This gent is very knowledgeable and honest about the child support system. (Not everyone who has worked in it are both. See his interview with Pearl Davis and his interview of me and a few other videos he did. The abuses of CS enforcement are not nearly as well known as those involving Domestic Violence, but they are more horrific. Does anyone know whom Trump or RFK, Jr. is intalling in OCSE? They could do worse than Shah.
This was a truly excellent interview, Paul. I had never heard of Shah and his podcasts, so that will tell you something about my primitive technological ability (let alone my age). His reliance on both historical and anthropological evidence is rare, admirable and necessary in any discussion of marriage. I learned that while doing research on gay marriage. I learned also, however, that discussing marriage without referring to the needs of children (and therefore to the needs of any community) is very unlikely to be helpful. In this interview, I heard nothing at all about either children (except in the context of adult needs and rights) or community. Maybe you and he will discuss these topics in a future interview.
You referred several times to "traditional" marriage in the 1950s. As you say, that was that was far from any truly traditional notion of marriage, especially that of religious traditions in the West (or anywhere else). Even so, it was closer to religious tradition than the romantic version of our time, which is in the end both empty and cynical. At the very least, it acknowledged what was then obvious: that marriage involves not only rights but also duties--and that those duties are not only to a husband or wife but also to children and to society. I don't see how any of that is possible on a secular basis.
My own parents were implicitly (not ideologically) secular Jews but nonetheless not removed far enough from Judaism to be unaware of the many ways in which religion binds families and communities together. Their conscious understanding of marriage was shallower than that of traditional Jews (those who have inherited the biblical tradition through rabbinic tradition) not so much because they lacked the guidance of doctrines or the aid of rituals but because they lacked the non-cognitive experience of holiness. And yet, their marriage was both very happy and very durable. When they married, in 1941, Jews could still assume that marriage entailed (apart from the search for holiness) renewing the Jewish community both demographically and spiritually. That was a duty, one that would inevitably involve self-sacrifice in one form or another by both parents, not merely a venue for self-gratification.
Hi Paul. As always, thank you for the thoughtful commentary. I agree that the conversation must eventually lead to the concerns of children and community. I think what we're doing now, however, is just addressing the foundation of the marital diad. I think that deserves it's own discussion, especially given laws governing marriage and the consequences of legal divorce, including the impact of divorce on children. I am sure we'll get to all of that as this discussion progresses, and I will look forward to your thoughts on all of it.
This was as a fantastic interview, Paul! It was probably one of the best I've heard you do so far.
I'm glad you came down hard on Trad Cons, because I've had that feeling deep down for a while now that what they advocate for isn't really what a traditional family looked like for most of human history, but was in fact a modern Americanized version of it.
Making it clear that women should contribute something financially to the family (either via a dowry or via her ongoing labors at home or at a job) really resonated with me, and according to Proverbs 31 (which you mentioned) is Biblical.
I would love it if you did another interview with Shah!
Thanks Paul for introducing me to Shah. I'm impressed with his knowledge and global views. Great interview. I look forward to your next interview with him.
WHY?????? did he work at child support?????? God bless Shah! He is like the Apostle Paul: He persecuted Christians/RED PILL MEN/ and then became one! Know this: The guys at the top: Athletes'/celebrities/ they are mostly blue pill idiots. Even Trump. And waiter boy tuck cuck Carlson, or Brad pit who threatened Weinstein over his FISH LIPPED wife's claims that giving head was rape, (don't get me going on (FISH LIPPED Nancy Mace) or ( that dumb football player who follows Taylors shit, or Kevin Costner admitting "my wife is on a relentless jihad" I liken them unto spoiled w0e-MEN in their own right in that they are in a privileged position and they don't see the common MAN or the common good. Even Trump himself is a fool who promotes the worst of w0e-MEN who are more gyno-centric than their left leaning counterparts. Instead of white nights rescuing damsels'/Goddesses/ how about a movie like Kramer vs. Kramer? My second time commenting on this post and worth it both times.
Yes, I guess you're right. Now wouldn't you say that there is *something*, not *everything,* about the "red pill" movement that puts a pin in that chivalric bubble, and which could, for a Christian, conduce to working for "biblical patriarchy?" I realize that RP is a wide range of views, but surely it represents a disenchantment of the pedestalized feminine. In other words, practical female psychology could be a element in the armamentarium of the Christian patriarch, as he has no option but to deal with the emotional nature of a woman on the way to some sort of real intimacy, non? Many thanks for your reply.
