The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Anthropologist Gives Baby Advice
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

The Only Baby Book You’ll Ever Need
By MICHAEL ERARD JAN. 31, 2015

SOUTH PORTLAND, Me. — LIKE many parents, I have a particular book I like to give to friends when they announce they’re pregnant for the first time. It is the book I read early in my wife’s pregnancy, blurting out passages about everything from birth, baby minding and child rearing to education, work and discipline. But you probably won’t find it in the baby section of your local bookstore. “The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings,” by David F. Lancy, is an academic title — but it’s possibly the only book that new parents will ever need.

The book, which first appeared in 2008 and is about to be published in a second edition, is a far cry from “What to Expect When You’re Expecting.” Professor Lancy, who teaches at Utah State University, has pored over the anthropology literature to collect insights from a range of culture types, along with primate studies, history and his own fieldwork in seven countries. He’s not explicitly writing for parents. Yet through factoids and analysis, he demonstrates something that American parents desperately need to hear: Children are raised in all sorts of ways, and they all turn out just fine.

Except for the ones that die.

Children in Fiji, for example, are not allowed to address adults, or even make eye contact with them. In Gapun, an isolated village in Papua New Guinea, children are encouraged to hit dogs and chickens, and to raise knives at siblings.

Then, again, maybe if they weren’t pulling knives on each other all the time as children they’d have a better place to live by now than an isolated village in Papua New Guinea.

I took a larger point from all this — namely that humans have a tremendous capacity for living inside their culture and accepting those arrangements as natural, and finding other arrangements weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.

Cultural anthropology is striking for its aversion to critical thinking. One of the weirder aspects is that every cultural group is treated as equally informative. To an outsider, the Chinese, say, would seem like a high priority to study and teach: there are a billion of them, they’ve been around for thousands of years, they’ve culturally absorbed conquerors, they have nuclear weapons, and they’re buying up all the golf courses in California.

But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.

One source of this déformation professionnelle is the perfectly reasonable antiquarianism of anthropologists. A bad measles outbreak could wipe out the Yanomamo so it’s a good thing somebody studies up on them before they’re gone.

Another is that some anthropologists are more interesting, forceful, and charismatic than others, so their tribes get more ink. Of course, this raises the Heisenbergian question of whether if a superstar such as Margaret Mean or Napoleon Chagnon shows up in a small primitive tribe, perhaps they have some influence on what they are observing?

But anthropologists have tended to warp their ideology to fit their professional needs.

In the first year of my son’s life, I found myself pondering things like baby rattles. Where do they come from? Why do we give rattles to babies? Are there cultures where babies don’t get rattles? (Indeed, there are.)

One thing you quickly learn after your babies become toddlers is that they have strong opinions of their own about what toys they should be given.

… That norm is that children are expected to earn their keep, starting at a very early age (or they are tolerated as semi-supernatural forces, the “changelings” of the book’s title). Worldwide, there is little formal schooling; most knowledge is learned through play and imitation. Kids may spend more time overseen by older siblings than adults. Fathers have very little to do with their children. And adults in most cultures rarely, if ever, play with their children as extensively as we do with ours.

… The real divide isn’t between people who co-sleep and those who don’t, or between those who use cloth diapers and those who use disposables. It is between what Professor Lancy, in lectures, has deemed “pick when ripe” cultures versus “pick when green” cultures.

In the “pick when ripe” culture, babies and toddlers are largely ignored by adults, and may not be named until they’re weaned. They undergo what he calls a “village curriculum”: running errands, delivering messages and doing small-scale versions of adult tasks. Only later are they “picked,” or fully recognized as individuals.

In other words, children tend to die in large numbers, so why get all sentimental over them? Of course, this is partly self-fulfilling.

In contrast, in “pick when green” cultures, including our own, it’s never too early to socialize babies or recognize their personhood.

Professor Lancy calls the American way of doing pick when green a “neontocracy,” in which adults provide services to relatively few children who are considered priceless, even though they’re useless. …

We take our cultural practices as a timeless given, but I was fascinated to read the historical origin of our modern neontocracy: 17th-century Netherlands. Wealthy and urbanized, the Dutch middle class began treating their children as inherently valuable, not as future labor. Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. We can blame the political philosopher John Locke for our current child-rearing preoccupations. He carried Dutch ideas back to England in the 1680s, where Protestant radicals like the Puritans and Quakers picked them up. We, and our “godlike cherubs,” as Professor Lancy calls them, are their heirs.

I’m not sure I wholly believe this story about Locke, just as the earlier stories about Rousseau later inventing modern child-rearing in Emile aren’t fully persuasive.

But 17th Netherlands was a pretty good culture.

 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it’s actually the the left, in their denial of the science they don’t agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true ‘creationists’. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.

    • Replies: @SFG
    The right lies about global warming and evolution (except the dissident right) too.

    Every human being believes what they want to. The question is which set of lies you think is most dangerous.
    , @slumber_j
    Yes. A good example is this piece, in which we learn in an entirely unsupported subordinate clause that "scientists have abandoned the idea of innate talent":

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangers-of-believing-that-talent-is-innate-1423068148?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=267654952

    She gets some pushback in the comments, at least.
    , @Cryptogenic
    Bit off-topic here but I've been itching to make this comment.

    Most of the anti-science on the Left is philosophical -- and by that I mean actual philosophy, Frankfurt School and Zizek and Kant and all that. A lot of critics don't get the arguments deployed at all, what it means for humans to be transcendental subjects, Dasein, etc. "Neuroscience is immoral," a philosophy student heavy into the Continental side of things once told me.

    However, there are veins of philosophy, and not just "analytic" philosophy, making strides against the standard relativism. Object-oriented ontology and speculative realism are two trends outside of purely analytic philosophy making strong arguments against the dominant view that relegates science to second-tier status. A very interesting book "centering" science again, if you like philosophy, is Quentin Meillassoux's "After Finitude".

  2. OT/ Right up Steve’s alley – clueless writers from the Atlantic:

    Is Ending Segregation the Key to Ending Poverty?

    Chicago’s experiment in relocating poor African American families to rich white suburbs seems to be a success. So why are so few other cities doing the same?

    I thought that the rich white suburbs of Chicago were north of the city, the opposite direction of Alsip. Why doesn’t this experiment move these blacks to Evanston instead?

    The tonic of white neighbors. What happens when there are too few whites to fix the maladies of black communities?

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Yes, as a long time resident of those North Shore suburbs of Chicago, I have observed that any attempts to move minorities there have been stopped cold. The Alsip area is very lower class, several municipalities there have been bankrupt for a while....
    , @BurplesonAFB
    And at the end of the page, a link to a video clip: Why Don't Kids Walk To School Anymore?

    haha, oh my.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist

    I thought that the rich white suburbs of Chicago were north of the city, the opposite direction of Alsip. Why doesn’t this experiment move these blacks to Evanston instead?
     
    Nice white lefties have experimented with moving blacks to Evanston IL, for a decades. "South Evanston" right across from Chicago's Notorious Howard neighborhood is pretty much a ghetto. Much of Evanston and the northside of Chigago is of course really nice. But what you have to remember is that northshore hipsters and drug abusers will go to where ever they can score. Evanston, Howard, Rodgers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, Wrigleyville, Lakeview(Boystown).... all have pockets of seedy streets and drug corners of associated with scattered site public housing. But yes in all these areas, lots of prime real estate.
  3. It takes a village to raise a child when the parents don’t care where the hell children are…and by raise, “Get the hell out of there!” * thump*

  4. Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don’t depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    That's not quite it. I think that parents, who are spending their own resources (unlike the government) have an instinctive feel for which investments are likely to pay off. If you have a kid with a lot of potential, you will lavish a lot of attention on him so that he (or she) can reach that full potential. If you have a mule, there's no point in pampering him like a racehorse. Note that this has little to do with parental wealth (nor does attention mean spoiling). In American, immigrant Asian families (and before them Jews) do not turn their little future gastroenterologists and biochemists out into the street to play with knives but keep them inside doing math problems and giving them violin lessons.

    The government of course is not spending its own money and doesn't give a damn and will spend the same amount (or more) "educating" the ineducable the same as the promising.
    , @jtgw
    Right. I'm guessing Steve saw the word "anthropologist" and just automatically launched into snark mode without thinking carefully about what the guy is actually saying. I mean, are the Chinese forging ahead because of superior parenting techniques, or because of superior genetics? If the latter, then Lancy is right: it won't matter if you adopt Chinese parenting habits.
    , @BB753
    Absolutely! And the dichotomy "pick when ripe" versus "pick when green" seems to mirror r/K selection!
    In the end, children can cope with almost any upbringing because of their genetics (and selection), nature trumps nurture.
    , @Drapetomaniac
    The nature of the tropical outdoorsman's child is different from the nature of the city dweller's child.
  5. Cultural anthropologists like to focus on obscure and mysterious peoples. There are less and less of those these days, so they have to keep reaching. The Chinese aren’t mysterious anymore: they’re ultra-capitalists who use their money to buy up other people’s stuff. Maybe a century ago they were mysterious.

  6. @grey enlightenment
    The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it's actually the the left, in their denial of the science they don't agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true 'creationists'. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.

    The right lies about global warming and evolution (except the dissident right) too.

    Every human being believes what they want to. The question is which set of lies you think is most dangerous.

    • Replies: @Rich
    There has been no global warming since the late 1990's. That's a fact, sorry. You want to argue about pollution or genetic engineering, okay, but "global warming" or "climate change" is just an elitist scam to make the sellers of carbon credits more cash. As to the old left bugaboo "evolution", some on the right accept the theory, some don't, there is by no means any unanimity on the subject. But the truth is, how much does it matter to 99% of the world whether evolution is fact or fiction? Does it effect an architect's drawings or mason's brick wall? Does it matter to the farmer or the pilot? It's a minor theory of little importance outside of atheist zealots and biblical literalists.
  7. Strikes me as a matter of scarcity: if most of your kids die and hence you have a lot, you’re not going to get attached to them. If you’ve only got a few, better make sure each one makes it.

  8. “The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings,” by David F. Lancy, is an academic title — but it’s possibly the only book that new parents will ever need.

    He’s got that right: because once new parents rest assured that they can punch out a chicken with impunity, they needn’t give the baby another thought.

  9. Steve,

    Surely one major reason why anthropologist prefer to study weird, isolated tribes is that it’s a lot cooler and more romantic than hanging around in office blocks with super-successful Chinese. Just think of it: an exotic location, great terrain, maybe some sunshine (this might be more important to Brits like me) and the chance to come home with some neat local trinkets and great anecdotes that’ll totally impress all your friends.

    It’s just like your gap year all over again!

  10. With robotics there will be less demand for labor, so treating kids like future debtors who are going to pay to support the political debts isn’t going to work. That means more of the political crooks that got rich from public debt are going to go broke. Public debt is public robbery and trillions are missing. All your health data may be missing thanks to the crooks. Lyin’ Brian just jumped out of the cake.

  11. @grey enlightenment
    The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it's actually the the left, in their denial of the science they don't agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true 'creationists'. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.

    Yes. A good example is this piece, in which we learn in an entirely unsupported subordinate clause that “scientists have abandoned the idea of innate talent”:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangers-of-believing-that-talent-is-innate-1423068148?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=267654952

    She gets some pushback in the comments, at least.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @slumberj

    "this piece, in which we learn in an entirely unsupported subordinate clause that 'scientists have abandoned the idea of innate talent':

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangers-of-believing-that-talent-is-innate-1423068148?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=267654952

    She gets some pushback in the comments, at least."

    I read through the comments. No one has yet pushed back on her for this risible assertion: "Women and minorities, who are generally less confident to begin with...."
    , @AnAnon
    The money quote right at the top: "A new study suggests the more that people in a field believed success was due to intrinsic ability, the fewer women and African-Americans made it in that field. "
  12. I hate that false equivalence of cultures. PBS is rife with it. It’s hard to find good old first-world tourism shows..most the international programming is forever dwelling on the plight of hapless negroes in Africa or latinos in Central America.

    And then to blight the musical world, there’s World Music. No I don’t put cajon-beating or Peruvian flute tooting up there with Horowitz or Bird. I just don’t.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    False equivalence seemed to factor into Jared Diamond's musings on New Guinea tribes, along the lines of just trust me on this one.
  13. I doubt the dear professor follows his own academic-study-style baby/child rearing advice. I’m sure his friends think his book recommendations are neat to read, but of course, wouldn’t waste a thought about putting the ideas in the books into practice. What a clown.

  14. @TangoMan
    OT/ Right up Steve's alley - clueless writers from the Atlantic:

    Is Ending Segregation the Key to Ending Poverty?

    Chicago's experiment in relocating poor African American families to rich white suburbs seems to be a success. So why are so few other cities doing the same?
     
    I thought that the rich white suburbs of Chicago were north of the city, the opposite direction of Alsip. Why doesn't this experiment move these blacks to Evanston instead?

    The tonic of white neighbors. What happens when there are too few whites to fix the maladies of black communities?

    Yes, as a long time resident of those North Shore suburbs of Chicago, I have observed that any attempts to move minorities there have been stopped cold. The Alsip area is very lower class, several municipalities there have been bankrupt for a while….

    • Replies: @Muse
    Alsip median income per family is 47.9k per wiki. Not solid middle but not quite lower class. 81% white working class (what Ferguson Mo probably used to be like), which is why they are trying to colonize it.

    You are thinking of towns like Robbins, Markham and Harvey.

    Me thinks you need to come on down for an italian beef at Portillos on South Cicero and take a look around. If you drive into Robbins, you can tell the difference.

  15. What a wonderful painting! In the perfect lock on the gaze between mother and daughter, it seems apparent that a certain kind of parental investment enhances the adults’ motivation and happiness, and isn’t just for the children, or to ensure family status as some of the Chinese practices seem to be.

    In pretty much any “tribal documentary” I’ve ever seen, that kind of happiness is notably absent even when the subject is families.

  16. This elite fad will be short-lived. Our betters in the newsroom haven’t yet figured out that its logic requires the confiscation of Pokemon victim points from those oppressed by recollections of childhood unhappiness. That’s a lot of disgruntled SMJWs.

    Near the top of a quick Google search:

    The link between childhood trauma and adult outcomes was striking. People with an ACE score of 4 were seven times more likely to be alcoholics as adults than people with an ACE score of 0. They were six times more likely to have had sex before age 15, twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer, four times as likely to suffer emphysema. People with an ACE score above 6 were 30 times more likely to have attempted suicide.

    Later research suggested that only 3% of students with an ACE score of 0 had learning or behavioral problems in school. Among students with an ACE score of 4 or higher, 51% had those problems… Childhood stress can have long lasting neural effects, making it harder to exercise self-control, focus attention, delay gratification and do many of the other things that contribute to a happy life.

    That’s David Brooks, and the search was
    “childhood trauma” site:nytimes.com
    Plenty to choose from, of course.

  17. @The 'anging Judge
    Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don't depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.

    That’s not quite it. I think that parents, who are spending their own resources (unlike the government) have an instinctive feel for which investments are likely to pay off. If you have a kid with a lot of potential, you will lavish a lot of attention on him so that he (or she) can reach that full potential. If you have a mule, there’s no point in pampering him like a racehorse. Note that this has little to do with parental wealth (nor does attention mean spoiling). In American, immigrant Asian families (and before them Jews) do not turn their little future gastroenterologists and biochemists out into the street to play with knives but keep them inside doing math problems and giving them violin lessons.

    The government of course is not spending its own money and doesn’t give a damn and will spend the same amount (or more) “educating” the ineducable the same as the promising.

    • Replies: @The 'anging Judge
    Or is it just a brainbug whereby rich, high IQ parents have very few children - who would have been successful regardless of hothousing - leading to their replacement over time by low IQ children of parents who don't bother to think ahead?
  18. Cryptogenic [AKA "Mr. Zeepie"] says:
    @grey enlightenment
    The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it's actually the the left, in their denial of the science they don't agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true 'creationists'. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.

    Bit off-topic here but I’ve been itching to make this comment.

    Most of the anti-science on the Left is philosophical — and by that I mean actual philosophy, Frankfurt School and Zizek and Kant and all that. A lot of critics don’t get the arguments deployed at all, what it means for humans to be transcendental subjects, Dasein, etc. “Neuroscience is immoral,” a philosophy student heavy into the Continental side of things once told me.

    However, there are veins of philosophy, and not just “analytic” philosophy, making strides against the standard relativism. Object-oriented ontology and speculative realism are two trends outside of purely analytic philosophy making strong arguments against the dominant view that relegates science to second-tier status. A very interesting book “centering” science again, if you like philosophy, is Quentin Meillassoux’s “After Finitude”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Modern science is based on Cartesian and Kantian subjectivist metaphysics. "Transcendental subjectivity" is not anti-science at all, but arguably the culmination of the Cartesian metaphysics that undergirds modern science. Neither Marxism nor the Frankfurt School deviates from this basic metaphysical view.

    Dasein would be the modern philosophical concept that departs from this metaphysical stance. A Heideggerian Continental philosopher wouldn't say neuroscience is "immoral". He'd say it's naive, wrong, etc.

    Modern science and subjectivist metaphysics predominate, including among most contemporary liberals, leftists, relativists, etc. Genuine Heideggerian historicists are rare. In this respect, the analytic philosophers, the objecti-oriented ontologists, and the speculative realists are in the same camp with the relativists, liberals, leftists.
  19. Right up Steve’s alley – clueless writers from the Atlantic:

    I can think of no better example of the decline of American letters than the trajectory of the Atlantic. It has been so thoroughly Salonified that it’s in many ways worse.

  20. @The 'anging Judge
    Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don't depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.

    Right. I’m guessing Steve saw the word “anthropologist” and just automatically launched into snark mode without thinking carefully about what the guy is actually saying. I mean, are the Chinese forging ahead because of superior parenting techniques, or because of superior genetics? If the latter, then Lancy is right: it won’t matter if you adopt Chinese parenting habits.

    • Replies: @AshTon
    I've read somewhere that Chinese (or perhaps Asian?) kids who grow up in the U.S. have better outcomes than white kids. But interestingly, Chinese kids who are adopted by white parents have even better outcomes than non-adopted Chinese kids. This doesn't seem to give much credence to the Tiger Mom theory. It suggests that Chinese kids may genetically have the edge, but a white middle class upbringing, and the connections and privileges that involves, may have its benefits too.

    If it was solely about genetics, then why aren't hordes of white race realists moving into the ghetto? After all, genetics would surely trump those bad schools etc?
  21. @The 'anging Judge
    Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don't depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.

    Absolutely! And the dichotomy “pick when ripe” versus “pick when green” seems to mirror r/K selection!
    In the end, children can cope with almost any upbringing because of their genetics (and selection), nature trumps nurture.

  22. Yes, Your Honour, “…nature tends to trump nurture.” But nurture matters a lot. What we see being re-invented in 17th C. Nederland is the “K strategy” of pushing for quality over quantity in the generation of progeny.

    What we have in my darkling neighbourhood at Conkey and Avenue D in Rochester, NY is the “r strategy” of pumping out lots of progeny and hoping that one will finish high school. It works for cats and rabbits. It’s not working well for the US right now.

    Not too hard to see why the New York Lugenpresse likes this book.

    • Replies: @anon
    Having grown up in the 585, I have to ask, wtf do you live in that hood?
  23. Material affluence allows people free time to have hobbies, and I think the number one hobby always will be, doting on one’s kids and trying to live their lives for them. Thus, the rise of neontocracy is merely an aspect of the history of hobbies.

    On the other hand, the wealthy English gentry are notoriously detached from their children, preferring to keep them out of sight by consigning them to nannies and boarding schools. Maybe my theory is plausible but mistaken, or at least the latter, anyway.

  24. What, an entire article about child rearing without one single mention of Hillary Clinton’s scholarly work ‘It Takes a Village’? An obvious omission like that could lead a person to have doubts about the NYT. The part about ‘pick when green’ or ‘pick when ripe’ is interesting enough. But what about societies that practice a ‘pick when rotten’ strategy? That seems to be something they also overlooked.

  25. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “Wealthy and urbanized, the Dutch middle class began treating their children as inherently valuable, not as future labor. Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. ”

    Pampered by what standards?

    They were still standards, proper conduct, good manners, attendance of church services, appreciation for higher things, self-discipline, self-restraint(how many got ass tattoos back then?), and etc.
    They were cultivated and pressured to aim for higher standards.

    Pampered would be how millennies are raised today. No manners, no dignity, self-esteem without self-respect, nonstop gibberish, tattoos and piercing all over, PC substituting for critical thought, no sense of cultural hierarchy, etc.
    Millennies enjoy the ‘easy life’ conveniences of modernity but have the cultural upbringing of savages.

    Millennies:

    http://youtu.be/EcV7ldSzkXk

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Pampered would be how millennies are raised today. No manners, no dignity, self-esteem without self-respect, nonstop gibberish, tattoos and piercing all over, PC substituting for critical thought, no sense of cultural hierarchy, etc."

    The gibberish is contagious. It's annoying and stupid, but (I hate to admit it) actually kind of fun - at least in small quantities.
  26. “Children are raised in all sorts of ways, and they all turn out just fine.”

    By their own cultural standards.

  27. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:

    But 17th Netherlands was a pretty good culture.

    Some of the arguably damaging trends of modernity started there, though. Tolerance, free expression, openness to immigration, multiculturalism and global trade might have sounded like good ideas at the time because no one could have seen the long-term costs. Nearly 400 years later we’ve started to deal with the consequences.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Some of the arguably damaging trends of modernity started there, though. Tolerance, free expression,
     
    Call me old-fashioned, but I'm still rather fond of those two.Of course, our current PC-mindset frowns on them.
  28. Off topic: Steve, another Caucasian group you might find interesting is the Circassians. I was reading how the killer of the Jordanian pilot was himself a Jordanian of Circassian descent. That piqued my interest, and come to find out there is a large diaspora of Circassians in Jordan (driven out of Russia in 1864). They usually have dark hair, green or blue eyes, and pale skin, and their women have been renowned for their beauty for centuries. Here’s one, for example (work-safe):

  29. “n contrast, in ‘pick when green’ cultures, including our own, it’s never too early to socialize babies or recognize their personhood.”

    The next battleground in “reproductive rights” and “curing” genetic diseases on the left? Infanticide. Because it’s almost never too late to get rid of a baby you don’t want back if it’s going to get in the way of having fun or the life you want. Just ask Martita Gonzalez of Paterson, NJ.

  30. I saw this review the other day and, pregnant with baby no. 1 and going crazy reading about the “attachment parenting” versus “regimented parenting” debate, totally fell for the title. The only baby book I’ll ever need! Hurray! I got through three paragraphs and went back to the “Preventing Autism & ADHD: Controlling Risk Factors Before, During & After Pregnancy” title I had been browsing on Amazon (it’s pro-vax). I know what anthropology has done to the social sciences, and want none of it in my house.

    The parenting style debate is actually fascinating, and worrisome if you take it very seriously. Which my husband does not. Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like … how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless. I’m obviously sympathetic to this view, but draw the line at sending my children to school with the gang banger babies of Uptown.

    So I take the parenting style debate halfway seriously, partly because I can’t help it, and partly because there seems to be some evidence that it makes a difference. For instance, there’s a biological anthropologist, Gwen Dewar, who runs a website, “Parenting Science” (which I found through the NYTimes’s excellent parenting literature page), who takes a mostly even-handed approach to peer-reviewed research on parenting. From his article on infant feeding schedules:

    In what is perhaps the largest study yet to investigate the effects of an infant feeding schedule, Maria Iacovou and Almudena Sevilla (2013) tracked the development of more than 10,000 British children — breastfed and bottle-fed alike — from birth to age 14.

    There were no experimental manipulations. The researchers merely noted whether babies had been fed on schedule or on demand, and then followed their cognitive and academic progress. And the results favored feeding on demand:

    At every age, kids who’d been subjected to an infant feeding schedule performed more poorly on standardized tests. Moreover, their IQs were, on average, 4.5 points lower.

    Correlation doesn’t prove causation, of course, but the results remained much the same after controlling for a variety of potential confounds, including parents’ education levels, economic factors, health, breastfeeding, maternal smoking, and the children’s exposure to negative discipline tactics.

    – See more at: http://www.parentingscience.com/infant-feeding-schedule.html#sthash.pt35DPv6.dpuf

    There is a big debate about whether regimented feeding or on demand feeding is best. The political lines are really mobile. Sometimes it’s framed as a feminist versus sexist debate, where feminists advocate regimented feeding because it’s easier on the mom–make the baby assimilate to YOUR schedule!–and where sexists advocate on demand because it requires more maternal suffering and sacrifice. But more and more I see on demand feeding taken up by NYTimes-reading educated and affluent types–where the moms don’t need to work and want to do everything possible to give their kids every competitive advantage (5 IQ points may be at stake for Christ’s sake!), even if it means not sleeping through the night for two years.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    I have never participated in these debates, whether on the internet or in person, and will just tell you my experience as we seem to be on the same page with regards to breastfeeding.
    When I had my first two, I was oblivious to the cosleeping and attachment parenting debates; I started copying what my mother did and everyone I knew: I got a crib and excitedly created a nursery.
    Where I differed with everyone else was that I was going to nurse beyond 3-6 months.
    I'm a lazy parent and I found myself slowly bringing my son to bed for day naps. Lying down to nurse and being able to leave him: easy! When my daughter came along, I did the crib thing for a month before I threw in the towel, the thought of continuing that for another 11 months at least: shudder.
    The babies stay with us until it either becomes disruptive to our sleep or they're weaned. I don't over think it. I just want a good night's sleep for me and baby: everyone wins.

    The only thing I've found fraught and stressful is weaning. I think most babies would nurse through school age if they could get away with it. There will be conflict between mother's and baby's wants or needs and it's not an everybody wins situation. Just my $.02.
    , @Hepp

    Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like … how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless.

