Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?
self | 10/30/2002 | SauronOfMordor

Posted on 10/30/2002 6:58:08 AM PST by SauronOfMordor

Does Patriarchy Benefit Women?

Much has been said in feminist circles about how women are oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means “rule by fathers” and is a system where men effectively are in control of property and decision-making. An important characteristic of patriarchal systems is that they are generally also patrilineal (a child’s descent is described by who his father, and father’s father were, rather than through the mother’s line).

The question I’m putting forth here is: Does the patriarchal/patrilineal system act more to oppress women, or is it actually more a way for women to tap and control male energy? My assertion is that patriarchal society creates an incentive structure that enables women to harness male energy and initiative for the benefit of women and their children.

In patrilineal societies, men tend to be confident that the children of their household are theirs, and take an active role in their upbringing. The men also tend to perform long-range planning, and invest time and effort into making life better for their offspring.

Matrilineal societies have been recorded in early history, and still exist in sections of Africa. The matrilineal societies of ancient times did not leave much in the way of historical record. In modern times, where they exist, they are generally poor and technologically primitive. To some extent, the welfare enclaves of our inner cities are increasingly matrilineal. In the developing matrilineal societies in our inner cities, the defining characteristic is that males have no permanent attachment to the children they father, nor to the women who are the mothers of their children. In such an environment, males tend not to make long-range plans for the well-being of their children, nor do they make much effort to create the institutions that would be needed for long-term stability and prosperity.

In classic patriarchal cultures, men are motivated to amass wealth through the acquisition and enhancement of productive facilities: land, ships, businesses – things that will produce revenue to support a family, and which will provide an inheritance to pass along to their children. Part of the motivation is from love and emotional attachment. A large part of it is also pride and self-image -- the desire to leave a legacy, to be remembered as a great person after he's gone.

Having children who are emotionally attached to you has mutual benefits: the children can rely on support during their vulnerable years, and parents can have the expectation of support in their declining years. This can be very important in societies where survival is not assured unless you have a committed provider looking out for you.

Once someone has property, he has a strong incentive to promote institutions to protect and preserve his property. He bands together with his neighbors, in mutual protection. He has an incentive to cooperate with his neighbors to create improvements for their mutual benefit: roads, irrigation systems, etc. The incentive system promotes the institutions needed to preserve itself

Now let’s consider the incentive system for males in a matrilineal environment. When a man cohabits with a woman, he has no assurance of any of the children being his. He is less likely to experience any emotional bonding with them, and may consider them an interference with his relationship with the woman. He will have no expectation that the children will take care of him in his old age, and will be much less likely to make any investment in the children’s well-being.

In such an environment, the male won’t expect to survive much past the point where he’s no longer strong enough to obtain food and resources through his own strength. He’s likely to be invited to share the bed of a woman as long as he provides for her and protects her, and invited to leave when she acquires a better provider. The incentive will be to acquire wealth the fastest and easiest way he can: by getting together into a strong gang and taking it from somebody else. In matrilineal societies, whether in Somalia or South Central LA, the men tend to band together into warring gangs rather than engage in productive work.

In a competition between a patriarchal society and a matrilineal society, the patriarchal society will tend to prevail. The men of the patriarchal society are more likely to stand and fight off encroachments to territory they consider their property, while the men of the matrilineal society will be more likely to seek easier targets in another direction. A man will fight for his wife, his children, and his property – they are HIS, and part of his self-identity. A man is less likely to endure long-term conflict to protect the property of a woman he considers to be just a temporary girlfriend – it’s simpler to just find another girlfriend in an area with less conflict.

Comparing a patriarchal culture with a matrilineal culture, the advantages for women become apparent. By channeling male energy and imagination into long-term planning, patriarchy creates an environment where women and children are better provided for and better protected, thus better assuring long-term survival for all concerned.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs; patriarchy; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-567 next last

1 posted on 10/30/2002 6:58:08 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Interesting.
2 posted on 10/30/2002 7:14:27 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Very good! I went to a seminar on "the role of the man in the family" about 12 years ago that talked of this issue. One of the interesting examples/questions he used was: Gentlemen, if your wife is driving down the road and the oil light comes on and she keeps driving, who's responsibility is it when the engine feezes up? Answer: It's your responsibility. Is that a good deal for the woman? You bet. Is it a good deal for you? It just is. But since you're responsible, maybe you will always make sure there is oil in the car so the problem won't occur.

