I have often wondered, especially in Anglophone cultures which have leaned Protestant for several hundred years now, if some of the hangup here is lack of veneration for the Blessed Mother (who sometimes has a great deal of vitriol hurled at her in order to emphasize theological differences.) She is a model for women and mothers in a very obvious way, but also the model Christian for *all* in terms of how she relates to God. She is the mother of God, also the mother of all, but a virgin, too.
The distinct lack of celibate vocations would also seem to play a role here - if all a woman can do is tied up in her relationship to a man and how he is gratified by her, that devaluing seems really easy. It looks really different when you have visible, known communities of celibate women (and men) devoted to the service of others and to prayer without those same expectations of reciprocity that are natural in a marriage. I think very highly of marriage (and I am a wife), but I wonder if a long period without the cultural memory of the value of celibacy as a way of life messes a lot of this up for us today.
Came here to say the same thing. We have lost the meaning of what a woman is. She is a beauty bearer and life bearer, a tender treasurer of her father's honor... we have lost the meaning of life, and the value of it. Our people are hardened by carnality, how can they understand purity, modesty, chastity? How can they understand risen womanhood? It is not within this culture to do so, not without metanoia.
My initial reaction to Wifejack was that it was quite belittling… I would be very embarrassed if my husband was posting the various air-headed things I sometimes say to get relatable laughs… it seems to reinforce the idea that your wife is someone you just put up with.
I would love to read your essay on the archetypal vision of womanhood.
One of the reasons I was drawn to becoming catholic was the existence and veneration of Woman , as she is in her own right, not just of the roles of stay-at-home-mom or the helpful/submissive wife, which is all I was offered in my evangelical upbringing. Mary and the female saints obviously portray a diverse array of female excellence. Edith Stein is a great example.
I have also enjoyed the volumes of The Concept of Woman by Sister Prudence Allen.
All that to say is, I agree. If wifejak is emblematic of our beacon of womanhood then we have a lot to do in terms of women’s issues and the concept of womanhood on the right.
I guess for me, it seems that there is an expectation that two people will come into a relationship perfectly formed and slot together without friction. That the woman should be X before we get together. That's not life at all. We are all sinners and broken and are meant to grow together into a life worth living. If we cannot believe that broken women are redeemable just as broken men are redeemable, we have no hope at all. But that's not life and certainly not the Christian ethos. Abram was 80 years old with a barren wife before God called him, a wife who would become the mother of nations. Jacob stole his brother's birthright. Mary Magdalene was possessed by 7 demons. Rahab was a freaking prostitute and became an ancestor of Jesus himself.
This is why we love being Catholic. Mary is the perfect example of motherhood, and her venerated place in the Catholic imagination means we always have a great example visible and celebrated.
We also have saintly examples, from St. Zelie Martin (mother of St. Therese of Liseux) to St. Theresa of Calcutta (a spiritual mother to thousands) and so many more.
In the line of finding a higher form for the role of wife/mother, I watched It’s a Wonderful Life last night with my family (our tradition during the start of the Christmas Season) and I think Mary Bailey (the downtrodden hero’s wife) is a picture of aspirational womanhood.
Mary is kind, brave, selfless, and passionate. As a young girl she sets her sights on her future husband when he is a young boy working in Mr. Gower’s drug store. She is the only person who witnesses George catch the accidental poisoning of pills, be beaten for it, then magnanimously forgive his boss and promise to tell no one. Time and time again, she witnesses both his grand ambitions and his heroic selflessness. She sees him and she loves him.
As a young woman with obvious intelligence, she can easily banter with the smart-mouthed George. His romantic adventurousness does not turn her off like it does other women (like the flirt Violent). She embraces the challenge with inventiveness and creativity. She isn’t afraid of getting dirty or rolling up her sleeves. She has moments of temper and frustration (she is just as passionate as George), but she knows herself too and she knows George and her love for him never wavers.
She is happy with the modest life George provides for her and their children, supporting him without complaint in the difficult, hardscrabble life he has built for himself in Bedford Falls. She believes in him, tirelessly supporting her husband in his difficult (often thankless work) being the only independent building business in the town. Her work is to turn a dilapidated ruin of a house into a beautiful home with just her wit and determination. She isn’t tempted by the high life or money. She cares for George even when he is at his lowest and most despairing and furious, yet she also challenges him when he is wrong (always with love). She is the absolute picture of the excellent wife, mother, and homemaker who is fully in her element.
When I was younger I thought her “terrible future” in the alternative world where George was never born was a little silly. In the bizarro-Bedford Falls, she is a spinster librarian with glasses. What an awful fate to be a childless librarian! The horror! But as I’ve gotten older, I see that this would be a terrible fate for Mary. She is lonely, living a life where she has never met the love of her life who inspired her to be the beating heart of a vibrant and close-knit community. She is instead a dead-end, never building her own home, never being with someone who she truly loved and respected. She could never truly love anyone else but George, the man who challenged her and who she challenged in return.
