's ill-conceived, most of what appears erected in the place of traditional families is incoherent and unstable. As a man, I feel as if men are given trad responsibilities and expectations while being expected to give female partners modern responsibilities and expectations (which is to say practically none) else the man is a controlling abuser. Meanwhile, a woman maintaining traditional expectations of men is just her being discerning.
It's no wonder to me why most men aren't lining up for that which is why I think there's something valid going on in the trad movement. The next best alternative for men, if the sacrifices they're expected to make in relationships aren't reciprocated, is to make no sacrifices at all and outsource their needs to the market.
reply
Oh, and also? The poison maker, no. But the community forcing socrates to drink the pre-made poison?
Anyway, analogies only go so far. Suggesting that abuse isn't abuse just because someone accepts it is......... sadly laughable.
Consent is not actually part of the definition of abuse, no matter how far down you go the list of dictionary or psychology definitions. Abuse is abusive behavior, allowed or not allowed. And......... look, suggesting if it's allowed, it's ok is...... it explains a lot about places I'll never return to. It's very..... making excuses for abusers. Not a good look. I hope it's not actually how you regard these things.
Also.... perhaps a strong argument could be made that consenting to abuse is immoral, for it harms one's soul.
reply
We will go in circles if we are not using trad the same in a discussion. I think that's why I differentiate between 'trad' and 'traditional'. They are used differently in cultural media, or at the least, they are different things in reality.
Was it GK Chesterton who said tradition is the democracy of the dead? It's a beautiful idea.
I think when a woman is saying loudly "I want a job, I want to create, I was to contribute," that is hardly a female partner taking on practically no responsibility. She is certainly saying "you are I both are not obligated to be house servants," and I think it's unfair to frame that as 'women are taking on no responsibility anymore'. As though men treating a woman well and supporting her as much as she supports him obligates her to drudgery. Honestly, come on. Kind of ridiculous.
I truly think a good marriage is going to allow both partners to take primary responsibility for what they are best at or enjoy most. My mom mowed the lawn, to the judgment of many neighbor wives, because she LOVED doing it. She did the finances, because she was the better at math. And my dad did the things he was better at. Nobody cared what the roles were 'supposed' to be; they did their strengths. And nobody said, "You're a woman, so this IS your strength" and tried to force fit them into boxes. I mean, the neighbors did with lawn mowing. But my parents did not. And we got lots of laughs about it.
To say women aren't making sacrifices at all.... suggests to me folks are hanging out at clubs around club women too much. It also tells me men are being willfully blind; women sacrifice so much. I would never say men do not, but for men to say women do not is...... so blind. With all due respect. Blind as fuck.
Every birth is risking our lives. Choosing a man is risking our lives, because while most men aren't evil, the ones who are hide it very well and the cost is everything... and it's not a rare occurrence. Women sacrifice their ambitions just as much as men, arguably more so throughout history. This is evidenced by most male geniuses had family, while most female geniuses had no children at all.
To suggest that the only fair arrangement for women to be treated well is for them to give up so much... seems silly and ridiculous to me. Personally.
And do not twist this into me saying men don't give up and sacrifice much. Of course they do.
reply
I don't think you're reading me generously. I'm not saying "women are taking on no responsibility anymore." I'm saying men aren't allowed to have traditional expectations of women without being labelled as controlling abusers while women are allowed to have the same "protect and provide" expectations of men.
I'm not saying women shouldn't be free of traditional expectations if they want to be free of them. I'm saying that if women want to be free of traditional expectations, men aren't going to sign up to let women hold them to traditional expectations. Men are going to choose to be single (which they are choosing en masse ... which I hypothesize is due to this expectation mismatch for lack of a better hypothesis).
And do not twist this into me saying men don't give up and sacrifice much. Of course they do.
I wasn't responding to anything you said there, nor was I implying that it was in reference to anything you said. Accusations like this are enough of a sign that this has turned unproductive.
Thanks again for the productive parts of the convo.
reply
I want men to provide me the safe space to pursue my goals and dreams, not the safe space to be their unpaid household servant, you know? I guess I just don't see men as truly protecting/providing when all their protection and providing does is give them the right to tell me what to do. It's not a tradeoff I'm personally willing to pay. Which I suppose is why women aren't signing up to be held to traditional expectations and also choosing to be single en masse.
It certainly IS an expectation mismatch.... kind of feels like a game of chicken too. Who blinks first?
lol, if women were withholding sex with abstinence before marriage, it would definitely be the men. The women would win this. Irony I guess.
reply
Yep, it's an old fashioned standoff. Something has to give.
What would work, generically, on the male side afaict: have equally unrestricted expectations of men, i.e. if they don't want to protect and provide, allow them to negotiate through some other means equal status/worthiness to men that do want to protect and provide.
The fundamental thing is I imagine that people, man or woman, want a fair trade. I also think that men value partners that give overlapping value, and partnership for partnership's sake, less. I'm unsure if that's true for women, but it might be. It's like a factory line where workers are only trained on one section.
lol, if women were withholding sex with abstinence before marriage
This would work if it were only possible for men to get sex through marriage (though it might exacerbate the problem like a minimum wage). Divorce rates would probably increase a lot too I imagine, because I don't think it changes the expectation mismatch and courtship could be more common but less honest.
Absent an end to the standoff, I think the market replaces families. Men and women protect and provide for themselves and pay people to be surrogates in a partner's stead: household servants, relatively infrequent emotional/physical companions, baby makers, and nannies. It's not desirable obviously, but that's where it looks like it's going.
reply
What maddens me about this dilemma is how relatively inflexible men are. Caveman Grok is a man for a reason. Grok says, "Grok protect and provide, Grok do no nothing else." Even if men were still generically desirable while not protecting and providing, I'm not sure enough men would be able to switch biological purposes very well. We can be derelict in duty easily but changing duty requires a relatively unique and powerful man.
reply
I always think of a government saying "we're here to protect you".
Protection is creating a land where citizens are free to pursue their dreams and happiness, of their own volition, that THEY choose themselves.
The second the government says "we're here to protect you, you'll have to serve us the way we tell you to though"... you've gone into tyranny, not protection. And tyranny is dangerous af.
Women do not want tyranny and the danger that comes with that, masquerading as 'protection'. I think that's what it comes down to. We see the falsity of these claims.
Protection is fine. But is it really protection? If I cannot pursue my dreams, happiness, and choices?
Thing is.... a LOT of people do still get married. Happily. Even couples that are more modern. It's a very real thing. I also suspect there will be many upcoming trad divorces. Give it 3-10 more years. I think if I'm right... it's a tragedy.