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.
When you say that wives were property, you are stating facts. It's not a pretty fact. But it is a fact.
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I appreciate the time you took to write out your viewpoint, but your viewpoint is actually chilling. To connote an adult woman with a child is very demeaning to the woman.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And your assertion that men weren't allowed to abuse their wives and children is a major revision of history. Men were allowed to abuse their wives, and their children. While there may have been a few laws prohibiting extreme abuse, such laws were rarely enforced, and there were no laws regarding "mistreatment." Men could beat their wives with impunity. The attitude, and often the legal position, was that the woman deserved it. Men could rape their wives. It's only in recent decades that marital rape has even been considered a crime.
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.
While the patriarchal system isn't about men hating women, it is about men having power over women. If a man believes he knows what's "best" for me, and I don't agree with it, then I really, really, really don't want to live in a society that gives him the power to impose his beliefs on me. The fact that you do is actually scary.
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).
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-06-2015 at 04:29 PM..
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?
Misdirection
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.
More misdirection. So what? Doesn't mean that women shouldn't have the same rights as men.
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".
The Bible is wrong. A penis doesn't entitle one with "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.
He's not entitled to have the final say by virtue of having a penis.
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.
Which was balderdash. Women don't want someone else being held accountable for the woman's actions.
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.
There is no parity between husband and government.
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".
The basis for patriarchy is that the father should have the final say because his judgment is somehow superior to the judgment of any woman. That's the basis for patriarchy. That women are inferior. You keep on trying to sugar-coat it.
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.
And your belief is garbage. Women are your equals. You just don't like that because it challenges your authority.
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.
Oh my God.
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.
More balderdash. Men aren't "social outcasts." Men control most of our economy, most of our government, the two dominant bases of power in our social system.
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 reject your assertion. The kind of society I want to live in, a society that respects the contributions of all individuals, and gives individuals of whichever gender the opportunity to develop their skills and talents in order to maximize such contributions.
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.
Another assertion that is balderdash.
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.
The point of your original post was to minimize the marginalization of women in the past. To dismiss it. The point of this post is to defend the marginalization of women. I reject both perspectives.
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.
It is dangerous to believe such nonsense. Women weren't happier being treated as chattel.
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).
And yet you have a wife and daughters, and you still argue that their lives would be better being treated as second-class citizens. Where their knowledge is treated as doubtful simply because they have vaginas. Where their opinions and goals are supposed to always be subordinate to a man's opinions and goals.
And yet you have a wife and daughters, and you still argue that their lives would be better being treated as second-class citizens. Where their knowledge is treated as doubtful simply because they have vaginas. Where their opinions and goals are supposed to always be subordinate to a man's opinions and goals.
Children are functionally considered "second-class citizens". They cannot vote, they cannot enter into contracts. They are the wards of their parents, and are forced to go to school, and to obey their parents. Their parents can discipline them, and take away their liberties. The child also requires the parent's permission to do almost anything.
So does that mean children have terrible lives? Does that mean children are abused? What does it mean?
Recently there has been an increasingly bigger fight over "circumcision". Many children's rights advocates have called circumcision "mutilation". And they say that the parent does not have a right to circumcise the child, without the child's permission. But the child cannot legally give permission until he is an adult. So that would necessarily mean that circumcision would have to be disallowed for any male who wasn't an adult.
Do you agree with that?
The point I'm trying to make, is that people have to make decisions, everyone has to make decisions. The premise behind patriarchy, was that the father of the family should both make the decisions for the family, and be the one held responsible for those decisions. That in effect, the father became the "family executive" or the "family president".
The way you present reality, is that the father is a tyrant, a despot, who exploited his family, and didn't care about them whatsoever, except to the extent that they benefited him.
To believe such nonsense, is to believe that men are evil, and that they don't love anyone but themselves. Neither their wives, their daughters, their mothers, or anyone else.
When a father makes a decision for his child, he isn't exploiting his child. He is looking out for the well-being of the child. And he holds that power over the child, because he, and society, believes that the father can better make decisions for the child, than the child can make for himself.