When men understand and TAKE their responsibility which, btw, also implies AUTHORITY, they are empowered to control their own destiny and the destiny of their family. REAL women want exactly that in a man.

3 posted on 10/30/2002 7:14:58 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes; right2parent; sonserae; ValerieUSA; M. Peach; msru; longtermmemmory; ...
ping
4 posted on 10/30/2002 7:15:18 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; wardaddy
Bump
5 posted on 10/30/2002 7:18:27 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
Are unbridled Vanity posts a scheme by Yahoo! to assimilate Free Republic?
6 posted on 10/30/2002 7:19:49 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Your observations are valid, Sauron.

Furthermore, in contemporary society, men show all the signs of an oppressed minority: lower life expectancy; higher proclivity of almost all diseases; higher alcoholism, suicide, imprisonment, depression, heart attack, hypertension. It is men who die on the battlefields, who are last in the lifeboats, and who stand as the ladies sit.

It can be argued that the toll that stress takes on men, e.g. the heart attacks and early death rates in the corporate world, is the result of the exploitation of the male minority by the female majority.

However, as the father of a daughter and a son, and as someone who loves people, whether they be men or women, I definitely favor a healthy balance. I'm sure you do too.

The best way for this to happen is for government to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex and for society to encourage everyone to pursue happiness in his or her own way.

I think there has been a balance throughout most of the world's history. E.g., when women were not allowed to own property, it was men who died on the battlefields.

I am not disagreeing with what you have said. I'm just making a few observations.

7 posted on 10/30/2002 7:21:29 AM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
bump .. interesting point and probably correct.

Women flourish where they are treated as people to be put on pedastals.

8 posted on 10/30/2002 7:22:15 AM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
>>The question I’m putting forth here is: Does the patriarchal/patrilineal system act more to oppress women, or is it actually more a way for women to tap and control male energy?<<

Both are true (your propositions are not mutually exclusive), although I would dispute the term "oppress".

Patriarchy is a mutually beneficial arrangement among men, women, and children which allows civilization to exist and which protects and provides for children.

It requires from all of the participants a certain surrender of self-actualization. This surrender is incorrectly described as "oppression", since the benefits derived over time are greater than that which is given up.

Also, the refusal of consent (in our time, principally by women) can destroy the arrangement, which is also not a feature of oppression as I understand it.

It may or may not be possible to restore patriarchal social relations in our time. The massive amount of angst and unhappiness about socio-sexual relations that is so visible in mass media and on the dating circuit suggests it may be possible, but who knows?

9 posted on 10/30/2002 7:26:17 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
...and who stand as the ladies sit.

And many times get to listen to a woman's silence after holding a door for her.

