Patriarchy - Merits and Laments

[eyeball]

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?

In the context of our governance it means a Pappa State as opposed to a Nanny State. Like social engineering versus moral engineering, both suck.

[Timothy17]

And they make same sex marriages so darned difficult...

Actually, this provides an excellent opportunity for a point : why are homosexual partnerships presumed not to be about dominance ? Why is partiarchal marriage viewed with suspicion in the traditional sense, but seen as a boon in the novel sense, as in homosexual partnerships ?

I stipulate that homosexual unions are different due to nature : in them there is no biological props that need to be balanced. The delicacy and complexity of heterosexual unions is due to a balancing of the biological prop, which is the monopoly given by nature to women. It is this monopoly, this biological prop that creates the required social and legal props to ensure and secure male participation in the family, without which - or in absence of - the incentives for competent male participation in society are diminished, if not destroyed, and the male becomes more of a stud or a peripheral to the family, and the dead-beat dads, and the virtually fatherless children are a consequent by-product. I propose that in Western civilization we came to recognize that Mom is a sure thing : Dad, not a sure thing, but if and when present, surely a good thing.

Tim

[M.Dancer]

Patriarchy actually limits dominance due to its exclusivity principle : one man cannot marry every single woman, and thus shut-out all the other men, while dominating all the women.

That is not a safegaurd. By being the boss, the boss dominates, it matter not if it is one or many...

Sort of like saying that Caesar wasn't really an Emporer...he only had one empire...

[M.Dancer]

Actually, this provides an excellent opportunity for a point : why are homosexual partnerships presumed not to be about dominance ?

They are not presumed that way or another...hence the "tops" and "bottoms" and "dykes" and "fems"...

I think though, the modern western relationship has shaken off the shackles of the patriarchal model and we are far much happier for it.

Men get to live longer!!

[Timothy17]

They are not presumed that way or another...hence the "tops" and "bottoms" and "dykes" and "fems"...

I think though, the modern western relationship has shaken off the shackles of the patriarchal model and we are far much happier for it.

Men get to live longer!!

Lol, you actually provided a good point : married men ten to die younger, which provides a question : if men desired nothing but their own self-gratification, then why on earth would generations of them choose to live a life that rewarded them with an early death ?

Wouldn't the power-hungry, domineering man be much happier to remain single, father children through the usual, pleasure-seeking means, and be utterly rid of any obligation to the mother, or his prodigy ? Why not get a brood of children and let mom deal with them ? Isn't it obvious from court cases that the man has a financial incentive not to have a family ? Wouldn't he much rather prefer to dominate as many as possible, increase his wealth, and rather than limiting himself to one woman, open his potential to each and every, as he sees fit ? I therefore continue my initial proposed thesis that Patriarchy is as good for society as it might be for men in particular, as far from creating anti-social tendencies, it actually provides incentives to be more responsible. Mom has a natural, biological prop that assures her presense and stability in society : it's the men who lack this naturally provided boon. So, yes, you are right : if happiness is now defined by modern man as a liberty from all responsibility in life, then matriarchy is certainly a boon for him ; however, if he believes that in responsbility he finds his real freedom, and his ultimate fulfillment, then patriarchy becomes the better way, as that system, and only that system, ensures his actual and realized role within society, by conjoining him to, and ensuring his presense in, his family.

Tim

[M.Dancer]

Lol, you actually provided a good point : married men ten to die younger, which provides a question : if men desired nothing but their own self-gratification, then why on earth would generations of them choose to live a life that rewarded them with an early death ?

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.

[ToadBrother]

You said,

"Western liberty is that each person is afforded as much freedom as reasonably be guaranteed." What I am proposing to debate here is the reasonableness of guaranteeing a matriarchy, by comparing the merits of the two systems. Seeing as patriarchy is the system under question at present, it would logically follow that we convict the system in court before we kill it, which I believe is a very reasonable freedom to grant it in accordance with Western notions of liberty

In other, previous posts, I have noted that Western Patriarchy cannot possibly be entirely about dominance, though conceeded that much like anything, it can be abused by those who desire dominance ; in fact, Patriarchy actually limits dominance due to its exclusivity principle : one man cannot marry every single woman, and thus shut-out all the other men, while dominating all the women.

