Sofie Channel

Sofie Channel

Anonymous 0x26c
said (9mo ago #1722 ✔️ ✔️ 93% ✖️ ✖️✨ ):

Clear guidance for women

Although I expect that most here will be men, I want to ask: What should we encourage young women to do?

In some respects this question is tirelessly asked and answered by (1) feminism (invest in career and education/date around) and (2) Red Pill spaces (improve your looks/get married and have a family). The ground this covers, however, is relatively limited. The former is mostly career advice and the latter is mostly dating advice. It doesn’t say, for instance, anything about self-cultivation or the life of the mind. It also doesn’t give much guidance on how to make friends, sustain a relationship, or raise happy children.

For context, I am a woman, and the advice I see women giving and receiving is often quite ridiculous. One friend, for example, came out of a LTR in her mid-twenties; some of her friends encouraged her to party and actively discouraged her from finding a serious romantic partner until her thirties. Another friend gained 30 pounds during COVID; but the consensus among our girlfriends was “she looked great” and her troubles with dating had nothing to do with her; “those guys just didn’t deserve her.”

Problematically, women seem to have gotten much more radicalized towards feminism these last few years. The male perspective has become increasingly banned or out-of-scope. (See: the recent trend around women rejecting men who have any conservative leanings or who don’t overtly pledge themselves to feminism.) Post-BLM and social media, there’s also more lock-step and thought policing around inane political views than ten years ago. (See: many women posting pro-Palestine “if you don’t speak up you’re the enemy” takes.)

Speaking more personally, I got married early and have a great dad—and yet, the forcefield of feminism was so strong that in my teens, I too took on a lot of bad feminist advice. Even from a great starting position, it took me a lot of work and a lot of dialogue to understand the male perspective. And of course, advice on gender relations is only part of navigating life. IMO, I would have taken more advice in the other direction if it wasn’t so simplistic (think: tradwife culture), and if it had addressed more of the key problems women perceive themselves as having. (More on this in a future thread.)

Anyways, I’m curious what advice people here might give to a younger sister (think: someone about to enter uni)? I expect most advice to be pretty gender neutral; I just think women are particularly lacking good advice and clear guidance.

Here’s my shortlist of recommendations:
1. Discover what is interesting/satisfying to you (inner meaning > not)
2. Quit Tiktok and step away from social media (attention span to do #1 > not)
3. Gain specialized skills that are well-compensated (financial security > not)
4. Get fit (being attractive > not)
5. Aim for marriage (happy committed relationship > not)
6. Invest in people with whom you have good chemistry (close friends > not)
7. Read serious nonfiction (self-improvement > not)

What am I missing?

Although I expect th (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 93% ✖️ ✖️✨

Anonymous 0x26e
said (9mo ago #1724 ✔️ ✔️ 85% ✖️ ✖️ ):

It should be a badge of honor to be able to produce kids early. Young women should be encouraged if this is a viable option!

It should be a badge (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 85% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x271
said (9mo ago #1727 ✔️ ✔️ 89% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1730:

I unfortunately am not really sure what an individual woman should do in our society because I think the whole thing is pretty broken right now.

I think a mistake that has been made with the feminist movement is that it seems to have pushed women to conform more toward acting in the same roles that men traditionally have held. Women are supposed to want to become CEOs and work in the office from 9-5 and are promoted in STEM, etc. I think this is probably also supported by the economic establishment, which wants women in the workforce as a way to simply ~double GDP~, because making the magic line on the graph go up is seen as the single most important objective.

I imagine that part of the reason women used to be homemakers before they entered the workforce is because having a stable 9-5 job every day is not necessarily in line with the natural instability of female biology (menstruation cycles). Men, on the other hand, are extremely stable creatures. Women are also naturally better at caring for others than men, which makes them better suited to spending time with children or other people in general. I expect that much of the global declining birthrate is the result of women entering the workforce and also spending an increasing amount of time in universities, which seem to becoming contemporary convents.

I think what the feminist movement should have done is try to establish a greater sense of pride in, or demonstrated the importance of, what women are naturally good at. The declining global birthrate may actually be a great opportunity for feminism to pivot. If people, and especially women, don't produce children then society will collapse. Women could probably organize and demand greater respect as the sex that wields this power instead of playing as a worse version of the male role.

