Via Passerby, a bombshell 2010 research paper that found shitliberalism is a product of a feministed matriarchal system, while shitlordism is a product of a traditional patriarchal system.
CH, this is interesting. Young people raised by single mothers or from families where the mother had more influence are more likely to be lib/left (egalitarian), young people raised by their father or from families where the father had more influence were more likely to be more right wing (anti-egalitarian).
Definition of egalitarian in this case: support of racial and social equality.
Additionally, males were more right wing than females.
***
Abstract
Using 4 samples of adolescents from 3 nations (Australia, Sweden, and the United States), the authors explored whether the gendered nature of the family socializa-
tion environment affected young people’s level of group-based social egalitarianism. It was hypothesized that the greater the father’s influence in the family, the greater the children’s level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism. The results were consistent with the authors’ expectations. Children from father-headed households had the highest level of group-based social anti-egalitarianism; children from mother-headed households had the lowest level of group-based anti-egalitarianism; and children from dual-parent households were in between. Similarly, children from homes in which the father had the greatest decision-making power tended to exhibit the highest levels of anti-egalitarianism, whereas children from homes in which the mother had the greatest decision-making power displayed the lowest levels of social anti-egalitarianism. Family structure did not interact with either the nationality or gender of the child.
Single moms produce soyboys and pussyhat sluts.
Single fathers produce warriors and tradwombs for the West.
Don’t you love when science affirms your gut instinct? It’s like, why bother with painstaking methodology and securing grant money when you can just open your door and step outside for a front row view of the world?
THAT MEN HAVE HIGHER AVERAGE LEVELS of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism than women is one of the most thoroughly and consistently validated research findings in contemporary social and political psychology…
…the relative influence of male and female parental figures should influence the general group-based anti-egalitarianism of their children. Specifically, because of the relatively higher level of social dominance orientation and group-based anti-egalitarianism found among men, the greater the overall relative influences of male versus female parental figures, the higher the average level of group-based anti-egalitarianism children would have.
“Social dominance orientation” = a great trait for players and pappies alike.
But how exactly was social dominance orientation measured in this study? This way (fyi left unmentioned but safe to assume: most of the test subjects were White):
This [anti-egalitarian/social dominance orietnation] scale assesses the degree to which one supports or rejects social equality. Because two of these four items specifically refer to race and were also embedded in a series of other questions referring to race and social class (see Sidanius, 1976), this scale has a distinctly group-based flavor. The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following four stimuli: (a) White superiority, (b) racial equality, (c) increased social equality, and (d) social equality. Each response was given on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). All responses were then coded into the direction of anti-egalitarianism.
That first stimuli goes right for the id, eh? I’ll guess that, paraphrasing, the responses broke down to “men invade, women invite“.
Swedish families tended to have slightly less male-dominated family decision-making patterns; Texas families tended to have slightly more male-dominated family decision patterns.
Stereotypes R Us!
And from the Conclusion:
Though the strength of the effects was relatively weak, the data indicated that the greater the father’s presence and decision-making power within the family, the greater the child’s level of group-based anti-egalitarianism. However, consistent with the invariance hypothesis (see Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), these family structure and family power variables did not interact with the respondent’s gender. In other words, these environments had essentially the same effects on boys and girls. Thus, the gendered-environment effect appears to be relatively constant across both the gender of the child and nationality, at least within the restricted populations sampled here.
Altogether, these results suggest that group-based anti-egalitarianism is not only affected by one’s own gender, but is also a function of the gendered nature of the family environment. Not only do men have a tendency to display transsituationally higher levels of group-based anti-egalitarianism than women do, but one’s degree of group-based anti-egalitarianism will also increase as one is exposed to male parental figures, regardless of one’s gender. […]
…these data were collected in the 1970s and 1980s, an era when paternal custody of minor children was less common than it is today….a contemporary sample of paternal caretakers would most likely have more typically male social attitudes than a sample of paternal caretakers from the 1970s and 1980s.
Will it be single fatherhood that saves European Christendom? Or will it be single mommyhood that destroys it? The race, so far, is a losing one for Team Patriarchy, but that last lap is where the warriors show their mettle.
Naturally, this paper being the product of social scientists, genetic influence is given no quarter. It could simply be that the issue of single moms inherit their pathological pussyhattery, while the issue of single fathers inherit their tribal protective instincts, and these inheritances get confused for attitudes resulting from the “gendered nature of the family in which one is raised”. Nevertheless, it confirms for everyone who doesn’t have their senses numbed by SJW screeching that there is something intuitively dangerous about ordering one’s society around matriarchy at the expense of patriarchy. You simply can’t entrust your nation and its posterity to the political preferences of women or feminized men.
To be fair, the authors did skate close to mentioning the possibility of causative mechanisms unrelated to self-survey responses:
Second, because these are correlational and self-report data, one is faced with the perennial direction-of-causation problem. Thus, rather than family structure’s affecting social attitudes, it is possible, on the one hand, that the respondents’ social attitudes were affecting their recollections of family life. On the other hand, this direction-of-causation problem is much more of a potential issue for the family-power, rather than the family-structure, variable. It is possible that those with high levels of anti-egalitarianism, for whatever reason, recalled their fathers’, rather than their mothers’, making most of the family decisions. In contrast, it is unlikely that respondents’ anti-egalitarianism attitudes also affected their recollections of family structure, regardless of whether they were raised in a single-mother, single-father or dual-parent household.
How about we play it safe and orient our society around discouraging single mommery and encouraging Father Knows Best?
[crypto-donation-box]