     

    If that's what Cochran and Harpending do, then they're fools. The literature is clear that why parenting doesn't matter, social environment does. Many kids will act out and have premarital sex if others around them are doing it but will not be the black sheep of their school.
    , @Dahlia
    Another way to put all that: your views on breastfeeding will ultimately determine how you mother your baby. And not just with regards to sleeping, but everything.
  31. humans have a tremendous capacity for living inside their culture and accepting those arrangements as natural, and finding other arrangements weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.

    That’s the opposite of the American left now.

    Anyhoo, this guy’s science should be the kind that the left can embrace. Takeaways include:
    1. Black kids disrupting classrooms is a cultural folkway to be cherished.
    2. Full speed ahead on school integration, your kids dying violently would be no big deal if you were Papuan-and-what’s-wrong-with-that.

  32. Yes, what The ‘anging Judge said. The book sounds like Judith Rich in a multicultural wrapper.

    Wealthy and urbanized, the Dutch middle class began treating their children as inherently valuable, not as future labor. Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. We can blame the political philosopher John Locke for our current child-rearing preoccupations.

    It seems to me that crediting Locke rather than wealth and urbanization is reversing the causal arrow.

  33. @TangoMan
    OT/ Right up Steve's alley - clueless writers from the Atlantic:

    Is Ending Segregation the Key to Ending Poverty?

    Chicago's experiment in relocating poor African American families to rich white suburbs seems to be a success. So why are so few other cities doing the same?
     
    I thought that the rich white suburbs of Chicago were north of the city, the opposite direction of Alsip. Why doesn't this experiment move these blacks to Evanston instead?

    The tonic of white neighbors. What happens when there are too few whites to fix the maladies of black communities?

    And at the end of the page, a link to a video clip: Why Don’t Kids Walk To School Anymore?

    haha, oh my.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I viewed the "why kids don't walk to school" video. Any ideas where it might have been filmed? It kind of looks like Santa Monica, but I didn't see any palm trees.
  34. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-fareed-zakaria-gps-cnn-exclusive/

    Biggest advantage India and China have over Russia is that China is Chinese-run and India is Indian-run.

    In contrast, Russian economy and politics are closely tied to Jewish power.
    So, American Jews aim to take over the entire country, and Putin’s options are limited because he’s so beholden to Russian Jews who are close to American Jews.

    Jews don’t try to take over China and India since both societies are so thoroughly dominated by native peoples. But Jews smell the blood and vodka when it comes to Russia.

  35. In terms of parenting decisions not having a major impact on the outcomes of children… the anthropologist is right but for entirely wrong reasons. If I did that in my high school physics class I’d get no credit for my answer; he gets published in the NYTimes.

    BTW I’m sort of obsessed with 17th-century Holland. It’s remarkable how much of modernity can be traced to that specific time and place. Oh, and four centuries later, Dutch children are the happiest in the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360517.stm

  36. Micheal Erard wrote “Babel No More-The search for the world’s most extraordinary language learners”

    And some of the images in Google say “Author and Linguist”.

    I was looking at images of Mr Erard due to this idea on CH this week about the female orgasm being a function of how “alpha” the male is, or at least the woman’s body letting her mind know that this guy is “the one”. I wanted to see just how “alpha” the guy looked.

    I live in the north, the Lower Great Lakes Region, in a small town after spending most of my life in the warmer big cities in the sun belt region. I constantly marvel at how tough it was here about 100 years or more. There has been serious snow on the ground for most of the winter and the responsibility of dealing with the reality of winter falls to men. Last Sunday during the Super Bowl, I felt for the hordes of men, probably big football fans, who had to hit the streets to deal with the predicted snow fall of 10 inches. It falls to us men, to shovel, to clear paths from houses to garages. There was a called “delay” and at my wife’s work, the bosses asked employees in some form of survey, if they were stuck in their house. My wife said, “No. I have a husband who takes care of me.” Not all the women did.

    I imagine those hearty men from up here, 100 years ago, who woke up well before dawn to get wood, start fires, and actually having to thaw water or snow just so their families had water to drink or cook with in the morning. Then to clear paths, much longer and more difficult paths than are necessary today, so their people could move about, so kids could get to schools.

    So basically, men were far more necessary for women then than they are now. And given the rate of marriage around here vs in warmer climes, men still are necessary for women here more than in some other parts of the country or in more suburban and urban locales.

    But the reality for women is that they were and are far more likely to end up with a beta for a husband than an alpha. They might like, respect, love the guy in some form, but the “gina tingles” just aren’t there for the guy. So those “and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air” sorts of orgasms just aren’t happening for these women.

    So my conjecture is that some “parenting style” of whites is a factor of this beta/alpha divide. When the father is more likely to be a beta in a cold climate, the woman will transfer almost all of her attention and affection to her children.

    Bill Maher publicized the term “Kid Whipped”, meaning some version of “pussy whipped” where the beta male succumbs to female authority in order to maintain sexual access. And to me, being “kid whipped” is just a continuation of “pussy whipped”. Co-sleeping is an example of this. It’s all about the woman and what she wants. If she wants sex with her man because he is “alpha” enough to give her those banger orgasms, then that kid is not in that bed. But if the reverse is true, then kids provide that woman unlimited reasons to avoid sex.

    I asked an older wise-looking woman at work in an elevator once, after having my newborn, “How do you get a kid to sleep in its crib?”

    She said, “Put it in there.”

    My ex-wife didn’t care to do that. To make a long story short, I divorced, and the nature of that marriage and the causes of my divorce are very much the stuff that is repeated over and over in the Manosphere.

    And after a few years of reading and studying in that community, I remarried a much younger woman (23 years younger actually. I sort of recommend it. It’s nice having a young wife. It’s “good work if you can get it”) and we have an entirely different dynamic. My wife has an elementary school-aged child from a previous marriage. She is also pretty “hip” in Red Pill teachings.

    And there is quite a divide between the “kid” aspect of our lives and the “married” aspect. She understands the impact of the one on the other and she “selfishly” keeps the two separate. She understands that to impose the one on the other will ultimately destroy the “alpha” image of me that caused her to wish to marry me.

    She also understands that “I understand”. And I will see the signs of that imposition and what it means. It means that she is loosing that sense of genuine attraction. And that, to me, is a serious red flag. And also, I have internalized the teachings of the Red Pill so much, that it is almost like instinctively turning into a skid when driving in order to correct the path of a car. I use “dread” instinctively. I “punish” instinctively. I get more aloof instinctively. I purposely keep a “distance” between my wife and I. I refuse to grovel. I do not seek affection. She has to seek it. I give it. I keep “the upper hand” in any contact. I am always the first to disengage. It isn’t deliberate. It’s just the way it is. I am no trained seal that she can hold up to some fish and I do a trick. Fuck her fish. I am the fish giver in this relationship.

    And if I stop being that “upper hand” holder of the power, then I “slip out the back, jack” and she is welcome to shovel her own snow or search for another “shoveler”.

    And I can see just how “institutionalized” beta marriage is in white American life. My house back in my prior marriage was very 90s American, a sort of McMansion, with an overdone entry way, stupid formal living and dining areas, this “great room” that contained the kitchen, informal dining area, and “family room”, all in one long rectangle where the woman could be in the kitchen and see all, kids and husband, all understand his supervisory, authoritarian gaze. The upstairs had this overdone master with a continuation of the sleeping area and master bath with this giant tub … where kids took their baths while the mother watched them. The kids bedrooms were jammed in close to the master so the wife could constantly be aware of them and the master was actually just this giant “play” area at night and the kid’s bedroom were adjunct space to the master, steps away from the door.

    The house I have now is entirely different. It is a vertical house as many are in the north. It is 3 levels. The first level is this basement, half in the ground. You walk up a short flight of stairs to enter the house on the main level, and there is an upstairs. It is fairly common setup up here to maximize heat.

    But the big difference is: The only thing upstairs is the master bedroom and bath. All the kid areas are in the basement. There are bedrooms and a play area. And that creates a remarkably different “zen”. “Adult Time” is built in to the house. And a wife that would pick a house like that like is a different kind of wife than most other American wives.

    Relationship “experts” all talk about “finding a way” to have scheduled “adult time”, sending kids away for the night, going to a hotel, all under the idea that woman is so focused on those kids that if they are in proximity to her, then she will not go “all in” for sex with her (beta) husband.

    But if he is her alpha, then she will lock the fuckers in the downstairs closet, and not give a fuck if they scream their faces off. Her focus is also on him and not only on the children. She wants to be alone with him. She intuitively knows sex is necessary to keep him and he has other options if she doesn’t want to protect her territory.

    The reverse of this sort of behavior on the part of the wife of an “alpha” (or at least a guy who knows the game) that would deny her kids the constant screaming attention they demand in order to have time alone with her husband to protect her turf is completely ingrained in typical white marriages. A typical white wife could give a fuck about what her husband wants. It’s all about the children.

    A woman who stated in a blog that she habitually created this time for her husband, was met with shrieking from other women and one female commenter threatened to call Childrens Protective Services on the woman for neglect. The idea that a woman would voluntarily and even eagerly wish to be alone with her husband and not her kids is so foreign to most white women that they assume such behavior is deviant, neglectful.

    Yet statistics show the reality is that by keeping her “alpha” there in the house is the best thing she can do for her kids. But God forbid such an idea would become a public standard. Because that would mean white women would actually have to fuck their beta husband. No way. So instead it all is “What about the children????” as an excuse to avoid that horrible fate.

    So I wonder how much this “alpha/beta” divide factors into “cultural parenting styles”. Note that in the NYT article, Mr Erard states:

    “Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. We can blame the political philosopher John Locke for our current child-rearing preoccupations. He carried Dutch ideas back to England in the 1680s, where Protestant radicals like the Puritans and Quakers picked them up.”

    Sure, birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy. Or it dropped because it takes PIV sex to get pregnant, and Dutch women don’t really care much for Dutch men. It is the whole theme of Simon Sheppard’s book The Tyranny of Ambiguity. The book is about how Dutch women basically shit on Dutch men to the point that Dutch men hunt for tourists. And the Dutch have had legalized Red Light Districts for forever because the women don’t want to fuck their men and would rather tolerate prostitution than fuck them. He notes how much more “masculine” English society today is than Dutch society. And given how much more of the world the English conquered vs the Dutch, even in the 16th, one could assume that back then Dutch men perhaps were sort of “beta-ish”.

    There is this data (Naomi Wolf actually) that says 1/3 of women can have PIV vaginal orgasms, a third that can only have “clitoral orgasms” (typically only through oral sex), and a third that cannot have any orgasms at all.

    And given that Manosphere idea of “20/80 Paretto alpha/beta distribution” I would bet that 1/3 having vaginal orgasms during sex are having that sex with some guy from the “20” when they do have those PIV orgasms, and those women having the clitoral are having it with some guy from the “80” while he laps away and she dreams of some sexy pirate or some Christian Gray.

    And the 1/3 that never ever have orgasms are so far down the pecking order of women that the only men they ever have access to are so “beta” that the touch of the guy so repulses them they never ever come close to even learning what the onset of orgasm is like and thus never learn to have orgasms.

    So I gather from the Micheal Erard piece and from looking at his photos that all this “alpha/beta” divide stuff is sort of lost on him as he looks at various cultures and observes child rearing customs. He mentioned he did have children and also that his wife was probably the type to be buying baby books and probably is a typical “(s)mother” ( at his sexual expense).

    So I imagine though that whatever sex he might have is due to his cleverness, his sense of what is what in dealing with his white wife.

    You could say he is a cunning linguist.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jesus Christ, Mark, would you stop spending all your time writing novels on these boards?
    , @e
    I wasn't going to comment but decided I will: You don't sound like a man who understands it even today. You sound like a man who was stupid in the choice of his first wife (yes, she sounds like a manipulator who was never into you at all but you were too needy to perceive that... and just to add, she got what she deserved as her choice was just as bad).

    Regarding your second marriage and your attitude toward your wife: you appear thin-skinned and full of insecurities that you try to cover with game theories.

    No man who has to go to a "how to" website on finding happiness through "learning how to be an alpha male" is such a male.

    , @WhatEvvs

    To make a long story short,

     

    Really?
  37. A lot of this advice fits well with the HBD literature. Judith Rich Harris, for example, makes an overwhelming case that parenting doesn’t matter.

    Treating every child as precious is terrible if it depresses the birth rates. How many of us would be alive if our great grand parents thought like that, and had two special snowflakes instead of seven or eight kids they barely paid attention to?

    I’d rather take a better chance of being born without good parenting than I would take a 10% chance of existence with good parenting.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Birth rates were more or less equal to death rates for all of human history, until the 1800s, when productivity finally launched us out of the Malthusian economy. Is that a good thing?

    On the one hand, people like to hook up and have a lot of babies. And those who don't like to have a lot of babies really want to protect the rights of more Fecund Peoples to have a lot of babies. There's a lot of cheap fuel and land, we've figured out how to industrialize agriculture, and the only real losers in this situation--the billions of domesticated animals dying in factory farms and wild animals dying from loss of habitat--can't complain.

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it's not clear whether we're going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100. There's also the quality of life index. I mean, as commenters are always pointing out all over the Internet: overpopulation isn't a problem because we could fit the entire human population in the state of Texas! Problem solved! But is the goal to maximize population, or to maximize quality of life? We're ravaging and polluting a lot of really nice places on earth, and no one really knows what the externalities are going to be. For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It's like Roman and lead all over again.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)

  38. In other words, children tend to die in large numbers, so why get all sentimental over them? Of course, this is partly self-fulfilling.

    That’s not really what the author says. Fewer children dying has nothing to do with parenting style, it’s because of medical advancement financed by economic growth.

    • Replies: @Abe

    That’s not really what the author says. Fewer children dying has nothing to do with parenting style, it’s because of medical advancement financed by economic growth.
     
    This is the point where liberal cultural relativists (who are also blank slate-ists, but please don't notice that contradiction) twain with HDB spergs (sorry, not to imply you are one, but I have seen this countless times from them).

    Yes, short of extreme privation, there is little you do as a parent that affects your child's IQ, and they would probably have very similar life outcomes if raised by equally conscientious parents down the block. Kids are going to turn out about the same regardless of how many times you took them to the zoo.

    But the problem with real-life is that it is full of lots of non-continuous events you can't recover from. Child mortality is all a function of medicine and there was no effect by such personalized, contingent events as the rise of Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Or subsequent ripple effects such as severely reduced tolerance for teenage intoxication in general, and thus concomitant decline in (non-vehicular) teenage fatal accidents, fatal altercations, etc?

    To give a less dramatic example, it doesn't matter that your kid is smart enough to do the job of a Wall Street investment banker, or Big Law attorney if someone hadn't made sure they'd line up their recommendations and extracurricular activities well before senior year. Without that Ivy degree they are not getting those jobs.

    A child's life is full of all sorts of stressful situations that can quickly result in phobias and adult dysfunction if not addressed by a kind and loving parent. Kurt Cobain would probably be alive today if he had grown up with "dick-ish" peers and a stepfather who verbally humiliated him. Adam Lanza may never have become functional, but he never would have shot up that school if his parents had not let him prime himself first through our trash culture of violent video games and torture-porn horror movies.

  39. An anthropologist writes a paper: “All cultures are really the same and equally good and Christianity is no better than any other religion. Now give me tenure at your Christian-founded university while I watch porn on my iPad.”

    An economist writes a grant request: “Dear NSF: Please give me a grant so that I can continue my research into the 10 top reasons for the abolition of government (except for the police which must be there to enforce contracts).” After finishing, he wipes his brow, and writes a letter to the department chair: “I demand tenure so that I can write papers denouncing unions and praising the right-to-work.”

    A feminist “professor” writes to the almost entirely male board of her university: “Dear Mr. Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. White, Mr. James, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Jones: The feminism department needs a new building in order to be able to continue its important research into the evil-doings of pale white men. Do sign the check. We also want an indoors pool and a tennis court. The facilities will be closed to all males so that we can enjoy a safe environment for mental defecation.”

  40. But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.

    Distinctions between cultural anthropology and non-quantitative sociology have dissipated in recent decades. However, the foundations of the two subdisciplines were different and that accounts for differences in emphasis. The anthropologist was a student of primitive man, the sociologist of modern society. The aim of composing an ethnography was to encompass a whole culture. To do that precisely, the culture had to be demographically small enough to be captured by participant observation. Work with small and tribal cultures is still the signature of cultural anthropology (and I’ve heard anthropologists make dismissive remarks about the methods of sociologists: “what sociologists call ‘ethnography’ I wouldn’t call ethnography”). Anthropologists also had some skill sets sociologists lacked, in the realm of language and linguistics. The long and the short of it is that studying China is the sociologist’s job, or the work of a cultural anthropologist doing the sociologists work.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    This post sounds like one of Steve's grumps, where he disagrees with something that he might actually like. That's why I like Steve at the end of the day. I get a lot of ideas from his dislikes and have read many things he criticizes, which has broadened my horizons. I think this Lancy book sounds interesting and I'll give it a try.

    My grandmother performed many of the basic mothering tasks until I was about 13 and I thank God she did, because she knew that small children are animals who need the basic animal needs fulfilled: physical love, warmth, affection, to be cleaned, comforted and fed. They don't need to be read to, although that doesn't hurt, and they don't need to be talked into endless elaborate negotiations. Take care of that and a lot of other stuff falls into place.

    Anyway CA's are studying China:

    http://www.culanth.org/articles/43-they-come-in-peasants-and-leave-citizens-urban

  41. Marty [AKA "wick"] says:

    Just a small caveat, Steve: I don’t think you should honor the term “critical thinking,” as it’s actually a leftist tool. It was coined in the ’80s to kick off reflexive questioning of existing social arrangements, e.g. “the Crits” rejecting the concept of property taught in law schools, So, CA’s would be low on analysis, but probably high on critical thinking. I’m put in mind of the confusion over the word “punk” in sportstalk. Whites use it to mean thug, while blacks use it exclusively to mean a weakling who gets sodomized.

  42. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Art Deco
    But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.

    Distinctions between cultural anthropology and non-quantitative sociology have dissipated in recent decades. However, the foundations of the two subdisciplines were different and that accounts for differences in emphasis. The anthropologist was a student of primitive man, the sociologist of modern society. The aim of composing an ethnography was to encompass a whole culture. To do that precisely, the culture had to be demographically small enough to be captured by participant observation. Work with small and tribal cultures is still the signature of cultural anthropology (and I've heard anthropologists make dismissive remarks about the methods of sociologists: "what sociologists call 'ethnography' I wouldn't call ethnography"). Anthropologists also had some skill sets sociologists lacked, in the realm of language and linguistics. The long and the short of it is that studying China is the sociologist's job, or the work of a cultural anthropologist doing the sociologists work.

    This post sounds like one of Steve’s grumps, where he disagrees with something that he might actually like. That’s why I like Steve at the end of the day. I get a lot of ideas from his dislikes and have read many things he criticizes, which has broadened my horizons. I think this Lancy book sounds interesting and I’ll give it a try.

    My grandmother performed many of the basic mothering tasks until I was about 13 and I thank God she did, because she knew that small children are animals who need the basic animal needs fulfilled: physical love, warmth, affection, to be cleaned, comforted and fed. They don’t need to be read to, although that doesn’t hurt, and they don’t need to be talked into endless elaborate negotiations. Take care of that and a lot of other stuff falls into place.

    Anyway CA’s are studying China:

    http://www.culanth.org/articles/43-they-come-in-peasants-and-leave-citizens-urban

  43. My sister-in-law is an anthropologist specializing in the history of warfare in primitive times. Lovely lady, very smart. She’s trying to raise my nephews, 3 and 6, to be non-violent in the light of her studies. Naturally they’re bursting with suppressed aggression and denied actual weapon toys just transform their arms into missile-launchers or particle-beam-cannons and carry on.

    I do a thing with the older one called “Two Minutes Rage” where I let him attack me and just go mad as long as he doesn’t strike to the yarbles. It’s wild to see how much aggro can be packed in a skinny little 6-year old body. The parents aren’t too into that though, because it makes him wound up for the rest of the day. “Uncle Boge! Uncle Boge! when is it time for RAGE!!” hold on kid let me finish my rum…

    • Replies: @donut
    He obviously needs to be medicated.
  44. @Mark Minter
    Micheal Erard wrote "Babel No More-The search for the world's most extraordinary language learners"

    And some of the images in Google say "Author and Linguist".

    I was looking at images of Mr Erard due to this idea on CH this week about the female orgasm being a function of how "alpha" the male is, or at least the woman's body letting her mind know that this guy is "the one". I wanted to see just how "alpha" the guy looked.

    I live in the north, the Lower Great Lakes Region, in a small town after spending most of my life in the warmer big cities in the sun belt region. I constantly marvel at how tough it was here about 100 years or more. There has been serious snow on the ground for most of the winter and the responsibility of dealing with the reality of winter falls to men. Last Sunday during the Super Bowl, I felt for the hordes of men, probably big football fans, who had to hit the streets to deal with the predicted snow fall of 10 inches. It falls to us men, to shovel, to clear paths from houses to garages. There was a called "delay" and at my wife's work, the bosses asked employees in some form of survey, if they were stuck in their house. My wife said, "No. I have a husband who takes care of me." Not all the women did.

    I imagine those hearty men from up here, 100 years ago, who woke up well before dawn to get wood, start fires, and actually having to thaw water or snow just so their families had water to drink or cook with in the morning. Then to clear paths, much longer and more difficult paths than are necessary today, so their people could move about, so kids could get to schools.

    So basically, men were far more necessary for women then than they are now. And given the rate of marriage around here vs in warmer climes, men still are necessary for women here more than in some other parts of the country or in more suburban and urban locales.

    But the reality for women is that they were and are far more likely to end up with a beta for a husband than an alpha. They might like, respect, love the guy in some form, but the "gina tingles" just aren't there for the guy. So those "and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" sorts of orgasms just aren't happening for these women.

    So my conjecture is that some "parenting style" of whites is a factor of this beta/alpha divide. When the father is more likely to be a beta in a cold climate, the woman will transfer almost all of her attention and affection to her children.

    Bill Maher publicized the term "Kid Whipped", meaning some version of "pussy whipped" where the beta male succumbs to female authority in order to maintain sexual access. And to me, being "kid whipped" is just a continuation of "pussy whipped". Co-sleeping is an example of this. It's all about the woman and what she wants. If she wants sex with her man because he is "alpha" enough to give her those banger orgasms, then that kid is not in that bed. But if the reverse is true, then kids provide that woman unlimited reasons to avoid sex.

    I asked an older wise-looking woman at work in an elevator once, after having my newborn, "How do you get a kid to sleep in its crib?"

    She said, "Put it in there."

    My ex-wife didn't care to do that. To make a long story short, I divorced, and the nature of that marriage and the causes of my divorce are very much the stuff that is repeated over and over in the Manosphere.

    And after a few years of reading and studying in that community, I remarried a much younger woman (23 years younger actually. I sort of recommend it. It's nice having a young wife. It's "good work if you can get it") and we have an entirely different dynamic. My wife has an elementary school-aged child from a previous marriage. She is also pretty "hip" in Red Pill teachings.

    And there is quite a divide between the "kid" aspect of our lives and the "married" aspect. She understands the impact of the one on the other and she "selfishly" keeps the two separate. She understands that to impose the one on the other will ultimately destroy the "alpha" image of me that caused her to wish to marry me.

    She also understands that "I understand". And I will see the signs of that imposition and what it means. It means that she is loosing that sense of genuine attraction. And that, to me, is a serious red flag. And also, I have internalized the teachings of the Red Pill so much, that it is almost like instinctively turning into a skid when driving in order to correct the path of a car. I use "dread" instinctively. I "punish" instinctively. I get more aloof instinctively. I purposely keep a "distance" between my wife and I. I refuse to grovel. I do not seek affection. She has to seek it. I give it. I keep "the upper hand" in any contact. I am always the first to disengage. It isn't deliberate. It's just the way it is. I am no trained seal that she can hold up to some fish and I do a trick. Fuck her fish. I am the fish giver in this relationship.

    And if I stop being that "upper hand" holder of the power, then I "slip out the back, jack" and she is welcome to shovel her own snow or search for another "shoveler".

    And I can see just how "institutionalized" beta marriage is in white American life. My house back in my prior marriage was very 90s American, a sort of McMansion, with an overdone entry way, stupid formal living and dining areas, this "great room" that contained the kitchen, informal dining area, and "family room", all in one long rectangle where the woman could be in the kitchen and see all, kids and husband, all understand his supervisory, authoritarian gaze. The upstairs had this overdone master with a continuation of the sleeping area and master bath with this giant tub ... where kids took their baths while the mother watched them. The kids bedrooms were jammed in close to the master so the wife could constantly be aware of them and the master was actually just this giant "play" area at night and the kid's bedroom were adjunct space to the master, steps away from the door.

    The house I have now is entirely different. It is a vertical house as many are in the north. It is 3 levels. The first level is this basement, half in the ground. You walk up a short flight of stairs to enter the house on the main level, and there is an upstairs. It is fairly common setup up here to maximize heat.

    But the big difference is: The only thing upstairs is the master bedroom and bath. All the kid areas are in the basement. There are bedrooms and a play area. And that creates a remarkably different "zen". "Adult Time" is built in to the house. And a wife that would pick a house like that like is a different kind of wife than most other American wives.

    Relationship "experts" all talk about "finding a way" to have scheduled "adult time", sending kids away for the night, going to a hotel, all under the idea that woman is so focused on those kids that if they are in proximity to her, then she will not go "all in" for sex with her (beta) husband.

    But if he is her alpha, then she will lock the fuckers in the downstairs closet, and not give a fuck if they scream their faces off. Her focus is also on him and not only on the children. She wants to be alone with him. She intuitively knows sex is necessary to keep him and he has other options if she doesn't want to protect her territory.

    The reverse of this sort of behavior on the part of the wife of an "alpha" (or at least a guy who knows the game) that would deny her kids the constant screaming attention they demand in order to have time alone with her husband to protect her turf is completely ingrained in typical white marriages. A typical white wife could give a fuck about what her husband wants. It's all about the children.