Her true vocation was loving George (with all his complexity and resentment and thwarted ambition), being the foundation of his life that allowed him to be the foundation of an entire town. In the end it is Mary who rallies the entire town around George in his hour of greatest need. She gives all the countless people in George’s life who he’s saved an opportunity to pay back the favor. He finally is able to fully appreciate the wonderful life he has built with Mary and their children.
I think that this kind of womanhood (a combination of creativity, humor, selflessness, and the building of community) is deeply aspirational in a way Wifejak is not. Mary is not passive, not stupid, not foolish (as the Wifejak can sometimes be). Instead she is foundational and heroic in her role of helpmate to the helper. She is the hero in the end of the story just as much as George is. I think characters like Mary could thread the needle of the heroic female who is the epitome of positive womanhood in its higher form.
Anytime my husband shows me Wifejak, I always think “she has no kids.” Outside the convent, a woman reaches her most admirable and aspirational state through motherhood and virtue. Without motherhood or a clear mission to attain virtue, even a “trad” modern wife is just a silly, self interested creature.
William Alphonse Bougereau has some beautiful representations of motherhood (including the Blessed Mother, our ultimate aspiration). I appreciate that you’re calling for contemporary artists to portray aspirational womanhood, but until then, we can use these depictions from the past.
This is not meant to be hostile or a gotcha moment, I am just curious: would you say that man reaches his most admirable and aspirational state through fatherhood and virtue?
If he is married, absolutely, yes. The religious life and priesthood is a higher state of life, but once you’ve committed to your vocation, being faithful to it and virtuous within it is absolutely the highest path. But I don’t expect agreement on this from a guy with David Bowie as his avatar and “overthinking hedonist” as his username 😂
If something is a good (virtuous motherhood), by definition it cannot be a bad for those it impacts (the father, for one). I know the modern liberal evo psych theory of the sexes pits our interests against each other (men should maximize sexual partners, women need to secure a provider), but the entire philosophy is one based on disordered and self interested human nature, not our highest end that God created us for.
Coincidentally, this kind of lines up with the essay I posted this morning: I have no idea what the feminine ideal is. I know what masculine ideals are, and often strove to emulate them--but as a young woman, not understanding what womanhood is has led to a life of confusion and questions with no answers.
As others here have mentioned, perhaps the saints are a good place to start for the feminine ideals--they're diverse and all amazing, be it Joan of Arc, St. Olga, St. Mary of Egypt, or the Theotokos herself. An analysis would have to performed of these figures, however, in order to truly craft a series of ideals. (Also, in terms of girlhood and depictions in the media, I think Studio Ghibli does a good job of depicting a sort of ethereal ideal, along with movies like Brave.)
Johan, I'm sure this is a very insightful take, and from the first sentence alone it's definitely headed in the right direction, but I am suffering from Wifejak Essay Fatigue and I cannot, on principle, read another multi paragraph post explicating the author's thoughts on an MS Paint edit.
I will come back and read this article in full in a week or two.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Proverbs 31 woman. She is a blueprint for ideal womanhood over a lifetime, the highest ideal. I also agree that the Virgin Mary is another good role model. (And this time of year, isn't the Magnificat a wonderful study?)
Great post. I struggled with the questions you are asking here for most of my young life. Where are the role models? Where are the women modeling what I want to be? Why are the smart Catholic female saints mostly celibate?
I chose St Margaret of Scotland for my confirmation saint when I converted at 20 because she seemed like a woman in full. She's someone a girl called to married life could admire.
The Wifejak meme is depressing because she is just so freaking dumb and basic. There's nothing evil about that but jeez life is hard; having and raising kids is thankless enough without having to end up the butt of all your husband's jokes. I don't blame young women who recoil from that role. And of course the worst part about the meme is the realization that while men complain constantly about how irrational women are, they love them all the more for it, as the irrationality makes men feel better about themselves. It makes men feel needed. There is an element of lovable sweetness to wifejak that puts average men at ease. At least they don't have to worry about their own shortcomings or their own insecurities if their wife is a featherhead. At least with her, they can relax.
My own mother is wifejak personified and my father absolutely loved her for it. She is actually very intelligent, fluent in several languages, but she is wifejak.
I never wanted to be that. And I wonder if many feminist-leaning women grew up in a household with a father who made fun of/looked down on the mother's intellect a little too much.
I have always loved the iconic woman of the American West: hard working, gritty, takes no shit from nobody, fiercely loyal. Capable of running a large enterprise, expected to do her share of the work. Husband obsessed with her and respects her, even fears her in a way. Usually the young bucks respect and admire her, too. Clara in Lonesome Dove; Ma Ingalls; Aunt Mae in Twister.
But we all see how difficult it is to write that character into a marriage, or into a maternal role. Look how poor Taylor Sheridan has struggled with Beth Dutton in Yellowstone. He has to make his heroine a whore and a broken, barren sad sack. Basically her brokenness is what enables her to bond with the male lead. Is that realistic? Probably Sheridan got closer to the ideal with his Elsa character in 1883. I imagine it's very difficult to write a female character that men both love and admire.
