June 10, 2017

The best thing you can do for your career is to take a stay-at-home wife

Filed under: intersectional gender studies, sovereignty games — Benjamin Vulpes @ 9:58 p.m.

My dear Americans, aspiring to manhood, be not misled by useless twits like Adriana Salerno into believing that keeping women at home, in the kitchen, in heels or barefoot as your mood and her task suit, ranks anywhere but in the best of ways to invest your time and money. Does the notion that there is a better life than the two-income-and-no-time-for-love model the American debt peonage state and its vassals in the agitprop department of faux-feminism and genderblind equalitarianism would have you believe to be the only option? Then come with me, friend, let us consider Taking A Wife.

Salerno writes:

It takes more than being good, reasonable feminists to make sure the stay-at-home parent’s needs get the same weight as the working parent’s needs. It takes more than being good, reasonable feminists to make sure that the marginalized parent doesn’t have undue burdens that they “agree” to because they feel more pressure to be reasonable by mainstream standards. My husband and I are committed to figuring out how to not just best divide family labor (which seems to be everyone’s benchmark for equality), but how to make sure each of us is actually equally free. It’s hard work, and we’re making it up as we go.
Get Out The Way -- Adriana Salerno

Allow me to clarify "feminism"
, lest we unforcedly accept the enemy's definition: "a woman" (a state subject to criteria as strict as those of "a man", eg at the very least a thinking individual, not a drifing mote of the undifferentiated herd), may comport herself in any way she choses. She may walk the streets at night rape-baiting if she so desires; she may engage in rampant sluttery if that appeals; she may even decide to abstain entirely from the hetero sexual market in disgust at the paucity of bids. She may even, after much deliberation, and fighting the angst engendered by the American labor market's demand that all bipedal life hand itself over for reshaping into cogs, succumb to the siren call of procreation. And you may speak nary a word.

A "good, reasonable feminist" couldn't, in a million years, conceive that a woman, who, of her own accord, bartered with a man for feed, seed, and a greenhouse in which to germinate it, could ever be considered marginalized. In my America (not the plaintive "our America!"), this woman is far more empowered than the herd descended from the suffragettes who strive yet to balance the scales of slavery to the megastate. Being bound to show up somewhere at eight in the morning, review insurance claims for eight hours with two fifteen and a thirty-minute break somehow a desirable state of affairs for the empowered individual. Ask some who bore and are so bound if they feel empowered, and wonder at the prevarication.

It'll hinge upon recent revelations from the Church of the Woke that all people are exactly equal and so fungible replacements for each other; demonstrate an unquestioning loyalty to the Modern Paradigm that every man Jack and babe Jill indenture themselves to the labor market by taking on epic quantities of undischargable debt to pay for degrees that signify no education actually took place. Stamps of scammability, if you will1. Previous generations (the kind who attended actual schools that flunked students who failed to keep up, in strict contrast to the statal daycares that substitute for "elementary school", "high school", and "college" just as hamburger substitutes for steak in official US inflation indices) would recognize this economic system as the time-honored debt peonage structure. The herd so indentured will never actually snap out of the dream: the machine of lifetime-debt-slavery-for-"degrees" is the only thing lending even a veneer of intellectual credibility to the typical cube-farm drone's only "achievement" in life. Are they to throw the baby of climate modeling out with the bathwater of a system that enslaved a generation? Fat chance; it's "Bachelor's of Art in Science" all the way down, and we all know how the incompetent shroud themselves in whatever caftan of respectability they can find and how ever more tightly they clutch to it as the value it signifies evaporates.

With every boy and girl now servicing tens of thousands of dollars in debt, Economy takes over from Politics and demands that each and every one of them enter and remain in the workforce until they've a) paid it off, and then b) accrue enough 401-K tokens to feel comfortable gambling that they can pay themselves out of the accrued capital for the rest of their days while the currency debases. This puts the woman driven to mature into a mother2 in a rather sticky position: her womb cries out to be filled with seed and child; and her soul to spend the first decade or so of their lives feeding and teaching the juveniles. But! Shylock demands his promissory note be serviced, and the labor markets' bid for her time only included two weeks of paid vacation so by the time she's healed and walking (optimistically) she must gingerly tread back out into the world just to make good on the debt.

