Patriarchy - Merits and Laments

[ToadBrother]

I agree, he isn't making a good argument for returning to a patriarchal system. My point, though, is that if you look at more recent research you would find different results.

My understanding, as I told him, is that a lot of jurisdictions in North America (and probably Europe too) are already attempting reforms; and that a lot more effort is being put into encouraging mediating divorce resolutions that can allow both parties to come to an agreement that is equitable, that protects the rights of the children, but also allows couples to disentangle from clearly failed marriages.

But regardless of what the actual findings are, it doesn't mean patriarchy will be the answer.

It strikes me as being little different from advocating the chopping off of everyones' arms to prevent shoplifting.

[M.Dancer]

Or bringing back feudalism as a cure for homelessness...

[Bonam]

Meh, the solution is simple. Don't marry a militant feminist, don't have kids with a vindictive woman who's gonna divorce you and deprive you of your children. Sure, you can't know the future, but you can and should know the personality of the person you choose as your life partner. Relying on legal remedies in matters of family means the family has already utterly failed anyway. Yes, good honest men will get screwed over by the law more often than not, but what else is new? Our legal system these days is precisely that: a legal system, not a justice system.

[Melanie_]

Meh, the solution is simple. Don't marry a militant feminist, don't have kids with a vindictive woman who's gonna divorce you and deprive you of your children. Sure, you can't know the future, but you can and should know the personality of the person you choose as your life partner. Relying on legal remedies in matters of family means the family has already utterly failed anyway. Yes, good honest men will get screwed over by the law more often than not, but what else is new? Our legal system these days is precisely that: a legal system, not a justice system.

Right... divorce happens to good, honest men because women are vindictive, militant feminists. Sounds like you've got a bitter tale to tell.

[ToadBrother]

Right... divorce happens to good, honest men because women are vindictive, militant feminists. Sounds like you've got a bitter tale to tell.

No kidding. You'd think there wasn't a nasty guy in the world listening to these two. It's like being transported back to 1950.

[Bonam]

Right... divorce happens to good, honest men because women are vindictive, militant feminists.

Haha, that's not what I said at all. Feel free to reread the post and note which words are in which sentences and how they relate, and do not relate, to other words in other sentences. Hopefully proper reading comprehension will come with sufficient repetition.

Anyway... obviously there are all kinds of both women and men. The point of my post was simple: don't get to the point in your life where family law matters by doing a good job picking your partner in the first place.

Sounds like you've got a bitter tale to tell.

Nope... quite the opposite. I come from a household where my parents love each other and have stayed together for close to 30 years so far. That is the most important thing.

If, on the other hand, you put two people together that aren't meant for each other you are gonna have a destructive relationship whatever the law might say about it.

[bloodyminded]

Even if he's right, so what? Yes, single-parent families have specific challenges. But to use that to declare that women should go back to being chattel is a total non sequitur, a logical fallacy at the heart of his claim.

I think Timothy needs to seek counseling, myself. He's been hurt and seems to have blamed women entire for that tragedy. Lots of parents have divorces and still manage to navigate custody and support issues in an equitable fashion.

Quite so. And if personal anecdotes are useful (let's pretend they are for the sake of argument), my ex-wife and I, both 22, living in poverty, immature for our ages and quite stupid, retreating from a volatile marriage, managed to navigate shared custody of three children through the courts with no trouble at all.

Mind you, I have not formed calcified socio/political opinions based on my experience there, so I guess the point is moot....

[bloodyminded]

Meh, the solution is simple. Don't marry a militant feminist, don't have kids with a vindictive woman who's gonna divorce you and deprive you of your children. Sure, you can't know the future, but you can and should know the personality of the person you choose as your life partner. Relying on legal remedies in matters of family means the family has already utterly failed anyway. Yes, good honest men will get screwed over by the law more often than not, but what else is new? Our legal system these days is precisely that: a legal system, not a justice system.

You think that the problems in custody disputes arises from militant feminists?

That's not even faintly an issue. Very few women are militant feminists.

Sure, you can't know the future, but you can and should know the personality of the person you choose as your life partner.

Now this sounds eminently more reasonable. But nobody thinks they're going to engage in a rancorous divorce with disputed custody arrangements. These are often unknowables, I should think.

On a base level, it could be true that people often get married when they should get to know the person a little better.

But in fact, in the old, pre-high-divorce-rate days, engagements were shorter, marriages happened sooner. If anything, we've become slightly more cautious.

Edited October 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Hello my fellow Canadians,

Hey Tim, good topic and thanks for being honest about your views. I have enjoyed reading the enlightening debate, many interesting points to be read here. Since I wish to reply to your first post only, you will have to forgive me if I repeat some ideas that have already been stated. However, I think the problems I see with your idea of a *new* patriarchy are not about application or upon what forms it must be applied against, but about what is being applied in the first place, or your notion of what patriarchy is.

I wish to begin a general discussion of the modern concept or thinking in regards to what is known as, or thought to be, patriarchy. What does it mean to you?

It means, to me, the dominance of a male member of a particular family or other family related social group, extending into the overall organization of the society in which that family or family group belongs. This also suggests that behind the dominant male(s) there is a chain of ranked subordinate males organized in such a way as to ensure that should the dominant male be removed from his position, someone will be there to take his place. If this is the case then, patriarchy requires a complex system of kinship rules, protocols, and behaviours that support the overall structure including a reasonable and steady supply of males.

Since the cultural upheavals of the 1960's, we have seen what I think can fairly be called the demonization of "patriarchy," so much so that its topic is almost taboo, and few - if anyone - even know what that term entails or actually describes, at least as witnessed in my own personal experience.

Well it is hard to know what a term entails in your "own personal experience."