10 posted on 10/30/2002 7:29:53 AM PST by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; Nick Danger; Jim Noble; IronJack
Does Patriarchy Benefit Women? Much has been said in feminist circles about how women are oppressed by patriarchy. Patriarchy literally means “rule by fathers” and is a system where men effectively are in control of property and decision-making. An important characteristic of patriarchal systems is that they are generally also patrilineal (a child’s descent is described by who his father, and father’s father were, rather than through the mother’s line). The question I’m putting forth here is: Does the patriarchal/patrilineal system act more to oppress women, or is it actually more a way for women to tap and control male energy? My assertion is that patriarchal society creates an incentive structure that enables women to harness male energy and initiative for the benefit of women and their children. In patrilineal societies, men tend to be confident that the children of their household are theirs, and take an active role in their upbringing. The men also tend to perform long-range planning, and invest time and effort into making life better for their offspring. Matrilineal societies have been recorded in early history, and still exist in sections of Africa. The matrilineal societies of ancient times did not leave much in the way of historical record. In modern times, where they exist, they are generally poor and technologically primitive. To some extent, the welfare enclaves of our inner cities are increasingly matrilineal. In the developing matrilineal societies in our inner cities, the defining characteristic is that males have no permanent attachment to the children they father, nor to the women who are the mothers of their children. In such an environment, males tend not to make long-range plans for the well-being of their children, nor do they make much effort to create the institutions that would be needed for long-term stability and prosperity. In classic patriarchal cultures, men are motivated to amass wealth through the acquisition and enhancement of productive facilities: land, ships, businesses – things that will produce revenue to support a family, and which will provide an inheritance to pass along to their children. Part of the motivation is from love and emotional attachment. A large part of it is also pride and self-image -- the desire to leave a legacy, to be remembered as a great person after he's gone. Having children who are emotionally attached to you has mutual benefits: the children can rely on support during their vulnerable years, and parents can have the expectation of support in their declining years. This can be very important in societies where survival is not assured unless you have a committed provider looking out for you. Once someone has property, he has a strong incentive to promote institutions to protect and preserve his property. He bands together with his neighbors, in mutual protection. He has an incentive to cooperate with his neighbors to create improvements for their mutual benefit: roads, irrigation systems, etc. The incentive system promotes the institutions needed to preserve itself Now let’s consider the incentive system for males in a matrilineal environment. When a man cohabits with a woman, he has no assurance of any of the children being his. He is less likely to experience any emotional bonding with them, and may consider them an interference with his relationship with the woman. He will have no expectation that the children will take care of him in his old age, and will be much less likely to make any investment in the children’s well-being. In such an environment, the male won’t expect to survive much past the point where he’s no longer strong enough to obtain food and resources through his own strength. He’s likely to be invited to share the bed of a woman as long as he provides for her and protects her, and invited to leave when she acquires a better provider. The incentive will be to acquire wealth the fastest and easiest way he can: by getting together into a strong gang and taking it from somebody else. In matrilineal societies, whether in Somalia or South Central LA, the men tend to band together into warring gangs rather than engage in productive work. In a competition between a patriarchal society and a matrilineal society, the patriarchal society will tend to prevail. The men of the patriarchal society are more likely to stand and fight off encroachments to territory they consider their property, while the men of the matrilineal society will be more likely to seek easier targets in another direction. A man will fight for his wife, his children, and his property – they are HIS, and part of his self-identity. A man is less likely to endure long-term conflict to protect the property of a woman he considers to be just a temporary girlfriend – it’s simpler to just find another girlfriend in an area with less conflict. Comparing a patriarchal culture with a matrilineal culture, the advantages for women become apparent. By channeling male energy and imagination into long-term planning, patriarchy creates an environment where women and children are better provided for and better protected, thus better assuring long-term survival for all concerned.

Very well said.

You might've subtitled this: "From Patriarchy To Matriarchy: The Decline And Fall Of Western Civilization."

11 posted on 10/30/2002 7:32:21 AM PST by Z in Oregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Why was that done?
12 posted on 10/30/2002 7:34:37 AM PST by Z in Oregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Ya know, if only one generation of men would REFUSE to marry, we could probably end Feminism, Political Correctness, and many others of society's ills in less than a decade.

Today, marriage and children are close to a death sentence for a man, and I dont understand why men still willingly walk down the aisle with these pampered, pre-plump princesses.

Men should be holding out for a better deal.

13 posted on 10/30/2002 7:40:54 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Both are true (your propositions are not mutually exclusive), although I would dispute the term "oppress".

The term "oppress" generally means to impose burdens without compensating benefits. My job does not oppress me: I have to spend lots of time at it, but I get paid. If I was forced to work at it without payment, then it would be oppression. My point is: did patriarchy generated benefits to women that exceeded the costs to women? I think it did.

14 posted on 10/30/2002 7:41:00 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
fyi
15 posted on 10/30/2002 7:43:12 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
It was a great post I was unaware Jim died and left the site to you.
16 posted on 10/30/2002 7:43:39 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Having another "illday", Illbay?
17 posted on 10/30/2002 7:44:38 AM PST by Lurking2Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I am now in the classic patriarchal model family and neither myself or Robroys Woman would have it any other way.