There is a definite Western Female ideal, similar to Penelope in that she's usually smarter and wily. But some men don't feel comfortable around a woman like that. While she is still in her prime, she doesn't put men at ease. I do think such a woman is often portrayed as very lovable and essential in her old age, and I have met a couple of really amazing older ladies who must have been absolute firecrackers in their youth, but who found universal respect and honor, even adoration in their old age.
Yes, the ideal woman is one of many contradictions:
- Submissive/meek to her husband but fierce in defending his and the family's interests against others
- Intelligent and educated enough to run a household (and a noble household can be a large and complex organization!) and yet content to limit her ambitions to this sphere
- Cultured in the arts but tethered to the home
- Physically strong and fit but modest in showing it
- Soft and loving and yet gritty and hardworking
etc.
There are also a set of contradictions which define the ideal man, but archetypal women are very difficult to capture and portray
Well, in the American West the ideal woman is not meek. It’s not high status to have a tame, simple woman. It implies the man couldn’t master more than that.
That’s why there are so many stories with wild horses/horse trainer metaphors for the male/female relationship. The Western Male is looking for an energetic, difficult, and unbroken spirit who will nevertheless eventually yield to him. But he’s not looking for an easy or “peaceful” home experience.
The desire for a meek and submissive wife is European culture. The West bred for strength and even rebellion because stronger women can manage land and also sons.
This resonates strongly with me. My wife and I chased each other across the US for a decade before getting married. Each of us upping the ante through graduate school and career. I love to joke to friends that we've been divorced twice, implying that my besting of her was hard fought. She has never been meek or submissive in demeanor even when following my lead.
Much of her support structure from her side of the family has been built off of second wave feminist values. Extended family chanting "PhD! PhD! PhD!" and pounding the table at a family dinner in support of her grad school application process will always be seared into my memory. It has been a delicate dance, but I have shown her the limitatations of going too far down that road.
We bought a home on 5 acres at the start of the year and are expecting our first child, a son, next week. I fully expect him to be taller, stronger, and more intelligent than me thanks in large part to my wife.
'it's an unsuitable image to present to the unmarried because it appears to confirm what they fear about women without any redemptive context'
You think so? I'm not sure (I really mean 'not sure', not 'disagree'). I think that, if I weren't married, wifejak might in fact favourably dispose me to marriage; I don't think I would fear wifejak as much as I would take it as signal that women are not as bad as they appear to be in the persona they are unhappily forced to adopt in the public sphere. I can imagine also that it *might* reassure both sexes that in marriage their petty foibles will be understood and taken as endearing.
Sure it's yet another example of the demystification of the sexes, but the ship sailed on that one a long time ago. What can be said for wifejak is that it *re-demystifies* relations between the sexes in a wholesome/harmless way, which is better than the offputting scatological stare-into-the-female-orifice pop culture campaign, with a hypergamous subtext, which was at its height 10 to 20 years ago. It's also of value as a corrective to the Tatesphere & c, which is antinatal and just allround antisocial.
A memeable idealisation of femininity--founded in nature *and* contemporary custom; present psychosocial realities should always be of non-trivial concern to the right--is still lacking. The obvious eternal feminine archetype is the Theotokos, but as everybody knows Christianity just doesn't have the pull it once did, and putting the Mother of God forward as the ideal is asking a lot ('Can YOU bear and birth the son of Our Lord, who is also Our Lord?).
There was an attempt 10 or 15 years ago with the wheatfields archetype, but it was hard to take seriously and so gave rise to many amusing counter-memes. Moreover it foundered against the pitiless reef of reality: most women now are nothing like that and are incapable of being so (let alone trying to emulate Our Lady).
The other thing I wonder is how much can realistically be expected of women when there are so few complete--or anything like complete--men around. There's are pretty good instinctive reasons (call em Biblical if you like) to think that the renovation of femininity awaits the remaking of masculinity.
Scott Greer's fresh take is maybe relevant. He's 100% right that no man can regard himself as a hero simply for raising a family.
There's a set of false oppositions that get set up in order to spill ink and get likes. The previous generation of this question revolved around 'Is having children a political act?'. My view was always 'Who cares about these definitional games? It's a necessary but not sufficient act to achieve the world we want.'
I don't really agree with the dichotomy which Scott sets up in his piece, which hinges on a fictional analogy (weak fathers vs. tough loners). My observation is that it's generally the opposite IRL, and that this is true on the 'radicalization' index as well. If you think about the big name influencer bachelors in the DR sphere they're all pretty effete (I won't name names but...). Conversely someone like Taylor Marshall (the top Catholic podcaster), looks and sounds masculine, is pretty hoe-scaringly radical, shoots, and is a BJJ purple belt.