However, "cultural unheavals" have been going on for a very long time, some of it recorded, some of it not. While I would disagree that there has been a 'demonization" of patriarchy or that the subject is taboo (many women still take their husbands last name as do her children) we have to be careful not to confuse the term "patriarchy" with "patrilineal."

I, like I am sure others like me, who were raised and schooled secularly, originally associated patriarchy with a perverse male sexism that excluded entirely women and children from any benefit of law, and most benefits of society or civilization in general.

I grew up in an Anglo patriarchical family constellation in the 60's-80's and I never thought there was any perverse male sexism or exclusion of women and children from any benefit of the law. In fact, a quick glance over the past 100 years or so of history of this continent would indicate that contrarily, women and children were obtaining more benefits of society in a progressive manner into modern times. We have to be careful that we do not rely on limited synchronic views to inform diachronic questions.

However...

My modern, adult experience of the effects of this belief in practice (namely, the demonization of patriarchy, which has filtered down to a near demonization of all men, especially in their capacities as fathers or husbands)has had radical effects on the modern family and social experience ; namely, in the enormous and rampant rise of children growing up virtually fatherless, of rampant and easy divorce and re-marriage (constituting a new family, the "extended family"), and, finally, in a built-in legal bias towards women, especially as it regards children/custody.

Again, your view is synchronic and personal whereas I can easily counter that, due to the progressive rationalization of the concepts of personal liberty: what you see as demonizing, radical and built-in, I see as a levelling effect over time. All cultural change comes with a price, even positive changes such as the progressive rationalization of personal liberty. In some other areas, our definitions of words and ideas change including the weight of the underlying concepts of those things.

I am going to throw my neck out there by stating unequivocally that I have now developed a strong bias and support of patriarchy, as I understand it ; naturally, no one would support the demonized version of what is called "patriarchy," so I hope my self-nomination as a patriarch, or pro-patriarchy Canadian will cause a little scandal and lead you, dear reader, to wonder how I could possibly don such a universally despised mantle as it is currently understood, and risk exposure to so much animosity and hatred.

Again, it isn't as demonized, hated as you think. In some circles, maybe, but the general trend is toward the concept of patriarchy fading away like any other cultural concept that no longer suits the purpose and most people, I think, move along like a school of fish with it.

The Merits of Patriarchy

First and foremost, patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually actively encourages - and yes, even protects - the male role and involvement in the family. It accomplishes this in three ways, by establishing him as :

i) Head of the household,

ii) Sole-father ; sole-husband, and

iii) Protector and provider.

First of all, partiarchy is not the "sole system of social organization that actually" encourages and protects the male role and involvement in the family, if that is even a requirement for social organization anymore. The egalitarian configuration appears to offer the same, if not more, encouragement and protection for the male. What I think you mean to say is that patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually protects or preserves the patriarchical male role and involvement...etc.

The other side of patriarchy is matriarchy, which is also patriarchy's antithesis, and repudiates the aforementioned involvement, at least in one or more points, and virtually expels, as it were, the male from the home or makes him hopelessly dependent upon the favor of the mother (that is, in its fullest, his fall from her favour disqualifies him from membership in the family ; that is, in the home, and makes him highly and easily replaceable, as is evident from all martiarchical societies, even today).

It is important that we not confuse matriarchy with matrilineal, for one. For two, it appears that your definition of matriarchy is limited and somewhat informed by emotion and a sense of morality. For example, your definitions of both appear to disqualify the egalitarian effect of particular societies with regard to either system.

Patriarchy, by its systematic inclusion of men as essential and necessary members of the family, uses social props, specifically legal props, to protect his otherwise precarious attachment to the family unit. I say precarious because the man, for the most part, has absolutely no power or control over the begetting of a family itself : this privilege nature has betowed upon women as in a monopoly. She can never doubt who her children are ; he, however, has no such certainty, outside of the patriarchical organization of society and its social, specifically legal, props, which support his position as an inalienable member of his family, and condemns the kind of promiscuity that might endanger his certainty of what constitutes "his" family.

Not necessarily so. If you agreed to my definition of patriarchy above, then you will note that it is not limited to a narrow, patrilineal aspect. A brother, uncle, male cousin or adopted outsider can all be considered as the dominant male role in a partiarchy, not just the biological father of some children. Furthermore, if the symbolic choice of "our father" is extended into a particular society some abstract kinship rules have to be applied so that "he" becomes everyone's "father." Take a look at the etymology of the word "king" for example (as opposed to the word "queen" too).

Now, it comes time to debate whether the inclusion of the male as an inalienable member of the family produces "good" or "bad" fruits ; that is, to debate its merits for society : for men, women, children, and possibly the state, individually or as a whole. It would appear that the law is heavily leaning away from patriarchy, and is virtually establishing a matriarchy by default, wherein the woman has, naturally, her biological monopoly on one hand, and further is also given a litany of social and legal props that aggrandize her position, and her power, in society, especially as it regards society's basic and fundamental unit, the family, which is -by legal default- undeniably not only by nature, but also by law, chiefly "hers."

The law appears, to me, to be leaning towards the personal liberty of the individual as has been pointed out and this has had a levelling affect on some of the organizational aspects of our society. Also, there is a confusion between the terms patriarchy/matriarchy with partilineal/matrilineal without a clear boundary provided including how that boundary affects your personal definition of the terms.

If we could clear these up a bit, the argument - or bias - might be stated a little more clearly.

[Timothy17]

Hey Tim, good topic and thanks for being honest about your views. I have enjoyed reading the enlightening debate, many interesting points to be read here. Since I wish to reply to your first post only, you will have to forgive me if I repeat some ideas that have already been stated. However, I think the problems I see with your idea of a *new* patriarchy are not about application or upon what forms it must be applied against, but about what is being applied in the first place, or your notion of what patriarchy is.