Furthermore, I would assert that Patriarchy recognizes the right of children to have access to their fathers, as much as can be reasonably guaranteed, and also permits what nature has not ; namely, the inalienable inclusion of a man in and with his family. I assert my belief, presently held, that without social and legal props this position of the man is precarious, and without it the man is deprived of a litany of natural incentives to be a competent, responsible, and beneficial member of society, if only for the sake of his children. If there is one consensus I have heard from working, married men about why they bother with all the stresses of work and family life, it is exactly because of their families. Family men more often than not work for their families, and single men often work, study, etc., for the sake of, and hope for, a family. The Patriarchal system thereby provides an incentive for males to be competent and active members of society. Arguably they can, by education and indoctrination, be conditioned to have that mentality, but the very real and present needs of a living family can hardly compare to a whimsical, ideological notion, especially as a means to justify any kind of suffering or social limits.

Tim

None of this in the least deals with what I said. You have this obsession with maleness and masculinity, and obviously believe women having equal legal rights somehow degrades that.

Tough. Get over it. We live in a part of the world where the "individual" in "individual liberties" means men, women, blacks, whatever. If you find a woman who can tolerate your views, bully for you. I have no desire to live under a system where anyone has the level of dominance and control over another that you do. And if you feel your testicles are smaller because there are women in positions of power, get over that to.

[Timothy17]

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.

Aye, but do the children of men starve for want of a father ? Mom likely does everything humanly possible to ensure her children are fed, but can she replace Dad ? Do rats care who dad is ? They do not. Do people care who dad is ? They certainly do. Does dad let his children starve so he can spend all his money on hookers ? Some might, but legal (at least till recently) and societal props - ushered in by both men and women - manifestly condemn it, and I can say with confidence that I know most men would rather starve themselves than see their children starve.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[Michael Hardner]

The rats starved to death.

The implication being... rats don't know how to push buttons.

[Michael Hardner]

Aye, but do the children of men starve for want of a father ? Mom likely does everything humanly possible to ensure her children are fed, but can she replace Dad ? Do rats care who dad is ? They do not. Do people care who dad is ? They certainly do. Does dad let his children starve so he can spend all his money on hookers ? Some might, but legal (at least till recently) and societal props - ushered in by both men and women - manifestly condemn it.

I once designed a robot wife with a TV set below the metallic boobs, that constantly showed sports highlights. The wife beat it to death with a spatula in an epic battle.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think the rat experiments are directly analogous anyway.

[Timothy17]

None of this in the least deals with what I said. You have this obsession with maleness and masculinity, and obviously believe women having equal legal rights somehow degrades that.

I certainly do not believe that, and if my post somehow alluded to such a belief, than my apologies.

Tough. Get over it. We live in a part of the world where the "individual" in "individual liberties" means men, women, blacks, whatever. If you find a woman who can tolerate your views, bully for you. I have no desire to live under a system where anyone has the level of dominance and control over another that you do. And if you feel your testicles are smaller because there are women in positions of power, get over that to.

By your definition, "individual liberties," is a system that keeps people apart : not brings them together, which would necessarily have a presumed bias in the form of a kind of misanthropy.

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[M.Dancer]

Aye, but do the children of men starve for want of a father ?

They used to...but that was when the patriarchy was stronger

Mom likely does everything humanly possible to ensure her children are fed, but can she replace Dad ?

With alarmiong regularity. Dads die. They also bugger off...

Do rats care who dad is ?

They care about a good orgasm.

Do people care who dad is ?

No not really. Anyone can be a dad..no experiance needed.

Does dad let his children starve so he can spend all his money on hookers ?

Hookers, drugs, booze, cards...they are a thousand ways for the patriarch to bugger up..

Some might, but legal (at least till recently) and societal props - ushered in by both men and women - manifestly condemn it, and I can say with confidence that I know most men would rather starve themselves than see their children starve.

Yet it is more often the woman left holding the bag...

[ToadBrother]

I certainly do not believe that, and if my post somehow alluded to such a belief, than my apologies.

Uh uh

By your definition, "individual liberties," is a system that keeps people apart : not brings them together, which would necessarily have a presumed bias in the form of a kind of misanthropy.

