Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?

Your point is the entire thesis of Gilder's book, so you should definitely check it (and him) out. The book should be required reading in every high school, but, as it happened, it was boycotted by feminist editors at all the big NY publishers (even those that had published many of Gilder's other critically acclaimed works on a variety of topics--philosophy, conservative economics, the cyber revolution).

I'll try to post some quotes tomorrow. In the meantime, here is the only one I have at hand:

"Women manipulate male sexual desire in order to teach men the long-term cycles of female sexuality and biology on which civilization is based." (Men and Marriage, Pelican Publishing Co., 1992.)

He stated, as I recalled, that every new generation of adolescent males constitutes a new barbarian invasion at the gates of civilization.

The article makes some good points but omits a vital part. Men and women TOGETHER working toward the future prosperity of the family is what makes a successful society. Notice how societies where there is relative social/economic/political equity between the sexes (Western society) are much more successful and technologically advanced than in societies where this is not the case. So, it is not patrilinear organizatons which produce these results as much as relative egalatarianism and incentives for ALL to invest in the larger community, build lasting institutions and social/economic frameworks .... including but not limited to within their own individual families. Women have no incentive to help create, support and uphold these institutions when they are mere chattel. Hence, we have "backward" societies where this is the case.

Notice how societies where there is relative social/economic/political equity between the sexes (Western society) are much more successful and technologically advanced than in societies where this is not the case. So, it is not patrilinear organizatons which produce these results as much as relative egalatarianism and incentives for ALL to invest in the larger community, build lasting institutions and social/economic frameworks .... including but not limited to within their own individual families.

The backward countries are all also non-capitalistic, in the sense of not being able to invest time and energy into building something (business,farm, whatever) with any assurance that it won't be taken away by government or criminals.

Keep in mind that there was lots of equality between men and women in the old Soviet Union, which did not stop things from being utterly miserable for one and all, and that the inequality of the sexes up until the 20th Century did not stop the US from being very wealthy

This ties in with the whole patriarchy thing: a man will invest in the future when:

He has a REASON to WANT to (patriarchy), AND
He has the EXPECTATION that what he invests will produce a return which will not be confiscated or destroyed by the State, criminals, or whoever (ie, secure free-market capitalism is functioning)

When I speak of relative eqalitarianism, I'm speaking broadly as our Founders did. On a fundemental level this concept was non-patriarchal since it involved discarding older heirarchal systems such as royalty, class and caste systems .... all extentions of "patriarchal" social frameworks.

Societies which have caste/class systems of all types, not just by sex, have proven themselves less successful than more egalitarian systems. The egalitarian Western societies we have today have evloved over several thousand years to include more and more persons in the egalitarian mix. The culmination (so far) was in our own Declaration of Independence, which was more than anything a repudiation of past ways of social organization, and proclaiming our independence from restricting social constraints in favor of individual autonomy. This logically led to the "rights" of individual autonomy on a more egalitarian basis a very radical concept, but one that seems to have been working very well if our own country is used as the proof.

My contention is that when everyone has an equal stake in how society is run, there is more incentive to build strong and permanent institutions and raise the next generation well. This cannot only be the job of males. To be successful such a vast social enterprise must provide incentives for everyone. Human nature is such that when people perceive they will not get a fair shake they will put in less effort in everything they do. Since women are human beings, this would apply to women's endeavors as well. And since women are half the population that is a huge resource base to de-incentivize.

Societies where specific humans are restricted from fully particpating and contributing on a biological basis (racism, sexism, classism, lineagism) are simply NOT as successful.

Basically, caste systems of any stripe are not as effective as relatively more egalitarian social frameworks. In my opinion it is not simply a coincidence that the most egalitarian social systems devised so far are also the most highly advanced in terms of quality of life for the largest percentage of its population, namely Western societies.

And by the way, there was no real "equality" in the old Soviet Union (or Communist China), for anyone. This is most evident in their extremely high (relative to other places) abortion rates.

I'm not proposing that women be relegated to second-class citizen, or that women be bought and sold in the marketplace. I'm just pointing out that men are increasingly coming to the conclusion that THEY are second-class citizens, and in increasing numbers are declining to play the "marriage" game

When a man spends a decade or two working for his wife and family, paying mortgage on a house, and winds up losing it all in divorce court, it has an effect on his willingness to play the game again. It has an effect on all his friends who hear about it, too

A necessary prerequisite for a man being motivated to work, is that he have reasonable confidence that he will wind up enjoying the fruits of his labor: that when he's old and grey, he will have a relationship with his grown children, that he will have his house, and that he will have his relationship with his wife. If he sees that the odds are against this happening, he's less likely to play the game

The abject failure of all socialist/communist societies demonstrates what happens when people are no longer motivated. It's ugly for all concerned (except a few at the very top)

The current incentive system is increasingly looking broken, from men's viewpoint. Historically, loss of motivation by the male half of society has consistently had drastic consequences for all concerned.