It works EXTREMELY well when both sides buy into it...
18 posted on 10/30/2002 7:46:22 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Ill marry if I can get a very rich girl to agree( or when Im 50 want a son am rich myself and can get a prenup worth the paper its written on) otherwise you get screwed due to the "no fault" divorce laws of today.
19 posted on 10/30/2002 7:46:52 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Its the most natural system. Feminism is not only a hate movement against men but a rebellion against reality.
20 posted on 10/30/2002 7:47:37 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Ya know, if only one generation of men would REFUSE to marry, we could probably end Feminism, Political Correctness, and many others of society's ills in less than a decade.

The problem is: can it be done without bringing Western Civilization crashing down in the process (or at least, crashing it faster than it already is)

The Islamic influx into Western Europe demonstrates my point: the Muslims may not be doing as well economicly as the Europeans, but their women are having children at well-above-replacement rates, while the liberated European women are not having kids

In the long term, economic affluence is not as relevent as survival is. In that context, traditional Islam may turn out to be the superior ideology by the only criterion that matters: they will be the ones that are left

21 posted on 10/30/2002 7:48:13 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
My point is: did patriarchy generated benefits to women that exceeded the costs to women? I think it did.

Look at it another way. What is known as "women's work" or chores is mundanely repetitive. And most of it is somewhat thankless. That doesn't change that it still needs to be done. Imagine someone comes along and says "why are you doing that thankless job? you deserve help. There's more to life than this. Men have all the fun." It's seductive, a siren's call. Women love to be seduced. That's part of what happened. It was a sales pitch.

I hear this kind of thing all the time, and I'm not married, but I'd rather do the tasks myself. Spend a good two hours cleaning the house and you don't need to go to the gym. Just keep moving...
22 posted on 10/30/2002 7:51:34 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Why does the subject matter of this essay bother you?

23 posted on 10/30/2002 7:55:07 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Bookmarked and bumped
24 posted on 10/30/2002 7:56:05 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; weikel
I think if men were very clear and vocal about their REASONS for refusing to marry, things would change over time without nessesarily bringing down western civilization.

Men have got to understand that Marriage and Children are a blanket invitation to complete Government regulation of their lives. Nothing a man does after getting married and having children is beyond the scrutiny of some judge somewhere, and it could cost him everything.

Women need to be made to understand that men are soon going to refuse to live under these conditions, if anything is going to change.

Men should just opt out, until women (and courts) understand. It's time for the Single and Vasectomy generation! LOL!

25 posted on 10/30/2002 7:57:57 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
LIGHT BULB!!!

It just hit me. Considering the original post and what we all know is being done to black men in the inner city and in prisons, is it any wonder black men are flocking to Nation of Islam in droves, considering it’s precepts?

It seems that it could supply a strong male need that is simply not being met otherwise (I'm talking about a family and future in which he plays the role of father figure and provider, with authority over his dominion/family), especially for boys/men who grow up in the poor black cultural centers of the US.
26 posted on 10/30/2002 8:00:27 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
And your two-sentence vanity from Friday was Breaking News?

Perfect one-liner for debating Libertines

The thread’s entire original post:
Next time they try to tell you what kind of Republic the Founders envisioned...
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington

27 posted on 10/30/2002 8:01:07 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
The problem is that the barbarian 3rd worlders still breed like rats and nothing is going to stop that( I wish we would stop sending them aid then a Malthusian mechanism could kick in and "regulate") so we need to at least replace our numbers.
28 posted on 10/30/2002 8:02:10 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
>>Men have got to understand that Marriage and Children are a blanket invitation to complete Government regulation of their lives. Nothing a man does after getting married and having children is beyond the scrutiny of some judge somewhere, and it could cost him everything. <<

Holy cow, man! You just SUCCESSFULLY squeezed the entire problem faced by MILLIONS of men and our cultural survival into two sentences.

BRAVO!
29 posted on 10/30/2002 8:05:15 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"Another Vanity on Vanities" by Jim Robinson

"Please help us improve the news to noise ratio - post your rant as a reply rather than a vanity post" by Jim Robinson

"Vanity: Please help prevent the vanity explosion" by Jim Robinson

30 posted on 10/30/2002 8:05:33 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Women flourish where they are treated as people to be put on pedastals.