Sin excepción, this is life for the doubly-incomed3 family: pop out some larvae, hire a caretaker if you're so typically unlucky as to be without the support network that traditionally fosters the growth of the next generation, and hie both of thyselves back to the workplace to pay for it all. At first blush, why even bother? Go through all of trouble of brewing it within you for however many weeks (sciatica, fetal hiccups, limited mobility, annoyingly complicated sex just to pull a few out of the air) just to walk away and not even nurse it all day? The mind boggles, and the parents fail to impose a bedtime a) not really having thought things through since their teens; and b) so desperate they are for time with their offspring (the US male's inability to set and enforce boundaries with women in his life amplifies this sad dynamic, but I cannot treat the whole world in every essay).

And so of course I have to go yell at people about dumb shit like this shrill fuckin' screed from someone justifying the brain damage from deep within it. I can't even take offense at the characterization of "dads" in the piece because omfg you're talking about people so stupid as to have embarked on the travaille of parenting without a) one of the parents at home with the children or b) enough resources to hire someone to run the house in your absence or to cover for your inability. Notably missing from the piece is any mention of taxes or oil changes (or transmission flushes, honey do you even?), but I digress.

You are a young male in the States; possibly burdened by some amount of college debt. You know in your bones the degree to which you're fucked; perhaps you staunched the bleeding by finishing college at a far cheaper state school, or opting out of the nonsense entirely, who knows, but you're not actually a lost cause and might yet drag yourself out of the pit and claw some respect for yourself from your peers. Possibly you're one of those lucky fucks endowed with the familial money and sense to send their children to affordable schools in pursuit of sensible degrees! You intend to build a career into a not-insignificant domain of personal sovereignty. And, in parallel with the themes of this piece, you plan to have children.

The best possible thing that you could do for your career is to find a young, perfectly-to-your-tastes feminine, filled with the nurturing spirit, lady from a cultural background that doesn't harp upon the canon of wokeness to serve as the first mate upon the ship of your domicile. Take a stay-at-home-wife! Far better to have someone on staff and off the books responsible for feeding and clothing the children, ensuring that diaper bags are packed and activities planned than to hire that work out or god forbid try to split the duties "equitably", however that's supposed to be negotiated. If you both work outside of the home, and then try to share the work of the home fairly, you have lost just by playing. She will care more about the feeding and keeping, work harder, and then turn around and blame you for it. It is a sad thing to see happen. Even should you hire all of the work out, and pay for it from your two incomes, you'll be living in a state of sin, voluntarily donating to the US state and its concomittant machinery of unemployment taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, the utterly useless FDA, and the waste-of-life military welfare programs, just to name a few things to which no thinking man should give an uncoerced penny.

Provided that you can find and reel one in before she's had the opportunity to rack up too much of ye olde American "college debt", you can start staffing your household for barely a song in comparison to the price of hiring a cleaning service, chef, and childcare. If she has, talk her out of any sort of formal marriage that might land the liability on your books, allow her to lean on the "income based repayment plan", which should be trivial to pull off as her income will be zero (and excellent financial policy anyways as the dollar continues to erode)! Room and board will happen off any books the taxman will ever see, naturally. Besides, she'll be paying for it all in blowjobs, good company, and becoming a better cook of your favorite dishes, which is not just immoral but actually illegal in the eyes of the US state and its departments of propaganda.

Now, if you're any kind of man worth the mention, the odds are good (but not certain) that your lifting the shade from her eyes and educating her on the idiocy breeding on all sides, in conjunction with the basic female drive to reproduce will result in her really really wanting to bring more of you into the world. Progressivism is, after all, built on the foundation of woman wanting to make the world better for herself and her offspring (benefits to other folks' simply a side effect of democracy: "if we all wail together, we might get more from the voters!"), and what better way to effect that than to make a hardworking man with a career happy and build some children that might come visit her in her old age?