Anyway, all of this is to say I think I should do a post on why Gorgo, Queen of Sparta is the ideal we need
'There's a set of false oppositions that get set up in order to spill ink and get likes. The previous generation of this question revolved around 'Is having children a political act?'. My view was always 'Who cares about these definitional games?'
Most certainly yes
'I don't really agree with the dichotomy which Scott sets up in his piece, which hinges on a fictional analogy (weak fathers vs. tough loners).'
Eh I didn't read it quite like that but you're right that this categorical opposition is obviously absurd. Being a father has a suppressive effect on physical energy, but it's also an impetus to act as an example to children. It's a challenge, not necessarily a defeat.
'Anyway, all of this is to say I think I should do a post on why Gorgo, Queen of Sparta is the ideal we need'
Oh? Do I take it that you intend a 'pivot' towards the catgirlkulaksphere?
This is in my opinion a fairly easy problem to fix. Start promoting historical noblewomen like Maria Theresa of Austria as figures to aspire to. There is also a fair amount of Jane Austen -type literature of manners which I have observed to be popular among women, in which what you have termed "virtue games" feature prominently . I highly recommend this new article on the direction society might take in the twenty-first century: https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/for-a-future-worth-living-in
Maria Teresa of Austria and Lizzie Bennet are no longer viable archetypes because women today derive much less status from their husbands or fathers than women did at that time. Today, one's job helps determine one's status, and stay-at-home mom is a low status job, whether the woman is married to a fireman or a surgeon.
There is no redemptive path for women because women are a reflection of men. A man struggles to move upwards, and is defined by this struggle, but a woman "just is". Women only moves when she attaches to a man (Christ or her husband).
This is a hard pill to swallow for a female audience hooked up on feminism, but their redemption lies with men that are strong enough to attract them away from feminism. The right should therefore not focus on appealing to women: the women will naturally come when they sense that the right is winning.
I take issue with this analysis a bit. There is a redemptive path for women and it's in self-giving love. The Bible says women are saved through their childbearing if they persevere in faith, hope, holiness and self-control. As a Catholic I recognize that not all women are called or can bear physical children, which is where spiritual motherhood comes in. All women are called to be mothers. It's just a shame that many modern women will be put much or all their motherly energy into things not related to children even if they have them.
However, that all being said, I do agree that if men get their act together women will fall into line. Women do find their bearings from the men in their lives and strong men make women more free to be themselves. Yes, feminists hate to hear that, but it's true. The most miserable women are the ones attached to pathetic men.
I've heard this from a friend, that the only way of man changes is by taking an honest look at himself and doing something about it, but a woman will only change with a man. These are both considered the positive changes, negatively the inverse can happen. Don't know if this is accurate but it is interesting.
Definitely not accurate. I am a woman and am two years sober (I am an alcoholic). I have gotten to know a lot of single women and lesbians who have changed their lives without being in a relationship.
Well, the religious answer would be God’s grace. A secular answer would be because people want to improve themselves and their situation in life, for their own sakes and for their loved ones.
It is mostly accurate! The only thing I would object to that the only way is to "take a honest look at yourself". It is only one path of changing a man.
I'm sorry, but I find your analysis very confusing. God created both men and women in His Image and Likeness. And there is no redemptive path for anyone, man or woman, without God's grace and Christ's sacrifice on cross.
You are confusing redemption in this context with salvation. Is Johann talking about women becoming christians in this article? Ofc not! He is talking about women becoming based rightwing trads! Context matters.
So, in this metaphor, redemption is analogous to being a right-wing trad, and women need men to attract them to becoming right wing trads? But men don’t need men to become right-wing trads?
My comment was aimed at men. Notice that the only man replying to my comment understood immediately what I was getting at, and that the two women that replied both got confused, mixing redemption with salvation. This is no coincidence.
I'm just a comment on an article. Since you are a woman, this makes my view the lowest of the low in your perspective. I got try and explain in detail my position, but I won't. Men will grasp what I say intuitively and once you have met a real manly man, he will teach you better than I ever will about this particular male-female dynamic.
I don’t have to wait to meet a real manly man, I have known one my whole life (my darling father).
I also don’t think you are the lowest of the low; as you said yourself, you are just a comment on an article, and that is hardly enough information to make any kind of judgement!
I do think your perspective is interesting, so I’d appreciate it if you would explain it, but obviously you are free to do what you like.
I have often wondered, especially in Anglophone cultures which have leaned Protestant for several hundred years now, if some of the hangup here is lack of veneration for the Blessed Mother (who sometimes has a great deal of vitriol hurled at her in order to emphasize theological differences.) She is a model for women and mothers in a very obvious way, but also the model Christian for *all* in terms of how she relates to God. She is the mother of God, also the mother of all, but a virgin, too.
The distinct lack of celibate vocations would also seem to play a role here - if all a woman can do is tied up in her relationship to a man and how he is gratified by her, that devaluing seems really easy. It looks really different when you have visible, known communities of celibate women (and men) devoted to the service of others and to prayer without those same expectations of reciprocity that are natural in a marriage. I think very highly of marriage (and I am a wife), but I wonder if a long period without the cultural memory of the value of celibacy as a way of life messes a lot of this up for us today.
100% agree
I very much agree with this analysis PM
Came here to say the same thing. We have lost the meaning of what a woman is. She is a beauty bearer and life bearer, a tender treasurer of her father's honor... we have lost the meaning of life, and the value of it. Our people are hardened by carnality, how can they understand purity, modesty, chastity? How can they understand risen womanhood? It is not within this culture to do so, not without metanoia.
My initial reaction to Wifejack was that it was quite belittling… I would be very embarrassed if my husband was posting the various air-headed things I sometimes say to get relatable laughs… it seems to reinforce the idea that your wife is someone you just put up with.
I had the privilege of hearing this talk in person— much of the content concerned female archetypes. https://youtu.be/AlzbnXdPRy4?si=Sdr4m3WDxRFoyx9I
I would love to read your essay on the archetypal vision of womanhood.
One of the reasons I was drawn to becoming catholic was the existence and veneration of Woman , as she is in her own right, not just of the roles of stay-at-home-mom or the helpful/submissive wife, which is all I was offered in my evangelical upbringing. Mary and the female saints obviously portray a diverse array of female excellence. Edith Stein is a great example.
I have also enjoyed the volumes of The Concept of Woman by Sister Prudence Allen.
All that to say is, I agree. If wifejak is emblematic of our beacon of womanhood then we have a lot to do in terms of women’s issues and the concept of womanhood on the right.
Thanks for these audio/book recommendations, they look excellent
I guess for me, it seems that there is an expectation that two people will come into a relationship perfectly formed and slot together without friction. That the woman should be X before we get together. That's not life at all. We are all sinners and broken and are meant to grow together into a life worth living. If we cannot believe that broken women are redeemable just as broken men are redeemable, we have no hope at all. But that's not life and certainly not the Christian ethos. Abram was 80 years old with a barren wife before God called him, a wife who would become the mother of nations. Jacob stole his brother's birthright. Mary Magdalene was possessed by 7 demons. Rahab was a freaking prostitute and became an ancestor of Jesus himself.
Very well put
This is why we love being Catholic. Mary is the perfect example of motherhood, and her venerated place in the Catholic imagination means we always have a great example visible and celebrated.
We also have saintly examples, from St. Zelie Martin (mother of St. Therese of Liseux) to St. Theresa of Calcutta (a spiritual mother to thousands) and so many more.
Catholics definitely have the strongest hand here
Don’t forget St. Monica, mother of St. Augustine!
In the line of finding a higher form for the role of wife/mother, I watched It’s a Wonderful Life last night with my family (our tradition during the start of the Christmas Season) and I think Mary Bailey (the downtrodden hero’s wife) is a picture of aspirational womanhood.
Mary is kind, brave, selfless, and passionate. As a young girl she sets her sights on her future husband when he is a young boy working in Mr. Gower’s drug store. She is the only person who witnesses George catch the accidental poisoning of pills, be beaten for it, then magnanimously forgive his boss and promise to tell no one. Time and time again, she witnesses both his grand ambitions and his heroic selflessness. She sees him and she loves him.
As a young woman with obvious intelligence, she can easily banter with the smart-mouthed George. His romantic adventurousness does not turn her off like it does other women (like the flirt Violent). She embraces the challenge with inventiveness and creativity. She isn’t afraid of getting dirty or rolling up her sleeves. She has moments of temper and frustration (she is just as passionate as George), but she knows herself too and she knows George and her love for him never wavers.
She is happy with the modest life George provides for her and their children, supporting him without complaint in the difficult, hardscrabble life he has built for himself in Bedford Falls. She believes in him, tirelessly supporting her husband in his difficult (often thankless work) being the only independent building business in the town. Her work is to turn a dilapidated ruin of a house into a beautiful home with just her wit and determination. She isn’t tempted by the high life or money. She cares for George even when he is at his lowest and most despairing and furious, yet she also challenges him when he is wrong (always with love). She is the absolute picture of the excellent wife, mother, and homemaker who is fully in her element.
When I was younger I thought her “terrible future” in the alternative world where George was never born was a little silly. In the bizarro-Bedford Falls, she is a spinster librarian with glasses. What an awful fate to be a childless librarian! The horror! But as I’ve gotten older, I see that this would be a terrible fate for Mary. She is lonely, living a life where she has never met the love of her life who inspired her to be the beating heart of a vibrant and close-knit community. She is instead a dead-end, never building her own home, never being with someone who she truly loved and respected. She could never truly love anyone else but George, the man who challenged her and who she challenged in return.
Her true vocation was loving George (with all his complexity and resentment and thwarted ambition), being the foundation of his life that allowed him to be the foundation of an entire town. In the end it is Mary who rallies the entire town around George in his hour of greatest need. She gives all the countless people in George’s life who he’s saved an opportunity to pay back the favor. He finally is able to fully appreciate the wonderful life he has built with Mary and their children.
I think that this kind of womanhood (a combination of creativity, humor, selflessness, and the building of community) is deeply aspirational in a way Wifejak is not. Mary is not passive, not stupid, not foolish (as the Wifejak can sometimes be). Instead she is foundational and heroic in her role of helpmate to the helper. She is the hero in the end of the story just as much as George is. I think characters like Mary could thread the needle of the heroic female who is the epitome of positive womanhood in its higher form.
I love this Mary Bailey is the hero of the story!
Anytime my husband shows me Wifejak, I always think “she has no kids.” Outside the convent, a woman reaches her most admirable and aspirational state through motherhood and virtue. Without motherhood or a clear mission to attain virtue, even a “trad” modern wife is just a silly, self interested creature.
William Alphonse Bougereau has some beautiful representations of motherhood (including the Blessed Mother, our ultimate aspiration). I appreciate that you’re calling for contemporary artists to portray aspirational womanhood, but until then, we can use these depictions from the past.
I'm love Bougereau's depictions of the Holy Family
This is not meant to be hostile or a gotcha moment, I am just curious: would you say that man reaches his most admirable and aspirational state through fatherhood and virtue?
If he is married, absolutely, yes. The religious life and priesthood is a higher state of life, but once you’ve committed to your vocation, being faithful to it and virtuous within it is absolutely the highest path. But I don’t expect agreement on this from a guy with David Bowie as his avatar and “overthinking hedonist” as his username 😂
If something is a good (virtuous motherhood), by definition it cannot be a bad for those it impacts (the father, for one). I know the modern liberal evo psych theory of the sexes pits our interests against each other (men should maximize sexual partners, women need to secure a provider), but the entire philosophy is one based on disordered and self interested human nature, not our highest end that God created us for.
Well, aren't priests called to be spiritual fathers? We call the pope the Holy Father. (Also, I am a lady, not a dude, btw!)
There’s something sacred about motherhood and family that seems off-putting when tokenized in meme format.
Something about wifejak hits differently than other memes and not in a good way, imo
Interesting
Coincidentally, this kind of lines up with the essay I posted this morning: I have no idea what the feminine ideal is. I know what masculine ideals are, and often strove to emulate them--but as a young woman, not understanding what womanhood is has led to a life of confusion and questions with no answers.
As others here have mentioned, perhaps the saints are a good place to start for the feminine ideals--they're diverse and all amazing, be it Joan of Arc, St. Olga, St. Mary of Egypt, or the Theotokos herself. An analysis would have to performed of these figures, however, in order to truly craft a series of ideals. (Also, in terms of girlhood and depictions in the media, I think Studio Ghibli does a good job of depicting a sort of ethereal ideal, along with movies like Brave.)
We're a big Ghibli household
Johan, I'm sure this is a very insightful take, and from the first sentence alone it's definitely headed in the right direction, but I am suffering from Wifejak Essay Fatigue and I cannot, on principle, read another multi paragraph post explicating the author's thoughts on an MS Paint edit.
I will come back and read this article in full in a week or two.
This is the right response
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the Proverbs 31 woman. She is a blueprint for ideal womanhood over a lifetime, the highest ideal. I also agree that the Virgin Mary is another good role model. (And this time of year, isn't the Magnificat a wonderful study?)
Great post. I struggled with the questions you are asking here for most of my young life. Where are the role models? Where are the women modeling what I want to be? Why are the smart Catholic female saints mostly celibate?
I chose St Margaret of Scotland for my confirmation saint when I converted at 20 because she seemed like a woman in full. She's someone a girl called to married life could admire.
The Wifejak meme is depressing because she is just so freaking dumb and basic. There's nothing evil about that but jeez life is hard; having and raising kids is thankless enough without having to end up the butt of all your husband's jokes. I don't blame young women who recoil from that role. And of course the worst part about the meme is the realization that while men complain constantly about how irrational women are, they love them all the more for it, as the irrationality makes men feel better about themselves. It makes men feel needed. There is an element of lovable sweetness to wifejak that puts average men at ease. At least they don't have to worry about their own shortcomings or their own insecurities if their wife is a featherhead. At least with her, they can relax.
My own mother is wifejak personified and my father absolutely loved her for it. She is actually very intelligent, fluent in several languages, but she is wifejak.
I never wanted to be that. And I wonder if many feminist-leaning women grew up in a household with a father who made fun of/looked down on the mother's intellect a little too much.
I have always loved the iconic woman of the American West: hard working, gritty, takes no shit from nobody, fiercely loyal. Capable of running a large enterprise, expected to do her share of the work. Husband obsessed with her and respects her, even fears her in a way. Usually the young bucks respect and admire her, too. Clara in Lonesome Dove; Ma Ingalls; Aunt Mae in Twister.