A "good father" doesn't ignore the opinions and goals of the child. But, he does attempt to direct the child to have goals which are more healthy, more productive, or otherwise beneficial. And try to steer him away from those things which are destructive, harmful, or a waste.
As I pointed out before, the father wasn't the only male involved. There were also grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, etc. If you go back to the early days, it was a council of elders(IE old men), who ultimately made the decisions for everyone else. But those decisions were made for the benefit of all.
When a man wants his son to be circumcised, he is making that decision based on a belief that it is in the best interest of his son(IE his health and happiness). He isn't doing it because he hates his son and wants to punish him. But what do you do when the father wants his son to be circumcised and the mother doesn't? Or if the mother does and the father doesn't? Either the decision is then left to "someone else"; Or the opinion of the father, or the opinion of the mother, has to be elevated above the other.
Again to my point about "arranged-marriages". An arranged-marriage is the perfect example of patriarchy. Now, there are two types of arranged-marriage, the forced variety(which almost never existed), and the variety where the parents would find "suitors" for the child, and the child could basically choose between them. What an arranged-marriage functionally meant, was that the girl could only marry a man, if her father approved of him. This is why in the marriage ceremony, the father "gives away" his daughter to the groom.
The father would only give away his daughter, if he approved of the man he was giving her away to. Which is based on the basic supposition that "father knows best". That ultimately, the father will be the one to decide what is best for you. If he doesn't approve of him, you can't be with him.
This was not about the father being an evil tyrant, it was about the father caring for his daughter, wanting the best for her, wanting her to be happy, and making sure she wasn't dating/marrying a loser.
The question is, if we still had the same patriarchal marriage/dating system, would we be better off?
With all that said. I do believe that on average, men tend to be "more logical", and thus "more rational/fair", than women. Men definitely dominate when it comes to "philosophy", and other "abstract thinking". Men tend to be more likely to talk about "ideas". While women tend to be more likely to talk about "people".
Women are more likely to believe in things like "astrology" and their horoscope. Men, not so much.
Women tend to enjoy reading "fiction", while men more enjoy "non-fiction". Men love history, women love psychology. And so on, and so forth.
Which brings us to the real question. If you had two parallel societies. One in which the decisions were mostly made by women, and another where decisions were mostly made by men(IE a matriarchal and patriarchal society). Which society do you honestly believe would be "better"?
Another question, has our giving women a right to vote, made this country better? If so, why?
With that said, I neither have a wife or daughters. I do have nine nieces though(and my sister just gave birth to another niece at 2:53 AM last night). All my nieces adore me, and I adore them. I'm not going to let anyone hurt my nieces, trust me. I wouldn't care what the law said. I would go to jail happily, to teach some d-bag a lesson.
With that said. The origin of this thought-process, goes back to my mother. And the fact that I was raised by a single-mother, and all the unnecessary hardships that both I endured, as well as my sisters, because of effectively the irresponsibility of my mother.
Now, my mother was one of the most good-hearted people you'll ever meet in your life. She would have done almost anything for anyone. But, her good-nature is primarily what caused her so much grief(I called her an "enabler").
Without going too much into detail. The first man she was ever with, was my oldest sister's father. She ended up pregnant, and when she told the guy, he was pretty freaked out, because they were both very young. Their parents wanted them to get married, because it was the "right thing to do". But my mother told him, "You don't have to marry me if you don't want to, I'll be fine". They ended up breaking up, over something that was pretty stupid.
So then my mother ended up with my father. And eh, my father, I'm pretty sure is a sociopath. He isn't a bad person necessarily, he just doesn't care about anyone but himself. He cheated on my mother a lot, because he imagined himself as some kind of stud. He was into "fast cars", he loved the Rolling Stones, had a "sound system" in a full-sized van, with a bed in the back, and spent almost every night at the bar. He is completely neglectful of anyone and everyone(and left my mother before I was even born).