Tim

It is a system that guarantees that each individual, to their capabilities and desire, can pursue their own path with minimal interference from the State. For patriarchies to survive, they need legal protections; such as the chattel status of women, limiting property ownership rights of women, inheritance laws like male primogeniture, and so forth. Without these legal protections, the entrenching, if you will, of the patriarchal system, it could hardly be expected to survive, and since the end of the 19th century (earlier if you include the struggles against slavery), personhood has come to be defined as extending to all human beings, and with that extension of the definition, patriarchal arrangements in our culture have collapsed.

[M.Dancer]

By your definition, "individual liberties," is a system that keeps people apart : not brings them together, which would necessarily have a presumed bias in the form of a kind of misanthropy.

Tim

I don't think so. In your view, if the woman diagrees with her husband, she is wrong. If she continues to disagree, there is no remedy.

[ToadBrother]

Hookers, drugs, booze, cards...they are a thousand ways for the patriarch to bugger up..

Let's remember here that abandonment was a common enough problem in the English-speaking world that it was in fact one of the earliest arguments for equal rights for women. Husbands would abandon their families, but the property ownership laws, and the whole legal system in general, was sufficiently slanted against women that the dire situation was made, to some degree, irreparable. Women had few options, being in many cases all but forbidden to divorce, and even husbands who had deserted them still technically owning any property the woman might accrue.

[Timothy17]

It is a system that guarantees that each individual, to their capabilities and desire, can pursue their own path with minimal interference from the State.

Yes, but the destruction of patriarchy was effected by the state, principally in legalization of divorce, then further by ensuring such things as alimony and child-support payments. Anyone who has been through a difficult divorce will confess to you that the State is never more involved in the personal lives of its citizens than in issues dealing with the break-up of the family.

For patriarchies to survive, they need legal protections;

Yes, I have confessed that candidly because the males in society do not have the necessary biological props that guarantee their involvement in the family ; further, the self-denial and sacrifice expected of fathers in the traditional home requires a socialization to that effect, and legal system that enforces the responsibilities. If individual liberty, as you define it, reigns supreme, than by logical extension men would not be bound at all to their families, and could easily justify withdrawing child-support under the guise of their "individual liberty." Now, especially in the event of divorce, with the legal bias to bestow children on the mothers, what reason does the man have to continue his support of his family, if quite likely his role is threatened to be replaced by surrogate fathers or any person - if any at all - that Mom sees fit ?

When the courts dissolve a marriage, deprive the man of his children, and often even his house, and then force him to pay restitutions to Mom and his kids, how can we any longer speak of "liberty" ? The man is quite literally subjected to forced servitutde, wherein he is obliged to pay for his family and accept all the financial requirements of it, while at the same time being deprived of every benefit and right that family originally bestowed upon him. The very cause of his wealth in the first place was for the sake of his family. Please, you speak of chattel, slavery, and limiting property ownership ? Attend yourself to a local family court, and see chattel, slavery and deprivation of property being liberally dispensed by a litany of court edicts.

Tim

[Timothy17]

I don't think so. In your view, if the woman diagrees with her husband, she is wrong. If she continues to disagree, there is no remedy.

I am sorry, but I have earlier conceded that the granting of "head of family" status on men seems to have no other reason than a reference to Christian scriptures. I absolutely do not believe that in the event of a disagreement the wife, by default, is wrong. Truth is the truth, and correct is correct, regardless of its source. Children may very well be right or correct in their protests, for example, but we don't thus warrant their disobedience at home or in school on account of it. We are beginning to stumble onto the ground and rational for the existence of authority. You or I may disagree with what Stephen Harper says or does, but we never inherit a right outside of the law to rebel and establish our own countries.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, but the destruction of patriarchy was effected by the state, principally in legalization of divorce, then further by ensuring such things as alimony and child-support payments. Anyone who has been through a difficult divorce will confess to you that the State is never more involved in the personal lives of its citizens than in issues dealing with the break-up of the family.

And what, you think the system prior to no-fault divorces and family law were better?

But these are two separate issues. There's no doubt improvements in family law are needed, but using that as an argument for stripping over half the population of the constitutional rights is absurd. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to contemplate. Do you seriously think that women are going to just go back to their pre-20th century status?

