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.

[Melas]

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.

[William Terrell]

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. . .)

[BikerNYC]

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.

[Teacher317]

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!!!" ;^)

[RobRoy]

>>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

 

 

©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.

 

 

      

 

[SauronOfMordor]

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.

[msru]

Neat story. It makes you want to order one of those "mail order" brides from Asia.

[GirlNextDoor]

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.

[SauronOfMordor]

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)

[RobRoy]

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...

[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.

As a Libertarian, if an acquaintence was hitting the booze a little too often, because it felt good to him, I would not use force to make him stop (as long as he was not endangering others by his actions)

I would, however, feel compelled to point out the long-term consequences of his short-term pleasures, and ask him to consider if that's what he really wanted for his future.

Without a sense of duty, freely taken on, a free society cannot endure. Duty cannot be replaced by laws -- it doesn't work. My opposition to laws which presume they can subsitute for self-assumed duty, in Illbay's eyes, make me a "Libertine". I prefer to think myself a realist

[SauronOfMordor]

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.

I don't argue with you, though I'm an agnostic. A system will work well, to the benefit of all concerned, when duties and privileges are balanced.

Traditionally, the male had the official privileges of control. He also had the duty to be expendable, to work far from home, if necessary, and as many hours as needed in order to provide for his wife and family. He had the duty to die, if necessary, in order to protect his family and the property that was needed to provide for them. Seems like a balance to me, with maybe the women getting the better of the deal.

[right2parent]

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.

Including a father in the reproductive system, the family is created and society is civilized. Visit any getto to see the product of a matriarchy. Great post.

[Desdemona]

I've been trying for half an hour to respond to #45. Here it is:

I think your post has some valid points. Remember, though, that most women don't actually think for themselves. They think they do but they don't. Someone along the line has told women that they should rather be men. And women bought it, hook, line and sinker.

FYI, the American women in this article...let's just say some of us seriously strive not to be lumped in with them. I get ridiculed by other women simply for maintaining good posture. I won't get into hair and clothes. I keep hearing short hair is "easier to take of." Uh...no. Sorry. I'm not cutting mine short. Not just to gain approval from other women.

And I have ONE flannel shirt reserved for Saturday lounging, the only day of the week I don't put on my face. That look just isn't classy.

[RobRoy]

I aknowledge there are SOME real women left in america. I'm married to one. Yeah, she's even feminine, go figure!

Didja ever notice that if you suggest to a woman that she has some qualities normally associated with a man she takes it as a compliment, while if you tell a man that he has some qualities normally associated with a woman he thinks your calling him a fag?

Go figure.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

[GirlNextDoor]

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

Nice to know.:)

But I digress...

And very well! Thanks. You brought up points I hadn't considered yet. BTTT

[Old Professer]

I thought this was a very well written essay and quite within the posting guidelines of this forum, unlike most of yours which are closer to flareups of toe-fungus than wit.