---------------------------

To be treated as such, they must first acts as such.

31 posted on 10/30/2002 8:05:55 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Regarding Jims attitude on vanity posts such as this, you should go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a16099f6810.htm

I got it from your own page.
32 posted on 10/30/2002 8:07:36 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
1. Didn't post it as "Breaking News."

2. Look at the source: It was published in "The Federalist" magazine.

3. A "Vanity" is simply a self-authored rant. Gen. George Washington was the author of MY "rant." Got any problems, take them up with him.

33 posted on 10/30/2002 8:08:07 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
never mind, I see you posted it already. Did you READ it? It clearly justifies this particular vanity.
34 posted on 10/30/2002 8:08:45 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Again, things like government aid to other nations is a purely feminine thing to do. If men can regain (their testicles) control over Government, and return it to a THINKING body instead of a "feel-your-pain" mommy form of government, then we have a fighting chance.

Commpassion and Altruism in Government must end, in the same way it must end in men's lives (towards single women) if anything is going to change.

35 posted on 10/30/2002 8:10:41 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Ive been advocating the repeal of the 19th amendment for a long time( though im against popular government in general monarchy is better).
36 posted on 10/30/2002 8:14:29 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
One quote does not make an article.
37 posted on 10/30/2002 8:15:47 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Holy cow, man! You just SUCCESSFULLY squeezed the entire problem faced by MILLIONS of men and our cultural survival into two sentences.

As a single-childless male, I have many friends who have stated that they would give up EVERYTHING, if they could return to a life without a wife and children, where their incomes are their own, and they are free to "associate" with as many women as they please, without risk of some judge confiscating their wealth, just because Princess needed to "find herself".

Man, I could tell you some horror stories that would cause your manhood to shrivel up and die. There is no way in hell that I would EVER consider marriage under current conditions. No sane man would. Unfortunatly, the female body has powers to drive most men temporarily insane.

38 posted on 10/30/2002 8:16:16 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Ahh, Illbay... How many times are you going to call in the Mods? Let's count... NINE times you've called them since 10:46 am Monday morning. Bad weekend?

Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men? ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On News/Activism ^ 10/30/2002 10:19 AM EST #6 of 25 ^
Are unbridled Vanity posts a scheme by Yahoo! to assimilate Free Republic?

Who does the GOP get to talk some sense in to Bob Smith to Endorse Sununu ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On News/Activism ^ 10/30/2002 10:42 AM EST #3 of 6 ^
Who do we get to tell all the Newbies the serial Vanity posts is one of the biggest no-nos on FR?

Just what exactly is a sympathy vote? ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On General Interest ^ 10/28/2002 2:13 PM EST #6 of 9 ^
In fact, I would submit that we now have more pointless Vanity posts showing up each day in "News/Activism" than are posted in "General." Does this not give you pause to consider that some sort of action needs to be taken?

Are the Beltway Snipers Homosexual?
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On General Interest ^ 10/28/2002 2:09 PM EST #19 of 51 ^
More Vanity Posts with various and sundry detailed discussions of the sniper flap. Of course, there are umpteen sniper threads this could have been posted to, but because you "powers-that-be" have chosen to relax the standards, now everyone thinks what s/he thinks on any particular subject is worthy of its own thread. Just wondering where we're headed, here.

Post '94 election recollections here
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On News/Activism ^ 10/28/2002 12:06 PM EST #2 of 21 ^
If you want a perfect example of a pointless Vanity that belongs in "General," this is it. I repeat (ad infinitum it seems): The Vanity problem has probably never been this bad since 9/11.

My Eulogy for Paul Wellstone ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On News/Activism ^ 10/28/2002 12:03 PM EST #43 of 117 ^
Nice sentiment and all, but aren't there scads of "Paul Wellstone, R.I.P." threads? Why another one, and a vanity at that? I continue to ask: Is this the result of a NEW POLICY on FR, or do the old rules regarding Vanities still apply? If so, are you just overrun with Vanities such that you can't find time to move them (or remove them, as the case might be?) Can't we figure this out? The Vanities are bumping out REAL news, which is why the majority of us, I submit, come to FR; NOT to hear the opinions of various and sundry. If we want that, Yahoo! has plenty of BBSes for the purpose. I simply hate to see FR turning into nothing but a Bulletin Board. In the past, we've taken steps to make sure that doesn't happen. Why not now?