Voila, you're neatly set up to sidestep the whole idiotic, self-created problem of "fairly splitting the domestic labor!". What split?! You make all of the money, she performs all of the labor. Perhaps, you also put in time on the house and family when you come home or emerge from your quiet den of solitary labor, be it for reasons of "there is rather a lot to do to keep things humming along nicely", the joy of working on large projects with good friends, or merely that of "hey honey, let's further troll the Joneses about how miserable and unfulfilling their lives are!".

Should the labor of managing all those children, the garden, their play dates, cooking and dishes grow truly terribly burdensome for everyone involved, and heaven forfend your career begin to suffer as a result, simply take a second wife! Marginal costs of each additional mouth are low, after all.

  1. Remember how ten years ago the joke was about "I ain't payin' for no underwater basketweaving degree!"? The Cathedral has since realized that it's vastly easier to bamboozle the American lower classes with degrees in "post structuralist intersectional gender studies", which in all fairness is just as parseable to the average graduate of the public American "high school" as "solid state electromagnetic waveguide design and analysis." The social sciences are just as rigorous as solid state mechanics, otherwise it wouldn't have its own department at the University, see? []
  2. The empowered and biologically adult woman (which is to say, capable of reproducing), doing this of her own accord and in a politico-economical environment properly supportive of the incubation and fruition of its next generation, matures into motherhood in precisely the same way that the biologically adult male who only allows the educable near him and educates them that he might not die in the filth of humanity matures into a man. Not to imply that women can't educate and men can't nurture but to insist that however many million years of evolution and fifty thousand of hierarchy engineering do not simply disappear because nobody taught you about them in your intersectional oppression classes. I do not mean to imply that motherhood is some sort of butterfly-from-the-chrysalis fantasy (despite what people think going into it); executed properly it is a messy, transformative affair, rooted in practicalities and engineering tradeoffs. []
  3. We have "salaried", why not "incomed", eh? []

September 9, 2016

Fallon Smart's Murderer Out On Bail

Filed under: portland, sovereignty games — Benjamin Vulpes @ 9:48 p.m.

The Oregonian, as always, gets it wrong:

Noorah, 21, remains in the Multnomah County Detention Center on $1 million bail.

One can trivially determine this to be false:


Hey, what was that?


But (from the same rag)...

A deputy who compiled records filed Aug. 31 in Multnomah County Circuit Court wrote that she spoke about Noorah with an official from the Saudi Arabian consulate in Los Angeles. The deputy wrote that it was her understanding the consulate has retained legal counsel for Noorah and plans to post his bail.

The US educational system (which never achieved anywhere near the Stradivarius quality of the European universities) thirsts for turkey-buyin' dollars, to the extent that it reaches far and wide, collecting the children of those who yet believe that the US education is worth their money, or need to park a particularly useless specimen (I did my ME studies next to the guys who make lots of noise with their Maseratis and mirror-wrapped Nissan Z's (?!) ripping up and down 4th and Broadway in the University district, and Community College and a Lexus are /not/ the jewels a Roman family would hang around their kids necks to indicate the danger of touching the kid in question) elsewhere for a few years. The practice is far older than your typical internet commenter realizes—I, for instance, went to a local high school that operates a boarding program with a population of somewhere in the neighborhood of %85 Korean/Chinese/Japanese (the odd white kid could be found in the dorms, but not many).

The spectacle will now revolve around sovereignty games: will the Saudi "government" (to the extent that it has something shaped like what the typical American thinks of as a "government", which is to say "the great not-a-lord to which we have all delegated our decisionmaking aka Democracy") step in and extract their wayward child from a lynching in Portland, or will the glorious United States Government step up to bat for its barely-attached Cascadian subjects and demand restitution? Or, will the two Great Incas join hands and come up with some brilliant plan to assuage both the injured sovereignty and keep the kid from getting poked full of holes in jail?

However this plays out, it's popcorn time!

