Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The fascism of stay-at-home moms

Source: Shutterstock, Sheila Fitzgerald. ID: 1441453388
As the Democrat party becomes ever more radically left-wing, I often wonder how they get half the population to vote for them. I mean, not everybody is a lesbian sociology professor at Amherst. How do anti-American radicals maintain the support of people who are neither stupid nor communists?
Another interesting feature of the modern Democrat party is how it presents its radical agenda. Thirty years ago, Democrats spoke mostly in euphemisms, avoiding clear explanations of their goals. Now that their goals are widely understood to be destructive and crazy, they have to be even more careful about discussions of specific policies. They avoid those discussions if possible, of course. For example, Kamala Harris really never clearly explained what she intended to do if she were to be elected president. She wanted to get elected, so she couldn’t, obviously.
But what if you work for the Democrat party? What if your job is to explain to American citizens what Democrat policies are, and why they are superior to the Republicans? What if it’s up to you to explain away the catastrophes which result from Democrat policies, and distract attention away from the successes of Republican parties? I refer, of course, to journalists. What if you are a journalist?
It’s easy for Kamala to refuse interviews. But if you write for The New York Times, you do have to say SOMETHING. And everything you say has to present Democrats in a positive light, and it has to make at least some sense.
Now THAT is a challenging job.
I read many different news sources, and I’m often impressed with the quality of the propaganda. I admire good writing whenever I find it. And I found a great example today: An article in Mother Jones about the “Trad Wife” phenomenon.
I don’t know much about the topic, but my understanding is that Trad Wives are an Instagram trend in which attractive women make videos of themselves doing housework or cooking, wearing pretty clothes, etc. They apparently are promoting a return to traditional gender roles. And this is apparently popular. Although, again, I’ve never seen any of these videos (I’m not on Instagram), and I don’t know much about it.
The Mother Jones article begins by explaining the phenomenon using snarky descriptions of behavior that is obviously below the standards of author Morgan Jerkins. I was learning about a new topic, but wondering why she was writing about it. But like the outstanding author she is, she not only explains her topic, but also explains why the reader should care about it:
But while it might be easy to write off the trad wives as a silly meme or a guilty pleasure, they should not be taken lightly. Given the misogynistic messaging and white-centric ideals some of these influencers peddle, they are indicative of larger forces at play—henchwomen in an ongoing effort to functionally erase modern women from the public sphere.
Golly. I thought these were just videos of attractive women baking or something.
Note how she does that. She doesn’t accuse any specific Instagram actress of doing anything racist. But she associates all of them with racism and misogyny. They are part of the evil master plan of “erasing women from the public sphere,” even if none of them are aware of their own nefarious plans.
Watch her do it again. Now she is going to go from vague eye-rolling at “images of wife- and mother-hood” to accusing all participating to taking part in white nationalism. Again, without specifically accusing anyone of anything. It really is well done:
But then the vibe shifted. In 2016 and 2017, when Seyward Darby was doing research for her 2020 book, Sisters in Hate: American Women on the Front Lines of White Nationalism, she noticed an ominous subculture gaining prominence, one in which women were performing this highly curated image of wife- and motherhood. “It was aggressively anti-feminist, anti-diversity; some of it was proudly pro-white,” Darby says. Trump’s rise helped give these women a larger megaphone.
Of course, many influencers bragging about being stay-at-home moms are not white supremacists, but, as Darby points out, “it is a slippery slope—and sometimes there’s no slope at all—between ‘I’m just a nice woman who wants to be a wife and mom’ and having a very white nationalist agenda. Whether they realize it or not, those are the waters they are swimming in.”
Check out the first sentence of that second paragraph: “Of course, many influencers bragging about being stay-at-home moms are not white supremacists.” Wow. Well, I’m glad she cleared that up. Very impartial of her, making an effort to see things from the other side, despite her understandable discomfort in giving the benefit of the doubt to forces of evil such as * shiver * stay-at-home moms. The horror…
I’d like you to read the whole thing – it really is remarkable. Although I hesitate to send clicks to The Democrat Party Marketing Department. If you also hesitate to wander into such places, I’ll offer you one more example:
Watching trad wife content can pull viewers into territory they didn’t expect. “What’s scary is that there is a subtext in all these videos,” Washington Post tech columnist Taylor Lorenz tells me. For example, a trad wife might advocate for “natural living” or homeschooling, and then veer into anti–birth control rhetoric or religious indoctrination. “When you engage with these videos, because they are so adjacent to fascist, far-right content, you are quickly led down a rabbit hole of extremism.”
First, why does a Mother Jones columnist who is writing an article about Trad Wives on Instagram getting quotes from a tech columnist from The Washington Post? Second, why suggest that a trad wife might veer into bad things? Why doesn’t she give a few examples? Like I’m doing in this post. Wouldn’t actual quotes have more impact than vague possibilities? I wonder why she doesn’t give examples? I could guess why. But I don’t know. So I won’t speculate. Unlike the author of this piece. And her sources.
But forget that. Check out that last sentence: “When you engage with these videos, because they are so adjacent to fascist, far-right content, you are quickly led down a rabbit hole of extremism.” Again, she does not specifically accuse anyone of anything. She just very strongly suggests that stay-at-home moms are “adjacent to fascist, far-right content.”
Stay-at-home moms. Adjacent to fascists. My goodness. So Democrats aren’t radicals. No, of course not. Democrats are reasonable people who value good old-fashioned common sense and are concerned about dangerous new fads.
Fads like stay-at-home moms. It’s these new-fangled stay-at-home moms who are the real extremists. OK.
The whole article really is well done. Note how she gives her audience an excuse to hate not just Trad Wives on Instagram, but stay-at-home moms in general. Without pointing to any misbehavior on anyone’s part.
She never mentions one example of white supremacy or misogyny. After all, her topic is attractive women making videos about baking cookies. People probably watch these videos because they don’t want to see anything evil. But thankfully, she doesn’t need to give examples of evil to convince her audience that stay-at-home moms are evil. Because she’s a good writer, and her audience wants to believe.
Or at least her audience is willing to suspend their disbelief in an effort to feel virtuous despite supporting horrifying things, like Democrat policies.
It doesn’t have to make sense. It just needs to appear sort of plausible. Pretty much.
Imagine if similar propaganda for Republicans was as ubiquitous as The Washington Post technology writer, to CNN, to The New York Times, to 60 Minutes, to The Today Show, to People Magazine, to nearly all advertising, to our entire educational system, to Hollywood, to social media, to Mother Jones Magazine, to nearly everything else everybody sees every day. Imagine all of them promoting Republicans to this degree.
Who needs propaganda? Just use all those outlets to compare the results of Republican policies to the results of Democrat policies. Presto. No Republican would ever lose an election again.
But Democrats can maintain their destructive policies because talented writers find ways to make them seem more palatable, and they find ways to make Republicans – even stay-at-home moms! – look like the real tyrants.
This stuff is powerful.
Really well done. I’m impressed.
But powerful. And dangerous.
Published in General
The breakdown of the traditional household is a massively stupid development. Splitting the duties intelligently was the only way to do it.
There’s also an argument that commerce prefers breaking up families too, because it can result in two households instead of one, both buying the same things, paying utility bills, etc.
Name names.
The problem is the nympho part goes away, while the maniac part stays around.
If you can’t win at a game, make up a new game and force everyone else to play.
Which is even worse when you intentionally forfeited the first game.
I’ve only had two female bosses. One was good, the other excellent . . .
I was referring to WOMEN who have women bosses.
I just wanted to throw my 2-cents-worth in . . .
This is what it’s about. If you know you cannot compete on ideas, then you must generate motivation for refusing to engage. Don’t watch these videos or you’ll turn fascist; don’t listen to that person who wants you enslaved. Their power cannot be maintained other than through fear, and they go to greater and greater lengths to try and generate it.
Their base 20% will always buy in, but as the rhetoric became more extreme and the policy implications more dangerous, they’re bleeding support. They’ll continue to double down on this tactic, and we can be thankful for it.
This is really dumb, but in my limited experience with my brother-in-law only, it’s true. He’s not stupid, either. They are just constantly looking for excuses to use more government force.
“If everybody isn’t equal, it’s fascist.”
But they also have some very bad ideas of what’s “equal.”
I know, but how else can you make *** any *** comprehensive sense of what they are doing? On the right, you keep going right until you are arguing with libertarians about what you can privatize. On the left, they are trying to get various coalitions to get worked up and …well… I don’t know. They just want more government force for whatever reason and arguably the only thing that doesn’t ever run out of gas is climate change, which is stupid because there are so many poor people that don’t care at all about it.
If you want everybody to be equal, wipe out the Federal Reserve, and probably go to full reserve banking. Inflation is patently stupid and we are too stupid and corrupt to run a fractional reserve banking system.
All trade and automation creates deflation, i.e. more purchasing power. Why do we keep fighting it?
How big of a tin foil hat do you want to see?
The straightforward answer is deflation discourages consumer spending, at least it did in Japan. Deflation doesn’t enrich the powers that be.
We could handle a straight half a percent or a percent of deflation.
What do you think happens when everybody’s looking for lower prices and trade and automation gives it to them?
They force inflation with colored pieces of paper (the way they measure it is a joke) all of the time and now nobody can afford anything.
wE LiKe lOwer PRiceS fRom autOMatioN aND gLoBaLiZeD tRadE bUT wE neeD inFLation aNyWaY sO mY houSE goEs up.
foRCInG uS tO uSE goVErNmENt moNEy mAKes ouR lIvEs betTEr
pRIvAtE mONeY wOuLD bE TErriblE sO iTs ILlegAL
cEntRal pLAnNing MakEs oUr liVEs beTTEr
lIbERtaRiAns dOn’t lIVe iN tHe rEAl woRld
I don’t get why some people don’t get that. Why buy something today, if it will be cheaper tomorrow?
Among other things.
I just saw Mark Andreessen, the Netscape guy, say on Joe Rogan’s podcast that AI is going to take all of the jobs.
We can sit around and whine about UBI and moral turpitude or we can switch to deflation.
Actually, we can’t do that because there’s too much debt. So they are going to force an insane amount of inflation.
You constantly need things.
We are too stupid and corrupt to manage inflation. There is no one inflation rate that represents what a family goes through. They constantly miss measure it as if you could actually measure it.
The only difference is people would have to put more money down on loans. But we can’t do that because everything is too expensive particularly housing, which is the only weapon most people use against inflation. Why do you need to use a weapon against inflation?
The only utility of inflation and the income tax is the possibility of getting into a war and keeping the trade routes open. My advice is don’t trade with the Chinese militant mafia.
DISCUSS!
@kedavis
This is your problem —->
wE LiKe lOwer PRiceS fRom autOMatioN aND gLoBaLiZeD tRadE bUT wE neeD inFLation aNyWaY sO mY houSE goEs up.
We constantly need air, food, water… other things, not so much.
Why would people put MORE money down on loans? Wouldn’t lenders prefer to be repaid later, with money that’s worth MORE?
China isn’t the only reason for keeping trade routes open. They might be the biggest right now, but that hasn’t always been true either.
Inflation is one reason that home PRICES – not VALUES, but PRICES – go up, but it’s not the only one, maybe not even the main one. Government regulations probably account for more of it.
So we can force it with central planning since 1914. Do you think anybody is enthused with this situation anymore?
If your paper money is constantly going down in value, this is the only prudent way to pay off the loan unless you’ve got some double secret way of making profits.
No. Fractional reserve banking means that the bank is massively levered up and they don’t care. They would rather have the inflation so they get the money back.
Nice point about VALUES. *People still have to fork over for the price.
Why do you think the government forces up housing? Shouldn’t they quit doing this? Does anybody net out from this except they’re really old people?
I thought you meant loans etc in the deflationary system you wanted. My mistake.
The main problem now is likely that jobs are less stable than they used to be. I think it’s a good idea for people to own a home before they retire, because it’s a lot easier to live on even just Social Security if you’re not paying rent forever.
For myself, a big reason I own instead of rent is that I always paid less to buy than to rent. Sometimes MUCH less, depending on how big the remaining balance was. And at some point, the payments stop. Other than taxes etc, which other people also pay through their rent.
My youngest brother is paying $1000/month rent for a small 2-bedroom apartment. Others in his area pay about $1700 but their units have been “remodeled.” He made a deal for lower rent without remodeling. But it still keeps going up every year.
I pay just over $400/month on the purchase note for my 4,500 sq ft place, and those payments end in about 20 months. The original term was just 72 months. But I was able to put a lot down, because I also owned my place in Phoenix, and could then sell it. Renters can’t do that.
If you were under a deflationary system, the banking system would change dramatically. It’s harder to make loans. It’s harder to pay them back. Thus, you would save extra in the increasingly appreciating paper money to put down on a loan.
Credit growth / debt growth is critical for an economy, but we are overdoing it and we are doing it in a very stupid way. I mean, we would all die if the government wasn’t constantly spitting out debt that it can’t repay.
So then you’ve got 2/3 of the country with its back against the wall because of inflation.
Central planning is stupid and the only reason we do it is because we might get into a war. We are too stupid and corrupt to do this.
He didn’t say that. He said that it would take a lot of jobs, and that it would also create new jobs.
What he’s not saying is that the people displaced by new technology won’t likely get those new jobs.
LOL
The government isn’t central planning well enough! AI is taking all of the jobs!
What about the poor bastards that are starting out?
This is a stupid system and a stupid game and the runway has run out.
A continuation of the problem that’s been ongoing for decades already. Increasing demand for higher-quality/higher-intelligence workers, while the average intelligence of PEOPLE doesn’t seem to increase.
Which means at some point, you might have all the needed work being done by a fraction of the total population, and there’s basically nothing that the rest are NEEDED for. Even if they were CAPABLE, which many won’t be. Yet they’re expected to still have A Job of some kind?