Thus the root of my entire thought-process on women and men. Was originally aimed at how I could have reorganized society, to have made sure my mother had married a "better man". But possibly for a rather selfish reason. Had my mother married a better man, then presumably, I would have had a better father, and had that happened, my entire life would have been different. And in my opinion, better.
This feeling is further reinforced when I look at my sisters, and all my nieces. My sisters continue to date losers. One of my nieces doesn't even know who her father is. Another niece has a father who was sentenced to prison when she was three years old, and he won't get out of prison until she is in her mid-30's.
Of all my sisters, one of them has had six children with four different men. One has three children with two different men, and both men are losers. Neither of these sisters have ever been married.
Another sister has two kids with the same man(but had her "tubes tied" afterwards). But she has been married three times already, and it doesn't look like this marriage is going to work out either.
I feel like, all my nieces lives are doomed to failure and unnecessary hardship, and there is really nothing I can do to stop it. No one listens to me, and society basically tells them not to.
I refuse to live like that, and I refuse to bring anyone into this world to be cast into that kind of situation. The idea of having children with a "modern woman" is terrifying to me, because then you have to worry about what she is going to do.
When my sisters/nieces tell me that I should date, and have children, because "I would be such a great father". I have to remind them, that if a girl had my children, and tried to take my children from me, and I thought she was "messing the children up in the head"(especially if she was dating some jerk I didn't trust). That I would have to kill her. Those are my kids, I'm not going to allow it.
So yeah, as long as there is no security in a relationship for me, I would rather be alone.
The problem is, my desire to just be alone, has sapped my ambition, it has sapped my spirit. There is never anything really to look forward to, nothing to work towards, nothing I really want. I've become an increasingly cold and bitter shell of my former self.
Had I been able to trust women, who knows what might have been?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-07-2015 at 05:20 PM..
Children are functionally considered "second-class citizens". They cannot vote, they cannot enter into contracts. They are the wards of their parents, and are forced to go to school, and to obey their parents. Their parents can discipline them, and take away their liberties. The child also requires the parent's permission to do almost anything.
So does that mean children have terrible lives? Does that mean children are abused? What does it mean?
It means that children don't have the knowledge or experience to make significant choices. They will acquire that knowledge as they mature. And since you continue to compare women and children, the implication is that you believe that women don't have the knowledge or experience to make significant choices in their lives. Really?
Recently there has been an increasingly bigger fight over "circumcision". Many children's rights advocates have called circumcision "mutilation". And they say that the parent does not have a right to circumcise the child, without the child's permission. But the child cannot legally give permission until he is an adult. So that would necessarily mean that circumcision would have to be disallowed for any male who wasn't an adult.
Do you agree with that?
I'm not a man, so I can't say that I've given much thought to circumcision. Since circumcision is sometimes performed for religious reasons, I think that I would need more information to make an informed opinion. On the face of it, I think that medical procedures that cannot be reversed should only be performed for sound medical reasons.
The point I'm trying to make, is that people have to make decisions, everyone has to make decisions. The premise behind patriarchy, was that the father of the family should both make the decisions for the family, and be the one held responsible for those decisions. That in effect, the father became the "family executive" or the "family president".
The premise for patriarchy is that women are inferior to men. Which is why the man should be making the decisions for the family. Because he and his judgment are superior to a woman's.
The way you present reality, is that the father is a tyrant, a despot, who exploited his family, and didn't care about them whatsoever, except to the extent that they benefited him.
That's untrue. I've never claimed that the father is a tyrant or a despot. What I do claim is that just because the father has a penis doesn't make his judgment superior to the mother's judgment.
To believe such nonsense, is to believe that men are evil, and that they don't love anyone but themselves. Neither their wives, their daughters, their mothers, or anyone else.
Since I don't believe that men are evil, blah-blah-blah.
When a father makes a decision for his child, he isn't exploiting his child. He is looking out for the well-being of the child. And he holds that power over the child, because he, and society, believes that the father can better make decisions for the child, than the child can make for himself.