January 23, 2016

The measure of a state is its ability to deny benefits to outsiders

Filed under: philosophy, sovereignty games — Benjamin Vulpes @ 12:00 a.m.
The measure of a state is its ability to deny benefits to outsiders

her: it would appear the police aren't allowed to enforce street camping laws:

me: 2016! feefees always trump everything. especially such mundane concerns of the privileged as public health and safety. this is classic 'who could have known' overnice horseshit. raaa

her: The 3rd comment down1 is a good question though: where are they supposed to go?

me: i can't even see the comments. historically, 'elsewhere'. recently, 'projects'.

her: Sigh.

me: most recently, 'anywhere man muh riiiights'.

her: We don't have enough projects2.

me: the universe does not provide an answer to every problem.

her: There is a serious lack of beds in Portland.

me: yeah i mean supply is down and demand is up. most people can only think 'better get the government involved'.

her: Who else is going to provide need based housing?

me: the universe does not guarantee a solution to things that humans perceive as problems.

her: Who said anything about the universe? There are government agencies staffed with human beings who are tasked with coming up with solutions to these problems as they arise. Those people are failing. The universe doesn't have anything to do with it.

me: your side of this argument is predicated on the notion that there is a solution to the problem of people who cannot afford a roof over their heads. i am gently suggesting that perhaps there is no solution. put another way, there will always be more organisms than can survive off of the free energy in a system.

her: but you are wrong about that. Other cities elsewhere have been able to put roofs over homeless people's heads.

me: is it a sustainable3 practice over 100 years? 200? do not confuse a point in time for a steady-state.

her: We do have a bussing problem. Maybe it's something as harsh as asking these people if there if they were put on a bus in Boise or Spokane, and if they say yes buying them a ticket back there4. Utah implemented housing first, treatment second, and they don't have street fires

me: roadies also don't particularly want to live in utah for obvious reasons. roadies want to live in portland, for obvious reasons.

her: If Portland were dealing only with Portland's homeless, the infrastructure would probably be adequate.

me: there is no such thing as 'only Portland's homeless'. for as long as people can get here by greyhound or train and for as long as our voters continue to increase the budget for housing them, they will continue to arrive.

her: Wtf you don't know anything about how people become homeless do you? There is totally such a thing.

me: how are you to keep the others out, though?

her: That is a very good question

me: this is the classic problem of identifying 'the deserving poor'. dates back to like the 1700s with absolutely no solution, and leads in fact to criteria like 'deserving poor don't do drugs' which leads to fascist control of state charity distributions.

her: It probably has a really harsh answer. Like in order to qualify for benefits you have to show that you received mail here sometime in the past 5 years or something.

me: right? ultimately it comes down to a thing you and i have spoken of before, the problem of 'unlimited downside'. which is to say that i am happy to support my ski-bum kid, but not yours. because if yours, then hers, and then infinity. this is the road to socialism, and why it is such a very miserable curse upon the world.

her: And I want to help homeless people who are from Portland or have established themselves as part of the community, but I don't want to do that job for Boise or Spokane

me: right?

her: Or Redlands. Or Reno.

me: i actually came up with a nifty formalism for this

her: Ja?

me: 'the measure of a state's sovereignty and quality of life therein is the degree to which it can deny benefits to outsiders'

her: Oof

me: 'harsh answer', as you said. but imho, you came to the right conclusion on your own. which, relatedly, why benlandia does not even recognize outsiders as citizens.

So: if you live a place, and its governers routinely fall all over themselves to give your money away to randos passing through, you live in a socialist hellhole like me. If you live in a place, and the first reaction to randos driving through and attempting to contribute is "nope, and do it correctly if you try again", you live in The Most Serene Republic of Bitcoin, just like me.

The models are mutually exclusive. Pick a side before it's picked for you.



I agree with you… However, since there isn't enough shelter place for the homeless population, where are they supposed to go? Just wondering.


I couldn't agree more. It's trivial to short-circuit the liberal desire to improve the world: "Look, let's just build a bunch of concrete towers with tiny rooms, and pipe water, soylent and internet to them. Perhaps even give them Netflix accounts for entertainment: Netflix can write the accounts off as charitable donations, it's not like providing entertainment costs anything these days."




Actually, you just put them on the bus will they or nil they. Perhaps a gasenbusen?