Hey, I'm a fan of solid marriages and I don't think anyone should be second class citizens, particularly on a biologcial basis which I find repulsive. But I don't believe trading one lopsided system for another is a viable plan. Marriage was and to a large degree still is personally risky for women. She could spend a decade or two working building and caring for the family and be left high and dry in her older years .... or worse, she could be left high and dry with young children to take care of on her own. Previously she had few other economic options than to take the risk of marriage, which made her a conditionally dependent.

Neither system of over-lordship is is ideal IMO. The concept of checks and balances has worked on a national scale, there is no reason why it can't work within a family structure as well. In any case, I prefer to look forward, because I'm sure we can do better than past and present social structures based upon arbitrarily imposed power imbalances and biological castes.

Women have no incentive to help create, support and uphold these [patriarchal] institutions when they are mere chattel. Hence, we have "backward" societies where this is the case.

The incentive is to prevent society's slide toward a matriarchal (goeto like) social order. Look to a goeto, or any other non-productive matriarchal society for the cure? Which is really "backward?"

BTW, "chattel?" Spare me. Try, respected. Ask your father.

Marriage was and to a large degree still is personally risky for women. She could spend a decade or two working building and caring for the family and be left high and dry in her older years .... or worse, she could be left high and dry with young children to take care of on her own.

When a man abandons his wife, he is obligated to continue to support her (alimony). He also looses his claim to guardianship of his children, and is obligated to continue to support them. Yes, a woman is taking a risk that her husband won't abandon her, and vise versa. Laws concerning support and father custody are designed to offer the disincentives for divorce. Not such a bad plan (some woulld say righteous, like me), before no-fault divorce screwed it up.

The incentive is to prevent society's slide toward a matriarchal (goeto like) social order. Look to a goeto, or any other non-productive matriarchal society for the cure? Which is really "backward?"

First of all you missed my point, which was that dual parenting is the best situation. However, if one parent is present and accounted for and the other is a.w.o.l. I find it deceiptful at best to fault the parent who is present and who has not abandoned the child(ren). If a child has two parents they are both IMO obligated to be there. The missing parent is in default.

So this stuff about "matriarchy" is baloney. If the the mother wasn't present the child would be an orphan. In the relative scheme of things, two parents are better than one, but when one defaults, one parent is better than no parent.

I personally have had enough of whiny excuses from a.w.o.l. parents and don't tolerate excuses for defaulting on ones obligations to one's offspring. Unilaterally blaming the present and accounted for parent for the deplorable and inhumane actions of the absent parent is inexcusable.

"Fault" in divorce requires an arbitor or judge. This was a impracticle use of courts and judges as the cases involved tons of intangible and virtually unprovable he said/she said accusations, and raised serious due process issues. As a predictable result "fault" was assigned inequitably for mere expediency.

Even though our present system isn't perfect, I'd never advocate we go back to "fault" divorce. A better deterrent to divorce is to make them far more expensive to obtain (particularly when children are involved) and to create more equitable child custody laws such as RPJPC (rebuttal presumption of joint physical custody) in which term "joint" in literally 50/50, not just a cute word.

You think the fault divorce laws "raised serious due process issues"? Name one. I beleive releiving a father of his natural right to guardianship without the protection of strict scrutiny standards of review, or even an accusation of fault raises very serious due process issues.

Interference with the marriage contract without a compelling government interest brings into question the constututionality of the no-fault law itself. The law was justified on the basis of giving consenting couples the option of obtaining a divorce without making up valid reasons, and prevent willing couples from flocking to Las Vegas for a quicky divorce (Maybe California was affraid of loosing revenue). Fault is a necessary element in a custody dispute, as well as a divorce one of the partners doesn't want, or marriage becomes the sham that it has.

I'd never advocate we go back to "fault" divorce. A better deterrent to divorce is to make them far more expensive to obtain . . <.I>

Great plan. The lawyers already do a pretty good job of syphoning off the bulk of the families assets already, but maybe we could guarantee they can split the whole estate.

"Defaulting on ones obligations to one's offspring" is what someone breaks up a family without a compelling justification (ie no-fault). It appears you would like to charactorize all fathers as absent parents. Where did that come from?

The missing parent is in default.

That's called abandonment, and reason for depriving a parent of his right to guardianship. The standard of review, as for a charge of neglect or abuse is strict scrutiny. The burden is on the accusor. Do you see any element of this in the application of "best interest" laws meant to facilitate the placement of state wards? If you don't know what the difference is, you have no basis for your position.