It means, to me, the dominance of a male member of a particular family or other family related social group, extending into the overall organization of the society in which that family or family group belongs. This also suggests that behind the dominant male(s) there is a chain of ranked subordinate males organized in such a way as to ensure that should the dominant male be removed from his position, someone will be there to take his place. If this is the case then, patriarchy requires a complex system of kinship rules, protocols, and behaviours that support the overall structure including a reasonable and steady supply of males.

Well it is hard to know what a term entails in your "own personal experience."

However, "cultural unheavals" have been going on for a very long time, some of it recorded, some of it not. While I would disagree that there has been a 'demonization" of patriarchy or that the subject is taboo (many women still take their husbands last name as do her children) we have to be careful not to confuse the term "patriarchy" with "patrilineal."

I grew up in an Anglo patriarchical family constellation in the 60's-80's and I never thought there was any perverse male sexism or exclusion of women and children from any benefit of the law. In fact, a quick glance over the past 100 years or so of history of this continent would indicate that contrarily, women and children were obtaining more benefits of society in a progressive manner into modern times. We have to be careful that we do not rely on limited synchronic views to inform diachronic questions.

However...

Again, your view is synchronic and personal whereas I can easily counter that, due to the progressive rationalization of the concepts of personal liberty: what you see as demonizing, radical and built-in, I see as a levelling effect over time. All cultural change comes with a price, even positive changes such as the progressive rationalization of personal liberty. In some other areas, our definitions of words and ideas change including the weight of the underlying concepts of those things.

Again, it isn't as demonized, hated as you think. In some circles, maybe, but the general trend is toward the concept of patriarchy fading away like any other cultural concept that no longer suits the purpose and most people, I think, move along like a school of fish with it.

First of all, partiarchy is not the "sole system of social organization that actually" encourages and protects the male role and involvement in the family, if that is even a requirement for social organization anymore. The egalitarian configuration appears to offer the same, if not more, encouragement and protection for the male. What I think you mean to say is that patriarchy is the sole system of social organization that actually protects or preserves the patriarchical male role and involvement...etc.

It is important that we not confuse matriarchy with matrilineal, for one. For two, it appears that your definition of matriarchy is limited and somewhat informed by emotion and a sense of morality. For example, your definitions of both appear to disqualify the egalitarian effect of particular societies with regard to either system.

Not necessarily so. If you agreed to my definition of patriarchy above, then you will note that it is not limited to a narrow, patrilineal aspect. A brother, uncle, male cousin or adopted outsider can all be considered as the dominant male role in a partiarchy, not just the biological father of some children. Furthermore, if the symbolic choice of "our father" is extended into a particular society some abstract kinship rules have to be applied so that "he" becomes everyone's "father." Take a look at the etymology of the word "king" for example (as opposed to the word "queen" too).

The law appears, to me, to be leaning towards the personal liberty of the individual as has been pointed out and this has had a levelling affect on some of the organizational aspects of our society. Also, there is a confusion between the terms patriarchy/matriarchy with partilineal/matrilineal without a clear boundary provided including how that boundary affects your personal definition of the terms.

If we could clear these up a bit, the argument - or bias - might be stated a little more clearly.

I believe you correctly diagnosed an underlying difficulty that has manifested in the discussion, namely, the personal view (especially my own) being applied, whereas exactly what patriarchy was or is, as you bear witness, is something handed down - taught or learned, even. I therefore believe patriarchy is something that can adapt and be molded, and when I said "new" patriarchy, I meant it in the sense of a patriarchal system that would serve present society. Clearly from the thread, there are aspects of historical manifestations of patriarchy that we would simply never agree with.

Now, the chief opponent idea I have seen raised is "individual" or "personal liberty." I must state that this discussion might at this point require a change of topic, in order to return or continue, because I think what constitutes "personal liberty" in the modern sense may actually be defective ; that is, it veils or masks what is in reality individual or personal license, which is not only contrary to liberty, but jeopardizes its actualization. Pre-supposing the very idea of divorce, or no-fault divorce, is that the vows taken 1)can be repudiated, even though the very vows themselves confess to never be liable to such, save for by death, and 2) that an individual's desire to be dispensed with responsibility or consequences can be realistically or safely condoned and actuated by the state.

Imagine if we allowed the same, modern ideas of divorce to enter into commerical contract law. Imagine the shock of people repudiating their contracts simply because they were not happy with it - regardless of whether terms and conditions were met, or services were provided. Any right-minded person would hurl a long litany of socially acceptable slurs, insults, etc., at a person trying to repudiate their word in contract simply because they didn't want to anymore. I once had a recent experience at a movie theatre where the theatre was advertising a deal wherein for $8.00 I could get a large popcorn, large soft drink and "free" candy. I paid the eight dollars, and then was given the popcorn, and the large soft drink. I asked for the candy, and was told there was no candy left. I asked why this wasn't noted to me before purchase, and why they were still advertising for something they could not deliver. A shrug was the response. I asked for a refund or something to replace the candy that was conditional upon the deal itself, and at this point the supervisor stepped in and told me he would give me a refund, but if I wanted to pay for the popcorn and pop, it would cost a little more than eight dollars as per standard charge ; otherwise, I would have to just "deal with it," meaning take the popcorn and pop and pretend the candy never existed in the first place.