Democratics take the house by 3 ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On General Interest ^ 10/28/2002 11:08 AM EST #10 of 13 ^
Another mindless, pointless Vanity. What is going on? Is there a new policy that I haven't heard about? Can we not have an Admin thread started to handle this--one that doesn't get moved to "General"?

Question of Day: Why No TV Footage of Caprice by the Telephone Booth? ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On News/Activism ^ 10/28/2002 11:06 AM EST #5 of 45 ^
Lots and lots of threads about the sniper. Why is a separate one about one tiny detail necessary? The Vanity problem is growing out of control.

Media dissapointed with Angels Victory ^
Posted by Illbay to Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
On General Interest ^ 10/28/2002 10:40 AM EST #10 of 38 ^
Yet another example of the senseless Vanities that continue to proliferate. I notice you moved the "Vanity" I had posted decrying the Vanities, to "General." Yet these continue on. What gives? What are the rules? Is there some threshhold of contribution to FR that allows us to post whatever we want, wherever we want? If so, what is the threshhold that allows us to move all Vanities to "General" whenever we want? Let me know the amount; I'll try to work it into my budget.

39 posted on 10/30/2002 8:20:00 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RLK; Centurion2000
Women flourish where they are treated as people to be put on pedastals.

To be treated as such, they must first acts as such.


Unfortunately, lady-like behavior must be taught or mimiced and when role models presented to girls are Hillary Clinton and company who have all the grace, charm and tact of steam-rollers we have a problem.
40 posted on 10/30/2002 8:22:16 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
The problem with your whole line of reasoning is obvious: You examine only the two extreme choices of matriarchy and patriarchy. Although not stated explicitly, you assume that power must be divded along gender lines. I contend that is a completely erroneous assumption.

The old soviet system was oppressive in many ways, one of which was that potential was limited. At a very early age, the future of an individual was determined, and the individual was locked into it. A patriarchy creates exactly such a system for women. From birth, a woman in a patriarchal system has one future, one role, one destiny. No matter how pleasant you percieve that to be for a woman, it is still cage, and no matter how gilded, it remains a cage.

Matriarchal systems are every bit as cruel. From birth, a male child is excluded from the power system, and nothing can change that, for he his male.

Perhaps, just perhaps it's best to leave possibilities open for everyone? Just maybe merit should trump gender? Think about it.

41 posted on 10/30/2002 8:25:59 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Three examples of the many times Jim has posted about this topic. You've been here long enough to know that Jim has said more than several times that well though out essays are not "vanities". In one of your examples is this statement by Jim, "I do have a problem with an unending stream of one liner vanity posts, rants, and questions." Get it?

This essay is indistinguishable from any piece pulled and "legitimately" posted from any news site in the country. Therefore, you must have a problem with the subject matter. What is it?

(P.S. You alerted the moderator. If this is a "vanity" post, the moderator will pull it, won't he. We'll check back later. . .)

42 posted on 10/30/2002 8:34:25 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
So we really don't choose how we live. This is all about genetics, and evolution, and human nature, and survival of the fittest, and what makes us live longer. We should live how we are programmed to live? Bees live that way, too.

It seems to me that if we decide that another way of living is more desireable, for whatever reasons, our choice, than it is worth living.
43 posted on 10/30/2002 8:37:33 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Just maybe merit should trump gender? Think about it.