But we all see how difficult it is to write that character into a marriage, or into a maternal role. Look how poor Taylor Sheridan has struggled with Beth Dutton in Yellowstone. He has to make his heroine a whore and a broken, barren sad sack. Basically her brokenness is what enables her to bond with the male lead. Is that realistic? Probably Sheridan got closer to the ideal with his Elsa character in 1883. I imagine it's very difficult to write a female character that men both love and admire.
There is a definite Western Female ideal, similar to Penelope in that she's usually smarter and wily. But some men don't feel comfortable around a woman like that. While she is still in her prime, she doesn't put men at ease. I do think such a woman is often portrayed as very lovable and essential in her old age, and I have met a couple of really amazing older ladies who must have been absolute firecrackers in their youth, but who found universal respect and honor, even adoration in their old age.
Yes, the ideal woman is one of many contradictions:
- Submissive/meek to her husband but fierce in defending his and the family's interests against others
- Intelligent and educated enough to run a household (and a noble household can be a large and complex organization!) and yet content to limit her ambitions to this sphere
- Cultured in the arts but tethered to the home
- Physically strong and fit but modest in showing it
- Soft and loving and yet gritty and hardworking
etc.
There are also a set of contradictions which define the ideal man, but archetypal women are very difficult to capture and portray
Well, in the American West the ideal woman is not meek. It’s not high status to have a tame, simple woman. It implies the man couldn’t master more than that.
That’s why there are so many stories with wild horses/horse trainer metaphors for the male/female relationship. The Western Male is looking for an energetic, difficult, and unbroken spirit who will nevertheless eventually yield to him. But he’s not looking for an easy or “peaceful” home experience.
The desire for a meek and submissive wife is European culture. The West bred for strength and even rebellion because stronger women can manage land and also sons.
This resonates strongly with me. My wife and I chased each other across the US for a decade before getting married. Each of us upping the ante through graduate school and career. I love to joke to friends that we've been divorced twice, implying that my besting of her was hard fought. She has never been meek or submissive in demeanor even when following my lead.
Much of her support structure from her side of the family has been built off of second wave feminist values. Extended family chanting "PhD! PhD! PhD!" and pounding the table at a family dinner in support of her grad school application process will always be seared into my memory. It has been a delicate dance, but I have shown her the limitatations of going too far down that road.
We bought a home on 5 acres at the start of the year and are expecting our first child, a son, next week. I fully expect him to be taller, stronger, and more intelligent than me thanks in large part to my wife.
A suitable non-Marian archetype may well be Penelope. There’s a great deal to unpack but a suitable candidate nonetheless.
'it's an unsuitable image to present to the unmarried because it appears to confirm what they fear about women without any redemptive context'
You think so? I'm not sure (I really mean 'not sure', not 'disagree'). I think that, if I weren't married, wifejak might in fact favourably dispose me to marriage; I don't think I would fear wifejak as much as I would take it as signal that women are not as bad as they appear to be in the persona they are unhappily forced to adopt in the public sphere. I can imagine also that it *might* reassure both sexes that in marriage their petty foibles will be understood and taken as endearing.
Sure it's yet another example of the demystification of the sexes, but the ship sailed on that one a long time ago. What can be said for wifejak is that it *re-demystifies* relations between the sexes in a wholesome/harmless way, which is better than the offputting scatological stare-into-the-female-orifice pop culture campaign, with a hypergamous subtext, which was at its height 10 to 20 years ago. It's also of value as a corrective to the Tatesphere & c, which is antinatal and just allround antisocial.
A memeable idealisation of femininity--founded in nature *and* contemporary custom; present psychosocial realities should always be of non-trivial concern to the right--is still lacking. The obvious eternal feminine archetype is the Theotokos, but as everybody knows Christianity just doesn't have the pull it once did, and putting the Mother of God forward as the ideal is asking a lot ('Can YOU bear and birth the son of Our Lord, who is also Our Lord?).
There was an attempt 10 or 15 years ago with the wheatfields archetype, but it was hard to take seriously and so gave rise to many amusing counter-memes. Moreover it foundered against the pitiless reef of reality: most women now are nothing like that and are incapable of being so (let alone trying to emulate Our Lady).
The other thing I wonder is how much can realistically be expected of women when there are so few complete--or anything like complete--men around. There's are pretty good instinctive reasons (call em Biblical if you like) to think that the renovation of femininity awaits the remaking of masculinity.
Scott Greer's fresh take is maybe relevant. He's 100% right that no man can regard himself as a hero simply for raising a family.
https://substack.com/@highlyrespected/p-152513233
There's a set of false oppositions that get set up in order to spill ink and get likes. The previous generation of this question revolved around 'Is having children a political act?'. My view was always 'Who cares about these definitional games? It's a necessary but not sufficient act to achieve the world we want.'