Yes, and when a father makes a decision for his wife, he is looking out for the well-being of the wife. He holds that power over his wife, because he believes that he can better make decisions for the wife than the wife can make for herself. Because he has a penis.
A "good father" doesn't ignore the opinions and goals of the child. But, he does attempt to direct the child to have goals which are more healthy, more productive, or otherwise beneficial. And try to steer him away from those things which are destructive, harmful, or a waste.
As I pointed out before, the father wasn't the only male involved. There were also grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, etc. If you go back to the early days, it was a council of elders(IE old men), who ultimately made the decisions for everyone else. But those decisions were made for the benefit of all.
I'm not sure why you think that the father/husband being not the only male involved makes patriarchy more defensible.
When a man wants his son to be circumcised, he is making that decision based on a belief that it is in the best interest of his son(IE his health and happiness). He isn't doing it because he hates his son and wants to punish him. But what do you do when the father wants his son to be circumcised and the mother doesn't? Or if the mother does and the father doesn't? Either the decision is then left to "someone else"; Or the opinion of the father, or the opinion of the mother, has to be elevated above the other.
Again to my point about "arranged-marriages". An arranged-marriage is the perfect example of patriarchy. Now, there are two types of arranged-marriage, the forced variety(which almost never existed), and the variety where the parents would find "suitors" for the child, and the child could basically choose between them. What an arranged-marriage functionally meant, was that the girl could only marry a man, if her father approved of him. This is why in the marriage ceremony, the father "gives away" his daughter to the groom.
So you are defending arranged marriages?
The father would only give away his daughter, if he approved of the man he was giving her away to. Which is based on the basic supposition that "father knows best". That ultimately, the father will be the one to decide what is best for you. If he doesn't approve of him, you can't be with him.
This was not about the father being an evil tyrant, it was about the father caring for his daughter, wanting the best for her, wanting her to be happy, and making sure she wasn't dating/marrying a loser.
In the scenario you are describing, the daughter never dated anyone. And the arranged marriages were hardly about wanting the best for the daughter or wanting her to be happy. More often, they were financial arrangements, that benefited the men in the family.
The question is, if we still had the same patriarchal marriage/dating system, would we be better off?
Actually, the question on this thread is whether men had it much better than women in the past. And the answer is if you believe that holding the superior social, financial, and cultural positions is having it better, then YES.
With all that said. I do believe that on average, men tend to be "more logical", and thus "more rational/fair", than women. Men definitely dominate when it comes to "philosophy", and other "abstract thinking". Men tend to be more likely to talk about "ideas". While women tend to be more likely to talk about "people".
Women are more likely to believe in things like "astrology" and their horoscope. Men, not so much.
Women tend to enjoy reading "fiction", while men more enjoy "non-fiction". Men love history, women love psychology. And so on, and so forth.
You realize that you are insulting and demeaning in your beliefs about women?
Which brings us to the real question. If you had two parallel societies. One in which the decisions were mostly made by women, and another where decisions were mostly made by men(IE a matriarchal and patriarchal society). Which society do you honestly believe would be "better"?
I believe both would be flawed. Because unlike you, I don't believe that one gender is superior to the other.
Another question, has our giving women a right to vote, made this country better? If so, why?
Yes, because government policies affect women, and suffrage is one avenue that gives citizens a voice in how such policies are developed and implemented.
With that said, I neither have a wife or daughters. I do have nine nieces though(and my sister just gave birth to another niece at 2:53 AM last night). All my nieces adore me, and I adore them. I'm not going to let anyone hurt my nieces, trust me. I wouldn't care what the law said. I would go to jail happily, to teach some d-bag a lesson.
With that said. The origin of this thought-process, goes back to my mother. And the fact that I was raised by a single-mother, and all the unnecessary hardships that both I endured, as well as my sisters, because of effectively the irresponsibility of my mother.
Now, my mother was one of the most good-hearted people you'll ever meet in your life. She would have done almost anything for anyone. But, her good-nature is primarily what caused her so much grief(I called her an "enabler").
Without going too much into detail. The first man she was ever with, was my oldest sister's father. She ended up pregnant, and when she told the guy, he was pretty freaked out, because they were both very young. Their parents wanted them to get married, because it was the "right thing to do". But my mother told him, "You don't have to marry me if you don't want to, I'll be fine". They ended up breaking up, over something that was pretty stupid.
So then my mother ended up with my father. And eh, my father, I'm pretty sure is a sociopath. He isn't a bad person necessarily, he just doesn't care about anyone but himself. He cheated on my mother a lot, because he imagined himself as some kind of stud. He was into "fast cars", he loved the Rolling Stones, had a "sound system" in a full-sized van, with a bed in the back, and spent almost every night at the bar. He is completely neglectful of anyone and everyone(and left my mother before I was even born).
Thus the root of my entire thought-process on women and men. Was originally aimed at how I could have reorganized society, to have made sure my mother had married a "better man". But possibly for a rather selfish reason. Had my mother married a better man, then presumably, I would have had a better father, and had that happened, my entire life would have been different. And in my opinion, better.
This feeling is further reinforced when I look at my sisters, and all my nieces. My sisters continue to date losers. One of my nieces doesn't even know who her father is. Another niece has a father who was sentenced to prison when she was three years old, and he won't get out of prison until she is in her mid-30's.
Of all my sisters, one of them has had six children with four different men. One has three children with two different men, and both men are losers. Neither of these sisters have ever been married.
Another sister has two kids with the same man(but had her "tubes tied" afterwards). But she has been married three times already, and it doesn't look like this marriage is going to work out either.
I feel like, all my nieces lives are doomed to failure and unnecessary hardship, and there is really nothing I can do to stop it. No one listens to me, and society basically tells them not to.
I refuse to live like that, and I refuse to bring anyone into this world to be cast into that kind of situation. The idea of having children with a "modern woman" is terrifying to me, because then you have to worry about what she is going to do.
When my sisters/nieces tell me that I should date, and have children, because "I would be such a great father". I have to remind them, that if a girl had my children, and tried to take my children from me, and I thought she was "messing the children up in the head"(especially if she was dating some jerk I didn't trust). That I would have to kill her. Those are my kids, I'm not going to allow it.
So yeah, as long as there is no security in a relationship for me, I would rather be alone.
The problem is, my desire to just be alone, has sapped my ambition, it has sapped my spirit. There is never anything really to look forward to, nothing to work towards, nothing I really want. I've become an increasingly cold and bitter shell of my former self.
Had I been able to trust women, who knows what might have been?
Your biography provides a lot of insight into your attitudes about women. I'm sorry that you cannot trust women, and that you have therefore developed a rationale which allows you to look down on them.
Back in those days woman and blacks were not allowed to do a lot. The were controlled and looked down on as second class. Now we've moved on to better times and look at all the accomplishments by both woman and blacks. And some people still believe they should be kept down. Some allow themselves to be kept down. Sad, really sad. The woman in our family have high accomplishments and if the men would have continued the tradition of the old days our family would been poor.
I wonder if there is a correlation between how men think about their women and the financial condition. They should do a study.
The premise for patriarchy is that women are inferior to men. Which is why the man should be making the decisions for the family. Because he and his judgment are superior to a woman's.
I think by nature of our biology, men and women have different values.
We need to understand that, to a large extent, women don't need men. To a woman, a man is nothing more than a tool. He is either there for sex, to protect her, or to provide for her. But she doesn't need him beyond that. A woman always knows her offspring are her own, so monogamy is of no intrinsic importance to her from a reproductive perspective. She is by her nature "Hypergamic".
This is nearly exactly the opposite for a man. A man needs a woman, he cannot have children without her. And, being that men have long been the primary provider of resources for families/societies. To encourage a man to work for the benefit of all, he must be "civilized", by making him responsible for someone else's well-being. He needs to be taught love, and empathy, and that seems to develop most strongly when he responsible for women, and especially, daughters.
Since a man needs to provide significant labor to the benefit of society for a society to function, and because a man, unlike a woman, couldn't historically know the paternity of his offspring. It was realized that for a man to be most productive, a man needed to know that his children were actually is, and that his woman wouldn't be out banging someone else the moment he left the house. If there was any doubt, the system broke down.
This is why monogamy was created. One man, with one woman, until death. And if anyone were to get between them, they should expect god's wrath.
This was to guarantee paternity of children, and in doing so, the man became responsible for others, and thus encouraged him to work, not only for himself, but for the benefit of all.
This is why married men, and men with children, tend to make more money. A single man, tends to only do just enough to "get by", he only thinks of himself.
This is why the concept of monogamy exists, and it seems most positively associated with "intelligent men". And if you recognize that in the old days, the "tribes" were organized by a small number of the most intelligent/accomplished men of the village. Then it should be of no surprise that monogamy has been a necessary ingredient for civilization.
The more we move away from patriarchy, the more dysfunctional society becomes. I can't even imagine a world where feminists actually got everything they wanted.
I believe society functioned better when men had "more say" than women. I think it was better, not only for men, but also for women, and especially for children.
These are merely my conclusions based on the facts, as well as from my own experiences. You can be mad at me if you want. I don't particularly care. And I don't think we are going to "go back" to a patriarchy by any means. So whatever. I just wanted to give people a better insight into what the past was really like. Instead of the propaganda.
The real reason women were "emancipated", was because it served the interests of the corporations and the state. Having women work, "grows the economy" by providing "double the labor"(a stay-at-home wife can't be taxed). And destroying the family, makes everyone more and more dependent on the state, and thus grows its power.
What are the matriarchal values? Hypergamy and a welfare state.
I believe society functioned better when men had "more say" than women. I think it was better, not only for men, but also for women, and especially for children.
These are merely my conclusions based on the facts, as well as from my own experiences. You can be mad at me if you want. I don't particularly care. And I don't think we are going to "go back" to a patriarchy by any means. So whatever. I just wanted to give people a better insight into what the past was really like. Instead of the propaganda.
The real reason women were "emancipated", was because it served the interests of the corporations and the state. Having women work, "grows the economy" by providing "double the labor"(a stay-at-home wife can't be taxed). And destroying the family, makes everyone more and more dependent on the state, and thus grows its power.
This is yet another instance where you tell us all how much you love women, but you feel compelled to insult women.
I'm not mad at you at all. But I don't think you are doing what you think you are doing. Every insult to women upholds the propaganda that you are saying you are trying to dispel. Patriarchy is the belief that men are superior by virtue of having a penis.
Women had much less rights than men and they had less duties as well, in the past gender roles were very strictly defined: women were mothers and housewives, men were workers and soldiers.
Obviously there were different cases: peasant women worked hard (less than men obviously having to take care of children) and their life was not certainly either pleasant or easy.
I wouldn't say though that most men had power in the general meaning: while I could agree that a patriarchal society places more value on a man (and more obligations as well), it's also true that most men couldn't vote till the end of XIX century (in Italy in 1912), most men were poor peasant or workers in factories whose rights were very limited.
As such, I'd separate the two spheres of power: when someone says that "men were those who started wars", he/she is saying complete bùll****.
99% of men did not have a say in any political decision, let alone a war, we don't even today, let alone in the past!
Women were indeed oppressed in so far as personal rights are concerned: women couldn't go to university (although also most men couldn't either), couldn't hold property, have business etc.
In a wider sense, most men and women held for most of history the same political rights: none.
Middle class men had it "better" than middle class women, until the invention of the birth control pill and passage of affirmative action laws, because men had more choices in life. Prior to the 60s and early 70s, middle class women had few options of careers outside of teachers, nurses, wives, and mothers. Now, women can pursue any career option or life choice, including not to marry or have kids.
Patriarchy is the belief that men are superior by virtue of having a penis.
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.
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.