It's at junctions like the aforementioned where someone's individual or personal liberty is threatened to satisfy someone else's sense of license. I was cheated, and furthermore, my complaining of this resulted in my being treated as if I were at fault and to blame. The arrogance, and complete break with traditional or conventional customer service left me totally stunned. The mentality of the movie theatre employees, I think we can all agree, is not conforming with our notions of what liberty means. We never employ liberty at the expense of justice, and usually, rights and liberties are in keeping with justice, and are balanced in the community of persons : one person's rights or liberties do not deprive or undermine another's, but rather balance or even serve or sustain them.

Now, naturally, if the theatre-employees conception of individual liberty were to be granted the seal of approval by the state, I think we would all become alarmed at the prospect of being cheated perpetually in our dealings. Now many people would simply refuse to condone such behaviour, and themselves choose to be honourable in their dealings, even if it means missing opportunities for easy gratification or profit or sometimes being forced to suffer loss in keeping with the person's sense of honour or fairness, as obviously this person can have no guarantee that any other truly shares his convictions. By and large, though, the dog-eat-dot mentality would likely encourage, at least from time to time, for people to cheat others, and we can imagine that very quickly cheating and false advertising, etc., would become rampant, even acceptable to some extent. I think the explosion in divorce rates in such a swift period of time lends itself to the admittance of an injustice at most, or a license at least, into the "marriage system," and this deep-seeded error is therefore undermining that system. That the vows given could ever be repudiated by anyone was a revolution in society, that this could be done with relative ease was yet another ; in fact, I venture to say that what we now have is an anti-marriage system that merely masquerades as true marriage. I believe society has retained a deep-rooted respect for marriage, handed down by and through culture and generations, but in practice or effect most do not want it, but only the semblance of it, and the deep-rooted respect it begets. The final casualty in this trend will be the respect for marriage that makes it appealing ; in fact, I believe we can expect marriage itself to be more and more openly mocked and ridiculed, privately and publicly.

What I fear we are heading towards is the necessity for the creation of another kind of "marriage" by the state, which would in fact only be the recognition of a genuinely different kind of marriage, one that does not permit the injustices or licenses accepted in the present system, and the simple rational for this recognition will be exactly to stabilize the overall marriage system, with the added incentive of the stability traditional marriages, homes, and families bring to society - not the least as a stable tax base. There is I think too fundamental a difference forming between the traditional notions of marriage and the current laissez-faire form.

I have gone on too long for one post, so I will let that drop fall in the pond and see how calm - or not at all calm - the ripples are

Edited October 8, 2010 by Timothy17

[Shwa]

I believe you correctly diagnosed an underlying difficulty that has manifested in the discussion, namely, the personal view (especially my own) being applied, whereas exactly what patriarchy was or is, as you bear witness, is something handed down - taught or learned, even. I therefore believe patriarchy is something that can adapt and be molded, and when I said "new" patriarchy, I meant it in the sense of a patriarchal system that would serve present society. Clearly from the thread, there are aspects of historical manifestations of patriarchy that we would simply never agree with.

Then I believe it is incumbent on you to be a little more specific with what sort of adaptations patriarchy needs in order to be a worthwhile social structure, keeping in mind that some of those adaptations may just as easily be applied to the structures that are currently replacing patriarchy. That is to say, do you believe in the viability of patriarchy in these modern times or are you only interested in the adaptions?

Now, the chief opponent idea I have seen raised is "individual" or "personal liberty." I must state that this discussion might at this point require a change of topic, in order to return or continue, because I think what constitutes "personal liberty" in the modern sense may actually be defective ; that is, it veils or masks what is in reality individual or personal license, which is not only contrary to liberty, but jeopardizes its actualization.

But again, you are looking at this from a static, synchronic perspective since I have already introduced the idea that the current forms of liberty that we enjoy are the result of a processual change - a rationalization of the concept of liberty which is always being interpreted, revised, examined, re-examine, etc. My kids ideas of liberty are different from my own, as would be their idea of patriarchy. It is coming to the point now where the patriarchical mode is becoming more of a curiosity and a historical phase to refer to when discussing some of the cultural traits that are remnants of it.

What I fear we are heading towards is the necessity for the creation of another kind of "marriage" by the state, which would in fact only be the recognition of a genuinely different kind of marriage, one that does not permit the injustices or licenses accepted in the present system, and the simple rational for this recognition will be exactly to stabilize the overall marriage system, with the added incentive of the stability traditional marriages, homes, and families bring to society - not the least as a stable tax base. There is I think too fundamental a difference forming between the traditional notions of marriage and the current laissez-faire form.

Fair enough if the "tradition" of marriage is truly a worthy goal as opposed to, say, a 'partnership' perspective which has been raised by a couple of posters already. It would seem easier to provide adaptions to the modern partnership concept than entrench male family dominance in law. Those sorts of things have already been either levelled or are slated for a levelling. As for stable families, or more stable people (which is what I think you are really getting at) I agree that there could be improvement, but I am convinced that this has more to do with extended families and community participation in raising children. Not in a socially engineered Platonic republic, but in the availability of structures in the community that are oriented towards raising good kids. But even still, these sorts of services are being enacted even if a little too slowly for my liking.

[ToadBrother]

Imagine if we allowed the same, modern ideas of divorce to enter into commerical contract law. Imagine the shock of people repudiating their contracts simply because they were not happy with it - regardless of whether terms and conditions were met, or services were provided.

But contract law allows for just that, but it is a negotiated end to the contractual obligations. In fact, contracts often have written in them specified ways in which the contract can be ended.

Divorce is no different. While it's true that one side can override the other, they cannot unilaterally impose a settlement. That has to be negotiated by the two parties, or imposed by a disinterested party (either by binding arbitration or by the court).

I'd say modern divorce laws bring marriage more in line with regular contract law.

[Timothy17]

But contract law allows for just that, but it is a negotiated end to the contractual obligations. In fact, contracts often have written in them specified ways in which the contract can be ended.