I don't really agree with the dichotomy which Scott sets up in his piece, which hinges on a fictional analogy (weak fathers vs. tough loners). My observation is that it's generally the opposite IRL, and that this is true on the 'radicalization' index as well. If you think about the big name influencer bachelors in the DR sphere they're all pretty effete (I won't name names but...). Conversely someone like Taylor Marshall (the top Catholic podcaster), looks and sounds masculine, is pretty hoe-scaringly radical, shoots, and is a BJJ purple belt.
Anyway, all of this is to say I think I should do a post on why Gorgo, Queen of Sparta is the ideal we need
'There's a set of false oppositions that get set up in order to spill ink and get likes. The previous generation of this question revolved around 'Is having children a political act?'. My view was always 'Who cares about these definitional games?'
Most certainly yes
'I don't really agree with the dichotomy which Scott sets up in his piece, which hinges on a fictional analogy (weak fathers vs. tough loners).'
Eh I didn't read it quite like that but you're right that this categorical opposition is obviously absurd. Being a father has a suppressive effect on physical energy, but it's also an impetus to act as an example to children. It's a challenge, not necessarily a defeat.
'Anyway, all of this is to say I think I should do a post on why Gorgo, Queen of Sparta is the ideal we need'
Oh? Do I take it that you intend a 'pivot' towards the catgirlkulaksphere?
Always lucid thinking, thank you sir. Pray for me and my family, our first daughter is on the way.
Wonderful - and I will. God bless!
This is in my opinion a fairly easy problem to fix. Start promoting historical noblewomen like Maria Theresa of Austria as figures to aspire to. There is also a fair amount of Jane Austen -type literature of manners which I have observed to be popular among women, in which what you have termed "virtue games" feature prominently . I highly recommend this new article on the direction society might take in the twenty-first century: https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/for-a-future-worth-living-in
Maria Teresa of Austria and Lizzie Bennet are no longer viable archetypes because women today derive much less status from their husbands or fathers than women did at that time. Today, one's job helps determine one's status, and stay-at-home mom is a low status job, whether the woman is married to a fireman or a surgeon.
There is no redemptive path for women because women are a reflection of men. A man struggles to move upwards, and is defined by this struggle, but a woman "just is". Women only moves when she attaches to a man (Christ or her husband).
This is a hard pill to swallow for a female audience hooked up on feminism, but their redemption lies with men that are strong enough to attract them away from feminism. The right should therefore not focus on appealing to women: the women will naturally come when they sense that the right is winning.
I take issue with this analysis a bit. There is a redemptive path for women and it's in self-giving love. The Bible says women are saved through their childbearing if they persevere in faith, hope, holiness and self-control. As a Catholic I recognize that not all women are called or can bear physical children, which is where spiritual motherhood comes in. All women are called to be mothers. It's just a shame that many modern women will be put much or all their motherly energy into things not related to children even if they have them.
However, that all being said, I do agree that if men get their act together women will fall into line. Women do find their bearings from the men in their lives and strong men make women more free to be themselves. Yes, feminists hate to hear that, but it's true. The most miserable women are the ones attached to pathetic men.
I've heard this from a friend, that the only way of man changes is by taking an honest look at himself and doing something about it, but a woman will only change with a man. These are both considered the positive changes, negatively the inverse can happen. Don't know if this is accurate but it is interesting.
Definitely not accurate. I am a woman and am two years sober (I am an alcoholic). I have gotten to know a lot of single women and lesbians who have changed their lives without being in a relationship.
Thank you for responding, what is your take on why women change for the better? And for that matter why men change for the better.
Well, the religious answer would be God’s grace. A secular answer would be because people want to improve themselves and their situation in life, for their own sakes and for their loved ones.
It is mostly accurate! The only thing I would object to that the only way is to "take a honest look at yourself". It is only one path of changing a man.
I'm sorry, but I find your analysis very confusing. God created both men and women in His Image and Likeness. And there is no redemptive path for anyone, man or woman, without God's grace and Christ's sacrifice on cross.
You are confusing redemption in this context with salvation. Is Johann talking about women becoming christians in this article? Ofc not! He is talking about women becoming based rightwing trads! Context matters.
So, in this metaphor, redemption is analogous to being a right-wing trad, and women need men to attract them to becoming right wing trads? But men don’t need men to become right-wing trads?
I’m not quite following the logic here.
My comment was aimed at men. Notice that the only man replying to my comment understood immediately what I was getting at, and that the two women that replied both got confused, mixing redemption with salvation. This is no coincidence.
I'm just a comment on an article. Since you are a woman, this makes my view the lowest of the low in your perspective. I got try and explain in detail my position, but I won't. Men will grasp what I say intuitively and once you have met a real manly man, he will teach you better than I ever will about this particular male-female dynamic.
I don’t have to wait to meet a real manly man, I have known one my whole life (my darling father).
I also don’t think you are the lowest of the low; as you said yourself, you are just a comment on an article, and that is hardly enough information to make any kind of judgement!
I do think your perspective is interesting, so I’d appreciate it if you would explain it, but obviously you are free to do what you like.
If you are truly interested, I recommend reading "Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex" by Julius Evola.
*I could try