This gent is very knowledgeable and honest about the child support system. (Not everyone who has worked in it are both. See his interview with Pearl Davis and his interview of me and a few other videos he did. The abuses of CS enforcement are not nearly as well known as those involving Domestic Violence, but they are more horrific. Does anyone know whom Trump or RFK, Jr. is intalling in OCSE? They could do worse than Shah.
I saw this one on youtube and thouroughly enjoyed it, very good conversation.
Thanks, Joost!
This was a truly excellent interview, Paul. I had never heard of Shah and his podcasts, so that will tell you something about my primitive technological ability (let alone my age). His reliance on both historical and anthropological evidence is rare, admirable and necessary in any discussion of marriage. I learned that while doing research on gay marriage. I learned also, however, that discussing marriage without referring to the needs of children (and therefore to the needs of any community) is very unlikely to be helpful. In this interview, I heard nothing at all about either children (except in the context of adult needs and rights) or community. Maybe you and he will discuss these topics in a future interview.
You referred several times to "traditional" marriage in the 1950s. As you say, that was that was far from any truly traditional notion of marriage, especially that of religious traditions in the West (or anywhere else). Even so, it was closer to religious tradition than the romantic version of our time, which is in the end both empty and cynical. At the very least, it acknowledged what was then obvious: that marriage involves not only rights but also duties--and that those duties are not only to a husband or wife but also to children and to society. I don't see how any of that is possible on a secular basis.
My own parents were implicitly (not ideologically) secular Jews but nonetheless not removed far enough from Judaism to be unaware of the many ways in which religion binds families and communities together. Their conscious understanding of marriage was shallower than that of traditional Jews (those who have inherited the biblical tradition through rabbinic tradition) not so much because they lacked the guidance of doctrines or the aid of rituals but because they lacked the non-cognitive experience of holiness. And yet, their marriage was both very happy and very durable. When they married, in 1941, Jews could still assume that marriage entailed (apart from the search for holiness) renewing the Jewish community both demographically and spiritually. That was a duty, one that would inevitably involve self-sacrifice in one form or another by both parents, not merely a venue for self-gratification.
Hi Paul. As always, thank you for the thoughtful commentary. I agree that the conversation must eventually lead to the concerns of children and community. I think what we're doing now, however, is just addressing the foundation of the marital diad. I think that deserves it's own discussion, especially given laws governing marriage and the consequences of legal divorce, including the impact of divorce on children. I am sure we'll get to all of that as this discussion progresses, and I will look forward to your thoughts on all of it.
This was as a fantastic interview, Paul! It was probably one of the best I've heard you do so far.
I'm glad you came down hard on Trad Cons, because I've had that feeling deep down for a while now that what they advocate for isn't really what a traditional family looked like for most of human history, but was in fact a modern Americanized version of it.
Making it clear that women should contribute something financially to the family (either via a dowry or via her ongoing labors at home or at a job) really resonated with me, and according to Proverbs 31 (which you mentioned) is Biblical.
I would love it if you did another interview with Shah!
Thanks Paul for introducing me to Shah. I'm impressed with his knowledge and global views. Great interview. I look forward to your next interview with him.
WHY?????? did he work at child support?????? God bless Shah! He is like the Apostle Paul: He persecuted Christians/RED PILL MEN/ and then became one! Know this: The guys at the top: Athletes'/celebrities/ they are mostly blue pill idiots. Even Trump. And waiter boy tuck cuck Carlson, or Brad pit who threatened Weinstein over his FISH LIPPED wife's claims that giving head was rape, (don't get me going on (FISH LIPPED Nancy Mace) or ( that dumb football player who follows Taylors shit, or Kevin Costner admitting "my wife is on a relentless jihad" I liken them unto spoiled w0e-MEN in their own right in that they are in a privileged position and they don't see the common MAN or the common good. Even Trump himself is a fool who promotes the worst of w0e-MEN who are more gyno-centric than their left leaning counterparts. Instead of white nights rescuing damsels'/Goddesses/ how about a movie like Kramer vs. Kramer? My second time commenting on this post and worth it both times.
Very interesting. Really still letting this percolate.
But,
A question on biblical patriarchy. So, TradCons are not living this? Do you mean in actuality or as an ideal?
In my mind, no, they’re not. Tradcons live by the romantic code with women, which is nothing like bibical patriarchy.
Yes, I guess you're right. Now wouldn't you say that there is *something*, not *everything,* about the "red pill" movement that puts a pin in that chivalric bubble, and which could, for a Christian, conduce to working for "biblical patriarchy?" I realize that RP is a wide range of views, but surely it represents a disenchantment of the pedestalized feminine. In other words, practical female psychology could be a element in the armamentarium of the Christian patriarch, as he has no option but to deal with the emotional nature of a woman on the way to some sort of real intimacy, non? Many thanks for your reply.