BTW, joint custody only makes the distruction of the family workable. It offers no protection for the institution of marriage, and would require "modification" of a father's God-given right to guardianship. How would you suggest pulling that off. That's why they call these right inalienable. That's not just a cute phrase. Look it up.

I've already explained why I think "fault" is an impracticle concept to negotiate on the legal front. In addition, historically, it was not fairly adjudicated, partly due to the impractability of doing so, partly do to social inequites.

In any case, I don't think we can legally compel people to maintain solid, healthy marriages. This is beyond the scope of government. I also believe if we did legally compel people to stay married, there is no way to compel them to live together as the content, stable, successful married couple needed to raise children. In fact they may not stay together at all. I predict we'd have couples who stay legally married, but who don't live together, or who are not married except in the legal sense. (We had this situation under "fault" marriages). What good would this do anyone?

Certainly I'd like to see us do all we can to encourage marriages to survive as solid, successful, real (not sham) unions. I think RPJPC would work in that direction, at least in marriages that involve children. And even if the marriage did not survive, the parents would still be legally equally obligated towards the children, so there would be fewer kids with effectively one parent.

I do think we can legally compel parents to jointly care for their offspring, at least to some minimum standards that are equal. However, we cannot compel parents to love their kids enough to WANT to be involved in their care and upbringing.

I never said or hinted that ALL fathers are absent parents. That's ridulous. The majority of fathers (and mothers) are responsible, loving, involved parents. I do think that when children are abandoned it is most often by fathers. You are the one who brought up ghettos. Where are the fathers? What I see is blaming the present and accounted for parent unilaterally for ??? what??? being present? The primary cause of fatherlessness is the father being a.w.o.l. This is just basic logic. If you're the parent who is physically present, you're not the one missing. Period. Whatever the present parent has done (and I don't suggest they are all saints), they are still present and accounted for. The missing parent is in greater default. I call it how it is. Both parents are responsible for the child being created. However, the a.w.o.l. parent is creating the lion's share of problems for the child, and society.

You think the fault divorce laws "raised serious due process issues"? Name one.

Lack of proof of "fault" or (more typically) not enough legal resources to find proof of "fault" and the social inequal biases that attended expendient solutions to this lack of resources. He said/she said bogging down the courts is not conducive to due process measures. Who did what whom first, things that can't be proven, particularly very intimate things, etc.

I beleive releiving a father of his natural right to guardianship without the protection of strict scrutiny standards of review, or even an accusation of fault raises very serious due process issues.

I agree. That is why I support RPJPC. Joint parental (actual not legal jargon) should be the default. In all cases. Period.

Fault is a necessary element in a custody dispute, as well as a divorce one of the partners doesn't want, or marriage becomes the sham that it has.

I don't agree. Fault has no bearing on custody. Both parents have equal obligation to support, raise and parent the child, irrespective of what is happeing in the adult relationship.

"Fault" is not irrelevant in the case of one partner not wanting the divorce but it is effectively irrelevant due to the subjective nature of "fault' accusations. Basically, I don't think you can legally compel someone to want to live with another in a mutual relationship. The "sham" would be living under false pretenses. Legally, you may be able to compel people to stay "married" on paper. But that is not solving much. The best that could be said for it, it would prevent both parties from remarrying and starting new families. However, it would not prevent illigitimacy or "shadow families" from existing. A problem when we had fault divorces were the order of the day.

Nope, I just have no idea what you mean by "our Constitution will not allow it". Our entire system is devised to balance power, checks and balances. It is a good model and has served us well so far. Fortunately our Founders understood human nature very well and instituted a system that works against some of our less savory traits. The concept of balance of power forces people to work in concert to reach common goals, even if they disagree. It works on a variety of levels and can work as a model for the family as well.

Of course, there are power mongers of both sexes who don't give a flip about children and just want unequal power over others above all else. You don't seem to have a problem with THAT unless, of course, you're not the one with the unilateral power. Highly shortsighted and hypocritical IMO.

. . a system that works against some of our less savory traits.

If you call natural rights "less savory traits," that's where you're wrong. The system is designed to protect natural rights. Checks and balances assure one branch cannot usurp those rights, like you would prefer.

Of course, there are some who think a patriarchal system of family government is harmful to children. How so? I think you have hit on the problem, as it is the problem of the democratic party as well, which is power. You're simply affraid a patriarchy places more power in the hands of men. That might be the case, but it is the only way to regulate a woman's natural sexual promiscuity, and the distruction of the family. Witness the feminist movement.

You might be thinking, who is going to regulate the men? Men don't get pregnant, women do. I realize this may be a difficult concept to understand, because you have to look at the problem logically. That's why the 19th amendment had to wait until most men were emasculated.

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.