Divorce is no different. While it's true that one side can override the other, they cannot unilaterally impose a settlement. That has to be negotiated by the two parties, or imposed by a disinterested party (either by binding arbitration or by the court).

I'd say modern divorce laws bring marriage more in line with regular contract law.

The reduction of marriage to equivicol comparison of commercial contract is itself emblematic of the disembowling of marriage. Again, (commercial) contracts are not stipulated with oaths or vows before God, which even in the primitive, most neutered sense means an authority beyond reproach, even by the state. Contracts may invoke the state, which automatically subjects them to temporal changes by anchoring them to an admittedly and universally understood changeable system, but everyone knows God does not and cannot change, which is why even "purely" secular persons will and would invoke that name in marriage without offending their particular sense or notions of God. Marriage, by its very nature, desires and seeks public approval - not for the idea of marriage itself but as a deeply-rooted understanding that the love which binds the two is authentically good beyond reproach. No one fears that the unifying love making the marriage happen would subject them to persecution or criticism, hence the desire that marriage is to be openly and publicly recognized and celebrated. The honking of horns by motorists as the newly-wed's limo passes demonstrates this - the public nature of the union shows what is at the root idea of marriage.

It is exaclty because marriage demonstrates a unifying, intrinsically good love that begets respect and reward by all civilized peoples that makes it as a foundational stone for all civilized societies. It demonstrates the underlying desire for humanity's unity and reconciliation, reinforcing the very ideas of nationhood (or state-hood) as a practical and possible truth. It means we can belong to one another. If my sister were to marry, I am obliged by the highest tangible and visible authority (the state) to recognize her husband and all his relatives as my own family. The addition of "brother-in-law" is at once an encouragement to embrace a brother who before was a stranger, and the addition of "in-law" includes a threat to behave thusly. Yes, a threat, because - as everyone knows - the law is always serious. When someone tells me "it's the law," there is underlying that statement also a threat to conform or at least respect it lest I beget danger to my person.

The disembowling of marriage under the auspices of personal or individual liberty threatens what is ultimately at the root and core of realized civilization. Imagining the person to exist outside or beyond society to such an extent that they can divorce themselves from it leads to a kind of misanthropy and narcissism that will only wreak havoc on that kind of genuine liberty that makes man free by making him responsible not only for himself, but also his neighbour. If we can divorce ourselves from personal responsibility we can divorce ourselves from society and the litany of responsibilities it imposes upon us. Divorce becomes the state-sanctioned flag of the rebel and revolutionary, who claiming personal liberty pre-supposes that he is not under obligation to any, and thus imagines that social and legal obligations are intrinsically tyrannical, rather than being props for his or her liberty. It is this bastardization of liberty into license that breaks, rather than unites, civilized society, and genuine "progress" cannot happen in a civilization where liberty becomes an injustice, a tyranny. This poisoning of the well, as it were, will make sick all who drink from it.

Allow me to finish by saying that the repudiation of marriage by society or the state is a repudiation of itself, and hence why I think, and therefore openly state, that our society has adopted a kind of misanthropy that threatens and even hates its very own existence. I believe the rise of the Patriarchs in Rome, and their acquisition of power and rule over their neighbours, the plebs, is directly due to the fact that the former were a realization of society, and of civilization, and the latter had no ability to prevent such formation, and no logical reason to prevent it, as the fruits of that civilization were always enjoyed by them as benefits. To imagine that the repudiation of civilization at its root and core is a form of progress is only to pave and make way for a new society, and a genuine revolution, one in which the plebs once again become subject to the patriarchs, even though they may instrinsically hate or dislike those patriarchs for reasons quite beyond their ability of description ; that is, illogical ones, and ones of ultimately what is envy or jealousy.

Tim

Edited October 9, 2010 by Timothy17

[ToadBrother]

The reduction of marriage to equivicol comparison of commercial contract is itself emblematic of the disembowling of marriage.

Okay, let's get this straight. You claimed divorce made marriage worse than contracts, and when I point out that divorce makes marriage more like contracts, that's bad. YOu're arguing from both ends.

Again, (commercial) contracts are not stipulated with oaths or vows before God,

So what? Not all marriages are done that way either. What do you think happens when two atheists get married?

which even in the primitive, most neutered sense means an authority beyond reproach, even by the state. Contracts may invoke the state, which automatically subjects them to temporal changes by anchoring them to an admittedly and universally understood changeable system, but everyone knows God does not and cannot change, which is why even "purely" secular persons will and would invoke that name in marriage without offending their particular sense or notions of God.

The state has not ever recognized simple religious ceremonies. The whole concept of "common law marriage" is very old in our system. A religious ceremony has not for several centuries been strictly required for a marriage.

Beyond that, I don't believe in God. Do you think I shouldn't be married because I don't believe in a higher power?

Marriage, by its very nature, desires and seeks public approval - not for the idea of marriage itself but as a deeply-rooted understanding that the love which binds the two is authentically good beyond reproach. No one fears that the unifying love making the marriage happen would subject them to persecution or criticism, hence the desire that marriage is to be openly and publicly recognized and celebrated. The honking of horns by motorists as the newly-wed's limo passes demonstrates this - the public nature of the union shows what is at the root idea of marriage.

This is getting into the realms of the daft. You're reaching in every possible direction to justify yourself. You have not at all dealt with any objections. It's become increasingly a word salad.

It is exaclty because marriage demonstrates a unifying, intrinsically good love that begets respect and reward by all civilized peoples that makes it as a foundational stone for all civilized societies. It demonstrates the underlying desire for humanity's unity and reconciliation, reinforcing the very ideas of nationhood (or state-hood) as a practical and possible truth. It means we can belong to one another. If my sister were to marry, I am obliged by the highest tangible and visible authority (the state) to recognize her husband and all his relatives as my own family. The addition of "brother-in-law" is at once an encouragement to embrace a brother who before was a stranger, and the addition of "in-law" includes a threat to behave thusly. Yes, a threat, because - as everyone knows - the law is always serious. When someone tells me "it's the law," there is underlying that statement also a threat to conform or at least respect it lest I beget danger to my person.

And none of this in the least underlines the necessity for patriarchies.

[quote[

The disembowling of marriage under the auspices of personal or individual liberty threatens what is ultimately at the root and core of realized civilization. Imagining the person to exist outside or beyond society to such an extent that they can divorce themselves from it leads to a kind of misanthropy and narcissism that will only wreak havoc on that kind of genuine liberty that makes man free by making him responsible not only for himself, but also his neighbour. If we can divorce ourselves from personal responsibility we can divorce ourselves from society and the litany of responsibilities it imposes upon us. Divorce becomes the state-sanctioned flag of the rebel and revolutionary, who claiming personal liberty pre-supposes that he is not under obligation to any, and thus imagines that social and legal obligations are intrinsically tyrannical, rather than being props for his or her liberty. It is this bastardization of liberty into license that breaks, rather than unites, civilized society, and genuine "progress" cannot happen in a civilization where liberty becomes an injustice, a tyranny. This poisoning of the well, as it were, will make sick all who drink from it.

I don't think you know what liberties means. Personal liberties are the only things that protect us from the tyranny of the state, or of the society. My personal liberties allow me to reject Christianity, to speak as I would, to demand that regardless of my beliefs expect equal treatment from the state. It's not about removing oneself from society, it's about limiting society's capacity to compel a man (or woman) against his own wishes; the "pursuit of happiness".

Allow me to finish by saying that the repudiation of marriage by society or the state is a repudiation of itself, and hence why I think, and therefore openly state, that our society has adopted a kind of misanthropy that threatens and even hates its very own existence. I believe the rise of the Patriarchs in Rome, and their acquisition of power and rule over their neighbours, the plebs, is directly due to the fact that the former were a realization of society, and of civilization, and the latter had no ability to prevent such formation, and no logical reason to prevent it, as the fruits of that civilization were always enjoyed by them as benefits. To imagine that the repudiation of civilization at its root and core is a form of progress is only to pave and make way for a new society, and a genuine revolution, one in which the plebs once again become subject to the patriarchs, even though they may instrinsically hate or dislike those patriarchs for reasons quite beyond their ability of description ; that is, illogical ones, and ones of ultimately what is envy or jealousy.

Tim

How much do you in fact know about about Rome? The entirety of the social wars was about the Plebs gaining some measure of equality with the Patricians. It's in fact the opposite of what you say.

[Bonam]

The reduction of marriage to equivicol comparison of commercial contract is itself emblematic of the disembowling of marriage. Again, (commercial) contracts are not stipulated with oaths or vows before God, which even in the primitive, most neutered sense means an authority beyond reproach, even by the state. Contracts may invoke the state, which automatically subjects them to temporal changes by anchoring them to an admittedly and universally understood changeable system, but everyone knows God does not and cannot change, which is why even "purely" secular persons will and would invoke that name in marriage without offending their particular sense or notions of God. Marriage, by its very nature, desires and seeks public approval - not for the idea of marriage itself but as a deeply-rooted understanding that the love which binds the two is authentically good beyond reproach. No one fears that the unifying love making the marriage happen would subject them to persecution or criticism, hence the desire that marriage is to be openly and publicly recognized and celebrated. The honking of horns by motorists as the newly-wed's limo passes demonstrates this - the public nature of the union shows what is at the root idea of marriage.

Many secular persons do not, in fact, invoke the name of any mystical deity when it comes to marriage. Though personally a Thor-themed wedding would probably be pretty cool, with lightning bolts and hammers everywhere and stuff. The modern purpose of marriage in Western society is to give a sense of security to both partners that they share a significant commitment to each other that should not lightly be abandoned. Additionally, it serves legal and financial purposes.

It is exaclty because marriage demonstrates a unifying, intrinsically good love that begets respect and reward by all civilized peoples that makes it as a foundational stone for all civilized societies. It demonstrates the underlying desire for humanity's unity and reconciliation, reinforcing the very ideas of nationhood (or state-hood) as a practical and possible truth. It means we can belong to one another. If my sister were to marry, I am obliged by the highest tangible and visible authority (the state) to recognize her husband and all his relatives as my own family. The addition of "brother-in-law" is at once an encouragement to embrace a brother who before was a stranger, and the addition of "in-law" includes a threat to behave thusly. Yes, a threat, because - as everyone knows - the law is always serious. When someone tells me "it's the law," there is underlying that statement also a threat to conform or at least respect it lest I beget danger to my person.

Brother-in-law is merely a word. There is no legal obligation on your part to treat your brother-in-law well as you would your brother. In fact, there isn't even a legal obligation to treat your actual (blood) brother well either. The law only requires that you do not commit crimes against other people, whether they are strangers, brothers, or brothers-in-law.

Marriage is something that is found in almost all human civilizations, yes, but the family unit is actually not intrinsically required, especially from the perspective of a government that wants to accumulate power. A government that seeks allegiance and loyalty from its citizens would not want its citizens to have conflicting loyalties and priorities, such as those to its family members. In fact, the role and importance of blood family in Western civilizations has declined substantially since the end of the middle ages continuously to this day. Where justice and retribution was handled by family members, this has been a duty given instead to the state. Where wealth was inherited from one generation of a family to the next, heavy estate taxes have been imposed. Where titles and positions were based on one's familial origin, most of these have been eliminated. Where the expectation/responsibility of support in old age was rooted in one's progeny, it has been transferred to the state.

The disembowling of marriage under the auspices of personal or individual liberty threatens what is ultimately at the root and core of realized civilization. Imagining the person to exist outside or beyond society to such an extent that they can divorce themselves from it leads to a kind of misanthropy and narcissism that will only wreak havoc on that kind of genuine liberty that makes man free by making him responsible not only for himself, but also his neighbour. If we can divorce ourselves from personal responsibility we can divorce ourselves from society and the litany of responsibilities it imposes upon us. Divorce becomes the state-sanctioned flag of the rebel and revolutionary, who claiming personal liberty pre-supposes that he is not under obligation to any, and thus imagines that social and legal obligations are intrinsically tyrannical, rather than being props for his or her liberty. It is this bastardization of liberty into license that breaks, rather than unites, civilized society, and genuine "progress" cannot happen in a civilization where liberty becomes an injustice, a tyranny. This poisoning of the well, as it were, will make sick all who drink from it.

Collectivist mumbo-jumbo.

[Melanie_]

I went to see Fiddler on the Roof on the weekend, one of my favourite plays. Of course, one of the great songs is

, and I kept thinking of this thread as they performed it. So Timothy, this is for you:

TEVYE & PAPAS]

Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,

Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?

And who has the right, as master of the house,

To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

[GOLDE & MAMAS]

Who must know the way to make a proper home,

A quiet home, a kosher home?

Who must raise the family and run the home,

So Papa's free to read the holy books?

The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!

The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!

[Oleg Bach]

In this creepy socialist democracy the patriarch is dispised,loathed and feared, not to mention discouraged and thwarted at every turn. The spiting of fatherhood and male parental authority has peaked...and the so-called liberated female has now found herself in the same position when it comes to the familiar glass ceiling of personal autonomy...in regards to home and children..Just try and protect and guide your kids in a patriarchal manner...IF your values conflict with the socialist agenda the will be all over you like flys.

Loyality is royalty..and the matriarch and patriarch are queen and king...from this solid union of man and woman - mini empires are built..BUT seeing that they do not want individuals or familiar systems to rise up you may as well hide your patriarchal head under the covers...A father or "patriarch" expects loyality in order to keep organized and to prosper...kids are trained to disrespect the male head of the family - and NOW - they are slowly being trained to disrespect and disregard the distaff side also..eventually you will see the state husband the woman and all those showing signs of exceptionalism or patriarchy will be force to take the classic anger management course and maybe a bit of deballing medication...I say f**k em...

I am a patriarch and try to pull my authorship from my cold dead hand...no way in hell am I going to give up my maleness for a mediorce hetro phagish existance.

[ToadBrother]

I am a patriarch and try to pull my authorship from my cold dead hand...no way in hell am I going to give up my maleness for a mediorce hetro phagish existance.

Since when is "maleness" and patriarchy the same thing. Patriarchy is about the dominance of the male in both the familial and public spaces. I don't think anyone should have an unlimited right of dominance, not a father, not a cop, not even a King.

[bloodyminded]

Since when is "maleness" and patriarchy the same thing. Patriarchy is about the dominance of the male in both the familial and public spaces. I don't think anyone should have an unlimited right of dominance, not a father, not a cop, not even a King.

It's generous that you assume any sort of reason or debatable opinions to Oleg's post.

I disagree, but won't argue with this sort of generosity.

[Timothy17]

Okay, let's get this straight. You claimed divorce made marriage worse than contracts, and when I point out that divorce makes marriage more like contracts, that's bad.

Please take note of the underlying dilemna :

i) I noted how by applying divorce, marriage acquires less strength than even a simple, commercial contract, which does not admit one-sided repuditation, as that would revoke and undermine the entire point and purpose of contracts.

ii) You then attempted to rescue the present marriage system by alligning it to simple contracts, which as the preceding note I made necessarily refutes, owing that there is no equivalent possibility of "divorce" in lawful contracts.

The note I made in "i)" was to provoke contrast. I am at a loss to understand why you think that by proving my point (as shown in "ii), above" you have somehow weakened or neutered my original argument, which stands.

I wrote,

"Again, (commercial) contracts are not stipulated with oaths or vows before God,"

You responded,

So what?

By which expression I think you mean to ask the relevance, which I had already explained when I said,

"[God] even in the primitive, most neutered sense means an authority beyond reproach, even by the state."

You attempted to undermine the obviousness of that fact by asserting,

Not all marriages are done that way [with oaths before God] either. What do you think happens when two atheists get married?

To which I would reply by asking how many marriages occur without any reference to God at all. I imagine, but admittedly cannot prove, that of such marriages the majority of even that number are, I bet, re-marriages.

The state has not ever recognized simple religious ceremonies.

Up until quite recently each session of Parliament in Ontario was opened with an observance of prayer, which instantly repudiates your statement ; furthermore, witness any crowning of Royalty in living memory, including our own Queen's, and you will witness a stately religious observance. Even in the United States, each President is made to swear upon a Bible, which is a very simple religious ceremony. Therefore, your point is simply non-existent in reality.

The whole concept of "common law marriage" is very old in our system.

Now this is almost comical because common-law exists exactly because it is old. Common Law is the unwritten codification of long-standing rulings and maxims of law that are taken for granted in English speaking nations. The Maxims of Law are themselves from common law, and these maxims are absolutely essential in common-law countries and absolutely beneficial to liberty. One maxim of common law, for example, is "Marriage ought to be free," and the realization of that in one way is common-law marriage, wherein the benefit of the doubt is rendered to a couple and they obtain marriage without necessitating spending money for some public observance thereof.

A religious ceremony has not for several centuries been strictly required for a marriage

Please see common law above. You at once lambast common law as being "old," then use one of its maxims, that is of common law marriage not requiring a religious ceremony, to prove this pointless assertion.

Beyond that, I don't believe in God. Do you think I shouldn't be married because I don't believe in a higher power?

What does my thinking here matter ? It is you, not I, who does not believe in the possible existence of a higher power. What follows from that is your business, not mine, and randomly including it here changes nothing.

This is getting into the realms of the daft.

I quite agree.

You're reaching in every possible direction to justify yourself.

A charge I believe you are also guilty of.

You have not at all dealt with any objections. It's become increasingly a word salad.

I am dealing with this one.

And none of this in the least underlines the necessity for patriarchies.

I am arguing the benefits and merits of patriarchies. I have to argue their necessity because, again, patriarchy is a social and legal contstuct ; that is, it requires civilization and also fosters it, which is my underlying point throughout. The de-construction of patriarchy, and the aggressive licenses permitted by the courts that make patriarchy perpetually precarious is a problem, which I have demonstrated with an abundance of evidence in previous posts.

How much do you in fact know about about Rome?

I am enamoured with history and Rome's especially.

The entirety of the social wars was about the Plebs gaining some measure of equality with the Patricians.

Exactly. I earlier explained how, as more and more plebs adopted by immitation and example the patrician system of patriarchal organization that their monopoly on governance lost its original merit and pretext. It was growing into an oligarchy ; furthermore, the patrcicians abused their wealth and the plebs, especially in loans that impoverished the plebs and forced them into a perpetual servitude, and exasperated their ability to found their own patriarchies and benefit from it from a generational transference of wealth point of view.

It's in fact the opposite of what you say.

There is more to it, and is in fact exactly as I have always been saying.

Tim

Edited October 16, 2010 by Timothy17

[Timothy17]

I went to see Fiddler on the Roof on the weekend, one of my favourite plays. Of course, one of the great songs is

, and I kept thinking of this thread as they performed it. So Timothy, this is for you:

Quote

TEVYE & PAPAS]

Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,

Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?

And who has the right, as master of the house,

To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

Firstly, Papa's scrambling for a living is on the pre-text that the economic environment he finds himself in requires such scrambling ; furthermore, the assumption papa is going to scramble in order to feed his wife, and his children, only shows that, at least in this author's mind, papa will go to lengths extreme for his family. By making the family "his," he is assured of his position in that family, and can therefore sacrifice himself so safe in the knowledge that he is not labouring in vain for his family.

[GOLDE & MAMAS]

Who must know the way to make a proper home,

A quiet home, a kosher home?

Who must raise the family and run the home,

So Papa's free to read the holy books?

The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!

The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!

I am not so sure about mama running the home so papa can sit around reading, as the preceding verses lamented papa's having to "scramble for a living." That being said, I am not sure the lamented situation is improved by situating the children in two homes wherein both mama and papa must scramble for a living, with the children being tossed about or between by a court's edict.

Tim

Edited October 16, 2010 by Timothy17

[Timothy17]

I wrote,

"Imagining the person to exist outside or beyond society to such an extent that they can divorce themselves from it leads to a kind of misanthropy and narcissism that will only wreak havoc on that kind of genuine liberty that makes man free by making him responsible not only for himself, but also his neighbour."

To which ToadBrother reponded with,

I don't think you know what liberties means.

I will repeat, and then add,

"[...] genuine liberty that makes man free by making him responsible not only for himself, but also his neighbour."

Which is the classical understanding of rights and liberties, wherein rights are also responsibilities, and those responsibilities necessarily require rights to protect their enactment and fulfillment by the person, otherwise the person cannot be legitimately at liberty if he is constrained from pursuing the duties and obligations necessary to and for his freedom.

Personal liberties are the only things that protect us from the tyranny of the state, or of the society.

I wouldn't say the only, but yes I agree, which is why I argue the destruction of marriage by the courts is an assault in the order of tyranny, or is at least tyrannical, and ultimately undermines liberty by threatening a basic pre-requisite of and for liberty, especially when it repudiates a family, then binds a disenfranchised member of that society to its servitude, without bestowing upon him any of the rights that arise from the responsbilisities.

[jbg]

Hello my fellow Canadians,

I wish to begin a general discussion of the modern concept or thinking in regards to what is known as, or thought to be, patriarchy. What does it mean to you?

I found your post barely coherent.

That being said, there's no "one size fits all" for family management. Men and women have different and complimentary roles. That's why I tend to think single parenthood and, except in egregious cases divorce is a very bad idea.

[Timothy17]

there's no "one size fits all" for family management. Men and women have different and complimentary roles. That's why I tend to think single parenthood and, except in egregious cases divorce is a very bad idea.

That men and women are different is obvious, and that this difference is naturally ordered to be complimentary, and thereby mutually beneficial, ought also be obvious.

Nature does instruct a "one size fits all," namely marriage and family life. When we deviate from the traditional arrangement of a loving home, we find bold increases in deviancy of every kind, especially in the children, who are the primary victims of failed marriages and homes. In fine, it is the children (and thus the future of the nation) that suffer most when the traditional concepts of home and marriage are assaulted or abandoned. It undermines the family unit, which is the basic foundation for all national life, and thereby necessitates increases in state management of national life, with the state having to become a surrogate, as it were, for parents and families.

[Scotty]

Sex.

Researchers did an experiment with rodents. They attached electrodes to the pleasure centres of the rodents brain. The rars were trained to press a button that would give food. There was also another button that would give them an orgasm. The rats could pick one or the other.

The rats starved to death.

Uhm, where can I get one of those buttons....