Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get off the women have a place, there is no joy in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It's not that every woman isn't trustworthy, it's that you are unable to trust.
All I'm saying is this, I think "one man, one woman, till death do us part", is the most important social institution ever created. I think it is better for the woman, the man, and especially the children. And there isn't even a close second.
I believe anything which disrupts this social system, is ultimately destructive and dangerous.
It seems to me that marriage, especially life-long marriage, is a fundamentally patriarchal institution. Where patriarchy dies, marriage not only becomes less relevant, but it also becomes temporary. Instead of "till do us part", it becomes "till you annoy me, or till I find someone better".
This isn't merely a modern phenomenon, if you look at those hunter-gatherer societies which were matriarchal. It was common for women to go from one man to the next, to the next, throughout their lives. Matriarchal human societies, are practically on the level of the Bonobo.
The very reason they are "matrilineal"(status from the mother), is because it was difficult to know who the father of the children even was, and because the children were normally from multiple fathers. This might make sense to people who know women(usually single-mothers) with children from multiple fathers, and each child has a different last name. In a matrilineal society, they would all have the same last name.
The reason why men(especially intelligent men) are naturally inclined towards "life-long marriage". Is because, unless there is some kind of guarantee from the woman, and from the society, that the woman is his and no one else's. Then the man not only has to worry about the children not being his, but that all the other men around him will be constantly trying to take his woman from him.
He will be hesitant to provide his labor and time in the raising of children which might not even be his. Especially considering that at any time, the woman could just leave him(80% of all divorces are initiated by women).
If you think of both relationships, and marriages, as being "investments". Then a life-long marriage is a "safe" investment. And the modern marriage is a terrible investment, it is just too risky, with bad returns.
In short, the matriarchal society, necessarily devalues and disincentivizes marriage, and makes marriage of little more importance than just dating.
As to the power within a marriage. Lets understand, the reason we have a government, which holds power over us, and tells us to do things "for our own good", or "for the good of society", is because we recognize that the absence of some secondary power to ourselves, would create chaos. Thus, the existence of government authority, is about safety, security, well-being, etc.
It is highly unlikely that you are opposed to all government authority, so you aren't fundamentally opposed to the idea of some secondary entity having power over your life. If we look at patriarchy, we need to realize that it is based on exactly the same premise. That men should have power over women, because it will provide the entire society more safety, more security, and greater well-being.
Lets first understand, equality cannot truly exist. Do you really think you have as much "power" over our society, as a Wall-street banker? Or a major media figure? Or some billionaire? Power imbalances are always and forever inevitable. People who have more money, will almost always have more power, and more influence(especially in a capitalist country). And within a marriage, either the man will tend to have more influence, or the woman will. I know plenty of relationships where effectively, the woman "wears the pants".
And honestly, that happened even when we were more patriarchal. I mean, medieval Britain had far more women rulers, than America has had female presidents.
If we can accept that there is never a time when any relationship is going to be exactly 50/50, and that by even trying to keep track of who is contributing more than the other, it actually hurts the relationship. Then we must accept that in every relationship, either the man or the woman is going to be the one "wearing the pants".
If that is the case, the question is, which gender should be the one wearing the pants? Which will lead to "better results"?
To find out, we should take it to the greatest logical absurdity. Imagine a world where women had all the power, and men had none. Then imagine a world where men had all the power, and women had none.
Which society would be "better"?
And before you answer the question, let me leave you with a quote by H.L. Mencken, "Misogynist — A man who hates women as much as women hate one another."
All I'm saying is this, I think "one man, one woman, till death do us part", is the most important social institution ever created. I think it is better for the woman, the man, and especially the children. And there isn't even a close second.
I believe anything which disrupts this social system, is ultimately destructive and dangerous.
It seems to me that marriage, especially life-long marriage, is a fundamentally patriarchal institution. Where patriarchy dies, marriage not only becomes less relevant, but it also becomes temporary. Instead of "till do us part", it becomes "till you annoy me, or till I find someone better".
This isn't merely a modern phenomenon, if you look at those hunter-gatherer societies which were matriarchal. It was common for women to go from one man to the next, to the next, throughout their lives. Matriarchal human societies, are practically on the level of the Bonobo.
The very reason they are "matrilineal"(status from the mother), is because it was difficult to know who the father of the children even was, and because the children were normally from multiple fathers. This might make sense to people who know women(usually single-mothers) with children from multiple fathers, and each child has a different last name. In a matrilineal society, they would all have the same last name.
The reason why men(especially intelligent men) are naturally inclined towards "life-long marriage". Is because, unless there is some kind of guarantee from the woman, and from the society, that the woman is his and no one else's. Then the man not only has to worry about the children not being his, but that all the other men around him will be constantly trying to take his woman from him.
He will be hesitant to provide his labor and time in the raising of children which might not even be his. Especially considering that at any time, the woman could just leave him(80% of all divorces are initiated by women).
If you think of both relationships, and marriages, as being "investments". Then a life-long marriage is a "safe" investment. And the modern marriage is a terrible investment, it is just too risky, with bad returns.
In short, the matriarchal society, necessarily devalues and disincentivizes marriage, and makes marriage of little more importance than just dating.
As to the power within a marriage. Lets understand, the reason we have a government, which holds power over us, and tells us to do things "for our own good", or "for the good of society", is because we recognize that the absence of some secondary power to ourselves, would create chaos. Thus, the existence of government authority, is about safety, security, well-being, etc.
It is highly unlikely that you are opposed to all government authority, so you aren't fundamentally opposed to the idea of some secondary entity having power over your life. If we look at patriarchy, we need to realize that it is based on exactly the same premise. That men should have power over women, because it will provide the entire society more safety, more security, and greater well-being.
Lets first understand, equality cannot truly exist. Do you really think you have as much "power" over our society, as a Wall-street banker? Or a major media figure? Or some billionaire? Power imbalances are always and forever inevitable. People who have more money, will almost always have more power, and more influence(especially in a capitalist country). And within a marriage, either the man will tend to have more influence, or the woman will. I know plenty of relationships where effectively, the woman "wears the pants".
And honestly, that happened even when we were more patriarchal. I mean, medieval Britain had far more women rulers, than America has had female presidents.
If we can accept that there is never a time when any relationship is going to be exactly 50/50, and that by even trying to keep track of who is contributing more than the other, it actually hurts the relationship. Then we must accept that in every relationship, either the man or the woman is going to be the one "wearing the pants".
If that is the case, the question is, which gender should be the one wearing the pants? Which will lead to "better results"?
To find out, we should take it to the greatest logical absurdity. Imagine a world where women had all the power, and men had none. Then imagine a world where men had all the power, and women had none.
Which society would be "better"?
And before you answer the question, let me leave you with a quote by H.L. Mencken, "Misogynist — A man who hates women as much as women hate one another."
At this point nobody cares what you're saying. Now everyone knows you aren't even based in reality and you have severe psychological issues due to your messed up childhood. Go see a shrink. None of us care, they're paid to.
At this point nobody cares what you're saying. Now everyone knows you aren't even based in reality and you have severe psychological issues due to your messed up childhood. Go see a shrink. None of us care, they're paid to.
All I'm actually saying is, the "family unit" is the most important institution of all. From the family, flows all things good in the world. From the family flows safety, security, well-being, happiness, and civilization itself. And that all efforts should be made to ensure its survival.
There is nothing "crazy" about that. I would bet that most people would agree with that sentiment, possibly even yourself.
Your problem is, you refuse to acknowledge that the "family unit" has been breaking down. And even if you do recognize it, you don't really seem to understand why its happening. Nor do you have any idea how to save it.
Fundamentally all I'm saying is, the only thing which has ever held the family together, was patriarchy. And I believe that in your heart, you know it is true.
All I'm actually saying is, the "family unit" is the most important institution of all. From the family, flows all things good in the world. From the family flows safety, security, well-being, happiness, and civilization itself. And that all efforts should be made to ensure its survival.
There is nothing "crazy" about that. I would bet that most people would agree with that sentiment, possibly even yourself.
Your problem is, you refuse to acknowledge that the "family unit" has been breaking down. And even if you do recognize it, you don't really seem to understand why its happening. Nor do you have any idea how to save it.
Fundamentally all I'm saying is, the only thing which has ever held the family together, was patriarchy. And I believe that in your heart, you know it is true.
Redshadowz you can yearn for female subservience of the 50's all you want but smart women aren't going back there. You'll still find pockets of these kinds though. Democrat war on women is catering their propaganda to these types.
All I'm actually saying is, the "family unit" is the most important institution of all. From the family, flows all things good in the world. From the family flows safety, security, well-being, happiness, and civilization itself. And that all efforts should be made to ensure its survival.
There is nothing "crazy" about that. I would bet that most people would agree with that sentiment, possibly even yourself.
Your problem is, you refuse to acknowledge that the "family unit" has been breaking down. And even if you do recognize it, you don't really seem to understand why its happening. Nor do you have any idea how to save it.
Fundamentally all I'm saying is, the only thing which has ever held the family together, was patriarchy. And I believe that in your heart, you know it is true.
The definition of a "family unit" has changed over the years, expanded out to what many would say is better than in the past.
Let me add, I think in many ways, you actually agree with my observations. How couldn't you?
It isn't a matter of whether I am right or not. The problem is, you simply don't like my solution. And I don't even blame you. Even if the medicine I have is good and necessary, that is still "one tough pill to swallow". And as a woman, it would be the equivalent of voluntarily accepting slavery. Who would do that?
But lets keep in mind, all of us are functionally slaves already. We are the slaves to our government. Yet, do you believe that we would be "better off" with no government at all? If not, aren't you really saying that, sometimes giving someone else authority over your life, can make your life better? That giving someone else authority over your life can provide you with more safety, more security, and greater well-being?
Isn't this functionally my argument in favor of patriarchy? That it would provide both women and children, more safety, more security, and greater well-being? Why then is my statement so controversial?
With all that said, understand, I am merely making observations, and looking for solutions. In order to accept my solutions as valid, you would have to believe that society/civilization was "worth saving" to begin with.
Except for their "ring around the collar" and their apparent (based on TV ads) cluelessness about how a washing machine works, men did better because they worked for pay. Economic freedom = plain old freedom. Housewives were stuck in their situations.
Wealthy or not, women by law were the husband's property.
Absolutely false.
Historical revisionism.
. . .
Coverture joined the wife's property with the husband's property into one (family owned) to preserve "private property" status (absolute ownership by an individual).
And according to the pre-1933 statutes, only men had the duty to support their wives and children. The wife had no such duty.
So if a wife was "property" it certainly was not as an inferior.
She had a superior status at law - since the man was obligated to support her, defend her with his life, and failure to do so was a crime.
In fact, the key to understanding is found in the party obligated to support, and thus be OBEYED. Wives once did vow to OBEY their husbands way back in time. But that was too unpleasant a fate, it appears.
What a concept ! Obedience in exchange for lifelong support!
. . .
NON-SUPPORT. The failure or neglect unreasonably to support those to whom an obligation of support is due ; e.g. duty of parents to support children; duty to support spouse. Such failure to support is a criminal offense in most states. See e.g. Model Penal Code Sec. 230.5.
Nonsupport of a child is a parent’s failure, neglect, or refusal without lawful excuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her child in necessitous circumstances . Nonsupport of a spouse is an individual’s failure to without just cause to provide for the support of his or her spouse in necessitous circumstances.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1058
It seems there is a thing called non-support , and it is a criminal offense to fail to support under the “Model Penal Code.” And it involves a duty to children or a duty to spouse. While nonsupport is failure to provide in necessitous circumstances.
“ The right of a father to the fruits of his child’s labor has its foundation in his obligation to protect, nurture, and educate the child.”
- - -The Etna , Fed. Cas. No. 4,542 [1 Ware (462) 474] (1838)
“ The common law rule exists in this state that the father has a paramount right to superintend and nurture of his children.”
- - - People v. Olmstead, 27 Barb. 9 (NY 1857)
“ A mother, during the lifetime of the father, is not bound to support her minor children.”
- - - Gladding v. Follett , 2 Dem. Sur. 58 (NY 1883)
“ A mother, after the death of the father, is not entitled to the earnings of a minor child.”
- - - Pray v. Gorham, 31 Me. 240 (Me.1850)
The common law pronounced the equitable rights to the earnings of a child are found, not in the mother, but in the father’s obligation to support the child.
Makes sense... You can’t have a right to something without the duty to care for that something.
Second presumption is that the obligation to support came from the fact that the child was theirs, no matter who had custody.
Wrongo....
“ Where mother is awarded the custody of her minor children on a decree of divorce from the father, he is thereby deprived of all rights to the services of the child, and consequently is freed from all liability to the mother for the care, support, and maintenance of the child.”
- - - Husband v. Husband , 67 Ind. 583, 33 Am.Rep. 107 (Ind.1879)
“ When a wife deserts her husband, and continues to live separate from him, and retains custody of a child, refusing to deliver him up to the father, who offers to support him, an action cannot be maintained against the father for the support and education of the child.”
- - - Fitler v. Fitler , 2 Phila. 372 (Pa.1857)
The rights to the child, his services and custody are bound together. If the mother took the child, whether by divorce or separation, the father was excused from support. That is reasonable non-support.
But if she were "property" how could she DESERT her husband? Tsk, tsk. Don't think about that point.
So what does this all mean?
The marriage joined property rights of the husband and wife, while only imposing the duty to support upon the man. (The beneficiary of the "joining" is the progeny of that union). That's why a wedding day was the happiest day for the woman and the groom looked like a deer staring at headlights.
If being supported by a husband until death is "being owned," we need to redefine ownership.
The marriage joined property rights of the husband and wife, while only imposing the duty to support upon the man. (The beneficiary of the "joining" is the progeny of that union). That's why a wedding day was the happiest day for the woman and the groom looked like a deer staring at headlights.
If being supported by a husband until death is "being owned," we need to redefine ownership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