Yes, I have confessed that candidly because the males in society do not have the necessary biological props that guarantee their involvement in the family ;

So the solution is legal and economic dominance of one sex over another?

further, the self-denial and sacrifice expected of fathers in the traditional home requires a socialization to that effect, and legal system that enforces the responsibilities.

Oh boo-f'ing-hoo.

If individual liberty, as you define it, reigns supreme, than by logical extension men would not be bound at all to their families, and could easily justify withdrawing child-support under the guise of their "individual liberty."

This is a complete non sequitur.

Now, especially in the event of divorce, with the legal bias to bestow children on the mothers, what reason does the man have to continue his support of his family, if quite likely his role is threatened to be replaced by surrogate fathers or any person - if any at all - that Mom sees fit ?

I won't deny some inequity in family law. But that has nothing to do with the topic of patriarchies.

When the courts dissolve a marriage, deprive the man of his children, and often even his house, and then force him to pay restitutions to Mom and his kids, how can we any longer speak of "liberty" ?

And just how many cases does this happen in? In most divorce cases I've been witness to the father usually gets access, and just as commonly there is shared custody. Certainly there are other outcomes, some of them perhaps due to abusiveness on the part of a father (you're damned straight that a judge who sees before him a dad who beats his wife and/or kids is likely going to be limiting the father's rights). No doubt there are unjust cases, as there are in any form of law.

But so far I haven't seen anything that justifies revoking the full liberties women have enjoyed for a century. If you want to talk about the inequities of family law, that's one thing. But you're just using that as some sort of smoke-and-mirrors prop for a vastly different discussion.

The man is quite literally subjected to forced servitutde, wherein he is obliged to pay for his family and accept all the financial requirements of it, while at the same time being deprived of every benefit and right that family originally bestowed upon him. The very cause of his wealth in the first place was for the sake of his family. Please, you speak of chattel, slavery, and limiting property ownership ? Attend yourself to a local family court, and see chattel, slavery and deprivation of property being liberally dispensed by a litany of court edicts.

Tim

I'll wager you can't even provide meaningful statistics of fathers who are put into this situation. And even when you do, none of it justifies your other claim that patriarchies somehow create a better situation.

[ToadBrother]

I am sorry, but I have earlier conceded that the granting of "head of family" status on men seems to have no other reason than a reference to Christian scriptures. I absolutely do not believe that in the event of a disagreement the wife, by default, is wrong. Truth is the truth, and correct is correct, regardless of its source. Children may very well be right or correct in their protests, for example, but we don't thus warrant their disobedience at home or in school on account of it. We are beginning to stumble onto the ground and rational for the existence of authority. You or I may disagree with what Stephen Harper says or does, but we never inherit a right outside of the law to rebel and establish our own countries.

But we do have the right to vote the Conservative Party out of office. The situations are not identical. Under patriarchies, a woman's ability to override the husband are limited or non-existent. She has no option to "vote" her husband out of office.

[Melanie_]

I am sorry, but I have earlier conceded that the granting of "head of family" status on men seems to have no other reason than a reference to Christian scriptures. I absolutely do not believe that in the event of a disagreement the wife, by default, is wrong. Truth is the truth, and correct is correct, regardless of its source. Children may very well be right or correct in their protests, for example, but we don't thus warrant their disobedience at home or in school on account of it. We are beginning to stumble onto the ground and rational for the existence of authority. You or I may disagree with what Stephen Harper says or does, but we never inherit a right outside of the law to rebel and establish our own countries.

And yet, by its very definition, patriarchy would grant head of family status to men; you've also opposed matriarchy in this thread, which implies to me that you also oppose head of family status for women.

The next part of your post is mind boggling, if I'm reading it correctly. You are saying that, in fact, a woman might be correct in her view, but that doesn't mean she has the right to oppose her husband. You are endorsing complete authority of the husband as head of family, even when he is wrong, because he is the one with the decision making power. You deny her the right to rebel and establish a family that does not include him (via divorce), because disobedience towards the head of family is not warranted.

Please tell me I have misread your views here.

[Timothy17]

And what, you think the system prior to no-fault divorces and family law were better?

I think a system that has a 50%+ divorce rate fails.

But these are two separate issues. There's no doubt improvements in family law are needed, but using that as an argument for stripping over half the population of the constitutional rights is absurd. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to contemplate. Do you seriously think that women are going to just go back to their pre-20th century status?