Certainly it should, but when we talk about "which system should rule", it is exceedingly hard to maintain a meritocracy. Just look at the class envy methods used by the Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists (but I repeat myself!) to destroy any hope for such a system. Also, while the essay does look to be promoting one system over another, I find it comforting to finally read a well-written opinion piece that doesn't assail all males for the patriarchal system that has existed for thousands of years. From the immortal words of John Belushi as Jake Blues, "It wasn't my fault!!!" ;^)

44 posted on 10/30/2002 8:41:14 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; RLK; Centurion2000
>>Unfortunately, lady-like behavior must be taught or mimiced and when role models presented to girls are Hillary Clinton and company who have all the grace, charm and tact of steam-rollers we have a problem. <<

Which explains this:




Why White Men Prefer Asian Women

The View From A Sushi Bar





There is near me an Asian sushi-beer-and-dinner establishment that I’ll call the Asia Spot. The region is urban, so the clientele is a mix of some of just about everything, but the waitresses are all Asian, principally Japanese, Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Thai.

The Spot is a neighborhood bar. A large after-work crowd, many of them regulars, gather at happy hour. The social dynamics are curious. It would be an exaggeration to say, as someone did, that the black guys come to pick up white women, and the white men come to get away from them – but it would be an exaggeration of an underlying truth. The waitresses are a large part of the Spot’s appeal.

A common subject of conversation among male customers is how very attractive these women are when compared to American women. It is not a thought safe to utter in mixed company. It is a very common thought. American women know it.

Why are the Asians attractive? What, to huge numbers of men, makes almost any Asian more appealing than almost any American? The question is much discussed by men at the Spot. (I should say here that when I say “women,” I mean the majority of women, the mainstream, the center of gravity. Yes, there are exceptions and degrees.)

American women of my acquaintance offer several explanations, all of them wrong. For example, they say that Asian women are sexually easy. No. American women are sexually easy. The waitresses at the Spot are not available. They date, but they cannot be picked up.

Another explanation popular among American women is that men want submissive women, which Asians are believed to be. Again, no. For one thing, submissive people are bland and boring. In any event the waitresses aren’t submissive. Many compete successfully in tough professions. Among Asian waitresses I know I count an electrical engineer who does wide-area networks, and a woman with a masters in biochemistry who, upon finding that research required a Ph.D and didn’t pay, went back to school and became a dentist. Both of these wait tables to help out in the family restaurant.

At the Spot I know a woman waitressing her way through a degree in computer security, a bright Japansese college graduate making a career in the restaurant business, and the manager of the Spot – not a light-weight job. Submissiveness has nothing to do with their attractiveness.

Why, then, are they so very appealing?

To begin with, look at the American women in the Spot. Perhaps a third of them are stylishly dressed. The rest of the gringas run from undistinguished to dumpster-casual: baggy jeans, oversize shirts -- often male shirts -- with the tails out. They seem to affect a sort of homeless chic, actually to want to look bad, and do it with more than a touch of androgyny. A high proportion are at least somewhat overweight. (So are the men, but that’s another subject.) The Asians, without exception, are sleek, well-groomed, and dressed with an understated sexiness that never pushes trashy.

Further, the Asians are what were once called “ladies,” a thought repellant to feminists but very so refreshing to men. Listen to the American women at neighboring tables, and you will frequently hear phrases like, “He’s a fucking piece of shit.” In what appears to be a determined attempt to be men, they have adopted the mode of discourse of a male locker room and made it their normal language. The Asians, classier, better students of men, do not have foul mouths. They presumably know about body parts and bathroom functions, but do not believe that a woman raises her stature by referring to them constantly in mixed company.

Men at the Spot, I have noticed, instantly understand that cloacal commentqry is not wanted, and don’t engage in it: In the presence of the civilized, men adopt the standards of civilization. Men also tend to think of women as women think of themselves. The Asians, without displaying vanity, clearly think well of themselves. And ought to.

All in all, they give the impression that they do not want to be one of the guys. They want to be one of the girls. Here we come to the core of their appeal. Let me elaborate.

The default position of American women is what men refer to as “the chip,” a veiled truculence, mixed with a not-very-veiled hostility toward men and a shaky sense of sexual identity. The result is a touchiness reminiscent of hungover ferrets. There is a bandsaw edge to them, a watching for any slight so that they can show that they aren’t going to take it. They are poised to lash out in aggressive defense of their manhood.

As best as I can tell, they don’t like being women. Here is the entire problem in five words.