    A woman who stated in a blog that she habitually created this time for her husband, was met with shrieking from other women and one female commenter threatened to call Childrens Protective Services on the woman for neglect. The idea that a woman would voluntarily and even eagerly wish to be alone with her husband and not her kids is so foreign to most white women that they assume such behavior is deviant, neglectful.

    Yet statistics show the reality is that by keeping her "alpha" there in the house is the best thing she can do for her kids. But God forbid such an idea would become a public standard. Because that would mean white women would actually have to fuck their beta husband. No way. So instead it all is "What about the children????" as an excuse to avoid that horrible fate.

    So I wonder how much this "alpha/beta" divide factors into "cultural parenting styles". Note that in the NYT article, Mr Erard states:

    "Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. We can blame the political philosopher John Locke for our current child-rearing preoccupations. He carried Dutch ideas back to England in the 1680s, where Protestant radicals like the Puritans and Quakers picked them up."

    Sure, birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy. Or it dropped because it takes PIV sex to get pregnant, and Dutch women don't really care much for Dutch men. It is the whole theme of Simon Sheppard's book The Tyranny of Ambiguity. The book is about how Dutch women basically shit on Dutch men to the point that Dutch men hunt for tourists. And the Dutch have had legalized Red Light Districts for forever because the women don't want to fuck their men and would rather tolerate prostitution than fuck them. He notes how much more "masculine" English society today is than Dutch society. And given how much more of the world the English conquered vs the Dutch, even in the 16th, one could assume that back then Dutch men perhaps were sort of "beta-ish".

    There is this data (Naomi Wolf actually) that says 1/3 of women can have PIV vaginal orgasms, a third that can only have "clitoral orgasms" (typically only through oral sex), and a third that cannot have any orgasms at all.

    And given that Manosphere idea of "20/80 Paretto alpha/beta distribution" I would bet that 1/3 having vaginal orgasms during sex are having that sex with some guy from the "20" when they do have those PIV orgasms, and those women having the clitoral are having it with some guy from the "80" while he laps away and she dreams of some sexy pirate or some Christian Gray.

    And the 1/3 that never ever have orgasms are so far down the pecking order of women that the only men they ever have access to are so "beta" that the touch of the guy so repulses them they never ever come close to even learning what the onset of orgasm is like and thus never learn to have orgasms.

    So I gather from the Micheal Erard piece and from looking at his photos that all this "alpha/beta" divide stuff is sort of lost on him as he looks at various cultures and observes child rearing customs. He mentioned he did have children and also that his wife was probably the type to be buying baby books and probably is a typical "(s)mother" ( at his sexual expense).

    So I imagine though that whatever sex he might have is due to his cleverness, his sense of what is what in dealing with his white wife.

    You could say he is a cunning linguist.

    Jesus Christ, Mark, would you stop spending all your time writing novels on these boards?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What you don't want to read about how he used to be a real wuss who blathered on and on and then became a real manly man of the manosphere who manned up?
  45. I do not have a toddler living with me. However, I do have a Labrador Retriever. His name begins with an “H” and he is smarter than most middle schoolers. Just for the record, H is powerful enough to pull me off my feet.

    I have learned that the Golden Rule is a pretty good idea for self governance, and for child raising. I do unto H as I would have H do unto me, with allowances made for differences in age, species, and other cultural artifacts. For example, I found that discussing food matters with him is preferable to dealing with gas and solids later on. Battles of will rather than force lead to H acquiescing to my directives instead of succumbing to the force du jour. Except for the chewing issue, which is H’s way of conveying dissatisfaction.

    Perhaps, parents striving to live a good life would enable society’s children to learn the patterns they need, to experience the limits to behavior needed to get along in civilization (such as not harming the poultry and livestock), to recognize the duties of a productive life, and not to worry about the latest theory.

    To educate the children, require adults to be mature. This requirement is all we need to differentiate societies. I think this worked in the past; it should work in the future. Except for the chewing.

  46. What is most hilarious about these “scientists” is that if you were to make the easily observable and verifiable statement that blacks don’t trend towards monogamy they’d go off the rails labeling you a racist and act is if such an idea can’t possibly be true. Of course, only an overeducated anthropologist egghead can make correct observations, despite the overwhelming evidence you see in the behavior of the 35 million blacks in the USA, as well as the 850+ million blacks you see in Africa and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’m not sure I wholly believe this story about Locke, just as the earlier stories about Rousseau later inventing modern child-rearing in Emile aren’t fully persuasive.

    Regardless of the debate on the influence of Emile, the influence of Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of the Inequality of Man on cultural anthropology is pretty strong.

  48. Dahlia says:
    @Uptown Resident
    I saw this review the other day and, pregnant with baby no. 1 and going crazy reading about the "attachment parenting" versus "regimented parenting" debate, totally fell for the title. The only baby book I'll ever need! Hurray! I got through three paragraphs and went back to the "Preventing Autism & ADHD: Controlling Risk Factors Before, During & After Pregnancy" title I had been browsing on Amazon (it's pro-vax). I know what anthropology has done to the social sciences, and want none of it in my house.

    The parenting style debate is actually fascinating, and worrisome if you take it very seriously. Which my husband does not. Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like ... how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless. I'm obviously sympathetic to this view, but draw the line at sending my children to school with the gang banger babies of Uptown.

    So I take the parenting style debate halfway seriously, partly because I can't help it, and partly because there seems to be some evidence that it makes a difference. For instance, there's a biological anthropologist, Gwen Dewar, who runs a website, "Parenting Science" (which I found through the NYTimes's excellent parenting literature page), who takes a mostly even-handed approach to peer-reviewed research on parenting. From his article on infant feeding schedules:


    In what is perhaps the largest study yet to investigate the effects of an infant feeding schedule, Maria Iacovou and Almudena Sevilla (2013) tracked the development of more than 10,000 British children -- breastfed and bottle-fed alike -- from birth to age 14.

    There were no experimental manipulations. The researchers merely noted whether babies had been fed on schedule or on demand, and then followed their cognitive and academic progress. And the results favored feeding on demand:

    At every age, kids who'd been subjected to an infant feeding schedule performed more poorly on standardized tests. Moreover, their IQs were, on average, 4.5 points lower.

    Correlation doesn't prove causation, of course, but the results remained much the same after controlling for a variety of potential confounds, including parents' education levels, economic factors, health, breastfeeding, maternal smoking, and the children's exposure to negative discipline tactics.

    - See more at: http://www.parentingscience.com/infant-feeding-schedule.html#sthash.pt35DPv6.dpuf
     

    There is a big debate about whether regimented feeding or on demand feeding is best. The political lines are really mobile. Sometimes it's framed as a feminist versus sexist debate, where feminists advocate regimented feeding because it's easier on the mom--make the baby assimilate to YOUR schedule!--and where sexists advocate on demand because it requires more maternal suffering and sacrifice. But more and more I see on demand feeding taken up by NYTimes-reading educated and affluent types--where the moms don't need to work and want to do everything possible to give their kids every competitive advantage (5 IQ points may be at stake for Christ's sake!), even if it means not sleeping through the night for two years.

    I have never participated in these debates, whether on the internet or in person, and will just tell you my experience as we seem to be on the same page with regards to breastfeeding.
    When I had my first two, I was oblivious to the cosleeping and attachment parenting debates; I started copying what my mother did and everyone I knew: I got a crib and excitedly created a nursery.
    Where I differed with everyone else was that I was going to nurse beyond 3-6 months.
    I’m a lazy parent and I found myself slowly bringing my son to bed for day naps. Lying down to nurse and being able to leave him: easy! When my daughter came along, I did the crib thing for a month before I threw in the towel, the thought of continuing that for another 11 months at least: shudder.
    The babies stay with us until it either becomes disruptive to our sleep or they’re weaned. I don’t over think it. I just want a good night’s sleep for me and baby: everyone wins.

    The only thing I’ve found fraught and stressful is weaning. I think most babies would nurse through school age if they could get away with it. There will be conflict between mother’s and baby’s wants or needs and it’s not an everybody wins situation. Just my $.02.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Thanks, it's always helpful to hear other women's experiences. I definitely plan on breastfeeding for at least a year. Cosleeping has always seemed extreme to me, but many women swear by it. I've read studies that indicate that it's the best way to do "on demand" feeding because it results in the mom getting more sleep, since she's not fully waking to do the nighttime feedings. The risk of smothering the baby is pretty frightening, though.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    every baby is a little different. My screaming first son HAD to be put on a schedule or he would have nursed 24 hours straight (with periodic spitting up). My mellow daughter pretty much established her own schedule and it all worked out without any stress. The 2nd son wasn't much interested in nursing and abandoned me around 8 months old for real food.

    So be open to any and all approaches. Reading all the experts will mean nothing compared to your own instincts once you're in the trenches. And by all means, enjoy the baby time. It DOESN'T last.
    , @donut
    I think that it's natural and healthy for the kid to sleep with the mother for a while , how long I don't know but at some point you just kick them out and they get over it.

    A friend of mine's mother in law really gave her a lot of shit about breastfeeding , she thought it was disgusting , I'm 64 so figure she was whatever . My friend finally had to tell her to butt out.

    The Md's don't really have a clue they just parrot what the current fad is. Just do what you feel . None of these experts know shit.
  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    But, surely, Steve, the ‘weirder’ human cultures – yes I can hear all the screams of eurocentrism and inherent bias – are the most interesting ones to study and research, and the ones closer to western cultural norms are just too boring and plain vanilla to bother about. And I’ve no doubt professional cultural anthropologists feel the same way – despite all their talk about ‘cultural relativism’, and it’s the reason that first drew them to the subject in the first place. Curiosity verging on the morbid.
    Is their any subject more thrilling and curiosity inducing to study and tabulate than the persistence of cannibalism, for example? It’s the ultimate in ‘going through others’ dirty laundry’, so to speak, and uncovering deep, dark secrets that somehow delineate the human condition, whilst – secretly and pruriently – disavowing and ‘objectively’ distancing oneself, wearing the guise of scientist, from the ‘shocking’ behavior that so entranced you in the first place. In a word ‘voyeurism’.

  50. @advancedatheist

    But 17th Netherlands was a pretty good culture.
     
    Some of the arguably damaging trends of modernity started there, though. Tolerance, free expression, openness to immigration, multiculturalism and global trade might have sounded like good ideas at the time because no one could have seen the long-term costs. Nearly 400 years later we've started to deal with the consequences.

    Some of the arguably damaging trends of modernity started there, though. Tolerance, free expression,

    Call me old-fashioned, but I’m still rather fond of those two.Of course, our current PC-mindset frowns on them.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    We can see what happened by tolerating the Others in our society and letting them get control of the media for their rather one-sided agenda of free expression. They supply Steve with new material, apparently several times a day.
  51. @Uptown Resident
    I saw this review the other day and, pregnant with baby no. 1 and going crazy reading about the "attachment parenting" versus "regimented parenting" debate, totally fell for the title. The only baby book I'll ever need! Hurray! I got through three paragraphs and went back to the "Preventing Autism & ADHD: Controlling Risk Factors Before, During & After Pregnancy" title I had been browsing on Amazon (it's pro-vax). I know what anthropology has done to the social sciences, and want none of it in my house.

    The parenting style debate is actually fascinating, and worrisome if you take it very seriously. Which my husband does not. Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like ... how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless. I'm obviously sympathetic to this view, but draw the line at sending my children to school with the gang banger babies of Uptown.

    So I take the parenting style debate halfway seriously, partly because I can't help it, and partly because there seems to be some evidence that it makes a difference. For instance, there's a biological anthropologist, Gwen Dewar, who runs a website, "Parenting Science" (which I found through the NYTimes's excellent parenting literature page), who takes a mostly even-handed approach to peer-reviewed research on parenting. From his article on infant feeding schedules:


    In what is perhaps the largest study yet to investigate the effects of an infant feeding schedule, Maria Iacovou and Almudena Sevilla (2013) tracked the development of more than 10,000 British children -- breastfed and bottle-fed alike -- from birth to age 14.

    There were no experimental manipulations. The researchers merely noted whether babies had been fed on schedule or on demand, and then followed their cognitive and academic progress. And the results favored feeding on demand:

    At every age, kids who'd been subjected to an infant feeding schedule performed more poorly on standardized tests. Moreover, their IQs were, on average, 4.5 points lower.

    Correlation doesn't prove causation, of course, but the results remained much the same after controlling for a variety of potential confounds, including parents' education levels, economic factors, health, breastfeeding, maternal smoking, and the children's exposure to negative discipline tactics.

    - See more at: http://www.parentingscience.com/infant-feeding-schedule.html#sthash.pt35DPv6.dpuf
     

    There is a big debate about whether regimented feeding or on demand feeding is best. The political lines are really mobile. Sometimes it's framed as a feminist versus sexist debate, where feminists advocate regimented feeding because it's easier on the mom--make the baby assimilate to YOUR schedule!--and where sexists advocate on demand because it requires more maternal suffering and sacrifice. But more and more I see on demand feeding taken up by NYTimes-reading educated and affluent types--where the moms don't need to work and want to do everything possible to give their kids every competitive advantage (5 IQ points may be at stake for Christ's sake!), even if it means not sleeping through the night for two years.

    Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like … how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless.

    If that’s what Cochran and Harpending do, then they’re fools. The literature is clear that why parenting doesn’t matter, social environment does. Many kids will act out and have premarital sex if others around them are doing it but will not be the black sheep of their school.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    I know, I know. I agree. I didn't realize that I even liked alcohol until I was in my twenties because none of my friends--in my large public high school in a 100% white, Dutch Reform suburb of Grand Rapids, MI--drank. We were too busy with AP classes and the usual slew of extracurriculars.
    , @Pincher Martin
    Cochran has hinted that he doesn't believe the social environment matters much, either. Here he is commenting, for example, on Judith Harris's The Nuture Assumption.
  52. @Uptown Resident
    I saw this review the other day and, pregnant with baby no. 1 and going crazy reading about the "attachment parenting" versus "regimented parenting" debate, totally fell for the title. The only baby book I'll ever need! Hurray! I got through three paragraphs and went back to the "Preventing Autism & ADHD: Controlling Risk Factors Before, During & After Pregnancy" title I had been browsing on Amazon (it's pro-vax). I know what anthropology has done to the social sciences, and want none of it in my house.

    The parenting style debate is actually fascinating, and worrisome if you take it very seriously. Which my husband does not. Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like ... how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless. I'm obviously sympathetic to this view, but draw the line at sending my children to school with the gang banger babies of Uptown.

    So I take the parenting style debate halfway seriously, partly because I can't help it, and partly because there seems to be some evidence that it makes a difference. For instance, there's a biological anthropologist, Gwen Dewar, who runs a website, "Parenting Science" (which I found through the NYTimes's excellent parenting literature page), who takes a mostly even-handed approach to peer-reviewed research on parenting. From his article on infant feeding schedules:


    In what is perhaps the largest study yet to investigate the effects of an infant feeding schedule, Maria Iacovou and Almudena Sevilla (2013) tracked the development of more than 10,000 British children -- breastfed and bottle-fed alike -- from birth to age 14.

    There were no experimental manipulations. The researchers merely noted whether babies had been fed on schedule or on demand, and then followed their cognitive and academic progress. And the results favored feeding on demand:

    At every age, kids who'd been subjected to an infant feeding schedule performed more poorly on standardized tests. Moreover, their IQs were, on average, 4.5 points lower.

    Correlation doesn't prove causation, of course, but the results remained much the same after controlling for a variety of potential confounds, including parents' education levels, economic factors, health, breastfeeding, maternal smoking, and the children's exposure to negative discipline tactics.

    - See more at: http://www.parentingscience.com/infant-feeding-schedule.html#sthash.pt35DPv6.dpuf
     

    There is a big debate about whether regimented feeding or on demand feeding is best. The political lines are really mobile. Sometimes it's framed as a feminist versus sexist debate, where feminists advocate regimented feeding because it's easier on the mom--make the baby assimilate to YOUR schedule!--and where sexists advocate on demand because it requires more maternal suffering and sacrifice. But more and more I see on demand feeding taken up by NYTimes-reading educated and affluent types--where the moms don't need to work and want to do everything possible to give their kids every competitive advantage (5 IQ points may be at stake for Christ's sake!), even if it means not sleeping through the night for two years.

    Another way to put all that: your views on breastfeeding will ultimately determine how you mother your baby. And not just with regards to sleeping, but everything.

  53. China is already indirectly heavily studied via other fields like history, economics, political science, etc. Cultural anthropologists naturally have a greater incentive to study less studied and more isolated cultures.

  54. @TangoMan
    OT/ Right up Steve's alley - clueless writers from the Atlantic:

    Is Ending Segregation the Key to Ending Poverty?

    Chicago's experiment in relocating poor African American families to rich white suburbs seems to be a success. So why are so few other cities doing the same?
     
    I thought that the rich white suburbs of Chicago were north of the city, the opposite direction of Alsip. Why doesn't this experiment move these blacks to Evanston instead?

    The tonic of white neighbors. What happens when there are too few whites to fix the maladies of black communities?

    I thought that the rich white suburbs of Chicago were north of the city, the opposite direction of Alsip. Why doesn’t this experiment move these blacks to Evanston instead?

    Nice white lefties have experimented with moving blacks to Evanston IL, for a decades. “South Evanston” right across from Chicago’s Notorious Howard neighborhood is pretty much a ghetto. Much of Evanston and the northside of Chigago is of course really nice. But what you have to remember is that northshore hipsters and drug abusers will go to where ever they can score. Evanston, Howard, Rodgers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, Wrigleyville, Lakeview(Boystown)…. all have pockets of seedy streets and drug corners of associated with scattered site public housing. But yes in all these areas, lots of prime real estate.

  55. Anthropologist stick-boy:

    We take our cultural practices as a timeless given, but I was fascinated to read the historical origin of our modern neontocracy: 17th-century Netherlands.

    The only wealth in this world is children, more than all the money and power on Earth. You are my treasure.

    GODFATHER III, bitches!

  56. @pyrrhus
    Yes, as a long time resident of those North Shore suburbs of Chicago, I have observed that any attempts to move minorities there have been stopped cold. The Alsip area is very lower class, several municipalities there have been bankrupt for a while....

    Alsip median income per family is 47.9k per wiki. Not solid middle but not quite lower class. 81% white working class (what Ferguson Mo probably used to be like), which is why they are trying to colonize it.

    You are thinking of towns like Robbins, Markham and Harvey.

    Me thinks you need to come on down for an italian beef at Portillos on South Cicero and take a look around. If you drive into Robbins, you can tell the difference.

  57. @Mark Minter
    Micheal Erard wrote "Babel No More-The search for the world's most extraordinary language learners"

    And some of the images in Google say "Author and Linguist".

    I was looking at images of Mr Erard due to this idea on CH this week about the female orgasm being a function of how "alpha" the male is, or at least the woman's body letting her mind know that this guy is "the one". I wanted to see just how "alpha" the guy looked.

    I live in the north, the Lower Great Lakes Region, in a small town after spending most of my life in the warmer big cities in the sun belt region. I constantly marvel at how tough it was here about 100 years or more. There has been serious snow on the ground for most of the winter and the responsibility of dealing with the reality of winter falls to men. Last Sunday during the Super Bowl, I felt for the hordes of men, probably big football fans, who had to hit the streets to deal with the predicted snow fall of 10 inches. It falls to us men, to shovel, to clear paths from houses to garages. There was a called "delay" and at my wife's work, the bosses asked employees in some form of survey, if they were stuck in their house. My wife said, "No. I have a husband who takes care of me." Not all the women did.

    I imagine those hearty men from up here, 100 years ago, who woke up well before dawn to get wood, start fires, and actually having to thaw water or snow just so their families had water to drink or cook with in the morning. Then to clear paths, much longer and more difficult paths than are necessary today, so their people could move about, so kids could get to schools.

    So basically, men were far more necessary for women then than they are now. And given the rate of marriage around here vs in warmer climes, men still are necessary for women here more than in some other parts of the country or in more suburban and urban locales.

    But the reality for women is that they were and are far more likely to end up with a beta for a husband than an alpha. They might like, respect, love the guy in some form, but the "gina tingles" just aren't there for the guy. So those "and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" sorts of orgasms just aren't happening for these women.

    So my conjecture is that some "parenting style" of whites is a factor of this beta/alpha divide. When the father is more likely to be a beta in a cold climate, the woman will transfer almost all of her attention and affection to her children.

    Bill Maher publicized the term "Kid Whipped", meaning some version of "pussy whipped" where the beta male succumbs to female authority in order to maintain sexual access. And to me, being "kid whipped" is just a continuation of "pussy whipped". Co-sleeping is an example of this. It's all about the woman and what she wants. If she wants sex with her man because he is "alpha" enough to give her those banger orgasms, then that kid is not in that bed. But if the reverse is true, then kids provide that woman unlimited reasons to avoid sex.

    I asked an older wise-looking woman at work in an elevator once, after having my newborn, "How do you get a kid to sleep in its crib?"

    She said, "Put it in there."

    My ex-wife didn't care to do that. To make a long story short, I divorced, and the nature of that marriage and the causes of my divorce are very much the stuff that is repeated over and over in the Manosphere.

    And after a few years of reading and studying in that community, I remarried a much younger woman (23 years younger actually. I sort of recommend it. It's nice having a young wife. It's "good work if you can get it") and we have an entirely different dynamic. My wife has an elementary school-aged child from a previous marriage. She is also pretty "hip" in Red Pill teachings.

    And there is quite a divide between the "kid" aspect of our lives and the "married" aspect. She understands the impact of the one on the other and she "selfishly" keeps the two separate. She understands that to impose the one on the other will ultimately destroy the "alpha" image of me that caused her to wish to marry me.

    She also understands that "I understand". And I will see the signs of that imposition and what it means. It means that she is loosing that sense of genuine attraction. And that, to me, is a serious red flag. And also, I have internalized the teachings of the Red Pill so much, that it is almost like instinctively turning into a skid when driving in order to correct the path of a car. I use "dread" instinctively. I "punish" instinctively. I get more aloof instinctively. I purposely keep a "distance" between my wife and I. I refuse to grovel. I do not seek affection. She has to seek it. I give it. I keep "the upper hand" in any contact. I am always the first to disengage. It isn't deliberate. It's just the way it is. I am no trained seal that she can hold up to some fish and I do a trick. Fuck her fish. I am the fish giver in this relationship.

    And if I stop being that "upper hand" holder of the power, then I "slip out the back, jack" and she is welcome to shovel her own snow or search for another "shoveler".

    And I can see just how "institutionalized" beta marriage is in white American life. My house back in my prior marriage was very 90s American, a sort of McMansion, with an overdone entry way, stupid formal living and dining areas, this "great room" that contained the kitchen, informal dining area, and "family room", all in one long rectangle where the woman could be in the kitchen and see all, kids and husband, all understand his supervisory, authoritarian gaze. The upstairs had this overdone master with a continuation of the sleeping area and master bath with this giant tub ... where kids took their baths while the mother watched them. The kids bedrooms were jammed in close to the master so the wife could constantly be aware of them and the master was actually just this giant "play" area at night and the kid's bedroom were adjunct space to the master, steps away from the door.

    The house I have now is entirely different. It is a vertical house as many are in the north. It is 3 levels. The first level is this basement, half in the ground. You walk up a short flight of stairs to enter the house on the main level, and there is an upstairs. It is fairly common setup up here to maximize heat.

    But the big difference is: The only thing upstairs is the master bedroom and bath. All the kid areas are in the basement. There are bedrooms and a play area. And that creates a remarkably different "zen". "Adult Time" is built in to the house. And a wife that would pick a house like that like is a different kind of wife than most other American wives.

    Relationship "experts" all talk about "finding a way" to have scheduled "adult time", sending kids away for the night, going to a hotel, all under the idea that woman is so focused on those kids that if they are in proximity to her, then she will not go "all in" for sex with her (beta) husband.

    But if he is her alpha, then she will lock the fuckers in the downstairs closet, and not give a fuck if they scream their faces off. Her focus is also on him and not only on the children. She wants to be alone with him. She intuitively knows sex is necessary to keep him and he has other options if she doesn't want to protect her territory.

    The reverse of this sort of behavior on the part of the wife of an "alpha" (or at least a guy who knows the game) that would deny her kids the constant screaming attention they demand in order to have time alone with her husband to protect her turf is completely ingrained in typical white marriages. A typical white wife could give a fuck about what her husband wants. It's all about the children.

    A woman who stated in a blog that she habitually created this time for her husband, was met with shrieking from other women and one female commenter threatened to call Childrens Protective Services on the woman for neglect. The idea that a woman would voluntarily and even eagerly wish to be alone with her husband and not her kids is so foreign to most white women that they assume such behavior is deviant, neglectful.

    Yet statistics show the reality is that by keeping her "alpha" there in the house is the best thing she can do for her kids. But God forbid such an idea would become a public standard. Because that would mean white women would actually have to fuck their beta husband. No way. So instead it all is "What about the children????" as an excuse to avoid that horrible fate.

    So I wonder how much this "alpha/beta" divide factors into "cultural parenting styles". Note that in the NYT article, Mr Erard states:

    "Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. We can blame the political philosopher John Locke for our current child-rearing preoccupations. He carried Dutch ideas back to England in the 1680s, where Protestant radicals like the Puritans and Quakers picked them up."

    Sure, birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy. Or it dropped because it takes PIV sex to get pregnant, and Dutch women don't really care much for Dutch men. It is the whole theme of Simon Sheppard's book The Tyranny of Ambiguity. The book is about how Dutch women basically shit on Dutch men to the point that Dutch men hunt for tourists. And the Dutch have had legalized Red Light Districts for forever because the women don't want to fuck their men and would rather tolerate prostitution than fuck them. He notes how much more "masculine" English society today is than Dutch society. And given how much more of the world the English conquered vs the Dutch, even in the 16th, one could assume that back then Dutch men perhaps were sort of "beta-ish".

    There is this data (Naomi Wolf actually) that says 1/3 of women can have PIV vaginal orgasms, a third that can only have "clitoral orgasms" (typically only through oral sex), and a third that cannot have any orgasms at all.

