Posted on 07/15/2003 1:45:35 PM PDT by Nick Danger
Do you think there is a similarity to those countries where gangs of young men, "Technos", drive pickups with guns mounted in the back, and shoot everyone?Which later prompted me to expand it into an article last year Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?That is the normal state of a matrilineal culture. You can see it in dozens of countries. You can see it in Detroit and Los Angeles. When a society's men do not care about the future, institutional forms of the sort that maintain order and keep things working, either don't develop or break down. The closest thing to "government" in such cultures is a kind of feudalism in which gangs of young men hold sway, usually violently, over whatever territory they can subdue. There is no continuity to this... today's leader is replaced tomorrow by the next jerk with a machine gun. Nor do these "governments" have any purpose except to rape and pillage. The only form of 'order' they provide is keeping rival gangs out of the territory.
This is what human society looks like in the absence of institutional forms of government. And for reasons no one can explain, these forms only develop in cultures where men know who their children are and participate in their upbringing. Raising their own children is what makes men care about the future, and when men care about the future they can do amazing things to make it better. Schools, electricity, running water, roads, sewage systems... all those things are products of institutional forms that never appear in matrilineal cultures. That's why those people all live in mud huts and are constantly migrating to avoid droughts and floods.
It frequently happened that colonial powers from more patriarchal cultures came in and established such institutions. They built roads, schools, and governments. But when the colonial powers pulled out, the institutions collapsed; the underlying matrilineal cultures could not maintain them. There is a message in that for us. But instead of hearing that message, our feminist elites are publishing papers about how fathers don't matter, and how they might even be harmful to children and other living things. Those people are going to send us right back to the mud huts.
Feminism removed these restraints for women, while keeping them for men. Thus the present problem.
Yesterday I went over to my friend's house. After 10 years of marriage and three kids, his wife has decided he doesn't excite her anymore, so she wants out so she can sleep around more freely
He said to me "Y'know I used to have goals. I don't anymore". We spent the time discussing women, and playing computer games together.
The human male's motivation to strive and build for the future is more fragile than feminists may assume. If too many more males feel that way, we may start seeing society going downhill faster than anybody may expect
My friend in #46, the one who doesn't care so much anymore, works as an ER Nurse. Two other friends, software managers, are responsible for systems that manage billions of dollars worth of stock transactions.
When things fall down, it will be ugly
That's one contributing factor to the divorce phenomenon. Successful men in their 40's and 50's get to trade up to "trophy wives".
The flip side is that women in their 30's increasingly decide that their current hubby's career is going nowhere, so might as well dump him while she's still good-looking enough to have a shot at being somebody else's trophy wife next time around
I hadn't really thought about it, but now that I think about it, this happens a LOT.
This is actually an argument for getting married later, e.g. 30+, so that both parties can more accurately project the kind of person they've actually married. It is trite and a (good) generalization, but status matters to both men and women in some fashion, and this plays into the marriage calculus. What a person is doing at 20 these days has almost no bearing on what a person will be doing at 30, and hazarding a guess at that age as to marriagability based on this fact may yield unpredictable results.
Heh. I'm sure all those women who dissed me when I was 20 because I was dirt poor and working my ass off at a crappy job would've had a completely different attitude if they met me at 30. I didn't change but my status did dramatically, which completely changed the playing field for me. I define "trophy wife" a bit differently than they probably expect though, and I can't stand status whores.
Of course, living way below my means and projecting myself as someone of modest resources helps keep a lot of the useless wife candidates at bay.
I assume that we are to take that as a warning that if we would like any more of your scintillating company, we should shut up and talk about what you want.
I've noted your objection in the log.
'Cuz that's when we were allowed to punch the Woman Behave Switch--you know, the one right between a violent or criminal woman's eyes? It turns them right into happy housewives. Use as needed.
Heck, you could probably send me to jail just for the above joke based on the Violence Against Angry Womyn Act....
Then I would commit mayhem.
Yup. Remember them well.
You never heard of Poland's Lech Walesa?
Lech Walesa, an electrician, became an international symbol of worker power in 1980 when during the Lenin Shipyard strike in Gdansk, Poland he successfully rallied demoralised workers to continue to fight for reform. From there, his passion spread to factories across the nation and strikers everywhere began christening the new movement "Solidarity."
| The human male's motivation to strive and build for the future is more fragile than feminists may assume.
That really sucks. Using "fragile" to describe someone who cracks under that might be overdoing it. I cannot think of any regime in human history that ever treated human beings like this. I take that back — Saddam Hussein would take people's children away... he used that as a form of punishment. But the wholesale removal of children from their parents? Where has that ever been done? What regime has ever systematically taken people's children away from them as a policy? Stalin didn't do that. We do it, right here, every single day. We rip children out of men's lives as if men were cats, or cattle. How the Hell did something this weird ever even start? It's the boiling frog story again... each guy would watch it happen to the next guy, but since hadn't happened to him, he didn't give a damn. The people viewing this at the level of individuals still don't give a damn, even though there is massive evidence building that the civilization itself is starting to creak and groan from the stresses. Our culture isn't even replacing itself. "Western Civilization Commits Suicide; Moslems, Chinese to Inherit the Earth". And as our friend from the Junior League put it, what sane woman would want to hear about that? |
| Successful men in their 40's and 50's get to trade up to "trophy wives"... The flip side is that women in their 30's increasingly decide that their current hubby's career is going nowhere, so might as well dump him while she's still good-looking enough to have a shot at being somebody else's trophy wife next time around
The most sexually powerful people are young, fertile women and middle-aged, successful men. From a purely lizard-brain reproductive-programming standpoint, those two groups are magnets for each other. But if you let them actually get at each other, they will wreck marriages and friendships to do it... throwing off two huge pools of people who don't have much use for each other: young men and middle-aged women. Instead of "practically everybody" having a relatively decent life, we end up with one group in some sort of hormonal bliss while everybody else spends fifteen or twenty years in the ditch. That is not a Good Thing. Our scheme to prevent this, while still letting divorce out of the bottle, was to strip the middle-aged successful men of their money on their way out the door, so they could not leave this huge pool of middle-aged women with no money. Lawyers, not economists, though that one up, because the economists would have seen coming a rash of asset-stripping divorces that had nothing to do with "him" walking out the door. We now have that happening to the point that young men see it coming and avoid marriage entirely. It's just one damned Unintended Consequence after another. And it'll just keep getting worse. The right answer is to put divorce back in the bottle. And that won't happen now as long as women have the vote; it's too good a deal for them. |
I believe that back in Victorian times, middle-class gentlemen were more likely to marry at around or after 30, to women in their early twenties. Marriage was deferred until the man could support a wife, which meant that men married well-into their careers
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.
I think "fragile" is an odd term to use there. Having some potentate in a black robe tell you that you are no longer to live in the same house with your children, that you will move out of your house, that you will forfeit all your assets and 64% of your income for the next sixteen years, and that you will be permitted to visit your children — properly supervised, of course, by a licensed social worker — for six hours, twice per month.... that is not exactly a glancing blow.