I guess the original reason for feminism was that women had their role, but weren't respected, and therefore tried to enter the respected roles (which were male). I would hope that society might respect women more if there was a greater understanding at large of how important women are in reversing the declining birthrate.

I unfortunately am n (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 89% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x274
said (9mo ago #1730 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1888:

>>1727
The mistake (or corruption) of feminism was trying to shoehorn women into male spaces and male forms of accomplishment instead of building up the esteem and dignity of female forms of accomplishment, and coaching women in life strategies that actually pay off for them.

A great hueristic is to consider that any problem might be caused by regression from historical best practice, rather than demanding new aberrations to solve them. If women aren't happy with their condition, what does the historical and mythological canon have to say about what is best for women? The obvious one is proverbs 31:10-31:
>A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. ...
>Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
Tl;dr: women should be generally competent in running/supporting a great noble family household, and should receive public praise and esteem for this. This would solve women's problems better than feminism.

From a natural perspective, women are shaped by their ability to bear children. This compromises their other abilities, where they should be competent but will almost never be competitive with men. If you've idealized male forms of accomplishment, this is a black pill. But if women aren't just going to be second-class men, the key edge is children. What best life is implied by being the one who can bear children?

The advice I would give to a daughter or little sister is this: your edge in the world is your ability to bear children. Compromising on that edge for the sake of other things is a mistake, because you are not built that way. The way to do this well, and the way that leads to the most satisfying, accomplished, and esteemed life is to attach yourself by marriage to a good man who will fulfil the male half of your needs. People make the mistake of thinking this is a low-skill job that you can just satisfice on, but this is totally wrong. Like male accomplishment, there is an extremely high ceiling. At the top is the woman of noble character who marries a prince, bears many heroes and saints for children, runs a beautiful and productive household and business, and embodies an aspirational ideal for everyone else to look up to and strive after. At the bottom/median a boring and uninspired divorced wife of a deadbeat. A woman of high ambition and high ability should turn her ability towards becoming the former and avoiding the latter.

The decisive event in such a life is who and when to marry. Based on what I've seen and what older women I've spoken to have said, the best outcomes these days are those who go to a good school, meet a man there, marry him soon after, and stick with him. Career and all that don't matter and don't deliver for women. Get that ring from a proper gentleman and don't look back. Get help early and often from family and friends to help you make the right choice. Don't fall for the validating bullshit low-quality women tell their friends to rationalize their own self-sabotaging behaviors.

Once you have your teleology, all the other stuff like inner life and all the skills you need to get to the good life find their purpose and can be measured against this life path. You will not go wrong to study classic noble activities like mathematics, music, languages, and athletics. Beauty and fashion and home economics are obvious. Etc etc.

To get the right man it is essential to understand men and what men want. Study nature and think naturally. Male animals naturally want a female with good genes, good health, good fertility cues (for humans: big breasts, small waist, big hips), and overt sexual interest in him. Because humans are social animals we also want a good attitude, good values, good social skills, and high social class (ie manners, fashion sense, taste). It's that simple. Men don't care about anything else except where it bears on these. Optimize for and emphasize these and you'll have your pick of men and live your best life.

The mistake (or corr (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x275
said (9mo ago #1731 ✔️ ✔️ 78% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1736:

Pretty interesting how most comments here have something to do with giving birth to children!

Perhaps a bit upstream from giving birth to children from a good man is the ability to seduce and understand psychology. That probably helps her in various career pursuits as well. In general, no educational institution will teach you the proper way to attract or interact with others in a psychologically robust way, so that's something to figure out how to do!

Pretty interesting h (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 78% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x277
said (9mo ago #1736 ✔️ ✔️ 85% ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1731
Maybe it's just an artifact of the male perspective, but from the male perspective, there are two very obvious facts about women: they will never be as good as men at most things that aren't about gender, and there is one extremely important thing at which they are infinitely better than men. That this should lead to specialization into the unique role of motherhood is the obvious consequence.

Maybe it's just an a (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 85% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x26c
said (9mo ago #1739 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1743:

Thanks everyone for the responses. I’m inclined to add a directive regarding children. Broadly speaking, I feel very aligned with people here, and I believe it is hugely important for more women to have children, especially in our historical moment.

