Posted on 08/11/2011 5:11:58 AM PDT by SJackson
As they say in Hackney, when God closes a door he sometimes smashes open a window. The UK riots, bad as they are, may be a turning point for Britain – the shock we needed to change course. We can no longer ignore the existence of people over whom the rest of us have little control, and who fear no figures of authority.
Fathers are, of course, major authority figures, and the issue that was first raised by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965 may be up for debate once again. As that unlikely moral crusader Guido Fawkes has pointed out (with a hat-tip to Andrew Neil), in areas like Tottenham up to 80 per cent of children are raised without a father. Where there are few other figures of male authority around, that is deeply problematic.
The effect on children is one thing: various studies show fatherlessness to be a serious disadvantage, while others argue that taking aside socio-economic status this makes little difference (and certainly fatherless children raised by highly educated women suffer far fewer drawbacks). But what about the effect on the men themselves?
When we discuss “fatherlessness” in urban areas what we are talking about, effectively, is polygamy. And countless studies have shown that, the more polygamous a society, the more aggressive its males. Polygamous hunter-gather societies are absurdly violent.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Actually, that is a social experiment of very recent vintage, and the data is not in.
I would not presume the result. You have to wait 50 years. Personally, I'm not optimistic.
The few male children of wealthy or privileged unmarried females that I have come to know well do not fill me with hope for the outcome of the experiment.
I think this premise was flawed from the start. If women are selective in their mating habits, men will be selective in their behavior patterns. Men in (let's say) the 1940s may have wanted, to some degree, to be wild and irresponsible with the ladies but for the most part couldn't get away with that. The result was that men settled down and behaved responsibly in order to find one good woman.
When feminism convinced women to start giving away milk for free, it had the result of convincing men that responsible behavior had little real benefit. This situation has not worked out well for either men or women.
A move to a more moral society would be a great improvement. I suspect that women may have to lead the way by moderating the degree to which they treat sexual relationships as inherently unserious.
They became wild(or barbaric,) living in the civilized society but not belong to it. They live by raiding and plundering the civilized productive society.
Modern liberal society is rearing its children as barbarians.
Polygamous has historically implied multiple SPOUSES for the FATHER figure in a ‘family.’
Polyandrous applies to one woman with multiple husbands.
Interesting choice of words, although I get the author’s point.
Promiscuous is the best word??? “Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partner(s).
The Left has created a class of culturally feral humans.
I’d rather deal with wild bears and wolves than feral humans.
MASSIVE TRUTH ALERT - MASSIVE TRUTH ALERT - MASSIVE TRUTH ALERT
Like it or lump it, the overall morals, objectives, and actions of men are driven by women. Women have the power to raise, or lower, the standards men aspire to. Even in my youth (’60s) a common statement was, “no girl is going to want to go out with you if (Insert: don't have a job; don't have a future; don't dress nicely; aren't clean and polite; etc.)
I had absolutely no desire to wash and vacuum my car, get dressed up on a Saturday night, go to something I didn't really like (a prom), do something I really, really, didn't like (dance), make ‘conversation’ and meet parents.
But you did those things for one reason only - because that was what girls demanded.
The future-less, shame-less, rudder-less guys you see drifting around looking like clowns are that way for one reason, and one reason only - because girls are ‘cool’ with it.
The riots remind us that polygamous societies are naturally violent
Think roosters.
Promiscuous is the best word??? “Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partner(s).
_____________________________________________
Well whaty do you think polygany is ???
There is nothging leagal or binding or virtuouas about polygamy
A guy just shacks up with some extra women...
Just like a guy in the projects..
Praire dresses dont make those women in Texas decent..
Theres nothing decent about polygamy..
Nothing virtuous? Tell that to Solomon!
But seriously i was pointing To the fact that these women are better described as promiscuous than polyandrous because they don’t even pretend to marry.
Think Mormons.
Those are some good points, but I think the author is confusing polygamy with promiscuity. They are very different behaviors in that polygamous fathers are heads of their households and provide for their children. The ghettos are filled with households where there is no father present.
The public assistance records of 'sister wives' from areas in the U.S. where polygamy is practiced do not support the idea that polygamous fathers provide for their children. Here and here. And many other sources.
The fraudulent bankruptcy filing of polygamous poster-boy Kody Brown and his wife, Meri, or the bankruptcy filing of sister-wife Christine, or the fact that one of the sister wives was on food stamps before the polygamous Brown family began to receive income from the show, Sister Wives, aren't good evidence that one particular polygamous father provides for his children.
But this apparently leads to a societal disfunction with similar results: Large numbers of low-status sexually disenfranchised males who are horny and angry, and tend to fall for the "72 Virgins" hoax.
(I do not, however, rule out the possiblity of genetic or environmental factors.)
No, the author's point revolves around the missing father, and lack of a family structure. Which could exist in a polygamous relationship.
May be some truth to that, but the guys have free will too, and are responsible to their actions. Irrespective of the recomendations of their better halves, or given the title, quarters, eights, sixteenteenths, too many wives, I can't spell the fractions.
I hate roosters, they’re noisy and should be made into soup. And fed to the dogs.
Yes, though promiscuity doesn't neccesarily mean offspring, though they're a natural result. He's concentrating on the familial relationship, I don't know what one word would fit. There are certainly examples of polymagous relationships that were characterized by satisfactory family relationships. I acknowledge we may be talking millenia to find examples.
I hate roosters, they’re noisy and should be made into soup. And fed to the dogs.
I love my roosters. The two protect my flock from hawks and eagles. They love to follow me and they are full of personality and funny.
although I am CHICKENSOUP!!
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.