The Asians at the Spot show every indication that they do like being women. They do not seem to have anything to prove. Being happy with what they are allows them to be comfortable with what they are not – men. They are not competing to be what they can’t be with people who can’t be anything else. They don’t have to establish their masculinity because they don’t want it. They do not assume, as American women tend to, that femaleness is a diseased condition to be treated by male clothes, gutter language, and bad temper.

I’ve spent many dozens of hours chatting with the gals at the Spot, and never seen a sign of the chip. For a man, the experience is wonderful beyond description – smart, pretty, classy women, who are women, and are not the enemy. As long as American women carry the chip, the Asian gals will eat them alive in the dating market.

Note that the espousal of hostile obnoxiousness as a guiding philosophy appears to be an almost uniquely American horror. It certainly isn’t requisite to independence oe self-respect. I recently met a quite attractive blonde who, among other things, was smart, a long-haul motorcyclist, a student of the martial arts out of sheer athletic enjoyment of it, and an excellent marksman. She was also heterosexual, feminine, delightful company, and had no trace of “the chip.” I was astonished. How was this possible, I wondered?

She was Canadian. www.fredoneverything.net

 

  Hit Counter

©Fred Reed 2002

Nekkid In Austin!

Buy Fred's new reprehensible book, Nekkid In Austin! Barnes and Noble has the sucker. Another collection of Fred's collected outrages, irresponsible ravings, and curmudgeonry from Fred On Everything and some innocent magazines that foolishly published him. Put Fred Reed in the search at thingy at B&N and the book will pop like mushrooms on a decaying stump. On request, they may ship it in a plain brown wrapper marked "Sex Books" so your neighbors won't suspect.

 

 

      

 


45 posted on 10/30/2002 8:41:45 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
And your two-sentence vanity from Friday was Breaking News?

I'm a Libertarian. Illbay (demonstratably) has "issues" with Libertarians.

Leftists on campus discovered an important principle years ago: if you can exclude ideological opponents from the debate floor, then you achieve ownership of the forum.

46 posted on 10/30/2002 8:49:27 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Neat story. It makes you want to order one of those "mail order" brides from Asia.
47 posted on 10/30/2002 8:55:44 AM PST by msru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Thanks for the ping.

However, without diverting the thread from your well-written post, I disagree with your premise.

I believe the patriarchal system was established by God, the ultimate patriarch.

It was established for the benefit of the man, the woman, the child, and society. It is the only system that will serve the best for each seperately and as a whole.

Unfortunately, as with most sytems, it has been distorted from it's original purpose, taken out of context, and is failing (actually dying) today. Not due to any lack in the system itself, but to the failure of utilizing it properly.

48 posted on 10/30/2002 9:00:21 AM PST by GirlNextDoor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: weikel
The problem is that the barbarian 3rd worlders still breed like rats and nothing is going to stop that

Islam went into decline when it stopped expanding. Many consider that the reason was they depended on an constant influx of loot and captives who knew how to run a civilization in order to prosper

I think there was an important third factor: women. One problem with polygamous societies like Islam is what to do with marginal men, ie men who don't have the wealth necessary to get and provide for a wife. The Islamic solution: if you go on a war of conquest, you get your pick of loot and women. Lots of men decide that's a good idea, go out, and either get killed, or get loot and women. Either way, it solves the problem.

When Islam's advance was stopped, the marginal men had nothing to do except eat at the society from within.

With today's easier access to the US and Europe, marginal Muslim men have a new outlet: go into the West, and get western women, and live off welfare (women and loot)

49 posted on 10/30/2002 9:05:01 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GirlNextDoor
You, me and RobroysWoman are on the same page on this issue.

On a related note:

Two desirable things are freedom and security. You must often give up some of one to aquire more of the other. Men value freedom more than security. Women are exactly the opposite.

Put another way, men WANT the freedom to be responsible for the well being and growth of their family. Women WANT the security offered by having a man there who steps up to the challenge of being responsible for the well being and growth of the family.

Our culture has short circuited that relationship.

We gave women the vote (freedom and responsibility to choose leaders) and ended up with a government which offers more and more "perceived security" while taking away more and more freedoms.

But I digress...
50 posted on 10/30/2002 9:17:57 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-567 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson