Motherhood is the heart of patriarchy. God bless the Mums.

Long quote from Stacey McCain. Go read it, it’s good. I’ve left out the whining of the radfems that “Motherhood is the heart of the patriarchy” because (a) its tortured English, (b) I have not had enough coffee (c) there is not enough mind bleach in the world.

But Mums care for their children. Viscerally. Even crap Mums, even Mums whose children do not live with them for good reasons.

I would argue that this is because of design. And there is another reason.

She writes, “At this point in history, there are two, maybe three generations who were raised by mothers with a certain feminist consciousness. A good portion of these mothers would even be actively feminist in one way or the other.” And yet, you see, young women in the 21st-century insist they are still oppressed by patriarchy.Why should this be so? Three alternative hypotheses:

1. The “oppressive patriarchy” is a myth — Human nature is what it is, and what feminists denounce as “male supremacy” is simply the natural form of society created by biological imperatives, rather than a male conspiracy that systematically seeks to subjugate women for political purposes. Thus, “feminist motherhood” fails because human behaviour tends to deviate toward the norm, so that most males will be masculine and most females will be feminine, no matter how consciously “gender-neutral” they may be raised.
2. Differential fertility matters — It may be true that, more than 40 years after the eruption of the Women’s Liberation movement, young people in the 21st century are the third generation “raised by mothers with a certain feminist consciousness.” However, feminist rhetoric and ideology have been so consistently hostile to marriage and motherhood that there is likely an inverse correlation between women’s “feminist consciousness” and the number of children they have. The more a woman embraces feminism, the less likely she is to marry or have children, while the women most likely to have large families are religious conservatives who reject feminist ideology altogether. This factor operates on a global scale. Even if a majority of women in industrial societies embrace “feminist consciousness” — thus inexorably reducing birth rates — in the next generation, their societies will experience an influx of immigrants from societies with higher birth rates (and less “feminist consciousness”). We see how this operates, for example, in phenomena like the “Rotherham Horror,” where girls from the English underclass were victimized by the sons of Muslim immigrants. Because feminism is largely a middle-class ideology, it had no meaningful influence on poor white girls raised in England’s public-housing projects, nor on young men raised with the sexist attitudes of their Pakistani parents. What can feminists say about the outcome — hundreds of English girls raped and prostituted by gangs of predatory immigrant men — except perhaps, “Oops“?
3. Feminists aren’t as smart as they think they are — Their claim that “gender is a social construct,” which is used to justify constant activism to fight against “sexism” in society, is a hypothesis that has been accepted on the basis of largely theoretical arguments. The radical lesbian feminist blogger makes note (6. 1. Feminists Failed To Raise “Better Sons”) of a case that I have myself noted: Tobi Hill-Meyer, the son of lesbian feminists who grew up to be a transgender pornographer. And there are even children of lesbian couples who have grown up to be conservative Christian opponents of same-sex marriage. Feminists have arrogantly assumed that their ideology endows them with superior wisdom, and that traditionalists are all just ignorant bigots. Well, these claims are subject to empirical proof, which can only be gathered over the course of decades, as we compare socioeconomic outcomes between generations of children raised with different values.My belief is that what can be called “neo-traditionalism” — basically old-fashioned ideas about family life, yet providing sufficient flexibility to permit parents and children to adapt successfully to a changing society — will prove to be the superior strategy for child-rearing in the 21s century. This is what feminists, with their rigid concepts of men and women as collective groups in hostile opposition, completely fail to understand.

Parents are profoundly concerned with the well-being of their own children, which is not the same as a concern for “children” as an abstract group. In the same way, most mothers are not concerned with whether feminism succeeds in bringing about “equality” in some general way; rather, most mothers are concerned with how feminism will affect the lives of their own sons and daughters. However much any woman may embrace or reject feminist ideology, as a mother she will naturally place the interests of her own children above every other concern. She wants her children to be successful and happy and, we may presume, she hopes some day that her children will have their own children, because being a grandmother is the best thing in the whole world.

Source: The Other McCain

What RSM is forgetting is that the current ideology girls swallow says Thou shalt be strong. Thou shalt have a career. Thou shalt crush all before you.

I have seen the results of that: I live with them. I know too many women who indeed have a career — and are now 40, and living with two dogs. There is an aphorism in medicine There is never a good time to have a child and the wish, desire need, of most girls, to embrace being a girl, including weakness, motherhood, and yielding to the wishes of their husband and children must be disavowed.

We have seen a feminist society. It neither makes women happy nor protects girls.

We have seen Patriarchy: it leads to knights-errant: to white feathers, and to the Birkenhead drill. It allows women to walk safe. It abolishes slavery and allows missionaries to build schools and hospitals while companies found coffee plantations and build railways. It was the British and German Empires at their best: Putin is trying to revive this in his new Russian Imperium.

We also have seen the matriarchy: where everyone is scared of Mamma, for she will melt down and die of shame if one behaves in such a manner. It is called China: it is called Italy, it is called the Ashkenazim. It works.

In both cases, there are many children, and many are loved. Not all: nothing is perfect, but more that in either the Soviet or Feminist one-party state. For, in the latter, the birth rate implodes.