    And given that Manosphere idea of "20/80 Paretto alpha/beta distribution" I would bet that 1/3 having vaginal orgasms during sex are having that sex with some guy from the "20" when they do have those PIV orgasms, and those women having the clitoral are having it with some guy from the "80" while he laps away and she dreams of some sexy pirate or some Christian Gray.

    And the 1/3 that never ever have orgasms are so far down the pecking order of women that the only men they ever have access to are so "beta" that the touch of the guy so repulses them they never ever come close to even learning what the onset of orgasm is like and thus never learn to have orgasms.

    So I gather from the Micheal Erard piece and from looking at his photos that all this "alpha/beta" divide stuff is sort of lost on him as he looks at various cultures and observes child rearing customs. He mentioned he did have children and also that his wife was probably the type to be buying baby books and probably is a typical "(s)mother" ( at his sexual expense).

    So I imagine though that whatever sex he might have is due to his cleverness, his sense of what is what in dealing with his white wife.

    You could say he is a cunning linguist.

    I wasn’t going to comment but decided I will: You don’t sound like a man who understands it even today. You sound like a man who was stupid in the choice of his first wife (yes, she sounds like a manipulator who was never into you at all but you were too needy to perceive that… and just to add, she got what she deserved as her choice was just as bad).

    Regarding your second marriage and your attitude toward your wife: you appear thin-skinned and full of insecurities that you try to cover with game theories.

    No man who has to go to a “how to” website on finding happiness through “learning how to be an alpha male” is such a male.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.
  58. I’m skeptical about the John Locke story, but I would not be surprised if the Dutch were the first to experience plummeting fertility rates. They were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates. I think they have the lowest rates of Christianity in Europe now. Church attendance and fertility rates track closely. I don’t see a causal link, but it is interesting for other reasons.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates. I think they have the lowest rates of Christianity in Europe now.
    -

    No. France and Sweden. The Netherlands had high rates of religious observance until about 1965, at which time the Church and the protestant congregations rapidly imploded. Quebec and (to a degree) Ireland have followed this path as well.
    , @snorlax

    [The Dutch] were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates.
     
    Pretty sure the first was Russia, although that was a special case.
  59. There is a principle of reason that NOTHING is sacrosanct. If political correctness dictates that all cultures are created equal … that each has its own truths can be only be understood and justified within the culture, reason dictates that, YES, one can argue the terms in which one culture is better than another. To argue otherwise is to argue for moral and material relativism, which would of necessity put the Nazis, Communists, capitalist banksters, pedophiles, serial killers, drug cartels, Islamic fundamentalists, stone-age tribes, and (fill in the blank) on an equal level. The universal moral “freak show” then becomes a universal cultural “freak show”. At that point, we might as well accept that we are all making guttural noises devoid of cognitive content. At that point, why bother? We are all “grunting”, and my “grunts” are as good as your “grunts”.

  60. That norm is that children are expected to earn their keep… Fathers have very little to do with their children.

    LIKE many parents, I have a particular book I like to give to friends when they announce they’re pregnant for the first time

    So anthropologist stick-boy has assumed the social role (and therefore sexual persona, at least in his wife’s eyes) of village midwife. Note also the use of the third-person plural when referring to the acquaintance, so as to rope in the male half of the couple into “their” pregnancy. In the eternal words of Huey Lewis, his life must be- HOT LOVIN’ EVERY NIGHT!

  61. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @syonredux

    Some of the arguably damaging trends of modernity started there, though. Tolerance, free expression,
     
    Call me old-fashioned, but I'm still rather fond of those two.Of course, our current PC-mindset frowns on them.

    We can see what happened by tolerating the Others in our society and letting them get control of the media for their rather one-sided agenda of free expression. They supply Steve with new material, apparently several times a day.

  62. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: an anthropologist is just an English major living in a hut. They sit there, smugly, creating stories, hoping to outdo the next anthropologist to the left. Pretty much exactly like Hannah Horvath in her Iowa Writer’s Workshop class on this season of “Girls” (the culture of Iowa itself is now under Lena Dunham’s anthropological gaze).

  63. I guess “kinderarchy” was taken. It’s catchier.

    I’m not sure what to think about tracing helicopter parenting back to the early modern Netherlands. I’m more struck by the novelty of current practices. For example, it’s a newfangled phenomenon (~20-30 years old) that middle-class married couples feel obligated to commit Social Seppuku when they start having children. One of Matthew Wiener’s subversive yet largely ignored points in Mad Men was that parents in 1960 were just as interested in socializing with other adults as they were in raising their children. You get the same sense when you read John Cheever’s stories about mid-century suburbia. Cheever’s intention is to give you shivers, but he has the opposite effect on me. A robust community of nosy neighbors, gossiping about my life, seems like social paradise in comparison with life in an anonymous apartment complex.

    The dissipation of white ethnic loyalties hastened this process along. Much of my grandparents’ social life in the 50s and 60s centered on German Clubs, most of which are now extinct. Nothing quite as communally robust replaced them in the lives of my parents.

  64. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    I think today’s Lib parents would be more put off by this book.

    Con parents are more tolerant of what their kids do.

    Lib parents are adamant about ‘helicoptering’ their kids and teaching them not to be ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’ and all that crap.

    BAD NEWS BEARS parenting was out of control, but today’s Lib gentry parenting is too much.
    But it’s clever. It used to be that parents of long ago focused on ‘you can’t do this and you can’t do that’. This made kids feel resentful and constricted. Therefore rebellious.

    But today’s lib parents say ‘you should do this and that and this and that…’
    Kids are pushed into so many activities that they don’t even realize that their parents are making all the choices and decisions.

  65. @slumber_j
    Yes. A good example is this piece, in which we learn in an entirely unsupported subordinate clause that "scientists have abandoned the idea of innate talent":

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangers-of-believing-that-talent-is-innate-1423068148?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=267654952

    She gets some pushback in the comments, at least.

    @slumberj

    “this piece, in which we learn in an entirely unsupported subordinate clause that ‘scientists have abandoned the idea of innate talent’:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangers-of-believing-that-talent-is-innate-1423068148?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=267654952

    She gets some pushback in the comments, at least.”

    I read through the comments. No one has yet pushed back on her for this risible assertion: “Women and minorities, who are generally less confident to begin with….”

  66. @BurplesonAFB
    And at the end of the page, a link to a video clip: Why Don't Kids Walk To School Anymore?

    haha, oh my.

    I viewed the “why kids don’t walk to school” video. Any ideas where it might have been filmed? It kind of looks like Santa Monica, but I didn’t see any palm trees.

  67. @carol
    I hate that false equivalence of cultures. PBS is rife with it. It's hard to find good old first-world tourism shows..most the international programming is forever dwelling on the plight of hapless negroes in Africa or latinos in Central America.

    And then to blight the musical world, there's World Music. No I don't put cajon-beating or Peruvian flute tooting up there with Horowitz or Bird. I just don't.

    False equivalence seemed to factor into Jared Diamond’s musings on New Guinea tribes, along the lines of just trust me on this one.

  68. @Hepp

    In other words, children tend to die in large numbers, so why get all sentimental over them? Of course, this is partly self-fulfilling.
     
    That's not really what the author says. Fewer children dying has nothing to do with parenting style, it's because of medical advancement financed by economic growth.

    That’s not really what the author says. Fewer children dying has nothing to do with parenting style, it’s because of medical advancement financed by economic growth.

    This is the point where liberal cultural relativists (who are also blank slate-ists, but please don’t notice that contradiction) twain with HDB spergs (sorry, not to imply you are one, but I have seen this countless times from them).

    Yes, short of extreme privation, there is little you do as a parent that affects your child’s IQ, and they would probably have very similar life outcomes if raised by equally conscientious parents down the block. Kids are going to turn out about the same regardless of how many times you took them to the zoo.

    But the problem with real-life is that it is full of lots of non-continuous events you can’t recover from. Child mortality is all a function of medicine and there was no effect by such personalized, contingent events as the rise of Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Or subsequent ripple effects such as severely reduced tolerance for teenage intoxication in general, and thus concomitant decline in (non-vehicular) teenage fatal accidents, fatal altercations, etc?

    To give a less dramatic example, it doesn’t matter that your kid is smart enough to do the job of a Wall Street investment banker, or Big Law attorney if someone hadn’t made sure they’d line up their recommendations and extracurricular activities well before senior year. Without that Ivy degree they are not getting those jobs.

    A child’s life is full of all sorts of stressful situations that can quickly result in phobias and adult dysfunction if not addressed by a kind and loving parent. Kurt Cobain would probably be alive today if he had grown up with “dick-ish” peers and a stepfather who verbally humiliated him. Adam Lanza may never have become functional, but he never would have shot up that school if his parents had not let him prime himself first through our trash culture of violent video games and torture-porn horror movies.

    • Replies: @Abe
    Or, to put it another way, parents don't matter if they could reasonably be conceived as characters in a TV comedy. Thus, yes, it doesn't really matter if you're raised by the Andersons, the Nelsons, the Cleavers, the Ricardos, the Bradfords, the Brady's, the Keatons, the Cosby's, the Seavers, the Owens, the Tanners, or the Simpsons. The Griffins, not so much, unless medical technology reaches the level of making a full recovery in one week from getting 20% of your head blown off .
  69. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor
    "Wealthy and urbanized, the Dutch middle class began treating their children as inherently valuable, not as future labor. Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. "

    Pampered by what standards?

    They were still standards, proper conduct, good manners, attendance of church services, appreciation for higher things, self-discipline, self-restraint(how many got ass tattoos back then?), and etc.
    They were cultivated and pressured to aim for higher standards.

    Pampered would be how millennies are raised today. No manners, no dignity, self-esteem without self-respect, nonstop gibberish, tattoos and piercing all over, PC substituting for critical thought, no sense of cultural hierarchy, etc.
    Millennies enjoy the 'easy life' conveniences of modernity but have the cultural upbringing of savages.

    Millennies:

    http://youtu.be/EcV7ldSzkXk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jq8Zk_0siA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IkuOL-rgo

    “Pampered would be how millennies are raised today. No manners, no dignity, self-esteem without self-respect, nonstop gibberish, tattoos and piercing all over, PC substituting for critical thought, no sense of cultural hierarchy, etc.”

    The gibberish is contagious. It’s annoying and stupid, but (I hate to admit it) actually kind of fun – at least in small quantities.

  70. What about parental survival? I just spent a couple days alone with a 7-month-old and I’m surprised I made it through without some physical or mental health crisis.

  71. Non-whites can raise children however they want, and who are we to judge? But how dare a white parent raise their own children to grow up in a Christian or worse, racially conscious environment.

    For thee, but not for me.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Whoops, a bit tired, I got the "For me, but not for thee" around the wrong way.
  72. @Abe

    That’s not really what the author says. Fewer children dying has nothing to do with parenting style, it’s because of medical advancement financed by economic growth.
     
    This is the point where liberal cultural relativists (who are also blank slate-ists, but please don't notice that contradiction) twain with HDB spergs (sorry, not to imply you are one, but I have seen this countless times from them).

    Yes, short of extreme privation, there is little you do as a parent that affects your child's IQ, and they would probably have very similar life outcomes if raised by equally conscientious parents down the block. Kids are going to turn out about the same regardless of how many times you took them to the zoo.

    But the problem with real-life is that it is full of lots of non-continuous events you can't recover from. Child mortality is all a function of medicine and there was no effect by such personalized, contingent events as the rise of Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Or subsequent ripple effects such as severely reduced tolerance for teenage intoxication in general, and thus concomitant decline in (non-vehicular) teenage fatal accidents, fatal altercations, etc?

    To give a less dramatic example, it doesn't matter that your kid is smart enough to do the job of a Wall Street investment banker, or Big Law attorney if someone hadn't made sure they'd line up their recommendations and extracurricular activities well before senior year. Without that Ivy degree they are not getting those jobs.

    A child's life is full of all sorts of stressful situations that can quickly result in phobias and adult dysfunction if not addressed by a kind and loving parent. Kurt Cobain would probably be alive today if he had grown up with "dick-ish" peers and a stepfather who verbally humiliated him. Adam Lanza may never have become functional, but he never would have shot up that school if his parents had not let him prime himself first through our trash culture of violent video games and torture-porn horror movies.

    Or, to put it another way, parents don’t matter if they could reasonably be conceived as characters in a TV comedy. Thus, yes, it doesn’t really matter if you’re raised by the Andersons, the Nelsons, the Cleavers, the Ricardos, the Bradfords, the Brady’s, the Keatons, the Cosby’s, the Seavers, the Owens, the Tanners, or the Simpsons. The Griffins, not so much, unless medical technology reaches the level of making a full recovery in one week from getting 20% of your head blown off .

  73. @e
    I wasn't going to comment but decided I will: You don't sound like a man who understands it even today. You sound like a man who was stupid in the choice of his first wife (yes, she sounds like a manipulator who was never into you at all but you were too needy to perceive that... and just to add, she got what she deserved as her choice was just as bad).

    Regarding your second marriage and your attitude toward your wife: you appear thin-skinned and full of insecurities that you try to cover with game theories.

    No man who has to go to a "how to" website on finding happiness through "learning how to be an alpha male" is such a male.

    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.
    --
    If you take their sidebar remarks at face value, I'd say Helen Smith's comment boards were filled with professional men who had been raked over the coals in divorce proceedings. Dalrock's are a more variegated and peculiar crew.
    , @Forbes

    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women
     
    A couple generations worth of teaching boys/men "how to treat a lady" by pedestalizing them, e.g. paying for dates, dinner, flowers, etc., in culture that promotes equality between the sexes, means a lot of guys get used as meal tickets because no one told them (or they didn't learn) the rules changed. Just as chivalry is a two-way street that requires reciprocal conduct from both sexes, so do relationships. If you're not playing from the same set of assumptions, there's gonna be a lot of disappointment. And, let's face it, women are good at manipulating men with their emotions.
    , @Suburban_elk

    I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.
     
    The "manosphere" fulfills a need because courtship rites and mating rituals are not doing the trick for a significant portion of the population.

    Characterizing the males within that portion of the population as "insecure strive types" is tendentious, but not unfair: The point of life is to have children, and so those who are not successful along those lines, are striving and insecure, in their life accomplishments and status.

    But who would you expect to be at the table, when the topic for discussion is how to get women?

    Your obvious observation is mocked for being obvious.

    In its better moments, the manopshere would address, as its topic, the health of the next generation.

    The physical and social environment of this civilization is selecting for androgynes. That is no good; but on the other hand, who is willing to throw their baby off a cliff?
  74. @Hepp

    Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like … how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless.

     

    If that's what Cochran and Harpending do, then they're fools. The literature is clear that why parenting doesn't matter, social environment does. Many kids will act out and have premarital sex if others around them are doing it but will not be the black sheep of their school.

    I know, I know. I agree. I didn’t realize that I even liked alcohol until I was in my twenties because none of my friends–in my large public high school in a 100% white, Dutch Reform suburb of Grand Rapids, MI–drank. We were too busy with AP classes and the usual slew of extracurriculars.

    • Replies: @Muse
    You were not hanging out with the right kids at Forest Hills, or wast it East Great Falls?
    , @Fake Herzog
    OT: I visited Grand Rapids for the first time this past summer with the family. We had a delightful time -- our trip was designed to go see the Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park which were magnificent:

    http://www.meijergardens.org/

    Meijer made his money with his grocery/home stores and he put it to good use in your medium-sized city. That was a world-class attraction in the middle of northern Michigan -- you don't expect something like that to be there. I still tell everyone I know in Chicago to go check it out.
    , @jakobscalpel
    Hey Uptown. Congrats on your NO1. It will be just as awful and wonderful as everyone says. If you are interested, here is my experience as a male married to a La Leche level breastfeeding, co-sleeping, unschooling homeschooler, attachment parenting wife. Not trying to argue for any of it as positive or negative, although we've had a good experience overall.

    1. To do all of the above, it really helps if the mother is stay at home
    2. Breast feeding is far more convenient, even for the mother
    2a. If you breast feed, feed on demand. The kids with self regulate their feeding.
    3. Be ready for sore nipples if you do item #2 and trust it will fade after a couple of weeks
    3a. Like going to the gym, having a team mate nursing alongside you helps push past the pain
    4. Co-sleeping is much easier than it sounds from outside the situation
    5. The mother gets much more sleep with co-sleeping and the male (assuming the male works and mother stays home) also gets more sleep, which allows for better functioning of outside the home activities aggregated over the family unit
    6. Attachment parenting means something different to every person who "follows" it, but everyone believes they are doing it "correctly"
    7. Don't listen to anyone besides your spouse for parenting advice (including this list!). Sincerity is what matters when raising the kid, not technique. Even being sincerely angry.
    8. Trust that your kid will probably turn out fine no matter how many mistakes are made.
    9. It is OK to be furious with your child when it won't stop screaming. If you feel yourself trapped and needing to react physically, always put the child in a safe place and walk away for a few minutes to calm down. It is normal.
    10. Physical discipline is never required
    11. Sometimes physical discipline sneaks out in stressful situations, even when you don't believe in it
    12. Homeschooling is a ton of work
    13. Homeschooling provides much more freedom for everyone in the family
    14. Unschooling works well when children are younger but as they get older it works less well
    15. There are zero "socialization" problems with homeschooling with even a minimal amount of effort.

    Most of all, enjoy!
  75. @Dahlia
    I have never participated in these debates, whether on the internet or in person, and will just tell you my experience as we seem to be on the same page with regards to breastfeeding.
    When I had my first two, I was oblivious to the cosleeping and attachment parenting debates; I started copying what my mother did and everyone I knew: I got a crib and excitedly created a nursery.
    Where I differed with everyone else was that I was going to nurse beyond 3-6 months.
    I'm a lazy parent and I found myself slowly bringing my son to bed for day naps. Lying down to nurse and being able to leave him: easy! When my daughter came along, I did the crib thing for a month before I threw in the towel, the thought of continuing that for another 11 months at least: shudder.
    The babies stay with us until it either becomes disruptive to our sleep or they're weaned. I don't over think it. I just want a good night's sleep for me and baby: everyone wins.

    The only thing I've found fraught and stressful is weaning. I think most babies would nurse through school age if they could get away with it. There will be conflict between mother's and baby's wants or needs and it's not an everybody wins situation. Just my $.02.

    Thanks, it’s always helpful to hear other women’s experiences. I definitely plan on breastfeeding for at least a year. Cosleeping has always seemed extreme to me, but many women swear by it. I’ve read studies that indicate that it’s the best way to do “on demand” feeding because it results in the mom getting more sleep, since she’s not fully waking to do the nighttime feedings. The risk of smothering the baby is pretty frightening, though.

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    A bassinet or cradle next to the bed while they're itty bitty is a very good idea. Good luck and don't forget your daily fish oils! And continue taking while nursing! (Okay, I'll stop being a mother hen now)
    , @Drapetomaniac
    I would raise a child using the Taking Children Seriously method and Alan Cromer's Uncommon Sense: the Heretical Nature of Science.

    Most kids need to be taught to think objectively.
  76. @Anonym
    Non-whites can raise children however they want, and who are we to judge? But how dare a white parent raise their own children to grow up in a Christian or worse, racially conscious environment.

    For thee, but not for me.

    Whoops, a bit tired, I got the “For me, but not for thee” around the wrong way.

  77. I dunno, Americans used to let their kids run around and do whatever, even white Americans, which is the “pick when ripe” thing. Much of what we consider modern “acceptably SWPL/UMC” overparenting was considered creepy, excessive and weird. Like only having mom or dad ever take care of the children. Or actively playing with the child(ren), coaching and directing all of their play.

    It’s a silly distinction, because white cultures do plenty of letting kids freerange at very young ages, and plenty of not-white cultures hover over the infants. A lot of rural African ethnicities spend huge amounts of time on elaborate care and rituals for infants and toddlers beyond the basic food/shelter bits. That would be “pick when green”, for the record.

    The article is almost certainly quite silly, but so are a bunch of the comments.

    The English tradition of having lots of (usually paid) people raise your kids always goes mysteriously undiscussed in these kinds of posts. Same for the Scandinavian traditions of letting kids roam around among a broad extended kin network in a village rather than just being up in mom’s grill all day.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    Like only having mom or dad ever take care of the children. Or actively playing with the child(ren), coaching and directing all of their play.
    ----
    I loved my parents and was very happy to know that they were always there for me if I needed them, but the people that I wanted to play and chat with, most of the time, were other kids. I did have quality time with mom and dad. Just not everyday. Our parents were seen by us kids as our protectors and providers and they were of course extremely important people, but they were not our playmates and none of us would have liked our parents hovering above us.

    I also considered my parents sources of knowledge and I liked it very much that they always took my questions seriously and tried their best to answer them in a serious manner. I appreciated that a lot. I don't think I'd have appreciated them being always there all the time though.
  78. Lancy seems to have been mesmerized by the theories of Philippe Aries, a midcentury French medievalist who specialized in big overarching theories. One of them was that “childhood” was an invention of the bourgeois ascendancy of the 17th century (there’s more than a little resemblance to Marxist historical theory in Aries’s arguments). Before then, Aries argued, parents paid little attention to their kids, half of whom would die anyway, and invested little emotionally in them. Then, in the 17th century, you got the bourgeois family! Few kids, big parental investment.

    One problem: Dutch and other families continued to have large numbers of children through the 19th century. Rembrandt was one of nine; his wife gave birth to four That was partly because the survival rate for children continued to be low until modern hygiene and doctor-assisted childbirth spread significantly. It’s only our 21st-century mentality that regards two kids as a nice norm for parental investment and automatically ssumes that in larger families the kids will be neglected or the parents won’t care.

    The other problem: More recent research has blown a lot of holes in Aries’s theories. Nicholas Orme’s 2003 book, Medieval Children, uses manuscript illustrations (children playing with toys), legal and other documents, and literary and quasi-literary works to demonstrate that medieval parents were perfectly aware of a category called “childhood” and that many of them doted on their children, no matter that they might lose them before adulthood. Chaucer’s “Prioress’s Tale” is a perfect example of Victorian-level medieval saccharinity where children are concerned: a darling little 7-year-old boy, his widowed mother’s only child, is murdered by Jews and stuffed down a privy because he warbles a hymn to the Virgin while crossing their part of town. He continues his warbling with his slit throat, however, and of course the evil deed is discovered. Lots of high emotional investment in children in that story. (And the mother is sending her little boy to school, another form of investment.)

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    One of them was that “childhood” was an invention of the bourgeois ascendancy of the 17th century (there’s more than a little resemblance to Marxist historical theory in Aries’s arguments).

    IIRC, Lawrence Stone was another one. Make a name for yourself by saying something so counter-intuitive it seems outrageous. Books and articles with subtitles which begin with "The Myth of..." are almost a cliché, but the intelligentsia eats it up, at least until it burns them (see the career crash of Michael Bellesiles).
    , @Uptown Resident
    Here's an example of low parental investment from the early seventeenth century, a poem about the death of a son by the playwright Ben Jonson:

    Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
    My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.
    Seven years tho' wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
    Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.
    O, could I lose all father now! For why
    Will man lament the state he should envy?
    To have so soon 'scap'd world's and flesh's rage,
    And if no other misery, yet age?
    Rest in soft peace, and, ask'd, say, "Here doth lie
    Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry."
    For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such,
    As what he loves may never like too much.

    Seriously, how do the Aries and Foucault's get away with saying things like childhood and heterosexuality are bourgeois inventions of the nineteenth century?

    BTW, Charlotte Allen, I really admire your work!
  79. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    What our society needs is complementarism for good child-rearing.

    Egalitarianism has its useful limit. Sure, legal equality is good and all that.

    But reality—and biology is a big part of reality—is not about different things being equal but complementary. It’s like men and women are different. And they produce child together because they are different. Men have penises and women have vaginas. If equality defined male and females, a man might as well say, “Okay, you had the kid last time, so I’ll have the kid this time.” But a child doesn’t come out of the penis. Or, suppose a guy says, “okay, you breastfed the baby this morning, it’s my turn to breastfeed him in the evening. My turn! Equality!” But male breasts don’t produce milk. So, what creates and sustains a child is complementary-ness than equal-ness between man and woman.

    A child isn’t stupid. He or she knows that daddy and mommy are different.
    In some ways, social conditioning via education and dogma makes kids dumber. Kids can tell mommy and daddy are different. They know they feel different emotions with daddy and with mommy. But as kids grow older, they are told that both parents are the same and interchangeable. (They are even taught that homo anuses are of equal ‘sexual’ value as penis and vagina working together.) And since kids are told that they are bad bad kids unless they agree, they are made to force themselves to agree. Thus, they become more stupid with more education(of the PC kind). It’s like from a young age, I knew there were racial differences among various groups. But because education, PBS, TV shows, and propaganda constantly reminded me that all races are the same—and that to disagree is ‘racist’—, I forced myself to pretend up to middle of college to go with the leftist line… until I said ‘enough already’. Indeed, I was ‘smarter’ about race as a kid before I was taught all that fancy proto-PC crap.

    What makes parenting work isn’t equal-ness between mom and dad, but their complementary-ness. Thus, we need more complementarianism.

    Indeed, most of society is like this. It’s because we are all unequal in our skills and talents that some folks do this, other folks do that, and so on and so on, and various classes, professions, and skills all complement one another. A doctor isn’t equal to a chef in cooking stuff, and an auto mechanic isn’t equal to an accountant in crunching numbers. It would be ludicrous to say an accountant is just as valuable as a chef in cooking or that a chef is just as valuable as a pilot in flying a plane.

    What is true of professions is also true of biology. In any society, dorky guys with brains are better off doing engineering and science, and beefy guys with muscles but no brains are better off serving as soldiers or construction workers. Geeks are naturally born to use their brains, and brutes are naturally born to use their muscles. They are not equal but they are complementary.
    Same goes for moms and dads or women and men.

  80. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2015/02/obama-defames-jesus-christ.html

    And in the name of Holocaustianity, Nakba has been justified.

    In the name of spreading democracy, Bush and Obama laid wasted to the Middle East.

    In the name of equality, communism killed tens of millions.

    In the name of ‘civil rights’, America allowed blacks to run riot and rape, plunder, and murder untold numbers of people.

    In the name of ‘gay rights’, we have declared war on Russia and shut down businesses because they won’t bake ‘gay wedding cakes’. Surreal.

    Obama and his ethno-masters need to get off their own high horse.

  81. @jtgw
    Right. I'm guessing Steve saw the word "anthropologist" and just automatically launched into snark mode without thinking carefully about what the guy is actually saying. I mean, are the Chinese forging ahead because of superior parenting techniques, or because of superior genetics? If the latter, then Lancy is right: it won't matter if you adopt Chinese parenting habits.

    I’ve read somewhere that Chinese (or perhaps Asian?) kids who grow up in the U.S. have better outcomes than white kids. But interestingly, Chinese kids who are adopted by white parents have even better outcomes than non-adopted Chinese kids. This doesn’t seem to give much credence to the Tiger Mom theory. It suggests that Chinese kids may genetically have the edge, but a white middle class upbringing, and the connections and privileges that involves, may have its benefits too.

    If it was solely about genetics, then why aren’t hordes of white race realists moving into the ghetto? After all, genetics would surely trump those bad schools etc?

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Someone mentioned Greg Cochran as a guy who put his money where his mouth was and sent his (white) kids to local public schools that were mostly (non-Asian) minority.

    But out of any environmental influence, including parenting, I would say where you go to school matters, not so much because of the teachers but because of the other kids. It is their influence that matters the most. I think Razib, in discussing this same book, puts genetics at 50%, peer influence at 40% and parental influence at 10% in determining your kids' life outcomes.
    , @snorlax

    If it was solely about genetics, then why aren’t hordes of white race realists moving into the ghetto? After all, genetics would surely trump those bad schools etc?
     
    Because they don't want their kids to get stabbed? Duh.
  82. Is Anthropology even a science? You know Astrology was once considered a science, because you had to be an astronomer that could follow the course of the planets in order to make an Astrological prediction, but you know I’d give more credence to my horoscope than what passes for science today. Boas completely destroyed Anthropology with moral relativism. His idea of no cultures being better makes the entire exercise rather pointless really. If nothing is better then by what measure can you really quantify anything?
    This cancer has metastasized to other “soft” sciences like Sociology, where they tell you that in-group behavior is normal, and the outgroup threatens the coherence and stability of the in-group which aids in survival. Then, by a completely insane lack of self-monitoring they quickly enter the soft soap about diversity is strength and multiculturalism is the new standard completely obliterating the basis for their entire “scientific” field.
    Political ideology has completely destroyed the credibility of science. These cretins have completely mocked the philosophers who developed science by removing quantifying math and even qualitative judgement rendering or rather neutering science into a mere vehicle for indoctrination into the delusional fantasies of completely insane and seriously damaged and defective “professors”.
    What these cretins are professing is not science at all, but merely a new Satanic Cult of debased debauchery and stupid excuses for inferior and pathological people to gravitate towards to form nascient political cells masquerading as science departments at the Ruins of former Academic Institutions. Aristotle would urinate on what these “textbooks” say, and I daresay he would probably burn down any Academy that taught such ridiculous drivel as this!

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You have an issue with linguistics? How about archaeology? Does physical anthropology bother you? How about statistic and survey research? These are all cognates of cultural anthropology and qualitative research in sociology.
  83. @Uptown Resident
    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.

    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.

    If you take their sidebar remarks at face value, I’d say Helen Smith’s comment boards were filled with professional men who had been raked over the coals in divorce proceedings. Dalrock’s are a more variegated and peculiar crew.

  84. @Uptown Resident
    I know, I know. I agree. I didn't realize that I even liked alcohol until I was in my twenties because none of my friends--in my large public high school in a 100% white, Dutch Reform suburb of Grand Rapids, MI--drank. We were too busy with AP classes and the usual slew of extracurriculars.

    You were not hanging out with the right kids at Forest Hills, or wast it East Great Falls?

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Rockford!
  85. @The Z Blog
    I'm skeptical about the John Locke story, but I would not be surprised if the Dutch were the first to experience plummeting fertility rates. They were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates. I think they have the lowest rates of Christianity in Europe now. Church attendance and fertility rates track closely. I don't see a causal link, but it is interesting for other reasons.

    They were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates. I think they have the lowest rates of Christianity in Europe now.

    No. France and Sweden. The Netherlands had high rates of religious observance until about 1965, at which time the Church and the protestant congregations rapidly imploded. Quebec and (to a degree) Ireland have followed this path as well.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Weird how it all happened right after Vatican II, amirite? What a weird coincidence!

    And, of course, the Catholic Church losing a tremendous amount of earthly power/control did not serve anyone's interests, understand? Anyone who claims there was a determined, radical plot to destroy the church by agents of influence is just a paranoid delusional.

    And even it is plain that it served someone's interests, just because such groups have a history of infiltrating organizations and destroying them from within and just because such a destruction would be in their interests does not mean you can ever investigate or hypothesize or even imply a possible connection here, you nutty conspiracy theorist you!
  86. @Charlotte Allen
    Lancy seems to have been mesmerized by the theories of Philippe Aries, a midcentury French medievalist who specialized in big overarching theories. One of them was that "childhood" was an invention of the bourgeois ascendancy of the 17th century (there's more than a little resemblance to Marxist historical theory in Aries's arguments). Before then, Aries argued, parents paid little attention to their kids, half of whom would die anyway, and invested little emotionally in them. Then, in the 17th century, you got the bourgeois family! Few kids, big parental investment.

    One problem: Dutch and other families continued to have large numbers of children through the 19th century. Rembrandt was one of nine; his wife gave birth to four That was partly because the survival rate for children continued to be low until modern hygiene and doctor-assisted childbirth spread significantly. It's only our 21st-century mentality that regards two kids as a nice norm for parental investment and automatically ssumes that in larger families the kids will be neglected or the parents won't care.

    The other problem: More recent research has blown a lot of holes in Aries's theories. Nicholas Orme's 2003 book, Medieval Children, uses manuscript illustrations (children playing with toys), legal and other documents, and literary and quasi-literary works to demonstrate that medieval parents were perfectly aware of a category called "childhood" and that many of them doted on their children, no matter that they might lose them before adulthood. Chaucer's "Prioress's Tale" is a perfect example of Victorian-level medieval saccharinity where children are concerned: a darling little 7-year-old boy, his widowed mother's only child, is murdered by Jews and stuffed down a privy because he warbles a hymn to the Virgin while crossing their part of town. He continues his warbling with his slit throat, however, and of course the evil deed is discovered. Lots of high emotional investment in children in that story. (And the mother is sending her little boy to school, another form of investment.)

    One of them was that “childhood” was an invention of the bourgeois ascendancy of the 17th century (there’s more than a little resemblance to Marxist historical theory in Aries’s arguments).

    IIRC, Lawrence Stone was another one. Make a name for yourself by saying something so counter-intuitive it seems outrageous. Books and articles with subtitles which begin with “The Myth of…” are almost a cliché, but the intelligentsia eats it up, at least until it burns them (see the career crash of Michael Bellesiles).

  87. @Mark Minter
    Micheal Erard wrote "Babel No More-The search for the world's most extraordinary language learners"

    And some of the images in Google say "Author and Linguist".

    I was looking at images of Mr Erard due to this idea on CH this week about the female orgasm being a function of how "alpha" the male is, or at least the woman's body letting her mind know that this guy is "the one". I wanted to see just how "alpha" the guy looked.

    I live in the north, the Lower Great Lakes Region, in a small town after spending most of my life in the warmer big cities in the sun belt region. I constantly marvel at how tough it was here about 100 years or more. There has been serious snow on the ground for most of the winter and the responsibility of dealing with the reality of winter falls to men. Last Sunday during the Super Bowl, I felt for the hordes of men, probably big football fans, who had to hit the streets to deal with the predicted snow fall of 10 inches. It falls to us men, to shovel, to clear paths from houses to garages. There was a called "delay" and at my wife's work, the bosses asked employees in some form of survey, if they were stuck in their house. My wife said, "No. I have a husband who takes care of me." Not all the women did.

    I imagine those hearty men from up here, 100 years ago, who woke up well before dawn to get wood, start fires, and actually having to thaw water or snow just so their families had water to drink or cook with in the morning. Then to clear paths, much longer and more difficult paths than are necessary today, so their people could move about, so kids could get to schools.

    So basically, men were far more necessary for women then than they are now. And given the rate of marriage around here vs in warmer climes, men still are necessary for women here more than in some other parts of the country or in more suburban and urban locales.

    But the reality for women is that they were and are far more likely to end up with a beta for a husband than an alpha. They might like, respect, love the guy in some form, but the "gina tingles" just aren't there for the guy. So those "and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air" sorts of orgasms just aren't happening for these women.

    So my conjecture is that some "parenting style" of whites is a factor of this beta/alpha divide. When the father is more likely to be a beta in a cold climate, the woman will transfer almost all of her attention and affection to her children.

    Bill Maher publicized the term "Kid Whipped", meaning some version of "pussy whipped" where the beta male succumbs to female authority in order to maintain sexual access. And to me, being "kid whipped" is just a continuation of "pussy whipped". Co-sleeping is an example of this. It's all about the woman and what she wants. If she wants sex with her man because he is "alpha" enough to give her those banger orgasms, then that kid is not in that bed. But if the reverse is true, then kids provide that woman unlimited reasons to avoid sex.

    I asked an older wise-looking woman at work in an elevator once, after having my newborn, "How do you get a kid to sleep in its crib?"

    She said, "Put it in there."

    My ex-wife didn't care to do that. To make a long story short, I divorced, and the nature of that marriage and the causes of my divorce are very much the stuff that is repeated over and over in the Manosphere.

    And after a few years of reading and studying in that community, I remarried a much younger woman (23 years younger actually. I sort of recommend it. It's nice having a young wife. It's "good work if you can get it") and we have an entirely different dynamic. My wife has an elementary school-aged child from a previous marriage. She is also pretty "hip" in Red Pill teachings.

    And there is quite a divide between the "kid" aspect of our lives and the "married" aspect. She understands the impact of the one on the other and she "selfishly" keeps the two separate. She understands that to impose the one on the other will ultimately destroy the "alpha" image of me that caused her to wish to marry me.

    She also understands that "I understand". And I will see the signs of that imposition and what it means. It means that she is loosing that sense of genuine attraction. And that, to me, is a serious red flag. And also, I have internalized the teachings of the Red Pill so much, that it is almost like instinctively turning into a skid when driving in order to correct the path of a car. I use "dread" instinctively. I "punish" instinctively. I get more aloof instinctively. I purposely keep a "distance" between my wife and I. I refuse to grovel. I do not seek affection. She has to seek it. I give it. I keep "the upper hand" in any contact. I am always the first to disengage. It isn't deliberate. It's just the way it is. I am no trained seal that she can hold up to some fish and I do a trick. Fuck her fish. I am the fish giver in this relationship.

    And if I stop being that "upper hand" holder of the power, then I "slip out the back, jack" and she is welcome to shovel her own snow or search for another "shoveler".

    And I can see just how "institutionalized" beta marriage is in white American life. My house back in my prior marriage was very 90s American, a sort of McMansion, with an overdone entry way, stupid formal living and dining areas, this "great room" that contained the kitchen, informal dining area, and "family room", all in one long rectangle where the woman could be in the kitchen and see all, kids and husband, all understand his supervisory, authoritarian gaze. The upstairs had this overdone master with a continuation of the sleeping area and master bath with this giant tub ... where kids took their baths while the mother watched them. The kids bedrooms were jammed in close to the master so the wife could constantly be aware of them and the master was actually just this giant "play" area at night and the kid's bedroom were adjunct space to the master, steps away from the door.

    The house I have now is entirely different. It is a vertical house as many are in the north. It is 3 levels. The first level is this basement, half in the ground. You walk up a short flight of stairs to enter the house on the main level, and there is an upstairs. It is fairly common setup up here to maximize heat.

    But the big difference is: The only thing upstairs is the master bedroom and bath. All the kid areas are in the basement. There are bedrooms and a play area. And that creates a remarkably different "zen". "Adult Time" is built in to the house. And a wife that would pick a house like that like is a different kind of wife than most other American wives.

    Relationship "experts" all talk about "finding a way" to have scheduled "adult time", sending kids away for the night, going to a hotel, all under the idea that woman is so focused on those kids that if they are in proximity to her, then she will not go "all in" for sex with her (beta) husband.

    But if he is her alpha, then she will lock the fuckers in the downstairs closet, and not give a fuck if they scream their faces off. Her focus is also on him and not only on the children. She wants to be alone with him. She intuitively knows sex is necessary to keep him and he has other options if she doesn't want to protect her territory.

    The reverse of this sort of behavior on the part of the wife of an "alpha" (or at least a guy who knows the game) that would deny her kids the constant screaming attention they demand in order to have time alone with her husband to protect her turf is completely ingrained in typical white marriages. A typical white wife could give a fuck about what her husband wants. It's all about the children.

    A woman who stated in a blog that she habitually created this time for her husband, was met with shrieking from other women and one female commenter threatened to call Childrens Protective Services on the woman for neglect. The idea that a woman would voluntarily and even eagerly wish to be alone with her husband and not her kids is so foreign to most white women that they assume such behavior is deviant, neglectful.

    Yet statistics show the reality is that by keeping her "alpha" there in the house is the best thing she can do for her kids. But God forbid such an idea would become a public standard. Because that would mean white women would actually have to fuck their beta husband. No way. So instead it all is "What about the children????" as an excuse to avoid that horrible fate.

    So I wonder how much this "alpha/beta" divide factors into "cultural parenting styles". Note that in the NYT article, Mr Erard states:

    "Birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy; the pampered offspring could be trained at an early age. We can blame the political philosopher John Locke for our current child-rearing preoccupations. He carried Dutch ideas back to England in the 1680s, where Protestant radicals like the Puritans and Quakers picked them up."

    Sure, birthrates dropped because more children survived infancy. Or it dropped because it takes PIV sex to get pregnant, and Dutch women don't really care much for Dutch men. It is the whole theme of Simon Sheppard's book The Tyranny of Ambiguity. The book is about how Dutch women basically shit on Dutch men to the point that Dutch men hunt for tourists. And the Dutch have had legalized Red Light Districts for forever because the women don't want to fuck their men and would rather tolerate prostitution than fuck them. He notes how much more "masculine" English society today is than Dutch society. And given how much more of the world the English conquered vs the Dutch, even in the 16th, one could assume that back then Dutch men perhaps were sort of "beta-ish".

    There is this data (Naomi Wolf actually) that says 1/3 of women can have PIV vaginal orgasms, a third that can only have "clitoral orgasms" (typically only through oral sex), and a third that cannot have any orgasms at all.

    And given that Manosphere idea of "20/80 Paretto alpha/beta distribution" I would bet that 1/3 having vaginal orgasms during sex are having that sex with some guy from the "20" when they do have those PIV orgasms, and those women having the clitoral are having it with some guy from the "80" while he laps away and she dreams of some sexy pirate or some Christian Gray.

    And the 1/3 that never ever have orgasms are so far down the pecking order of women that the only men they ever have access to are so "beta" that the touch of the guy so repulses them they never ever come close to even learning what the onset of orgasm is like and thus never learn to have orgasms.

    So I gather from the Micheal Erard piece and from looking at his photos that all this "alpha/beta" divide stuff is sort of lost on him as he looks at various cultures and observes child rearing customs. He mentioned he did have children and also that his wife was probably the type to be buying baby books and probably is a typical "(s)mother" ( at his sexual expense).

    So I imagine though that whatever sex he might have is due to his cleverness, his sense of what is what in dealing with his white wife.

    You could say he is a cunning linguist.

    To make a long story short,

    Really?

  88. @Hepp

    Whenever I update him on my reading, he tells me things like … how Cochran or Harpending sends his kids to minority-majority public schools, confident that nurture is meaningless.

     

    If that's what Cochran and Harpending do, then they're fools. The literature is clear that why parenting doesn't matter, social environment does. Many kids will act out and have premarital sex if others around them are doing it but will not be the black sheep of their school.

    Cochran has hinted that he doesn’t believe the social environment matters much, either. Here he is commenting, for example, on Judith Harris’s The Nuture Assumption.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Yeah, I found Harris' book to be pretty disappointing too.

    I kept waiting for the evidence that it was peer relations that made the real difference in the environment, but Godot never turned up.

    I hate to say it, but the book does seem to fall into the Dr. Johnson category of "your book is good and original, but what's good isn't original, and what's original isn't good."

    Nice popularization, though, of Plomin's work.
  89. @Muse
    You were not hanging out with the right kids at Forest Hills, or wast it East Great Falls?

    Rockford!

  90. @Charlotte Allen
    Lancy seems to have been mesmerized by the theories of Philippe Aries, a midcentury French medievalist who specialized in big overarching theories. One of them was that "childhood" was an invention of the bourgeois ascendancy of the 17th century (there's more than a little resemblance to Marxist historical theory in Aries's arguments). Before then, Aries argued, parents paid little attention to their kids, half of whom would die anyway, and invested little emotionally in them. Then, in the 17th century, you got the bourgeois family! Few kids, big parental investment.

    One problem: Dutch and other families continued to have large numbers of children through the 19th century. Rembrandt was one of nine; his wife gave birth to four That was partly because the survival rate for children continued to be low until modern hygiene and doctor-assisted childbirth spread significantly. It's only our 21st-century mentality that regards two kids as a nice norm for parental investment and automatically ssumes that in larger families the kids will be neglected or the parents won't care.

    The other problem: More recent research has blown a lot of holes in Aries's theories. Nicholas Orme's 2003 book, Medieval Children, uses manuscript illustrations (children playing with toys), legal and other documents, and literary and quasi-literary works to demonstrate that medieval parents were perfectly aware of a category called "childhood" and that many of them doted on their children, no matter that they might lose them before adulthood. Chaucer's "Prioress's Tale" is a perfect example of Victorian-level medieval saccharinity where children are concerned: a darling little 7-year-old boy, his widowed mother's only child, is murdered by Jews and stuffed down a privy because he warbles a hymn to the Virgin while crossing their part of town. He continues his warbling with his slit throat, however, and of course the evil deed is discovered. Lots of high emotional investment in children in that story. (And the mother is sending her little boy to school, another form of investment.)

    Here’s an example of low parental investment from the early seventeenth century, a poem about the death of a son by the playwright Ben Jonson:

    Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
    My sin was too much hope of thee, lov’d boy.
    Seven years tho’ wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
    Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.
    O, could I lose all father now! For why
    Will man lament the state he should envy?
    To have so soon ‘scap’d world’s and flesh’s rage,
    And if no other misery, yet age?
    Rest in soft peace, and, ask’d, say, “Here doth lie
    Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry.”
    For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such,
    As what he loves may never like too much.

    Seriously, how do the Aries and Foucault’s get away with saying things like childhood and heterosexuality are bourgeois inventions of the nineteenth century?

    BTW, Charlotte Allen, I really admire your work!

  91. @Uptown Resident
    Thanks, it's always helpful to hear other women's experiences. I definitely plan on breastfeeding for at least a year. Cosleeping has always seemed extreme to me, but many women swear by it. I've read studies that indicate that it's the best way to do "on demand" feeding because it results in the mom getting more sleep, since she's not fully waking to do the nighttime feedings. The risk of smothering the baby is pretty frightening, though.

    A bassinet or cradle next to the bed while they’re itty bitty is a very good idea. Good luck and don’t forget your daily fish oils! And continue taking while nursing! (Okay, I’ll stop being a mother hen now)

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Thanks! I'm doing a prenatal and fish oil ... and eating very cleanly and getting lots of gentle exercise with the dog on the wintry Chicago lakefront. Baby is due in July, so I'm just halfway there. We have, of course, been doing every kind of non-invasive screening test available, and everything looks, thank God, normal normal normal so far.
  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Cryptogenic
    Bit off-topic here but I've been itching to make this comment.

    Most of the anti-science on the Left is philosophical -- and by that I mean actual philosophy, Frankfurt School and Zizek and Kant and all that. A lot of critics don't get the arguments deployed at all, what it means for humans to be transcendental subjects, Dasein, etc. "Neuroscience is immoral," a philosophy student heavy into the Continental side of things once told me.

    However, there are veins of philosophy, and not just "analytic" philosophy, making strides against the standard relativism. Object-oriented ontology and speculative realism are two trends outside of purely analytic philosophy making strong arguments against the dominant view that relegates science to second-tier status. A very interesting book "centering" science again, if you like philosophy, is Quentin Meillassoux's "After Finitude".

    Modern science is based on Cartesian and Kantian subjectivist metaphysics. “Transcendental subjectivity” is not anti-science at all, but arguably the culmination of the Cartesian metaphysics that undergirds modern science. Neither Marxism nor the Frankfurt School deviates from this basic metaphysical view.

    Dasein would be the modern philosophical concept that departs from this metaphysical stance. A Heideggerian Continental philosopher wouldn’t say neuroscience is “immoral”. He’d say it’s naive, wrong, etc.

    Modern science and subjectivist metaphysics predominate, including among most contemporary liberals, leftists, relativists, etc. Genuine Heideggerian historicists are rare. In this respect, the analytic philosophers, the objecti-oriented ontologists, and the speculative realists are in the same camp with the relativists, liberals, leftists.

    • Replies: @Cryptogenic
    Thanks for the great reply. I think I get what you mean overall.

    Meillassoux sees Heidegger -- at least the later Heidegger -- as essentially Kantian. The gist of "After Finitude" is that all modern thought since Kant views existence as a correlate of the subject lest it fall into dogmatic realism (Cartesianism). He draws a line between Cartesian dogmatism and Kantian correlationism, as he calls it. What throws a monkey wrench in this correlationism is the ability of science today to detect and think objects that existed before human subjects and so before givenness as such. A sort of reactivation of Cartesianism.

    None of this set in stone, of course, but I do find the OOO and speculative realist guys to be very interesting, at least as far as I understand them. And I like Nick Land and Thomas Metzinger for the record.

    Off the top of your head can you give me some names and titles of the Heidegger studies or Heideggerian thinkers you have in mind? Is Dugin one of them?

  93. Sociologists think that the problems of life are the result of something wrong with society. They seek the solution in its study.

    Cultural anthropologists, on the other hand, think that these problems are the result of something that went wrong in the early development of civilization. They seek the solution in the study of the uncivilized, whom they typically romanticize. In short, they have taken Rousseau’s notion of the “noble savage” and clothed it in their own peculiar jargon. This is why the Yanomamo or the Trobrianders are more interesting to them than the Chinese.

  94. @Hepp
    A lot of this advice fits well with the HBD literature. Judith Rich Harris, for example, makes an overwhelming case that parenting doesn't matter.

    Treating every child as precious is terrible if it depresses the birth rates. How many of us would be alive if our great grand parents thought like that, and had two special snowflakes instead of seven or eight kids they barely paid attention to?

    I'd rather take a better chance of being born without good parenting than I would take a 10% chance of existence with good parenting.

    Birth rates were more or less equal to death rates for all of human history, until the 1800s, when productivity finally launched us out of the Malthusian economy. Is that a good thing?

    On the one hand, people like to hook up and have a lot of babies. And those who don’t like to have a lot of babies really want to protect the rights of more Fecund Peoples to have a lot of babies. There’s a lot of cheap fuel and land, we’ve figured out how to industrialize agriculture, and the only real losers in this situation–the billions of domesticated animals dying in factory farms and wild animals dying from loss of habitat–can’t complain.

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it’s not clear whether we’re going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100. There’s also the quality of life index. I mean, as commenters are always pointing out all over the Internet: overpopulation isn’t a problem because we could fit the entire human population in the state of Texas! Problem solved! But is the goal to maximize population, or to maximize quality of life? We’re ravaging and polluting a lot of really nice places on earth, and no one really knows what the externalities are going to be. For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It’s like Roman and lead all over again.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)

    • Replies: @Hepp

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it’s not clear whether we’re going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100.

     

    It depends on whether those people are productive or parasitic. Every human life is another "mouth to feed," and people who worry about population control only focus on that. They do not realize that individuals are potentially productive. There's no indication we're running out of food. The population grows and we get fatter and fatter.

    For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It’s like Roman and lead all over again.
     
    Life expectancy has been going up, as has height, and, until very recently, IQ. You can look at individual diseases that have increased like autism, but standard of life has gone up with increases in population, since the industrial revolution.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)
     
    "Long term sustainable" is not a scientific concept. What's sustainable doesn't just depend on numbers alone. It also depends on the state of technology and the productivity of citizens. At a certain level of development, 5 million people in the world might not be "sustainable." Today, we have 7 billion and on every indication of quality of life things are getting better globally (China and India in particular).

    Environmentalists make the mistake of believing that the earth is a sort of benevolent mother, that gives us what we need as long as we don't disturb it too much. In reality, the story of progress is humans bettering their environment by gaining a greater mastery of nature. There is no indication anywhere that we've reached some natural limit.

    Dysgenic fertility is certainly a problem. But the number of people is not. I recommend this video, which is not directly relevant but exposes the errors in environmentalist thinking.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DElBMdy3WUc
    , @dfordoom
    "For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism."

    Is autism actually increasing? Or is it just getting diagnosed more often? Is it like the fake ADHD epidemic?

  95. @AshTon
    I've read somewhere that Chinese (or perhaps Asian?) kids who grow up in the U.S. have better outcomes than white kids. But interestingly, Chinese kids who are adopted by white parents have even better outcomes than non-adopted Chinese kids. This doesn't seem to give much credence to the Tiger Mom theory. It suggests that Chinese kids may genetically have the edge, but a white middle class upbringing, and the connections and privileges that involves, may have its benefits too.

    If it was solely about genetics, then why aren't hordes of white race realists moving into the ghetto? After all, genetics would surely trump those bad schools etc?

    Someone mentioned Greg Cochran as a guy who put his money where his mouth was and sent his (white) kids to local public schools that were mostly (non-Asian) minority.

    But out of any environmental influence, including parenting, I would say where you go to school matters, not so much because of the teachers but because of the other kids. It is their influence that matters the most. I think Razib, in discussing this same book, puts genetics at 50%, peer influence at 40% and parental influence at 10% in determining your kids’ life outcomes.

  96. @Dahlia
    I have never participated in these debates, whether on the internet or in person, and will just tell you my experience as we seem to be on the same page with regards to breastfeeding.
    When I had my first two, I was oblivious to the cosleeping and attachment parenting debates; I started copying what my mother did and everyone I knew: I got a crib and excitedly created a nursery.
    Where I differed with everyone else was that I was going to nurse beyond 3-6 months.
    I'm a lazy parent and I found myself slowly bringing my son to bed for day naps. Lying down to nurse and being able to leave him: easy! When my daughter came along, I did the crib thing for a month before I threw in the towel, the thought of continuing that for another 11 months at least: shudder.
    The babies stay with us until it either becomes disruptive to our sleep or they're weaned. I don't over think it. I just want a good night's sleep for me and baby: everyone wins.

    The only thing I've found fraught and stressful is weaning. I think most babies would nurse through school age if they could get away with it. There will be conflict between mother's and baby's wants or needs and it's not an everybody wins situation. Just my $.02.

    every baby is a little different. My screaming first son HAD to be put on a schedule or he would have nursed 24 hours straight (with periodic spitting up). My mellow daughter pretty much established her own schedule and it all worked out without any stress. The 2nd son wasn’t much interested in nursing and abandoned me around 8 months old for real food.

    So be open to any and all approaches. Reading all the experts will mean nothing compared to your own instincts once you’re in the trenches. And by all means, enjoy the baby time. It DOESN’T last.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Yeah, I hear the pitch for open-mindedness and totally get it. I have ideas about how I'd like things to go--natural childbirth, harmonious sleeping and feeding schedule, cloth diapers and early toilet training, etc.--but will be OK with myself if it doesn't work out that way. I am told that it is almost impossible to refuse an epidural, for instance.
  97. @Anonymous
    Jesus Christ, Mark, would you stop spending all your time writing novels on these boards?

    What you don’t want to read about how he used to be a real wuss who blathered on and on and then became a real manly man of the manosphere who manned up?

  98. @Uptown Resident
    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.

    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women

    A couple generations worth of teaching boys/men “how to treat a lady” by pedestalizing them, e.g. paying for dates, dinner, flowers, etc., in culture that promotes equality between the sexes, means a lot of guys get used as meal tickets because no one told them (or they didn’t learn) the rules changed. Just as chivalry is a two-way street that requires reciprocal conduct from both sexes, so do relationships. If you’re not playing from the same set of assumptions, there’s gonna be a lot of disappointment. And, let’s face it, women are good at manipulating men with their emotions.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    See, I don't think there's a clash of expectations like that for many men and women. At least that wasn't my experience, or the experience of my sisters and friends. I think many (most?) women actually prefer traditional gender roles, even if the roles aren't acted out for them in media. When men complain about not being able to find non-crazy women, I wonder where they're looking or what is wrong with them that they're unable to find a non-crazy woman.
  99. @slumber_j
    Yes. A good example is this piece, in which we learn in an entirely unsupported subordinate clause that "scientists have abandoned the idea of innate talent":

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangers-of-believing-that-talent-is-innate-1423068148?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=267654952

    She gets some pushback in the comments, at least.

    The money quote right at the top: “A new study suggests the more that people in a field believed success was due to intrinsic ability, the fewer women and African-Americans made it in that field. “

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    Good point.
  100. @anonymous-antiskynetist
    My sister-in-law is an anthropologist specializing in the history of warfare in primitive times. Lovely lady, very smart. She's trying to raise my nephews, 3 and 6, to be non-violent in the light of her studies. Naturally they're bursting with suppressed aggression and denied actual weapon toys just transform their arms into missile-launchers or particle-beam-cannons and carry on.

    I do a thing with the older one called "Two Minutes Rage" where I let him attack me and just go mad as long as he doesn't strike to the yarbles. It's wild to see how much aggro can be packed in a skinny little 6-year old body. The parents aren't too into that though, because it makes him wound up for the rest of the day. "Uncle Boge! Uncle Boge! when is it time for RAGE!!" hold on kid let me finish my rum...

    He obviously needs to be medicated.

  101. Here’s some baby advice.

    What’s blue and sits in a playpen?
    A baby with its head in a plastic bag.
    What’s green and sits in a playpen?
    Same baby, two weeks later.

  102. @Dahlia
    I have never participated in these debates, whether on the internet or in person, and will just tell you my experience as we seem to be on the same page with regards to breastfeeding.
    When I had my first two, I was oblivious to the cosleeping and attachment parenting debates; I started copying what my mother did and everyone I knew: I got a crib and excitedly created a nursery.
    Where I differed with everyone else was that I was going to nurse beyond 3-6 months.
    I'm a lazy parent and I found myself slowly bringing my son to bed for day naps. Lying down to nurse and being able to leave him: easy! When my daughter came along, I did the crib thing for a month before I threw in the towel, the thought of continuing that for another 11 months at least: shudder.
    The babies stay with us until it either becomes disruptive to our sleep or they're weaned. I don't over think it. I just want a good night's sleep for me and baby: everyone wins.

    The only thing I've found fraught and stressful is weaning. I think most babies would nurse through school age if they could get away with it. There will be conflict between mother's and baby's wants or needs and it's not an everybody wins situation. Just my $.02.

    I think that it’s natural and healthy for the kid to sleep with the mother for a while , how long I don’t know but at some point you just kick them out and they get over it.

    A friend of mine’s mother in law really gave her a lot of shit about breastfeeding , she thought it was disgusting , I’m 64 so figure she was whatever . My friend finally had to tell her to butt out.

    The Md’s don’t really have a clue they just parrot what the current fad is. Just do what you feel . None of these experts know shit.

  103. @Dr. Doom
    Is Anthropology even a science? You know Astrology was once considered a science, because you had to be an astronomer that could follow the course of the planets in order to make an Astrological prediction, but you know I'd give more credence to my horoscope than what passes for science today. Boas completely destroyed Anthropology with moral relativism. His idea of no cultures being better makes the entire exercise rather pointless really. If nothing is better then by what measure can you really quantify anything?
    This cancer has metastasized to other "soft" sciences like Sociology, where they tell you that in-group behavior is normal, and the outgroup threatens the coherence and stability of the in-group which aids in survival. Then, by a completely insane lack of self-monitoring they quickly enter the soft soap about diversity is strength and multiculturalism is the new standard completely obliterating the basis for their entire "scientific" field.
    Political ideology has completely destroyed the credibility of science. These cretins have completely mocked the philosophers who developed science by removing quantifying math and even qualitative judgement rendering or rather neutering science into a mere vehicle for indoctrination into the delusional fantasies of completely insane and seriously damaged and defective "professors".
    What these cretins are professing is not science at all, but merely a new Satanic Cult of debased debauchery and stupid excuses for inferior and pathological people to gravitate towards to form nascient political cells masquerading as science departments at the Ruins of former Academic Institutions. Aristotle would urinate on what these "textbooks" say, and I daresay he would probably burn down any Academy that taught such ridiculous drivel as this!

    You have an issue with linguistics? How about archaeology? Does physical anthropology bother you? How about statistic and survey research? These are all cognates of cultural anthropology and qualitative research in sociology.

  104. Has anyone ever considered that maybe Liberalism is just a socially acceptable form of infantilism? Sure hating authority seems cool as a teenager, but the total abrogation of rules and standards shows an almost complete lack of understanding whatsoever.
    This whole attempt at primitivism and the worship of savage undeveloped “societies” seems like just a roundabout way at avoiding responsibility and relying on a state nanny to mommy them. The savages are ruled by a chief that makes all the decisions similar to a nanny state.
    Most of these Leftists make pretensions of individualism and non-conformity, but the reality is they are nothing but followers. Like sheep they follow mommy professor at school and then follow some cult-like Svengali figure whether an Obama or even some daytime talk show host.
    They cannot stand any alternative viewpoints or arguments and will throw fits of rage at the simplest questions of their insane irrational beliefs.
    This doesn’t seem like a belief system at all, and certainly not a scientific point of view. They just want to run around naked and wallow in the mud like little children when their mommy’s not looking really.

  105. “Cosleeping has always seemed extreme to me, but many women swear by it. I’ve read studies that indicate that it’s the best way to do “on demand” feeding because it results in the mom getting more sleep, since she’s not fully waking to do the nighttime feedings. The risk of smothering the baby is pretty frightening, though.”

    If you’re afraid of overlying the baby, *this* is an excellent solution.

    —-Pull the baby to you to nurse, push the baby back into his own sleeping space when he’s done. No worries about him smothering in your pillow, and you WON’T roll over onto him, as the separation between the two mattresses gives your sleeping body the information where your bed ends (for the same reason as you don’t fall out of bed at night.)

    The salient point here is, mama never lifts her head off her pillow. (Make sure the baby’s crib mattress is exactly level with your own. Many techniques for doing that. Also, fill any gaps. Tightly rolled up blankets or the spongy pool-noodle thingies cut to size are great) Much more sleep (and sleeping space) for you, for hubby and for baby.

    One other thought: Entities like Consumer Product Safety Commission who use scare tactics like “NEVER cosleep” do not, ever, consider the other side, like the deaths by car wrecks caused by severely sleep deprived mothers.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Very interesting. Helpful picture. It certainly makes sense, from a sleep and feeding POV. I'm gonna pitch it to my husband and see how it goes over.
  106. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    If you want to understand a certain type of modern-day American helicopter parenting, especially that version performed by upper-middle whites, you need to look back at Puritan New England of the 1600s. The Puritans were the original helicopter parents, and they were adamant that their children be perfect in word, thought, and deed. The Puritans also had huge families–10 kids was not abnormal–and they are the ancestors of our American upper-middles. Thus the cultural tradition of helicopter parenting has been passed on, and the anxiety-racked neurotic temperament that feels it’s normal to be obsessive about how you raise your children has been inherited via genes.

  107. BTW this is a bullshit topic Sailer , I know you were probably raised on Dr. Spock as I was.What the f**k did he know ? 50,000 years of human experience has probably taught us something about toilet training brats.

    Here is a topic much more pertinent to your readers :

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment

    The quacks may not have an answer for you but they have a pill for everything .

  108. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Yes, Your Honour, "...nature tends to trump nurture." But nurture matters a lot. What we see being re-invented in 17th C. Nederland is the "K strategy" of pushing for quality over quantity in the generation of progeny.

    What we have in my darkling neighbourhood at Conkey and Avenue D in Rochester, NY is the "r strategy" of pumping out lots of progeny and hoping that one will finish high school. It works for cats and rabbits. It's not working well for the US right now.

    Not too hard to see why the New York Lugenpresse likes this book.

    Having grown up in the 585, I have to ask, wtf do you live in that hood?

  109. Interesting…

    I’ve just assumed that:

    An authoritarian father and a care-giving mother is better than all other alternatives. This double-whammy of parenthood provides Resources, Discipline, Boundaries, Nurturing, and Safety.

    Single parent households, generally single mothers, usually raise children that have anti-social behaviors.

    Which means that children in advanced societies require more time and care than, say, children in Papua New Guinea.

    My conclusion is that its a bad idea to tell your children to piss off and come back when you’re more “ripe”.

    But then against as a racialist I don’t think Papua New Guinea = White European, both have different requirements to function in their respective societies.

  110. And now here is a great song from the past :

    and a newer version by Jamie Cullum

    And here’s our buddy working with him:

    http://www.last.fm/music/Clint+Eastwood+%26+Jamie+Cullum

  111. @Uptown Resident
    Birth rates were more or less equal to death rates for all of human history, until the 1800s, when productivity finally launched us out of the Malthusian economy. Is that a good thing?

    On the one hand, people like to hook up and have a lot of babies. And those who don't like to have a lot of babies really want to protect the rights of more Fecund Peoples to have a lot of babies. There's a lot of cheap fuel and land, we've figured out how to industrialize agriculture, and the only real losers in this situation--the billions of domesticated animals dying in factory farms and wild animals dying from loss of habitat--can't complain.

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it's not clear whether we're going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100. There's also the quality of life index. I mean, as commenters are always pointing out all over the Internet: overpopulation isn't a problem because we could fit the entire human population in the state of Texas! Problem solved! But is the goal to maximize population, or to maximize quality of life? We're ravaging and polluting a lot of really nice places on earth, and no one really knows what the externalities are going to be. For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It's like Roman and lead all over again.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it’s not clear whether we’re going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100.

    It depends on whether those people are productive or parasitic. Every human life is another “mouth to feed,” and people who worry about population control only focus on that. They do not realize that individuals are potentially productive. There’s no indication we’re running out of food. The population grows and we get fatter and fatter.

    For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It’s like Roman and lead all over again.

    Life expectancy has been going up, as has height, and, until very recently, IQ. You can look at individual diseases that have increased like autism, but standard of life has gone up with increases in population, since the industrial revolution.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)

    “Long term sustainable” is not a scientific concept. What’s sustainable doesn’t just depend on numbers alone. It also depends on the state of technology and the productivity of citizens. At a certain level of development, 5 million people in the world might not be “sustainable.” Today, we have 7 billion and on every indication of quality of life things are getting better globally (China and India in particular).

    Environmentalists make the mistake of believing that the earth is a sort of benevolent mother, that gives us what we need as long as we don’t disturb it too much. In reality, the story of progress is humans bettering their environment by gaining a greater mastery of nature. There is no indication anywhere that we’ve reached some natural limit.

    Dysgenic fertility is certainly a problem. But the number of people is not. I recommend this video, which is not directly relevant but exposes the errors in environmentalist thinking.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    There are two main questions when it comes to population:

    (1) how many people can the earth support? How many people can the USA support for the longterm?

    (2) how many people can the earth/USA support while maintaining a desirable living standard for most people, without driving other species to extinction, without generally ravaging and insulting the environment, etc.?

    I don't doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth's natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?

    And shouldn't we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn't there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA? How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc

    My main problems with overpopulation are not the feasibility--I don't know enough about the future of fossil fuel extraction or agriculture to guess how many people the earth can support. My problems are with the effects of overpopulation that we deal with already. Crowded cities, pollution, traffic, dysgenic population, ugly sprawl, abuse of farm animals, widespread poverty, etc etc etc
  112. @Uptown Resident
    I know, I know. I agree. I didn't realize that I even liked alcohol until I was in my twenties because none of my friends--in my large public high school in a 100% white, Dutch Reform suburb of Grand Rapids, MI--drank. We were too busy with AP classes and the usual slew of extracurriculars.

    OT: I visited Grand Rapids for the first time this past summer with the family. We had a delightful time — our trip was designed to go see the Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park which were magnificent:

    http://www.meijergardens.org/

    Meijer made his money with his grocery/home stores and he put it to good use in your medium-sized city. That was a world-class attraction in the middle of northern Michigan — you don’t expect something like that to be there. I still tell everyone I know in Chicago to go check it out.

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Grand Rapids has a lot going on for it. The Meijer Gardens are beautiful. It's cool that they did the Da Vinci horse.

    It's very conservative, but in a weird religious way that drives me nuts. And the suburbanization is just unbelievable.
  113. @Dahlia
    A bassinet or cradle next to the bed while they're itty bitty is a very good idea. Good luck and don't forget your daily fish oils! And continue taking while nursing! (Okay, I'll stop being a mother hen now)

    Thanks! I’m doing a prenatal and fish oil … and eating very cleanly and getting lots of gentle exercise with the dog on the wintry Chicago lakefront. Baby is due in July, so I’m just halfway there. We have, of course, been doing every kind of non-invasive screening test available, and everything looks, thank God, normal normal normal so far.

    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    The fish oil fad is interesting, it was popular in the 1920s as well. I researched and found it wasn't useful, so didn't with my pregnancies. I just ate "paleo" as that seemed to be the food I could keep down reliably. Meat, fruit, vegetables, tubers as the main starch.

    It's easy to refuse an epidural if you don't do most of your laboring in the hospital, but having one won't necessarily make it impossible to labor without a c-section. Hope you have an easy delivery!
  114. @JSM
    "Cosleeping has always seemed extreme to me, but many women swear by it. I’ve read studies that indicate that it’s the best way to do “on demand” feeding because it results in the mom getting more sleep, since she’s not fully waking to do the nighttime feedings. The risk of smothering the baby is pretty frightening, though."

    If you're afraid of overlying the baby, *this* is an excellent solution.

    http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c79/SativaStarr/May_June2007014.jpg

    ----Pull the baby to you to nurse, push the baby back into his own sleeping space when he's done. No worries about him smothering in your pillow, and you WON'T roll over onto him, as the separation between the two mattresses gives your sleeping body the information where your bed ends (for the same reason as you don't fall out of bed at night.)

    The salient point here is, mama never lifts her head off her pillow. (Make sure the baby's crib mattress is exactly level with your own. Many techniques for doing that. Also, fill any gaps. Tightly rolled up blankets or the spongy pool-noodle thingies cut to size are great) Much more sleep (and sleeping space) for you, for hubby and for baby.

    One other thought: Entities like Consumer Product Safety Commission who use scare tactics like "NEVER cosleep" do not, ever, consider the other side, like the deaths by car wrecks caused by severely sleep deprived mothers.

    Very interesting. Helpful picture. It certainly makes sense, from a sleep and feeding POV. I’m gonna pitch it to my husband and see how it goes over.

    • Replies: @JSM
    One quite possibly effective way to get Dad on board with the sidecarred-crib idea is, HE will get more sleep, as you won't need to be turning on all the houselights several times a night as you're stumbling down the hall to the baby nursery.

    Best wishes to you! and THANK YOU to you and your husband for becoming a Mom and Dad. Young people are pulled in so many directions and raising the next generation is so, sadly, undervalued today. Well, us White Nationalists appreciate you, at least!
  115. @Pincher Martin
    Cochran has hinted that he doesn't believe the social environment matters much, either. Here he is commenting, for example, on Judith Harris's The Nuture Assumption.

    Yeah, I found Harris’ book to be pretty disappointing too.

    I kept waiting for the evidence that it was peer relations that made the real difference in the environment, but Godot never turned up.

    I hate to say it, but the book does seem to fall into the Dr. Johnson category of “your book is good and original, but what’s good isn’t original, and what’s original isn’t good.”

    Nice popularization, though, of Plomin’s work.

  116. @Forbes

    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women
     
    A couple generations worth of teaching boys/men "how to treat a lady" by pedestalizing them, e.g. paying for dates, dinner, flowers, etc., in culture that promotes equality between the sexes, means a lot of guys get used as meal tickets because no one told them (or they didn't learn) the rules changed. Just as chivalry is a two-way street that requires reciprocal conduct from both sexes, so do relationships. If you're not playing from the same set of assumptions, there's gonna be a lot of disappointment. And, let's face it, women are good at manipulating men with their emotions.

    See, I don’t think there’s a clash of expectations like that for many men and women. At least that wasn’t my experience, or the experience of my sisters and friends. I think many (most?) women actually prefer traditional gender roles, even if the roles aren’t acted out for them in media. When men complain about not being able to find non-crazy women, I wonder where they’re looking or what is wrong with them that they’re unable to find a non-crazy woman.

  117. the culture of Iowa itself is now under Lena Dunham’s anthropological gaze

    Couldn’t be worse than under the gaze of this professor who hates he must lower himself to live in such an awful place.

  118. @Formerly CARealist
    every baby is a little different. My screaming first son HAD to be put on a schedule or he would have nursed 24 hours straight (with periodic spitting up). My mellow daughter pretty much established her own schedule and it all worked out without any stress. The 2nd son wasn't much interested in nursing and abandoned me around 8 months old for real food.

    So be open to any and all approaches. Reading all the experts will mean nothing compared to your own instincts once you're in the trenches. And by all means, enjoy the baby time. It DOESN'T last.

    Yeah, I hear the pitch for open-mindedness and totally get it. I have ideas about how I’d like things to go–natural childbirth, harmonious sleeping and feeding schedule, cloth diapers and early toilet training, etc.–but will be OK with myself if it doesn’t work out that way. I am told that it is almost impossible to refuse an epidural, for instance.

  119. I sense a demand for more posts on childrearing. What was the Sailer method? Does peer group matter? Cosleeping? On demand feeing versus regimented? Natural childbirth or drugs?

    • Replies: @Dahlia
    It would be nice to hear his take, but I think years of trolls and enemies have taken their toll and he's more buttoned up now.
    I do remember once or twice he politely tried to get across how difficult it is for women to lose weight after babies, and he kept getting shouted down with, "But breastfeeding! But exercise!"
  120. Here’s some advice for your snot nosed brats :

  121. And now here is some good advice for your snot nosed brats :

  122. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “a particular book I like to give to friends when they announce they’re pregnant for the first time”
    Maybe the columnist is trying to throw his friends off the scent of the trail to the elite preschool he has in mind for his own kids. “Hey, pal, don’t get strung out over this parenting thing. Ignore the kids and they’ll be fine.” (Wahahah, less competition for my kids)

    • Replies: @donut
    Better yet give them a condom .
  123. @SFG
    The right lies about global warming and evolution (except the dissident right) too.

    Every human being believes what they want to. The question is which set of lies you think is most dangerous.

    There has been no global warming since the late 1990’s. That’s a fact, sorry. You want to argue about pollution or genetic engineering, okay, but “global warming” or “climate change” is just an elitist scam to make the sellers of carbon credits more cash. As to the old left bugaboo “evolution”, some on the right accept the theory, some don’t, there is by no means any unanimity on the subject. But the truth is, how much does it matter to 99% of the world whether evolution is fact or fiction? Does it effect an architect’s drawings or mason’s brick wall? Does it matter to the farmer or the pilot? It’s a minor theory of little importance outside of atheist zealots and biblical literalists.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I was pretty much making your second argument with 'whichever set of lies you believe is the most dangerous'. Do need to know about evolution to understand drug resistance though.

    Anyway, you can always pick your time point to make it look like there's no warming, but overall temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. I think even Derb's caved on this one--as he says, 'some things are true even if the Party says they are'.

    I hope he's still alive.
  124. Related but not quite on topic….

    ….is there any advantage to having the measles, mumps and chicken pox viruses sweep through a population? I know it kills and disables individuals, but does surviving these viruses confer some kind of strength/immunity to other diseases?

  125. @Anon
    "a particular book I like to give to friends when they announce they’re pregnant for the first time"
    Maybe the columnist is trying to throw his friends off the scent of the trail to the elite preschool he has in mind for his own kids. "Hey, pal, don't get strung out over this parenting thing. Ignore the kids and they'll be fine." (Wahahah, less competition for my kids)

    Better yet give them a condom .

  126. @Uptown Resident
    I know, I know. I agree. I didn't realize that I even liked alcohol until I was in my twenties because none of my friends--in my large public high school in a 100% white, Dutch Reform suburb of Grand Rapids, MI--drank. We were too busy with AP classes and the usual slew of extracurriculars.

    Hey Uptown. Congrats on your NO1. It will be just as awful and wonderful as everyone says. If you are interested, here is my experience as a male married to a La Leche level breastfeeding, co-sleeping, unschooling homeschooler, attachment parenting wife. Not trying to argue for any of it as positive or negative, although we’ve had a good experience overall.

    1. To do all of the above, it really helps if the mother is stay at home
    2. Breast feeding is far more convenient, even for the mother
    2a. If you breast feed, feed on demand. The kids with self regulate their feeding.
    3. Be ready for sore nipples if you do item #2 and trust it will fade after a couple of weeks
    3a. Like going to the gym, having a team mate nursing alongside you helps push past the pain
    4. Co-sleeping is much easier than it sounds from outside the situation
    5. The mother gets much more sleep with co-sleeping and the male (assuming the male works and mother stays home) also gets more sleep, which allows for better functioning of outside the home activities aggregated over the family unit
    6. Attachment parenting means something different to every person who “follows” it, but everyone believes they are doing it “correctly”
    7. Don’t listen to anyone besides your spouse for parenting advice (including this list!). Sincerity is what matters when raising the kid, not technique. Even being sincerely angry.
    8. Trust that your kid will probably turn out fine no matter how many mistakes are made.
    9. It is OK to be furious with your child when it won’t stop screaming. If you feel yourself trapped and needing to react physically, always put the child in a safe place and walk away for a few minutes to calm down. It is normal.
    10. Physical discipline is never required
    11. Sometimes physical discipline sneaks out in stressful situations, even when you don’t believe in it
    12. Homeschooling is a ton of work
    13. Homeschooling provides much more freedom for everyone in the family
    14. Unschooling works well when children are younger but as they get older it works less well
    15. There are zero “socialization” problems with homeschooling with even a minimal amount of effort.

    Most of all, enjoy!

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    That's impressive that your wife is La Leche level breastfeeding. Sounds like you guys have your method down. Thanks for the list--no. 9 is something I occasionally hear from women in quiet, ashamed tones. My sister jokingly asked her husband to change the lock to the gun safe (which he did, not totally confident it was a joke). She said the crying can be unbearable. I'll definitely read up more on co-sleeping.

    I am sympathetic to homeschoolers, and would do it if the public schools were lousy (pace Cochran). We're planning on moving to Seattle where there are great public schools in the city. I'm going to take time off work for some childbearing years, but want to go back eventually. I'm finishing my PhD and hate the idea of not using a degree I've poured so much time and sweat into.
  127. This entire thread is really dull. Everyone an expert and no one at home.

    • Replies: @slumber_j
    Yours is an alternate viewpoint and equally valid!! Good for you!
  128. In Papua New Guinea, the Sambian tribe requires young boys to perform oral sex on the older males as a rite of passage into adulthood.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambia_people
    But there culture is equally as valid as ours and you shouldn’t criticize it, shitlord.

  129. @Uptown Resident
    Thanks! I'm doing a prenatal and fish oil ... and eating very cleanly and getting lots of gentle exercise with the dog on the wintry Chicago lakefront. Baby is due in July, so I'm just halfway there. We have, of course, been doing every kind of non-invasive screening test available, and everything looks, thank God, normal normal normal so far.

    The fish oil fad is interesting, it was popular in the 1920s as well. I researched and found it wasn’t useful, so didn’t with my pregnancies. I just ate “paleo” as that seemed to be the food I could keep down reliably. Meat, fruit, vegetables, tubers as the main starch.

    It’s easy to refuse an epidural if you don’t do most of your laboring in the hospital, but having one won’t necessarily make it impossible to labor without a c-section. Hope you have an easy delivery!

    • Replies: @Uptown Resident
    Yeah, I dunno. My OB/GYN recommended omega 3 supplementation. I was vegan/vegetarian before getting pregnant, and I'm temporarily eating a pescatarian diet for the baby. I read enough literature on nutrition and pregnancy to convince me that I should probably get more fish-sourced omega 3's. For instance, a 2008 literature review in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology discusses a number of studies on omega 3's and randomized clinical trials in which some women were given marine oil supplements (high in omega 3/DHA) and others given vegetable oil supplements (high in omega-6). In one study, researchers measure the cognitive processing of children four years later and concluded that those whose mothers were eating fish/marine oil supplements scored higher. In another study, children were evaluated at 2.5 years of age, and the fish oil group had higher hand eye coordination than the vegetable oil group. Maybe it's BS, but I didn't want to risk it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2621042/
  130. @AnAnon
    The money quote right at the top: "A new study suggests the more that people in a field believed success was due to intrinsic ability, the fewer women and African-Americans made it in that field. "

    Good point.

  131. @Justpassingby
    This entire thread is really dull. Everyone an expert and no one at home.

    Yours is an alternate viewpoint and equally valid!! Good for you!

  132. “But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.”

    Not true. Read your Acemoglu. Clearly, there are stark differences between the Chinese and the rest, and while the details escape me, they apparently arose from the varying amounts of white racism and capitalist oppression that each of those groups has been subjected to.

  133. Dahlia says:
    @Uptown Resident
    I sense a demand for more posts on childrearing. What was the Sailer method? Does peer group matter? Cosleeping? On demand feeing versus regimented? Natural childbirth or drugs?

    It would be nice to hear his take, but I think years of trolls and enemies have taken their toll and he’s more buttoned up now.
    I do remember once or twice he politely tried to get across how difficult it is for women to lose weight after babies, and he kept getting shouted down with, “But breastfeeding! But exercise!”

    • Replies: @donut
    Buttoned up ? Sailer buttoned up ?

    Maybe he's afraid of Kristol.

    Yeah , breastfeeding !

    , @Anonymous
    I've been reading Steve forever, since way back when he blogged on that funky yellow homepage, and I don't really remember him ever really getting into blogging about his personal experience childrearing and stuff like that.
    , @Uptown Resident
    lol. my postpartum weight loss plan is breastfeeding, veganism, and cross fit.
  134. Don’t you want your kid to swing on a star ? Du Arschloch.

    OK how about this ?

    he done her wrong .

  135. Dahlia says:

    The commenter up thread who mentioned her child had to be regimented… While I had never heard of that until this thread, she’s right that children can vary.
    My oldest suffered from a minor recessed jaw when he was born, remedied with a breast shield which was also wonderful for soreness. That was just mechanical, though. One of my daughters latched on with a chewing-like motion every single time starting when she was a few months old that I could not fix. Ungodly painful for two seconds at every single session. She has a mood disorder from her father’s side that came on while she was three and I think her odd nursing behavior was somehow evidence of it (there were other little signs, too; we weren’t surprised).

  136. @Art Deco
    They were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates. I think they have the lowest rates of Christianity in Europe now.
    -

    No. France and Sweden. The Netherlands had high rates of religious observance until about 1965, at which time the Church and the protestant congregations rapidly imploded. Quebec and (to a degree) Ireland have followed this path as well.

    Weird how it all happened right after Vatican II, amirite? What a weird coincidence!

    And, of course, the Catholic Church losing a tremendous amount of earthly power/control did not serve anyone‘s interests, understand? Anyone who claims there was a determined, radical plot to destroy the church by agents of influence is just a paranoid delusional.

    And even it is plain that it served someone’s interests, just because such groups have a history of infiltrating organizations and destroying them from within and just because such a destruction would be in their interests does not mean you can ever investigate or hypothesize or even imply a possible connection here, you nutty conspiracy theorist you!

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs

    And even it is plain that it served someone’s interests, just because such groups have a history of infiltrating organizations and destroying them from within and just because such a
     
    Talkin' 'bout Jews? Here? Not surprised. Yawner.

    We certainly didn't infiltrate the RC church from within.

    I think the problem with the RC Church is that most of its adherents hate it. Most of my friends are lapsed RCs.

    Or are you talking about gays?
  137. @The 'anging Judge
    Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don't depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.

    The nature of the tropical outdoorsman’s child is different from the nature of the city dweller’s child.

  138. @Dahlia
    It would be nice to hear his take, but I think years of trolls and enemies have taken their toll and he's more buttoned up now.
    I do remember once or twice he politely tried to get across how difficult it is for women to lose weight after babies, and he kept getting shouted down with, "But breastfeeding! But exercise!"

    Buttoned up ? Sailer buttoned up ?

    Maybe he’s afraid of Kristol.

    Yeah , breastfeeding !

  139. @AshTon
    I've read somewhere that Chinese (or perhaps Asian?) kids who grow up in the U.S. have better outcomes than white kids. But interestingly, Chinese kids who are adopted by white parents have even better outcomes than non-adopted Chinese kids. This doesn't seem to give much credence to the Tiger Mom theory. It suggests that Chinese kids may genetically have the edge, but a white middle class upbringing, and the connections and privileges that involves, may have its benefits too.

    If it was solely about genetics, then why aren't hordes of white race realists moving into the ghetto? After all, genetics would surely trump those bad schools etc?

    If it was solely about genetics, then why aren’t hordes of white race realists moving into the ghetto? After all, genetics would surely trump those bad schools etc?

    Because they don’t want their kids to get stabbed? Duh.

  140. @The Z Blog
    I'm skeptical about the John Locke story, but I would not be surprised if the Dutch were the first to experience plummeting fertility rates. They were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates. I think they have the lowest rates of Christianity in Europe now. Church attendance and fertility rates track closely. I don't see a causal link, but it is interesting for other reasons.

    [The Dutch] were the first to experience plummeting church attendance rates.

    Pretty sure the first was Russia, although that was a special case.

  141. @Uptown Resident
    Thanks, it's always helpful to hear other women's experiences. I definitely plan on breastfeeding for at least a year. Cosleeping has always seemed extreme to me, but many women swear by it. I've read studies that indicate that it's the best way to do "on demand" feeding because it results in the mom getting more sleep, since she's not fully waking to do the nighttime feedings. The risk of smothering the baby is pretty frightening, though.

    I would raise a child using the Taking Children Seriously method and Alan Cromer’s Uncommon Sense: the Heretical Nature of Science.

    Most kids need to be taught to think objectively.

  142. @Dahlia
    It would be nice to hear his take, but I think years of trolls and enemies have taken their toll and he's more buttoned up now.
    I do remember once or twice he politely tried to get across how difficult it is for women to lose weight after babies, and he kept getting shouted down with, "But breastfeeding! But exercise!"

    I’ve been reading Steve forever, since way back when he blogged on that funky yellow homepage, and I don’t really remember him ever really getting into blogging about his personal experience childrearing and stuff like that.

  143. @jakobscalpel
    Hey Uptown. Congrats on your NO1. It will be just as awful and wonderful as everyone says. If you are interested, here is my experience as a male married to a La Leche level breastfeeding, co-sleeping, unschooling homeschooler, attachment parenting wife. Not trying to argue for any of it as positive or negative, although we've had a good experience overall.

    1. To do all of the above, it really helps if the mother is stay at home
    2. Breast feeding is far more convenient, even for the mother
    2a. If you breast feed, feed on demand. The kids with self regulate their feeding.
    3. Be ready for sore nipples if you do item #2 and trust it will fade after a couple of weeks
    3a. Like going to the gym, having a team mate nursing alongside you helps push past the pain
    4. Co-sleeping is much easier than it sounds from outside the situation
    5. The mother gets much more sleep with co-sleeping and the male (assuming the male works and mother stays home) also gets more sleep, which allows for better functioning of outside the home activities aggregated over the family unit
    6. Attachment parenting means something different to every person who "follows" it, but everyone believes they are doing it "correctly"
    7. Don't listen to anyone besides your spouse for parenting advice (including this list!). Sincerity is what matters when raising the kid, not technique. Even being sincerely angry.
    8. Trust that your kid will probably turn out fine no matter how many mistakes are made.
    9. It is OK to be furious with your child when it won't stop screaming. If you feel yourself trapped and needing to react physically, always put the child in a safe place and walk away for a few minutes to calm down. It is normal.
    10. Physical discipline is never required
    11. Sometimes physical discipline sneaks out in stressful situations, even when you don't believe in it
    12. Homeschooling is a ton of work
    13. Homeschooling provides much more freedom for everyone in the family
    14. Unschooling works well when children are younger but as they get older it works less well
    15. There are zero "socialization" problems with homeschooling with even a minimal amount of effort.

    Most of all, enjoy!

    That’s impressive that your wife is La Leche level breastfeeding. Sounds like you guys have your method down. Thanks for the list–no. 9 is something I occasionally hear from women in quiet, ashamed tones. My sister jokingly asked her husband to change the lock to the gun safe (which he did, not totally confident it was a joke). She said the crying can be unbearable. I’ll definitely read up more on co-sleeping.

    I am sympathetic to homeschoolers, and would do it if the public schools were lousy (pace Cochran). We’re planning on moving to Seattle where there are great public schools in the city. I’m going to take time off work for some childbearing years, but want to go back eventually. I’m finishing my PhD and hate the idea of not using a degree I’ve poured so much time and sweat into.

  144. I’m all for breast feeding but is is too big even for the Donut.

  145. @Dahlia
    It would be nice to hear his take, but I think years of trolls and enemies have taken their toll and he's more buttoned up now.
    I do remember once or twice he politely tried to get across how difficult it is for women to lose weight after babies, and he kept getting shouted down with, "But breastfeeding! But exercise!"

    lol. my postpartum weight loss plan is breastfeeding, veganism, and cross fit.

  146. @The Practical Conservative
    The fish oil fad is interesting, it was popular in the 1920s as well. I researched and found it wasn't useful, so didn't with my pregnancies. I just ate "paleo" as that seemed to be the food I could keep down reliably. Meat, fruit, vegetables, tubers as the main starch.

    It's easy to refuse an epidural if you don't do most of your laboring in the hospital, but having one won't necessarily make it impossible to labor without a c-section. Hope you have an easy delivery!

    Yeah, I dunno. My OB/GYN recommended omega 3 supplementation. I was vegan/vegetarian before getting pregnant, and I’m temporarily eating a pescatarian diet for the baby. I read enough literature on nutrition and pregnancy to convince me that I should probably get more fish-sourced omega 3’s. For instance, a 2008 literature review in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology discusses a number of studies on omega 3’s and randomized clinical trials in which some women were given marine oil supplements (high in omega 3/DHA) and others given vegetable oil supplements (high in omega-6). In one study, researchers measure the cognitive processing of children four years later and concluded that those whose mothers were eating fish/marine oil supplements scored higher. In another study, children were evaluated at 2.5 years of age, and the fish oil group had higher hand eye coordination than the vegetable oil group. Maybe it’s BS, but I didn’t want to risk it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2621042/

    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    Well, I don't have ancestry from cultures that consumed a lot of marine oils, so I think I'm good. My kids, especially my firstborn, have top 1% levels of hand-eye coordination. My kids are superpowered, high IQ, high physical grace and athleticism, exceptionally good looking, the whole nine.

    I'm a "crunchy conservative" hippie (we live in the bio-region that contains Seattle and go there from time to time), so I stick with the old standbys and get my nutrients from food and sunshine, using bone broths and stocks as my supplements.

    If you are moving up to Seattle, it's in a region that is underpopulated by probably an order of magnitude and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. I do enjoy knowing that there's plenty of everything even with all the hand flapping over the salmon.

    Oh, speaking of resource management, one of the other reasons I bailed on fish oils is that they involve harvesting low on the food chain, killing off multiple higher levels of fish and predators and damaging ecosystems. Better to eat the salmon now and again and some broth made from the carcass if I really want oil from fish. It's also why we support grassfed lamb and goat, much more sustainable to farm over the long haul if there's global cooling which is what we seem most likely to get, less so if we ever do get that global warming (but still a pretty great deal).
    , @Formerly CARealist
    Uptown, you are way too Uptight. Relax and be yourself through all this. Just use good common sense about your diet and exercise; the weight will come off on its own. Especially if you're under 35.

    Homeschooling rocks! Once you start teaching the little ones to read and do math and memorize stuff you'll be totally hooked. Pre-school is a waste of time and money. You can teach your kids far more in much less time. I taught all mine to read from ages 3 1/2 to 4. By age 6 they knew their multiplication tables. I don't say this to brag, only to inspire you to take on the challenge and enjoy the ride.
  147. @Fake Herzog
    OT: I visited Grand Rapids for the first time this past summer with the family. We had a delightful time -- our trip was designed to go see the Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park which were magnificent:

    http://www.meijergardens.org/

    Meijer made his money with his grocery/home stores and he put it to good use in your medium-sized city. That was a world-class attraction in the middle of northern Michigan -- you don't expect something like that to be there. I still tell everyone I know in Chicago to go check it out.

    Grand Rapids has a lot going on for it. The Meijer Gardens are beautiful. It’s cool that they did the Da Vinci horse.

    It’s very conservative, but in a weird religious way that drives me nuts. And the suburbanization is just unbelievable.

  148. As to the old left bugaboo “evolution”, some on the right accept the theory, some don’t, there is by no means any unanimity on the subject. But the truth is, how much does it matter to 99% of the world whether evolution is fact or fiction? Does it effect an architect’s drawings or mason’s brick wall? Does it matter to the farmer or the pilot? It’s a minor theory of little importance outside of atheist zealots and biblical literalists.

    Exactly!

  149. I do remember once or twice he politely tried to get across how difficult it is for women to lose weight after babies, and he kept getting shouted down with, “But breastfeeding! But exercise!”

    Everyone is different. For some, the weight just falls off with no effort. Others are more or less stuck with the weight.

    Also, some kids just pop out with little pain or trouble, but most births are the opposite.

  150. Little Peggy March backed up by four matrons and two diabetics with heart disease , professionals all.

  151. @Hepp

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it’s not clear whether we’re going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100.

     

    It depends on whether those people are productive or parasitic. Every human life is another "mouth to feed," and people who worry about population control only focus on that. They do not realize that individuals are potentially productive. There's no indication we're running out of food. The population grows and we get fatter and fatter.

    For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It’s like Roman and lead all over again.
     
    Life expectancy has been going up, as has height, and, until very recently, IQ. You can look at individual diseases that have increased like autism, but standard of life has gone up with increases in population, since the industrial revolution.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)
     
    "Long term sustainable" is not a scientific concept. What's sustainable doesn't just depend on numbers alone. It also depends on the state of technology and the productivity of citizens. At a certain level of development, 5 million people in the world might not be "sustainable." Today, we have 7 billion and on every indication of quality of life things are getting better globally (China and India in particular).

    Environmentalists make the mistake of believing that the earth is a sort of benevolent mother, that gives us what we need as long as we don't disturb it too much. In reality, the story of progress is humans bettering their environment by gaining a greater mastery of nature. There is no indication anywhere that we've reached some natural limit.

    Dysgenic fertility is certainly a problem. But the number of people is not. I recommend this video, which is not directly relevant but exposes the errors in environmentalist thinking.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DElBMdy3WUc

    There are two main questions when it comes to population:

    (1) how many people can the earth support? How many people can the USA support for the longterm?

    (2) how many people can the earth/USA support while maintaining a desirable living standard for most people, without driving other species to extinction, without generally ravaging and insulting the environment, etc.?

    I don’t doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth’s natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?

    And shouldn’t we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn’t there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA? How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc

    My main problems with overpopulation are not the feasibility–I don’t know enough about the future of fossil fuel extraction or agriculture to guess how many people the earth can support. My problems are with the effects of overpopulation that we deal with already. Crowded cities, pollution, traffic, dysgenic population, ugly sprawl, abuse of farm animals, widespread poverty, etc etc etc

    • Replies: @donut
    Population will be brought under control , it just won't be on our terms.
    , @Hepp

    I don’t doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth’s natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?
     
    Why not? That's what we've been doing since we were apes. Except the obesity part, which we should deal with.

    And shouldn’t we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn’t there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA?
     
    "Ideal population" depends on the state of technology. We have no idea what the state of technology will be in 100 years. And how productive our people are depends on their genetic qualities. But with increased technology and a productive population, I don't believe that there's a natural limit we can predict. You're just throwing out terms like "ideal population" as if the world gives us an X amount of resources to divide up, when that's not how history has worked. It's the liberal/environmentalist view of economics, which simply misunderstands what's going on.

    Once we start genetic engineering, the pace of innovation will exceed what it's been the last few centuries and life will continue to get better for people, if we can be bothered to create them.

    How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc
     
    I'm also worried about factory farms. It's a bad thing, but a separate issue from how humans are doing. Eventually, I'm hopeful we'll be able to grow meat in test tubes.
    , @Melendwyr
    "Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is true of humans in the infinite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is of gas molecules sealed in a flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive."

    Frank Herbert, Dune

    Our comfortable lifestyles were made possible by burning through a variety of resources far faster than they could be replaced, when they could be replaced at all. One way or another, it's not going to last.
  152. from the 70’s

    Bibi addresses congress :

  153. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The right lies about global warming and evolution (except the dissident right) too.

    Every human being believes what they want to. The question is which set of lies you think is most dangerous.”

    What I really don’t understand is why we have to believe anything about issues such as global warming (and a lot of others). Our belief about a lot of these things should be “don’t really know”. Could be, might not be, we need to keep looking no matter which way it is, so keep working on it… I think Heinlein put it as “insufficient data”.

    It’s been said that the better the scientist, the better the ability to tolerate ambiguity.

    It might be a better world if a lot of people could tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty better. But of course they trigger anxiety, so people try to avoid that.

  154. On the other hand:

  155. Cryptogenic [AKA "Mr. Zeepie"] says:
    @Anonymous
    Modern science is based on Cartesian and Kantian subjectivist metaphysics. "Transcendental subjectivity" is not anti-science at all, but arguably the culmination of the Cartesian metaphysics that undergirds modern science. Neither Marxism nor the Frankfurt School deviates from this basic metaphysical view.

    Dasein would be the modern philosophical concept that departs from this metaphysical stance. A Heideggerian Continental philosopher wouldn't say neuroscience is "immoral". He'd say it's naive, wrong, etc.

    Modern science and subjectivist metaphysics predominate, including among most contemporary liberals, leftists, relativists, etc. Genuine Heideggerian historicists are rare. In this respect, the analytic philosophers, the objecti-oriented ontologists, and the speculative realists are in the same camp with the relativists, liberals, leftists.

    Thanks for the great reply. I think I get what you mean overall.

    Meillassoux sees Heidegger — at least the later Heidegger — as essentially Kantian. The gist of “After Finitude” is that all modern thought since Kant views existence as a correlate of the subject lest it fall into dogmatic realism (Cartesianism). He draws a line between Cartesian dogmatism and Kantian correlationism, as he calls it. What throws a monkey wrench in this correlationism is the ability of science today to detect and think objects that existed before human subjects and so before givenness as such. A sort of reactivation of Cartesianism.

    None of this set in stone, of course, but I do find the OOO and speculative realist guys to be very interesting, at least as far as I understand them. And I like Nick Land and Thomas Metzinger for the record.

    Off the top of your head can you give me some names and titles of the Heidegger studies or Heideggerian thinkers you have in mind? Is Dugin one of them?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Husserl's Logical Investigations, Cartesian Meditations, Crisis of the European Sciences. Bergson and Merleau-Ponty are also good for phenomenology. Husserl and phenomenology are critical for understanding Heidegger and 20th cent. Continental philosophy more generally. Heidegger's lectures called History of the Concept of Time are a good intro to early Heidegger and Being and Time and can substitute if you don't want to get into Being and Time. Read William Richardson's book on Heidegger and Thomas Sheehan's books on Heidegger. They represent the two dominant camps in American and English language Heidegger studies.
  156. Yeah, even though there are a fair few women posting (hi!) here, it’s a pretty male zone and always has been. And separate from that, a lot of men just don’t get the implications of women being biologically different than men. For all the talk here about loving traditional gender roles, a lot of men seem resistant to the traditional “fat and forty” that is very common cross-culturally to mothers once the kids get older. Having kids has always been a risk to a woman’s figure and sexual appeal, this is one of the reasons marriage is supposed to be for life.

    Some women do all right having kids young and snapping right back, but it’s hardly some kind of guarantee even if you eat clean and exercise a lot.

    More on topic, nearly everyone is so isolated these days nobody really remembers how childrearing was done by their various ethnic traditions so whatever comes out in cheesy articles is going to be misleading at best and poisonous at worst.

    • Replies: @donut
    Give me your tired, your plump ,
    Your fat and forty , yearning to breath free,
    The sexy old plumpers of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest tost chubbies to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
  157. @Uptown Resident
    There are two main questions when it comes to population:

    (1) how many people can the earth support? How many people can the USA support for the longterm?

    (2) how many people can the earth/USA support while maintaining a desirable living standard for most people, without driving other species to extinction, without generally ravaging and insulting the environment, etc.?

    I don't doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth's natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?

    And shouldn't we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn't there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA? How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc

    My main problems with overpopulation are not the feasibility--I don't know enough about the future of fossil fuel extraction or agriculture to guess how many people the earth can support. My problems are with the effects of overpopulation that we deal with already. Crowded cities, pollution, traffic, dysgenic population, ugly sprawl, abuse of farm animals, widespread poverty, etc etc etc

    Population will be brought under control , it just won’t be on our terms.

  158. @Uptown Resident
    Yeah, I dunno. My OB/GYN recommended omega 3 supplementation. I was vegan/vegetarian before getting pregnant, and I'm temporarily eating a pescatarian diet for the baby. I read enough literature on nutrition and pregnancy to convince me that I should probably get more fish-sourced omega 3's. For instance, a 2008 literature review in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology discusses a number of studies on omega 3's and randomized clinical trials in which some women were given marine oil supplements (high in omega 3/DHA) and others given vegetable oil supplements (high in omega-6). In one study, researchers measure the cognitive processing of children four years later and concluded that those whose mothers were eating fish/marine oil supplements scored higher. In another study, children were evaluated at 2.5 years of age, and the fish oil group had higher hand eye coordination than the vegetable oil group. Maybe it's BS, but I didn't want to risk it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2621042/

    Well, I don’t have ancestry from cultures that consumed a lot of marine oils, so I think I’m good. My kids, especially my firstborn, have top 1% levels of hand-eye coordination. My kids are superpowered, high IQ, high physical grace and athleticism, exceptionally good looking, the whole nine.

    I’m a “crunchy conservative” hippie (we live in the bio-region that contains Seattle and go there from time to time), so I stick with the old standbys and get my nutrients from food and sunshine, using bone broths and stocks as my supplements.

    If you are moving up to Seattle, it’s in a region that is underpopulated by probably an order of magnitude and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon. I do enjoy knowing that there’s plenty of everything even with all the hand flapping over the salmon.

    Oh, speaking of resource management, one of the other reasons I bailed on fish oils is that they involve harvesting low on the food chain, killing off multiple higher levels of fish and predators and damaging ecosystems. Better to eat the salmon now and again and some broth made from the carcass if I really want oil from fish. It’s also why we support grassfed lamb and goat, much more sustainable to farm over the long haul if there’s global cooling which is what we seem most likely to get, less so if we ever do get that global warming (but still a pretty great deal).

  159. @The Practical Conservative
    Yeah, even though there are a fair few women posting (hi!) here, it's a pretty male zone and always has been. And separate from that, a lot of men just don't get the implications of women being biologically different than men. For all the talk here about loving traditional gender roles, a lot of men seem resistant to the traditional "fat and forty" that is very common cross-culturally to mothers once the kids get older. Having kids has always been a risk to a woman's figure and sexual appeal, this is one of the reasons marriage is supposed to be for life.

    Some women do all right having kids young and snapping right back, but it's hardly some kind of guarantee even if you eat clean and exercise a lot.

    More on topic, nearly everyone is so isolated these days nobody really remembers how childrearing was done by their various ethnic traditions so whatever comes out in cheesy articles is going to be misleading at best and poisonous at worst.

    Give me your tired, your plump ,
    Your fat and forty , yearning to breath free,
    The sexy old plumpers of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest tost chubbies to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

  160. BTW here’s Mary Magdalene from Jesus Christ Superstar , different song same theme :

  161. “More on topic, nearly everyone is so isolated these days nobody really remembers how childrearing was done by their various ethnic traditions so whatever comes out in cheesy articles is going to be misleading at best and poisonous at worst.”

    Most moderns wouldn’t go old school even if it was available because it would require a downshift in lifestyle. You aren’t going to tell a young professional couple they can’t have a pair of matching Mercedes in the drive way of their McMansion. Material wealth and bragging rights come first, even if means wifey’s eggs dry up and they adopt a Haitian kid that doubles as a doorstop, so wifey doesn’t freak out and OD on Prozac and Vodka for making stupid life decisions.

    From what I’ve seen what most do in terms of child rearing is let other people do it. First they put the kid in daycare, then pre-school then 1st grade. In short out-source it. Then when the tyke comes home, they’ll get it addicted to Ipods and the TV with function as a babysitter until mom and dad come home between 6-9 PM, just in time to put junior to bed.

    If they have money, they’ll have a illegal alien nanny and probably a manny to do most of the raising. Intelligent white people just don’t have time for their children and I suspect many don’t even like them given how much effort they put at not raising their own kid(s).

    They just aren’t into the family thing at all.

  162. @Uptown Resident
    There are two main questions when it comes to population:

    (1) how many people can the earth support? How many people can the USA support for the longterm?

    (2) how many people can the earth/USA support while maintaining a desirable living standard for most people, without driving other species to extinction, without generally ravaging and insulting the environment, etc.?

    I don't doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth's natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?

    And shouldn't we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn't there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA? How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc

    My main problems with overpopulation are not the feasibility--I don't know enough about the future of fossil fuel extraction or agriculture to guess how many people the earth can support. My problems are with the effects of overpopulation that we deal with already. Crowded cities, pollution, traffic, dysgenic population, ugly sprawl, abuse of farm animals, widespread poverty, etc etc etc

    I don’t doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth’s natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?

    Why not? That’s what we’ve been doing since we were apes. Except the obesity part, which we should deal with.

    And shouldn’t we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn’t there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA?

    “Ideal population” depends on the state of technology. We have no idea what the state of technology will be in 100 years. And how productive our people are depends on their genetic qualities. But with increased technology and a productive population, I don’t believe that there’s a natural limit we can predict. You’re just throwing out terms like “ideal population” as if the world gives us an X amount of resources to divide up, when that’s not how history has worked. It’s the liberal/environmentalist view of economics, which simply misunderstands what’s going on.

    Once we start genetic engineering, the pace of innovation will exceed what it’s been the last few centuries and life will continue to get better for people, if we can be bothered to create them.

    How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc

    I’m also worried about factory farms. It’s a bad thing, but a separate issue from how humans are doing. Eventually, I’m hopeful we’ll be able to grow meat in test tubes.

  163. My main problems with overpopulation are not the feasibility–I don’t know enough about the future of fossil fuel extraction or agriculture to guess how many people the earth can support. My problems are with the effects of overpopulation that we deal with already. Crowded cities,

    “Crowded cities” is a matter of urban planning, not how many people are in the world.

    pollution,

    Would you believe that the United States has cleaner air and water than it did 50 years ago? Economic growth creates the resources and will to deal with pollution. And a larger population means more wealth to deal with these issues.

    traffic,

    Once again, a problem of urban planning, not too many or too few people in the world.

    dysgenic population,

    Quantity and quality are different issues. I also worry about dysgenic, but the problem is not too many people, just too many parasitic people.

    ugly sprawl,

    Once again, a matter of urban planning. Some people actually like what others call urban sprawl. But the country is big enough for all kinds of different communities.

    abuse of farm animals,

    I agree with that one, see post above.

    widespread poverty,

    What we call “poverty” today is a quality of life that would make a Roman emperor gasp. And we’ve undergone a massive decrease in poverty over the last few decades, despite the increase in population.

  164. @Jack D
    That's not quite it. I think that parents, who are spending their own resources (unlike the government) have an instinctive feel for which investments are likely to pay off. If you have a kid with a lot of potential, you will lavish a lot of attention on him so that he (or she) can reach that full potential. If you have a mule, there's no point in pampering him like a racehorse. Note that this has little to do with parental wealth (nor does attention mean spoiling). In American, immigrant Asian families (and before them Jews) do not turn their little future gastroenterologists and biochemists out into the street to play with knives but keep them inside doing math problems and giving them violin lessons.

    The government of course is not spending its own money and doesn't give a damn and will spend the same amount (or more) "educating" the ineducable the same as the promising.

    Or is it just a brainbug whereby rich, high IQ parents have very few children – who would have been successful regardless of hothousing – leading to their replacement over time by low IQ children of parents who don’t bother to think ahead?

  165. Did someone say ‘Circassian’?

  166. @Uptown Resident
    Very interesting. Helpful picture. It certainly makes sense, from a sleep and feeding POV. I'm gonna pitch it to my husband and see how it goes over.

    One quite possibly effective way to get Dad on board with the sidecarred-crib idea is, HE will get more sleep, as you won’t need to be turning on all the houselights several times a night as you’re stumbling down the hall to the baby nursery.

    Best wishes to you! and THANK YOU to you and your husband for becoming a Mom and Dad. Young people are pulled in so many directions and raising the next generation is so, sadly, undervalued today. Well, us White Nationalists appreciate you, at least!

  167. @Rich
    There has been no global warming since the late 1990's. That's a fact, sorry. You want to argue about pollution or genetic engineering, okay, but "global warming" or "climate change" is just an elitist scam to make the sellers of carbon credits more cash. As to the old left bugaboo "evolution", some on the right accept the theory, some don't, there is by no means any unanimity on the subject. But the truth is, how much does it matter to 99% of the world whether evolution is fact or fiction? Does it effect an architect's drawings or mason's brick wall? Does it matter to the farmer or the pilot? It's a minor theory of little importance outside of atheist zealots and biblical literalists.

    I was pretty much making your second argument with ‘whichever set of lies you believe is the most dangerous’. Do need to know about evolution to understand drug resistance though.

    Anyway, you can always pick your time point to make it look like there’s no warming, but overall temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. I think even Derb’s caved on this one–as he says, ‘some things are true even if the Party says they are’.

    I hope he’s still alive.

  168. Cosleeping is extremely common in Japan. I don’t know the figures, but I think it is actually the cultural norm, it is described as “kawa noji”, which means “river character”, the Japanese kanji for river.

    And this cosleeping goes on to an age that would probably considered wildly inappropriate, if not getting one’s kids taken away by CPS in the U.S.

    So are other levels of intimacy between children/parents. Somewhat famously, the Dad bathing/horseplaying in the bathtub with his daughters in Miyazaki’s “My Neighbor Totoro” caused some “concerns” among some when it was released in the U.S.

    Anyhow, I went along with this program and my observation is that cosleeping+breastfeeding reduces baby hassles to a real minimum. Baby wakes up in the middle of the night a little thirsty/hungry, makes for the milk bar, the barmaid barely awakens, Dad remains completely oblivious. I don’t recall any chronic sleep deprivation on anyone’s part.

    Even though many/most people sleep in western style beds now, I think the comfort with these practices stems from the futon tradition, where the better part of a tatami room floor is turned into a general sleeping area for the family without distinct subdivisions between each individual’s space. It really is sort of like camping out. Seemed to work out for us and I don’t hear about much controversy over the customs in Japan, which, like a lot of stuff here, has been going on for centuries and is seemingly “settled”, to use a term now in vogue.

  169. @Uptown Resident
    I thought the same thing. I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.

    I get the sense that the Manosphere actually attracts a lot of insecure striver types who have had a hard time forming good longterm relationships with women.

    The “manosphere” fulfills a need because courtship rites and mating rituals are not doing the trick for a significant portion of the population.

    Characterizing the males within that portion of the population as “insecure strive types” is tendentious, but not unfair: The point of life is to have children, and so those who are not successful along those lines, are striving and insecure, in their life accomplishments and status.

    But who would you expect to be at the table, when the topic for discussion is how to get women?

    Your obvious observation is mocked for being obvious.

    In its better moments, the manopshere would address, as its topic, the health of the next generation.

    The physical and social environment of this civilization is selecting for androgynes. That is no good; but on the other hand, who is willing to throw their baby off a cliff?

  170. “Professor Lancy calls the American way of doing pick when green a “neontocracy,” in which adults provide services to relatively few children who are considered priceless, even though they’re useless.”

    What a rotten misanthrope is this guy. Does he think that a seed, which one day might grow into a bountiful fruit tree, is useless because it will not feed him today?

  171. @Uptown Resident
    Yeah, I dunno. My OB/GYN recommended omega 3 supplementation. I was vegan/vegetarian before getting pregnant, and I'm temporarily eating a pescatarian diet for the baby. I read enough literature on nutrition and pregnancy to convince me that I should probably get more fish-sourced omega 3's. For instance, a 2008 literature review in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology discusses a number of studies on omega 3's and randomized clinical trials in which some women were given marine oil supplements (high in omega 3/DHA) and others given vegetable oil supplements (high in omega-6). In one study, researchers measure the cognitive processing of children four years later and concluded that those whose mothers were eating fish/marine oil supplements scored higher. In another study, children were evaluated at 2.5 years of age, and the fish oil group had higher hand eye coordination than the vegetable oil group. Maybe it's BS, but I didn't want to risk it.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2621042/

    Uptown, you are way too Uptight. Relax and be yourself through all this. Just use good common sense about your diet and exercise; the weight will come off on its own. Especially if you’re under 35.

    Homeschooling rocks! Once you start teaching the little ones to read and do math and memorize stuff you’ll be totally hooked. Pre-school is a waste of time and money. You can teach your kids far more in much less time. I taught all mine to read from ages 3 1/2 to 4. By age 6 they knew their multiplication tables. I don’t say this to brag, only to inspire you to take on the challenge and enjoy the ride.

  172. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @whorefinder
    Weird how it all happened right after Vatican II, amirite? What a weird coincidence!

    And, of course, the Catholic Church losing a tremendous amount of earthly power/control did not serve anyone's interests, understand? Anyone who claims there was a determined, radical plot to destroy the church by agents of influence is just a paranoid delusional.

    And even it is plain that it served someone's interests, just because such groups have a history of infiltrating organizations and destroying them from within and just because such a destruction would be in their interests does not mean you can ever investigate or hypothesize or even imply a possible connection here, you nutty conspiracy theorist you!

    And even it is plain that it served someone’s interests, just because such groups have a history of infiltrating organizations and destroying them from within and just because such a

    Talkin’ ’bout Jews? Here? Not surprised. Yawner.

    We certainly didn’t infiltrate the RC church from within.

    I think the problem with the RC Church is that most of its adherents hate it. Most of my friends are lapsed RCs.

    Or are you talking about gays?

  173. I dunno, would anthropology really be a better field if its participants spent more time ranking cultures and being critical of them? I realize that the field has turned itself into a joke in recent years but for some time before that it actually generated a lot of interesting information. The idea behind treating all cultures as equally interesting wasn’t to assert in some world-defining fashion that all cultures ARE indeed equally valuable; it was a way to generate fair-minded, sympathetic looks at often baffling cultures. Try to understand them on their own terms; try to get inside their heads; try to grant them their own premises; and see what you come up with. If after that information is out there, other people want to rank cultures by one criterion or another, fine … but judging and ranking wasn’t really anthropology’s proper role. Should a scientist studying sea lions spend a lot of his time being critical of and ranking that species? Or would we all be better off if he tried to make sense of the species and left the ranking game to others? For myself, I don’t think the “all cultures are equally interesting” stance is a mistake at all where the study of other cultures goes; I think the mistake is in taking that stance and turning it into a topdown PC ideal for life generally.

    FWIW, and vaguely related: a really fun and brainy book I read recently. It’s about everything a traditional anthropologist encounters and finds out but that usually gets left out of the dissertations and official books, and it’s as entertaining and witty a performance as a P.G. Wodehouse novel. It’s maybe a propos that the author has, since writing the book, left the anthropology field.

    No idea why the text linked to Amazon ended up all in caps, but whatever.

  174. SaILER SAYS:

    Book blurb says:
    Yet through factoids and analysis, he demonstrates something that American parents desperately need to hear: Children are raised in all sorts of ways, and they all turn out just fine.

    Sailer is right to point out the dubious nature of the above claim if applied as a blanket statement in support for “anything goes” parenting.

    I took a larger point from all this — namely that humans have a tremendous capacity for living inside their culture and accepting those arrangements as natural, and finding other arrangements weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.
    If this is a “liberal” statement for anything goes parenting, it fails. Presumably white liberals don’t find aborting millions of babies every year as “weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.”

    Cultural anthropology is striking for its aversion to critical thinking. One of the weirder aspects is that every cultural group is treated as equally informative.
    Dubious. Sailer is quite misinformed about anthropology, cultural or otherwise. There is plenty of “critical thinking” involved. And cultural anthro has its ideologues like every other field, but it recognized long ago that it has an obligation to render as accurate and neutral a description of actual data collected, rather than overlay basic data collection with propaganda. This is in stark contrast to the HBD approach which applies propaganda categories first, then tries to forcibly shoehorn data into those dubious categories.

    But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.
    Laughable. Cultural anthropologists render as far as possible an accurate description of the phenomena under study, whether it be kinship patterns, or religious beliefs. What counts is data, not propaganda claims about whether what “barely” compares to something else. Comparison is going on all the time. This is obvious to any high school sophomore who opens a textbook that discusses cultural anthro. He would learn for example how Margaret Mead, for all her good work in the field, distorted some of the peoples she studies because of inaccurate assumptions and ideological blinders.

    In other words, children tend to die in large numbers, so why get all sentimental over them? Of course, this is partly self-fulfilling.

    A fair observation but if callous disregard of children is in view, white Westerners abort millions every year as a matter of convenience. Asiatics are role models here as well. White Russia is the leader ins such things, aborting two white children for each live birth.

    Grey Enlighten says:
    The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it’s actually the left, in their denial of the science they don’t agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true ‘creationists’. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.
    ^^Keep in mind that the data of Ron Unz himself has debunked several aspects of IQ and wealth of nations.

    Hanging judge says:
    Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don’t depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.
    Actually nurture can trump nature easily. Success for either factor depends on particular circumstances at particular times rather than simplistic “nature is all” claims.

    Carol says:
    I hate that false equivalence of cultures. PBS is rife with it. It’s hard to find good old first-world tourism shows most the international programming is forever dwelling on the plight of hapless negroes in Africa or latinos in Central America. And then to blight the musical world, there’s World Music. No I don’t put cajon-beating or Peruvian flute tooting up there with Horowitz or Bird. I just don’t.
    It is obvious you don’t have a clue about what plays on PBS and are only repeating standard right wing talking points. PBS has plenty of programming on “first-world tourism” – whether it be Rome, Venice, Canada, the British Isles etc etc. And “international programming” has long been dominated by things dealing with Britain and the British, like the classic “Masterpiece theater” and many others.

    Jack D says:
    I think that parents, who are spending their own resources (unlike the government) have an instinctive feel for which investments are likely to pay off. If you have a kid with a lot of potential, you will lavish a lot of attention on him so that he (or she) can reach that full potential.
    Indeed. This actually makes sense.

    Zeepei says:
    Object-oriented ontology and speculative realism are two trends outside of purely analytic philosophy making strong arguments against the dominant view that relegates science to second-tier status.
    In what way does the dominant view relegate science to second-tier status? Give a concrete example. To the contrary, many leftie liberals are quite boosterish on science. Indeed, “science” or what can be argues as science provides a handy club to bash traditional religion and traditional cultural mores.

    • Replies: @Cryptogenic
    Rather than point to one or two concrete examples, I'd rather point at the field of critical theory in general. What I mean by second-tier status is that philosophy, properly understand in the Kantian/Heideggerian sense, posits no being the way a positive science does. In science, the Cartesian present-at-hand is privileged over the phenomenological "world" that is prior to any regional science. And so philosophy is ahead of science, as it should be. The point is, the Continental/phenomenological tradition brought us ontologies of race ("it doesn't exist"), social constructs, postmodern relativism, and so on. Of course the average leftist likes science -- so far as it goes for him.
  175. Cryptogenic [AKA "Me. Zeepie"] says:
    @Enrique Cardova
    SaILER SAYS:

    Book blurb says:
    Yet through factoids and analysis, he demonstrates something that American parents desperately need to hear: Children are raised in all sorts of ways, and they all turn out just fine.

    Sailer is right to point out the dubious nature of the above claim if applied as a blanket statement in support for "anything goes" parenting.


    I took a larger point from all this — namely that humans have a tremendous capacity for living inside their culture and accepting those arrangements as natural, and finding other arrangements weird, unnatural, even abhorrent.
    If this is a "liberal" statement for anything goes parenting, it fails. Presumably white liberals don't find aborting millions of babies every year as "weird, unnatural, even abhorrent."


    Cultural anthropology is striking for its aversion to critical thinking. One of the weirder aspects is that every cultural group is treated as equally informative.
    Dubious. Sailer is quite misinformed about anthropology, cultural or otherwise. There is plenty of "critical thinking" involved. And cultural anthro has its ideologues like every other field, but it recognized long ago that it has an obligation to render as accurate and neutral a description of actual data collected, rather than overlay basic data collection with propaganda. This is in stark contrast to the HBD approach which applies propaganda categories first, then tries to forcibly shoehorn data into those dubious categories.


    But to an anthropologist, the Chinese barely compare to the Trobriand Islanders, the Nuer, and the Yanomamo.
    Laughable. Cultural anthropologists render as far as possible an accurate description of the phenomena under study, whether it be kinship patterns, or religious beliefs. What counts is data, not propaganda claims about whether what "barely" compares to something else. Comparison is going on all the time. This is obvious to any high school sophomore who opens a textbook that discusses cultural anthro. He would learn for example how Margaret Mead, for all her good work in the field, distorted some of the peoples she studies because of inaccurate assumptions and ideological blinders.


    In other words, children tend to die in large numbers, so why get all sentimental over them? Of course, this is partly self-fulfilling.

    A fair observation but if callous disregard of children is in view, white Westerners abort millions every year as a matter of convenience. Asiatics are role models here as well. White Russia is the leader ins such things, aborting two white children for each live birth.


    Grey Enlighten says:
    The left often accuses the right of being anti-science, but it’s actually the left, in their denial of the science they don’t agree with, such as IQ and the wealth of nations, who are the true ‘creationists’. The left, in an abuse of scientific protocol, has to make up a narrative that agrees wit their preconceived biases, instead of changing their biases with the introduction of data.
    ^^Keep in mind that the data of Ron Unz himself has debunked several aspects of IQ and wealth of nations.

    Hanging judge says:
    Have you considered that this work actually supports your thesis?

    Outcomes don’t depend much on nurture because nature tends to trump nurture.

    Actually nurture can trump nature easily. Success for either factor depends on particular circumstances at particular times rather than simplistic "nature is all" claims.


    Carol says:
    I hate that false equivalence of cultures. PBS is rife with it. It’s hard to find good old first-world tourism shows most the international programming is forever dwelling on the plight of hapless negroes in Africa or latinos in Central America. And then to blight the musical world, there’s World Music. No I don’t put cajon-beating or Peruvian flute tooting up there with Horowitz or Bird. I just don’t.
    It is obvious you don't have a clue about what plays on PBS and are only repeating standard right wing talking points. PBS has plenty of programming on "first-world tourism" - whether it be Rome, Venice, Canada, the British Isles etc etc. And "international programming" has long been dominated by things dealing with Britain and the British, like the classic "Masterpiece theater" and many others.


    Jack D says:
    I think that parents, who are spending their own resources (unlike the government) have an instinctive feel for which investments are likely to pay off. If you have a kid with a lot of potential, you will lavish a lot of attention on him so that he (or she) can reach that full potential.
    Indeed. This actually makes sense.


    Zeepei says:
    Object-oriented ontology and speculative realism are two trends outside of purely analytic philosophy making strong arguments against the dominant view that relegates science to second-tier status.
    In what way does the dominant view relegate science to second-tier status? Give a concrete example. To the contrary, many leftie liberals are quite boosterish on science. Indeed, "science" or what can be argues as science provides a handy club to bash traditional religion and traditional cultural mores.

    Rather than point to one or two concrete examples, I’d rather point at the field of critical theory in general. What I mean by second-tier status is that philosophy, properly understand in the Kantian/Heideggerian sense, posits no being the way a positive science does. In science, the Cartesian present-at-hand is privileged over the phenomenological “world” that is prior to any regional science. And so philosophy is ahead of science, as it should be. The point is, the Continental/phenomenological tradition brought us ontologies of race (“it doesn’t exist”), social constructs, postmodern relativism, and so on. Of course the average leftist likes science — so far as it goes for him.

  176. @Uptown Resident
    Birth rates were more or less equal to death rates for all of human history, until the 1800s, when productivity finally launched us out of the Malthusian economy. Is that a good thing?

    On the one hand, people like to hook up and have a lot of babies. And those who don't like to have a lot of babies really want to protect the rights of more Fecund Peoples to have a lot of babies. There's a lot of cheap fuel and land, we've figured out how to industrialize agriculture, and the only real losers in this situation--the billions of domesticated animals dying in factory farms and wild animals dying from loss of habitat--can't complain.

    On the other hand, population growth is exponential and it's not clear whether we're going to be able to feed, say, 4 billion Africans, or 10 billion humans, projected for 2100. There's also the quality of life index. I mean, as commenters are always pointing out all over the Internet: overpopulation isn't a problem because we could fit the entire human population in the state of Texas! Problem solved! But is the goal to maximize population, or to maximize quality of life? We're ravaging and polluting a lot of really nice places on earth, and no one really knows what the externalities are going to be. For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism. It's like Roman and lead all over again.

    So, I might reformulate your question: how many of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will be poor and autistic because we assisted third word fertility, opened our borders to millions of immigrants, and otherwise failed to bring our population to a longterm sustainable size? (For the USA, the sustainable population size is often said to be around 50 million, about what it was in the late 1800s.)

    “For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism.”

    Is autism actually increasing? Or is it just getting diagnosed more often? Is it like the fake ADHD epidemic?

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Urban schools have been getting around No Child Left Behind testing mandates by giving their worst-performing black students IQ tests and designating those who score under 75 as "autistic." (And therefore in special ed and excluded from the standardized testing pool).
  177. @dfordoom
    "For instance, the more I worryingly read about autism, the more I read about connections between various pollutants (diesel exhaust, air particulate, various chemicals and hormones in everything) and autism."

    Is autism actually increasing? Or is it just getting diagnosed more often? Is it like the fake ADHD epidemic?

    Urban schools have been getting around No Child Left Behind testing mandates by giving their worst-performing black students IQ tests and designating those who score under 75 as “autistic.” (And therefore in special ed and excluded from the standardized testing pool).

  178. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Cryptogenic
    Thanks for the great reply. I think I get what you mean overall.

    Meillassoux sees Heidegger -- at least the later Heidegger -- as essentially Kantian. The gist of "After Finitude" is that all modern thought since Kant views existence as a correlate of the subject lest it fall into dogmatic realism (Cartesianism). He draws a line between Cartesian dogmatism and Kantian correlationism, as he calls it. What throws a monkey wrench in this correlationism is the ability of science today to detect and think objects that existed before human subjects and so before givenness as such. A sort of reactivation of Cartesianism.

    None of this set in stone, of course, but I do find the OOO and speculative realist guys to be very interesting, at least as far as I understand them. And I like Nick Land and Thomas Metzinger for the record.

    Off the top of your head can you give me some names and titles of the Heidegger studies or Heideggerian thinkers you have in mind? Is Dugin one of them?

    Husserl’s Logical Investigations, Cartesian Meditations, Crisis of the European Sciences. Bergson and Merleau-Ponty are also good for phenomenology. Husserl and phenomenology are critical for understanding Heidegger and 20th cent. Continental philosophy more generally. Heidegger’s lectures called History of the Concept of Time are a good intro to early Heidegger and Being and Time and can substitute if you don’t want to get into Being and Time. Read William Richardson’s book on Heidegger and Thomas Sheehan’s books on Heidegger. They represent the two dominant camps in American and English language Heidegger studies.

  179. People seem good while they are oppressed, but they only wish to become oppressors in their turn: life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.
    Letter to Ottoline Morrell, 17 December, 1920.
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
    Free the oppressed and in the long run there will be no oppressors.

  180. @The Practical Conservative
    I dunno, Americans used to let their kids run around and do whatever, even white Americans, which is the "pick when ripe" thing. Much of what we consider modern "acceptably SWPL/UMC" overparenting was considered creepy, excessive and weird. Like only having mom or dad ever take care of the children. Or actively playing with the child(ren), coaching and directing all of their play.

    It's a silly distinction, because white cultures do plenty of letting kids freerange at very young ages, and plenty of not-white cultures hover over the infants. A lot of rural African ethnicities spend huge amounts of time on elaborate care and rituals for infants and toddlers beyond the basic food/shelter bits. That would be "pick when green", for the record.

    The article is almost certainly quite silly, but so are a bunch of the comments.

    The English tradition of having lots of (usually paid) people raise your kids always goes mysteriously undiscussed in these kinds of posts. Same for the Scandinavian traditions of letting kids roam around among a broad extended kin network in a village rather than just being up in mom's grill all day.

    Like only having mom or dad ever take care of the children. Or actively playing with the child(ren), coaching and directing all of their play.
    —-
    I loved my parents and was very happy to know that they were always there for me if I needed them, but the people that I wanted to play and chat with, most of the time, were other kids. I did have quality time with mom and dad. Just not everyday. Our parents were seen by us kids as our protectors and providers and they were of course extremely important people, but they were not our playmates and none of us would have liked our parents hovering above us.

    I also considered my parents sources of knowledge and I liked it very much that they always took my questions seriously and tried their best to answer them in a serious manner. I appreciated that a lot. I don’t think I’d have appreciated them being always there all the time though.

  181. @Uptown Resident
    There are two main questions when it comes to population:

    (1) how many people can the earth support? How many people can the USA support for the longterm?

    (2) how many people can the earth/USA support while maintaining a desirable living standard for most people, without driving other species to extinction, without generally ravaging and insulting the environment, etc.?

    I don't doubt that we can come up with new, brave ways to extract from farm animals and the earth's natural resources more food and fuel so that we can support our current population, and maybe even 10 billion, at current levels of obesity, for some time.

    But why on earth would anyone want that?

    And shouldn't we at least be thinking about the effects of a growing population are? Shouldn't there be a number of what the ideal population is for the USA? How many middle class humans living in low to mid rise housing can the US support for x years? Can we do it without stuffing cows and pigs full of growth hormone, antibiotics, and concentrating them in hellish feed lots? How many middle class Americans can we support while treating farm animals humanely? etc etc

    My main problems with overpopulation are not the feasibility--I don't know enough about the future of fossil fuel extraction or agriculture to guess how many people the earth can support. My problems are with the effects of overpopulation that we deal with already. Crowded cities, pollution, traffic, dysgenic population, ugly sprawl, abuse of farm animals, widespread poverty, etc etc etc

    “Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is true of humans in the infinite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is of gas molecules sealed in a flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive.”

    Frank Herbert, Dune

    Our comfortable lifestyles were made possible by burning through a variety of resources far faster than they could be replaced, when they could be replaced at all. One way or another, it’s not going to last.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS