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.
Here's another viewpoint from another Boomer. (I'm a 62-year-old woman.) Before I start, I want to be clear that I am talking about the typical middle- or upper- class family.
To me, the high point of both sexes were the early 60's. Middle- and upper-class women could go out to work, if they chose to, and were usually not criticized much for doing so -- OR for staying home, if they chose to do that. Reliable birth control ("The Pill") was now readily available, so they had a choice as to whether or not to get pregnant, and most families back then were smaller than previous generations, anyway. In short, middle- and upper-class married women were more free to do what they wanted because in the 60's, most of the men in those groups COULD support their families. (If you are into nostalgia and like to laugh, see "The Thrill of it All" with James Garner and Doris Day -- although, granted, it has a highly improbable story line.)
However, men also had it better because most working women (or at least the ones I know about) still bought into the "traditional" role that being wives and mothers took precedence over their role as career women. So, men with working wives had the benefit of extra money coming and knowing that there was someone else to share the responsibility of earning money to pay the bills, BUT they also had their wives to do the majority of the housework, childcare, etc.; however, because the wives worked, too, the men actually interacted with the kids more than in the past, which was still another benefit to most families.
Starting in the late 60's, though, almost all women started demanding more equality in the household regarding chores and childcare, and that is when the divorce rate drastically increased*.
So, in the 15 years from 1965 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled.
(Since 1980, it has slowly declined to the current rate of 16.4. Granted, this might be because the marriage rate has also declined!)
Again, to be clear, I am NOT talking about lower income or single parent households! I realize that their struggles have not changed over the years much at all.
Starting in the late 60's, though, almost all women started demanding more equality in the household regarding chores and childcare, and that is when the divorce rate drastically increased*.
No, patriarchy is the belief that men and women have different values as a result of their biology. And that the values possessed by men, produce better social outcomes than the values possessed by women.
And further, that men need to be "anchored" to society, by making them responsible for the well-being of women. And that men will only take on this responsibility, if it provides them benefits or security.
More importantly, it recognizes that marriage is a patriarchal institution. And further recognizes that marriage is absolutely necessary for civilization. When patriarchy dies, marriage dies. When marriage dies, civilization dies.
It is to look at human-nature, and realize that it is imperfect. And thus we should try to make the best of what we actually have. Instead of seeking something which is both impossible and ultimately counterproductive.
That's just a bunch of twisted rationalization. First you offensively assert what you think women's values are, then you double-down on it. News alert, the different genders do not have "different values as a result of their biology". That's simply untrue. Ergo, your secondary assertion that the values possessed by men produce better social outcomes than the values possessed by women is also untrue.
That's just a bunch of twisted rationalization. First you offensively assert what you think women's values are, then you double-down on it. News alert, the different genders do not have "different values as a result of their biology". That's simply untrue. Ergo, your secondary assertion that the values possessed by men produce better social outcomes than the values possessed by women is also untrue.
His assertions are completely true. See? I can do it too.
American women are taught from an early age that rape and abuse was not only rampant, that is was par for the course in all marriages back in the 50's and prior years.
It helps them feel better about everything around them if they go through life furiously imagining a large penis shaped male boot stomping eternally on their heads.
His assertions are completely true. See? I can do it too.
So, are you arguing that women have different values than men? That women don't value things like honesty and loyalty, competence and education, kindness and generosity?
My mom was total committed LDS until she had me, and they had to work to get me, she had a bunch of miscarriages. She thought she was an old lady at 22 because she didn't have a baby. Then she had me, she had a job, she had school, and my father had one class a day and he couldn't be on time to pick her up. They got divorced and she met a bunch of other women who had that happen to them also. They had put the husband through school, then he ran off with whoever, leaving them with the kids. Because men have to have sex every night don't you know. Then the whole womens movement started.
While I agree with gender equality and equal rights in all spheres of life between men and women, I'm growing a bit tired of the same old narrative: back in the bad old days, men had so much more freedom, life was so much better for the average man.
I disagree, for the following reason:
Men had other responsibilities. Sure raising kids and doing housework was hard. But so what, going out to labour 14 hours a day to support your children wasn't exactly a cakewalk in comparison.
Two, they're often talking about the privileged minority. In many places male sufferage was restricted to poorer males. In many ways life for a wealthy lady was much better than a poor man. They often lived lives of leisure, for instance.
Third, Wars. Once I was talking with a self-proclaimed feminist who was saying men couldn't know the suffering of women. I mentioned, 'at least women were generally not expected to fight and die in war.' It seemed to tick her off...YES, we KNOW most wars are started by men, but they are started by a group of the elite, I bet plenty of men wanted NOTHING TO DO with fighting in a war (course sometimes they did) from Sumeria to Vietnam...also what about wars started or fought by rulers like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth or earlier the likes of Boudicca (although to her credit her ranks included female warriors and she herself rode into battle)?
Yes, women died in childbirth, but I would rather be a woman in Medieval times than a man, who might go into battle to get his limbs chopped off. Although a life of popping out babies while also being a peasant (yes, rural women in those times often did the same work as men).
Fact is, life is hard for ALL people back then. History is NOT all about men oppressing women, although there was a component of that, simply because men were stronger. Do feminists complain about male gorillas being dominant towards their females in nature? They worship Mother Earth/Nature and that's the way she decreed it...it is they who have a problem with her ways, lol.
Of course I don't really believe in the above, just illustrating a point. Not everything is about men oppressing women and women having it worse off. One should look at it from both angles.
I t really depends on what you call "better"? Men certainly had more opportunities in the work place, but that might be about where it stops. It is like us saying, life in the 50s was the best. In many ways it was, but we didn't have tech, we didn't have vacinations for almost everything, minorities were discrimated against and our life expectancy was much shorter.
I think the important thing is: we are living today and saying what was or wasn't really makes little difference. I too get tired of hearing how hard it was for this or that group.
If you want to understand the social dynamic of the distant past. You merely need to think of the word "patriarchy". Patriarchy doesn't really mean "rule by men", it actually means "rule by fathers". And not merely the father within a family, but the fathers within a community. In patriarchal tribes for instance, you would have a "council of elders". Which were all the eldest/wisest men of the village, and they would make the decisions for everyone else.
When you say "wives were the property of their husbands", it paints an unnecessarily negative picture. The reality was that everyone was functionally the property of their father. And a husband, through marriage, took on the role of father(IE patriarch) to his wife. Thus, the legal relationship between a husband and wife, wasn't much different than the legal relationship between a father and his children.
So, while the patriarch did have the "final say" within the family, he was also responsible for the family. In the same way that if a child does something "wrong", the parents are held responsible for it. If a wife did something wrong, the husband was actually the one held responsible for it. This is why the husband could "discipline" his wife(IE spanking), in the same way he could discipline his children.
With that said, the man wasn't allowed to do anything he wanted. He wasn't allowed to "abuse" his wife, or his children for that matter. The father of the wife, or the brothers of the wife, or the wife's uncles, etc. Would have "paid the man a visit". Let-alone the fact that the "village patriarchs" had already passed laws prohibiting such mistreatment.
Furthermore, the patriarchal system wasn't really "despotism". It wasn't a bunch of men sitting around thinking about how to oppress and abuse all the women. To believe such nonsense, is to believe those men didn't love their wives, or their daughters, or their mothers, etc. That they were just a bunch of "women-haters".
When a father makes a decision for his child, he isn't doing it because he wants to abuse the child, or to oppress the child(even though the child often feels that way). He is doing it because he believes that it is "best" for the child.
But even then, he doesn't completely disregard the feelings of the child. If he loves the child, he will listen to the child, take their feelings into consideration, but make the decision he believes is best.
The best way to describe this social system is, "Father knows best". And every civilization for thousands of years has worked off this same patriarchal model.
The question then is, is the "father knows best" social model a good thing or a bad thing?
For a point-of-reference, think of "arranged-marriages". Are arranged-marriages a bad thing?
Most people think of arranged-marriages as being a bunch of loveless marriages, usually for some kind of economic gain. This might have been partially true when it came to the old "aristocracies", but it really wasn't true anywhere else.
The basic idea behind arranged-marriages, is that "children", if looking for their own "mate", will tend to look for superficial physical traits(such as attractiveness). And since they are inexperienced in love, they might not be as easily able to identify people with proper "compatibility". Or might value attractiveness to a good personality, or being a good mother/hard-worker, etc.
Being that the parents/father is older and more knowledgeable/experienced, he will tend to look for better compatibility/personality, and other "more important" traits, for his child's wife or husband. Plus, if the parents choose the suitor, then it guarantees that the parents will actually "like him/her". And otherwise guarantees a good relationship between the two families.
Not only do I think "father knows best" is a better social system(I'm a man, so not a surprise?), but I think trying to produce "equality" between men and women, just creates "gender conflict".
To understand, you have to imagine that a husband and wife disagreed on something. Lets say there were two different schools they could send their son to. And each parent wanted a different school. The question is, what should be done?
Under a patriarchal system, the father's decision would be the final decision. But under "equality", there couldn't even be a decision, or the decision would have to be made by "someone else". But lets pretend that every man wanted one thing, and every woman wanted another. Then equality actually leads to dysfunction and conflict between the genders.
Basically, the irony of gender equality, is that it makes us hate each other, because it turns us against each other.
Talk about someone that really wants to do some revisionist history.
Well, we need to make some proper definitions here. For instance, someone could say that we are all "property of the US government". Which is technically true, but does that statement do the relationship between you and the government any justice?
Whatever society you live in, you never have unlimited rights, not over other people, and not even over yourself. So no, you didn't own your wife, because you obviously couldn't kill her, you couldn't sell her, and you couldn't even abuse her. In exactly the same way that you can't kill, sell, or abuse your children. I mean, animal abuse has even been illegal since forever. Opposition to animal abuse is even in the bible.
For that matter, the bible doesn't say that the man should "RULE" his wife, it says that he should take her feelings into consideration, but that he basically has the "deciding vote", or really he holds "veto power".
To make the best analogy here, once the woman marries a man, he becomes the equivalent of her representative, call him the "president of the family". A life-termed president, who can be impeached if he abuses his power.
His job as president, is to look out for the well-being of the entire family. To organize the family for the benefit of the entire family. And while he did have the final say, he was also the one held responsible/accountable for everyone else in the family.
In modern times, if a child is "skipping school" or "behaving poorly", the government will go after the parents. This also applied to women in the past. If the woman was behaving poorly, it was the man who was held accountable for it.
There was a declaration about women's rights from the Seneca falls convention. I always like this line....
"He has made her; morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master-the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement."
I know the last section of that "sounds bad". But keep in mind, you are also compelled to promise obedience to your government, who can deprive you of your liberty, and administer chastisement.
Which comes to my point. The way the "family" operated in the past, was the equivalent of a "mini-government". The man was the president, who had constituents he represented, and he took their feelings into consideration, but made the final decision after weighing the evidence(you could also consider him a "judge"). And he could "compel" his subjects to obey his decisions(IE laws). But, above him was the community, who limited his authority(think a "Constitution"), to prevent him from becoming tyrannical. And could "overthrow" his "rule" if he abused his power.
If the father isn't the "Chief", then either the mother is the chief, or you have two chiefs, or many many chiefs. And what happens when you have too many chiefs and not enough Indians?
Someone has to be "in charge", someone has to make the decisions. The basis for patriarchy, is that the father should have be the one with the final say in the case of a disagreement. If it isn't the father, who will it be? The mother? The children? What if no one can agree?
If you take the power away from the father, it has to go somewhere. And in modern society, it is increasingly going to the mother, to the children, or to "the state".
I never said that women were "childish". I said that the legal standing of women relative to her husband, was similar to the legal standing of a child to its father.
Look, I don't believe that "equality" can ever exist. I mean, do you really believe that men and women are equal in today's society? For that matter, the "differences" between the genders makes equality impossible.
Women are the ones who fundamentally control all reproduction, thus they control the children, and thus the future. Without men using some kind of "force" against them, women would necessarily become more powerful than men.
When 80% of divorces are initiated by women, and 90% of all single-parent families are headed by a woman, let alone the fact that a woman can abort her child, regardless of what the father thinks; You necessarily shift power more and more into the hands of women.
If you don't see what is happening, you need to open your eyes. Men are increasingly "social outcasts". They are having a smaller and smaller role in the raising of children. They are participating less and less in school, and in work. Women outnumber men in college nearly two to one.
If we recognize that gender equality is impossible, and thus the very idea is pretty stupid. Then the real question is, what kind of society do you want to live in? A patriarchal society, or a matriarchal society? That is the only actual choice here.
I know plenty of people, both males and females, who will ramble and rant about how great a matriarchal society would be. I disagree with them, I think a matriarchal society is garbage. You only have to look at world history, or really, anthropology, to learn about what matriarchal societies are actually like.
Every single civilization in history has been a patriarchy.
The state is not civilization. The origin of civilization is the family. If you destroy the family, you destroy civilization. From all the evidence of history, the family requires patriarchy. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
Abuse of women and children was always prohibited. What has changed is our definition of what is and what isn't abuse. I mean, many people now believe that "spanking children" at all, is child abuse. Some believe that spanking is OK, as long as it is with an open hand, and on the behind, and over clothing, and leaves no marks. When I was younger, I got spanked with a belt on multiple occasions, as well as clothes hangers, among other things. I've had "fingerprint-shaped" bruises on my legs. So was I abused?
Were there men who actually did abuse women back then? Yes. But there are always men who abuse women, and there are always women who abuse men for that matter. The problem with people who speak of "the past". Is that they tend to use a single example of something bad happening, and pretend that was the norm. Because that is what they want to believe, it fits their political agenda.
And herein lies the problem. Women no more want men to have power over them, than men want women to have power over them. But a society cannot exist unless someone has power over someone else.
The point of my original post, was to explain what society was actually like in the past, and also to explain why it was like that, why it actually "makes sense". The way history is often portrayed by modern writers, is that husbands/fathers were basically despots, who wielded unlimited and arbitrary power over their wives and children, and would abuse them regularly with impunity.
Not only is that narrative not true, it is dangerous to believe such nonsense. And people who repeat such distortions, exaggerations, and lies, actually turn women against men, whom they are made to believe are powerhungry oppressors, who only want to abuse and take advantage of women.
With all that said. The only reason I'll "defend the patriarchy". Is that, I truly believe that everyone was better off under it. I think women were happier and healthier under it, children were happier and healthier under it. If we were still under the same system. Pretty much every man would be working, pretty much every child would be raised by a two-parent family. There would be less crime. And both children, and society, would be better behaved, and much more respectful.
I mean, who here honestly believes that the collapse of the patriarchy has made people into better behaved, and more moral people? Who honestly believes that the collapse of marriage is a good thing?
I'm just trying to tell you people the truth. I don't think you'll actually listen to me. And even if you could accept that everything I said was true, it is unreasonable for me to expect anyone to vote away their own freedom, regardless of whether or not it was "for the good of society".
And honestly, I don't even blame you. I would rather die than be someone else's slave. In fact, I'm probably doing more to bring about civilizational collapse, than pretty much anyone else on this forum(with the exception of T0103E, that guy has much more energy than me).
Holy crap! He one upped himself! Talk about a complete misogynist.
Guess it turns out he has daddy history/psych issues. Good thing there are no kids involved because they would be screwed up too.
Last edited by HyperionGap; 10-08-2015 at 12:30 PM..
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.
