Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?

self | 10/30/2002 | SauronOfMordor

[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.

[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.

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

[Desdemona]

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...

[William Terrell]

Why does the subject matter of this essay bother you?

[Teacher317]

Bookmarked and bumped

[BuddhaBoy]

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!

[RobRoy]

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.

[Teacher317]

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

[weikel]

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.

[RobRoy]

>>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!

[Illbay]

"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

[RLK]

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

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

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

[RobRoy]

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.

[Illbay]

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.

[RobRoy]

never mind, I see you posted it already. Did you READ it? It clearly justifies this particular vanity.

[BuddhaBoy]

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.

[weikel]

Ive been advocating the repeal of the 19th amendment for a long time( though im against popular government in general monarchy is better).

[weikel]

One quote does not make an article.

[BuddhaBoy]

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.

[Teacher317]

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.

[Desdemona]

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.