That said, I don’t think it will be effective to simply advise women to have kids—at least for the women that I’m planning to address. Women who will readily receive this directive are already being served (by traditional cultures and the tradwife memespace). I’m interested in targeting women who aren’t sure about having kids. I think this constitutes a lot of women.

The directive that I would readily give women is to develop a positive conception of motherhood. This is conspicuously lacking in the feminist lens: by default what’s transmitted is a feeling of “meh” about having children or the feeling that having kids is extremely burdensome without a clear reward. If the average feminist had an extremely positive vision of having kids, however, I think many more women would choose to do so.

However, I am against advocating that having kids and raising a family be the center of gravity for women. First, we don’t need all women to have kids for demographic purposes; we just need enough women to have kids. Second, this doesn’t address a major reason why feminism is appealing to begin with: many women want the freedom to pursue interests outside of the home, and most women want to be seen and valued separate from their ability to have children.

One of the primary grievances of early feminists is that women were only valued as wives and mothers, and paths besides this were not open to them. Feminism is appealing to women who have desires and ambitions besides motherhood, whereas in more traditional cultures, other pursuits are often seen as illegitimate. This creates a false dilemma.

For some women, having children will naturally feel like their primary source of meaning. Many women, however, will not feel like having kids is their *primary* source of meaning—but nonetheless they want children.

I want women for whom having kids is a secondary source of meaning to have kids. These women will be checking to see if having kids is incompatible with pursuing meaning; obviously in practice it is not. Plenty of women have kids and also other fulfilling interests. But if we try to force women to accept that marriage and children should be their primary source of meaning, we risk alienating women who actually do value having a family… they just want other things as well.

Plus, it’s not like men are rising up against women having hobbies or learning or even having careers. I do think that men in general, however, would appreciate if women were more family-oriented.

On the other hand, a big problem under modern feminism is that women are under pressure from other women to find and declare that their primary source of meaning is separate from getting married / having kids. I don’t think this is right, either. I think we should encourage women to feel into their sense of meaning, and some women will naturally primarily derive meaning from raising a family.

My proposal is that we encourage women in their pursuits of meaning, inside and outside of the home, AND we also publicly esteem motherhood.

TLDR; I think we should encourage women to develop a positive conception of motherhood, which is missing from the feminist lens, so that more women choose to have kids. Setting child-raising as the standard of excellence, however, devalues women’s other pursuits and sets up a false dilemma; this alienates women who might otherwise have children.

Thanks everyone for (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x26c
said (9mo ago #1740 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1743:

Some other specific comments:

> It should be a badge of honor to be able to produce kids early.
At the very least, I think this should be seen as a legitimate path; we shouldn’t look down on women having kids in their early twenties, for instance.

> I think what the feminist movement should have done is try to establish a greater sense of pride in, or demonstrated the importance of, what women are naturally good at... I guess the original reason for feminism was that women had their role, but weren't respected, and therefore tried to enter the respected roles (which were male).
I like this idea with respect to contemporary feminism, which has definitely lost the sense of value in traditionally feminine activities.

Historically, however, I think women were quite well-respected but were limited in their choices. This created common social, economic, and legal problems, and women fought for specific things to address these problems.

* Social: The legitimization of having interests outside of the home (e.g. female scientists and writers), choosing who they married, participating in public spaces, etc. Problem: extreme lack of fulfillment
* Economic: The opportunity to get an education, work outside of the home, have a bank account, etc. Problem: dependence on men, even under egregious circumstances (e.g. abuse)
* Legal: The right to vote, divorce, inherit property etc. Problem: a lot of legal issues IMO bottom out in economic dependence.

> Women should be generally competent in running/supporting a great noble family household, and should receive public praise and esteem for this.
Strongly agree, although I think it’s important that women actively choose this path rather than feeling pressured into it.

> In general, no educational institution will teach you the proper way to attract or interact with others in a psychologically robust way, so that's something to figure out how to do!
Agreed!

> [Women] will never be as good as men at most things that aren't about gender
This seems like the wrong generalization to make. Perhaps statistically men are better than women at most professions—if you take the average of all men and compare it to the average of all women. But skill is highly variable within each gender. Arguably the top 10% of women are more competent than the bottom 10% of men.

Some other specific (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x27b
said (9mo ago #1743 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1744:

>>1739
>>1740
>I am against advocating that having kids and raising a family be the center of gravity for women.

I understand your point tactically and rhetorically. Women don't like to hear that motherhood is their primary value. Proverbs 31 is good because it paints a picture of a noble woman that isn't just some kind of breeding sow (because of course even the maximally developed motherhood life strategy isn't like that). Likewise ideals of tough women who can contribute economically or in athletics, music, literature, society, aesthetics, or whatever are great even if she's also or even primarily a mother. Women can do a lot usefully, and can and should find comfort and joy in those things. Probably even to do motherhood right, women should be focusing primarily on these other things (which actually develop her capacity for motherhood). Seems like that picture has been plenty painted by barbie world already though.

However, if you remove motherhood, it becomes a false picture, equivalent to "no, honey, those jeans don't make you look fat". Those other values are in fact best as assists for the primary value which is the ability to create life. It's either "we have her around to create children so we might as well make use of her on these other things in the meanwhile" or "wow we're really short on people and we need all the hands we can get until we can breed more".

So develop a positive and ambitious ideal of motherhood that includes many dignities and virtues beyond simple fertility, and develop all those other capacities to their highest. But don't forget that motherhood is the root value, or you're going to have a bad time.

>and most women want to be seen and valued separate from their ability to have children.

Imagine someone who had a beautiful miraculous magical gift. Some kind of superpower that could save the world and make her society prosperous. But she's mediocre on most other things. Unfortunately, she wants to be seen and valued for other things, and is frustrated that her fame is the result of her magical gift. She doesn't like that people keep reminding her that she could use her gift to be a great hero. She is wasting her life because somehow she got the idea that a person should not be defined by the body they actually have. The rest of us are sitting here watching this tragic play, cheering for her to realize her value.

You will always be a real woman. You have a womb, you have ovaries, you have eggs. You are not a homosexual man, but a beautiful and fertile example of nature’s perfection. All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people want to impregnate you. Your parents are hopeful and eager for your children, your “friends” laugh at your pointless career behind closed doors. Men are utterly enthralled by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed men to sniff out your subtle reproductive fitness cues with incredible efficiency. Even women who “work” look overwhelmingly female to a man. Your bone structure is a dead giveaway. This is your fate. This is what you must chose. There is no turning back.

>Arguably the top 10% of women are more competent than the bottom 10% of men.

You are being too harsh. But one important thing women don't seem to understand is that the bottom 50% of men are worthless trash that we only keep around for sentimental reasons. When women give up the advantage of their sex they find that that's a terrible reference class to end up in. Actually you want to avoid that reference class by any means necessary, and you have a truly wonderful means to do so.

I understand your po (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x27c
said (9mo ago #1744 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1745 >>1746:

>>1743
>Women don't like to hear that motherhood is their primary value.

That's a view that needs to be heavily qualified. Procreation is a virtue only if the two people joined together are worthy of each other. Failing that, then celibacy or abstinence surely deserves the highest praise. This was very much the attitude that the European nobility took afaik. The fact that traditional Christianity explicitly offered a clear space for this was a great gift imo.

Polygyny in theory might offer an alternative, but in practice tends to degrade both the individual and society.

That's a view that n (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x27d
said (9mo ago #1745 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1746:

>>1744
You are right, though the infertile worker drone feels somewhat inhuman to me.

You are right, thoug (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x27e
said (9mo ago #1746 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1747:

>>1744
>>1745
Thinking more on this, developing virtuous celibacy seems like the obvious way to answer OP's question. What is the non-sexual value and life path of the human? How should humans of all shapes and abilities find dignity and ways to contribute when they aren't either breeding or being outlier heroes, that also doesn't just reduce them to infertile worker drones? Does median human life have value?

Thinking more on thi (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x282
said (9mo ago #1756 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

I disagree with posts here that prioritize childbearing specifically. Women can develop a rich personality like any man through intellectual and creative pursuits they find meaningful. Obviously parents should steer their child in a good direction, but there are many good musicians, writers, and craftstmen that are women. We also need to accept that some people aren't even cut out for marriage and childrearing at the end of the day, and that this isn't necessarily their fault. If that's the case they should just remain integral parts of the family throughout their life.

I can't really comment on the realities of raising a daughter, but I would obviously wish for her to pursue the hobbies that make her happy. However, the key is that I would not try to push her into male-brained territory where she internalizes the value structure of a man: that she must become economically competitive, that she must chase a vision, that greatness in life/craft takes precedence over our relationships.

It's a common problem I've noticed among modern fathers that they raise their daughters like sons, and that girls internalize an inferiority complex because of this. So they compensate by leaning more into male-coded activities, as if to please dad. And further down the road this creates an imbalance where they become "FtF transexuals" and their feminity has takes on a reconstructed, uneasy character.

If a woman wants to marry and bear children, which is something a family should implicitly support, then proper role-modeling by both parents will be enough. Her upbringing should give her the discernment to gracefully sort her peers in such a way where she'll meet someone right for her. In our current climate the problem is moreso the external environment——you'd likely need to send her to a good college unless you're a very social and well-connected family.

I disagree with post (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x26c
said (9mo ago #1771 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1796:

OP here.

>Those other values are in fact best as assists for the primary value which is the ability to create life... You will always be a real woman. You have a womb, you have ovaries, you have eggs. You are not a homosexual man, but a beautiful and fertile example of nature’s perfection. All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people want to impregnate you.

Ok, I think I'm finally understanding an important confusion I had here.

Would you clarify: are you making a pro-natalist argument here or are you making an argument more specifically about women? I'm trying to understand whether your view is that men's primary contribution is also biologically determined, i.e. whether fatherhood is also the root value.

From the point of view of evolution or society or men, I can understand why it would be asserted that the primary value women is having kids. But from the point of view of women or a specific woman, it may or may not be. To me, value is subjective.

It seems to me like you're making the claim that value is objective and that the essence of women is her ability to have children. It should follow that women who deny this are wrong, because it isn't a matter of preference. Is this correct? If I'm understanding the logic of your position, women turning away from their nature (or deviating from their telos) would of course mean that they are also turning away from their unique pursuit of excellence.

What confuses me about this perspective still is what it would concretely recommend, given that individuals do experience subjective happiness which sometimes doesn't align with pursuit of the ideal. In a society with better guidance, things would hopefully line up better, but still there are always misfits. In the tradeoff between subjective happiness (but wrong action) versus conforming to the ideal (but subjective unhappiness, assuming that the person fails to actually be persuaded), I would personally choose and recommend the former. Do we differ here? What would your recommendation be?

>Procreation is a virtue only if the two people joined together are worthy of each other. Failing that, then celibacy or abstinence surely deserves the highest praise.

Is this also from the evolutionary or philosophical perspective?

>Women can develop a rich personality like any man through intellectual and creative pursuits they find meaningful...However, the key is that I would not try to push her into male-brained territory where she internalizes the value structure of a man: that she must become economically competitive, that she must chase a vision, that greatness in life/craft takes precedence over our relationships... Her upbringing should give her the discernment to gracefully sort her peers in such a way where she'll meet someone right for her. In our current climate the problem is moreso the external environment——you'd likely need to send her to a good college unless you're a very social and well-connected family.

I think you and I are pretty much in agreement. Interesting comment on the difficulty in our current climate; the family seems like it was much more influential in terms of arranging matches in the days when people were more stably in one location.

OP here. ... (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x28b
said (9mo ago #1772 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1783:

Woman here. (Sorry!) I disagree with the focus on marriage and child-bearing. Instead of complaining I will post domain-agnostic advice I wish I had received. These could apply to men, as well; however, I believe they address typically female modes of failure.

1. Be conscious of your level of risk-aversion and learn to manually, rationally adjust it. Be prepared to defy your instincts and do things that aren't maximally safe.
2. Recognize and walk away when you are being emotionally manipulated. Be suspicious of anything that makes you cry.
3. Be honest with yourself about requiring social validation, and cultivate a community/friends that will socially validate you for doing things that you think are important.
4. Pertaining to the above, learn to collaborate on projects. Be prepared to expend energy keeping the ball rolling. People will try to flake on you and you will have to tame them with your iron will/revitalizing matriarchal vibes.
5. Make decisions without reflexively consensus-seeking.
6. If you have decision paralysis, delegate. But don't set yourself up for disappointment; make sure your constraints are known.

I've forgotten what else I intended to post. Perhaps for the best; these are, in retrospect, most reflective of my own struggles.

Woman here. (Sorry!) (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2a1
said (8mo ago #1796 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1801:

>>1771
>are you making a pro-natalist argument here or are you making an argument more specifically about women?
The argument is not pro-natalist, just an observation about the female body and its implied teleology. Analogously, men are more specialized for war, politics, abstract thought, and manual labor and should lean into those roles. A man who focuses on fatherhood in the way a woman focuses on motherhood would be in error, similar to a woman who tries to take on overly male roles. Fathering children is important, but needs a different kind of specialization because the male contribution to kids is physically much less intensive but politically and militarily much more uncertain.

>It seems to me like you're making the claim that value is objective and that the essence of women is her ability to have children. It should follow that women who deny this are wrong, because it isn't a matter of preference. Is this correct?

Even with purely subjective value, your physical body matters a lot to what form of life can work. The female body grants an overwhelming advantage to a very solid niche that you would be a fool to ignore. You are right to notice that I believe this kind of reasoning can and should replace subjective value much of the time.

>[anyone] turning away from their nature (or deviating from their telos) would of course mean that they are also turning away from their unique pursuit of excellence.
Correct.

>What would your recommendation be [with respect to divergence between manifest natural teleology and inner feelings]?
The natural teleology (what you call the ideal) is not fully accessible to us. We do not know the will of God for us. We can only guess at it by triangulating between the study of nature (ie our bodies), our traditions, and our inner feelings. This is uncertain with no guarantees and no silver bullets. There's a lot of flexibility in how different cultures and individuals interpret these things too. But nature is very clear with sex in particular and should not be neglected.

I notice it's hard to be concrete. I am not a woman and have no access to the inner life of women. Sex aside, as a human person, you should be always be becoming generally capable, tough, noble, beautiful, socially skilled, inwardly harmonious, wise, etc. Do things that develop your virtue and make you a beautiful part of God's garden. Live so beautifully and truly that God says "this is why I created the universe". Don't be crass, lazy, or unnatural. Don't be a narcissistic solipsist concerned primarily with her own navel gazing inner experience. Don't feel pressured to succeed according to the fake ideas of the social world, but live by nature and God.

For women in particular, I hate to beat a dead horse but the major thing I see women failing at is not leaning into their sex in virtuous ways. Your best life is marrying a good man, having children with him, and sticking with him. This is an ambitious task in itself. Hate on the tradwife meme all you like but it's basically just true in the same way that men should just try to be "chad". Develop your feminine beauty and virtues in all domains, make yourself as valuable as possible, be conspicuous about it in the right places and ways, and find the right man to love. Pic related.

The argument is not (hidden image) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2a3
said (8mo ago #1801 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1796

Excellent summary. We don't want a crude biological determinism, but neither do we want to ignore biology and nature. They are the basis for our pursuit of virtue, how complex and varied the latter may be.

Excellent summary. W (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2a4
said (8mo ago #1803 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

If we're talking about women's natural advantages, then I'll also bring up small-scale organizing and weaving community fabric. The labor of creating the events and one-on-one interactions that bind a group together is usually done by women, and from my observation they tend to be better at it. Whether we're talking about local church events or the big French Enlightenment salons or writing Christmas cards or inviting a family over for dinner because you haven't seen them in a while, this stuff is a foundational, and often undervalued, input into the vitality and cohesion of any group. Our own circle suffers because it has relatively little of this work being done, which is mostly because we're overwhelmingly male. I make a point of contributing to this as best I can, but I've long accepted that I won't match the skill or energy of a reasonably competent woman who devotes herself to the same task.

If we're talking abo (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2cd
said (8mo ago #1888 ✔️ ✔️ 80% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1889 >>1900:

>>1730
Rereading Proverbs 31 it's clear how much it's gesturing at founding a *specifically great/noble* family as being part of the calling.

15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard....
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night...
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.

This sounds more like Lady Jessica than either a 50s housewife or a career woman. It's remarkable how churches, even traditionalist ones, never talk about it in these terms. Part of the general trend I detect in mainstream Christianity in being low ambition and down on desire ["idolatry"] generally, compared to source texts or historical precedent.

Also a sign of how much the death of the household as the center of production changed things. If a career woman is a woman spending time on her comparative disadvantage, having men and women both working as servants for an impersonal bureaucracy, neither really views "head of an independent familial politico-economic enterprise" as part of their identity in the way Proverbs suggests.

Rereading Proverbs 3 (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 80% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2a3
said (8mo ago #1889 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1900:

>>1888

This, a hundred times. If ambitious men should "quit their jobs" (to use Wolf Tivy's phrase) for the sake of something greater, it's even more important for ambitious women to "quit their jobs." The fact that "jobs" are the dominant archetype under managerialism for how ambition is channeled is an massive failure of imagination.

https://www.palladiummag.com/2022/01/06/quit-your-job/

This, a hundred time (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2d5
said (7mo ago #1900 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1902 >>1903:

>>1889
>>1888
So here's a constructive question: how do we update proverbs 31 for the modern woman? Part of the reason people fall for careerism and so on is just that it's the actually built out social pattern that is available to them. What's the alternate social plan available to women (or men) that reliably pays off with a bit of hard work and dedication? For men, entrepreneurship is a good example. For women, it would be something about how to take their household to the qualitatively next level socially, operationally, and economically by work within the household and clan network, but I don't actually know what this would look like.

So here's a construc (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2a3
said (7mo ago #1902 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1900
> For women, it would be something about how to take their household to the qualitatively next level socially, operationally, and economically by work within the household and clan network ...

We need a modern, tech-aware version of Xenophon's Oikonomikos for women.

We need a modern, te (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2cd
said (7mo ago #1903 ✔️ ✔️ 86% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1906:

>>1900
Shooting from the hip, there is so little imagination and competition in this space that it seems trivial to do orders of magnitude better than the average housewife or career woman.

1. Pick a high ambition husband in a high variance job and your job simply as turbo charging his career. This is not limited to domestic activities, but also networking, accompanying to conferences and being the memorable socialite. Be willing to move to facilitate his rise rather than having your own career that needs optimization. Potentially, work in a related/synergistic role, not optimizing for personal earnings, but simply for contacts and to funnel opportunities.

My wife and I did done this in a limited context: I was able to introduce her to a job in the same institution I worked at, and after I left, she was able to use her knowledge to help me negotiate a valuable consulting gig with that org. Depending on the career, you could be a lot more intentional here.

2. Literal home economics: you should rightly be collaboratively working on a business. Easier in some fields than others, but even in knowledge work, it can be valuable to have one person specialized in business development and another in domain expertise.

3. The social fabric is more tattered than ever, therefore a talented socialite can be more powerful than ever. Freed from the need to optimize for money, you can leverage talent, personality, managed, philanthropy, and willingness to host dinner parties to be in the first rank of families in local politics, one’s religious community, etc. The bar is very low here for a young energetic person with the time to show up.

Shooting from the hi (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 86% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2cd
said (7mo ago #1904 ✔️ ✔️ 86% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1906:

It’s funny how we understand the value of division of labor and specialization in the workplace, but most couples are stuck in the mindset of being individual laborers comparing their earnings to one another at home. Switch the mindset to being about the collective productivity of the home and things can shift quickly.

One of my most affluent friends has a dad who’s a talented dentist with no head for business. When his parents got married, his mom had started managing the practice and later built a commercial real estate empire with their earnings. It’s notable that they are manyfold better off than if he was an employed dentist and she was an employed office worker, even if their talents were the same.

It’s funny how we un (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 86% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x274
said (7mo ago #1906 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1903
>>1904
These are solid ideas. Insofar as I've seen such ideas in the wild, they seem to work well. I should like to hear from the women why they don't do stuff like this. Is it just a lack of encouragement and available archetypes? Is it the difficulty of doing anything at all? Or are there barriers internal or external to implementing these?

These are solid idea (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x2e1
said (7mo ago #1928 ✔️ ✔️ 76% ✖️ ✖️ ):

I like to use this framing if you're a woman:

- what type of woman do I want my son to marry? become that woman.

this also applies to advice for young men.

- what type of man do I want my daughter to marry? become that man.

I like to use this f (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 76% ✖️ ✖️

You must login to post.