I am curious : do you honestly believe women are forced to the altar, and marry only for reasons of compulsion ? And if so compelled, how come did the partiarchal system include the possibility of annulment specifically for reasons of such compulsion ? Lastly, the third option - the option of legal seperation - yet remained, and I can think of no reason on earth either annulment or seperation would be discarded in even a modern patriarchal system, or what modern society would for a moment hesitate to permit especially the latter in cases of abuse.

So the solution is legal and economic dominance of one sex over another?

Patriarchy, as I understand it, has always been a societal option, available for both men and women to participate in. The State recognized the societal benefits to civilization that the Patriarchal system manifestly created, not the least benefit is the inclusion of men in the reproductive order that gave him reason and incentive to be responsible, productive, law-abiding members of society. The Libertine is hardly a man who inspires confidence in society : the family man is.

I won't deny some inequity in family law. But that has nothing to do with the topic of patriarchies.

Family law has nothing to do with partiarchies ? We have both at one point or another conceded that patriarchies by default require legal props, and you want me to believe that the deprivation of those props has no consequence in a topic about patriarchal societies ? I am forced to but sigh at the impossible situation you hope to place me in.

And just how many cases does this happen in? In most divorce cases I've been witness to the father usually gets access, and just as commonly there is shared custody. Certainly there are other outcomes, some of them perhaps due to abusiveness on the part of a father (you're damned straight that a judge who sees before him a dad who beats his wife and/or kids is likely going to be limiting the father's rights). No doubt there are unjust cases, as there are in any form of law.

But so far I haven't seen anything that justifies revoking the full liberties women have enjoyed for a century. If you want to talk about the inequities of family law, that's one thing. But you're just using that as some sort of smoke-and-mirrors prop for a vastly different discussion.

That is a good question : how many cases does it happen in ? How many is too many ? How many situations of our legal system in a free society rob and then yoke one of its citizens to others it has just permanently and officially estranged from him ? Is this precedence or occurence any better than the alternative ? I could cite the fact that as of 1991, 75% of the inmates of the United States shared one thing in common : they came from single parent families, which at that time constituted something like a quarter of the population. So one in four families had the curious distinction of producing three out of four delinquents. If that's not manifestly evidential proof of something being very, very wrong with that situation, I am not sure what indices we ought to use.

I'll wager you can't even provide meaningful statistics of fathers who are put into this situation. And even when you do, none of it justifies your other claim that patriarchies somehow create a better situation.

My father. That's meaningful enough to me, as it is and will be increasingly with other and increased numbers of children who are deprived of their homes and families and exposed to all the hazards that Mom or Dad shopping for a new mom and dad go with it.

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[Timothy17]

And yet, by its very definition, patriarchy would grant head of family status to men; you've also opposed matriarchy in this thread, which implies to me that you also oppose head of family status for women.

Yes, I do oppose matriarchy in its known extreme, but in matriarchal societies there is no reason for a head of family status, because the family as we recognize it simply does not exist. Matriarchal societies supplant the exclusivity principle with the promiscuity principle, which prevents a patrilineal ordering of society. I should also note that the matriarchies the West was exposed to during the Age of Exploration had a distinctive characteristic of polygamy, too, while in other cases the men were, as I have reported earlier, little more than peripheral studs. In some African societies to this day it is often complained that women do all the hard work : because the men are lazing around and socializing and not accomplishing much of anything. What won't be reported along with that tragic tale is that these societies are, in fact, matriarchal, and the men have no reason to work. Matriarchy impoverishes both men and women.

The next part of your post is mind boggling, if I'm reading it correctly. You are saying that, in fact, a woman might be correct in her view, but that doesn't mean she has the right to oppose her husband.

Firstly, I think we have split hairs. I never conceded in my argument that there is any reason the husband must, by default, be the head of the family in decision making purposes, or even in terms of legal purposes. I cannot imagine why this would be necessary. I do, however, concede that reality - that is, nature - dictates that in any organized social unit, whether large or small, someone must ultimately make the decisions to prevent stagnation.

You are endorsing complete authority of the husband as head of family,

Again, I never produced such an argument. I conceded that for reasons beyond my understanding this was necessarily included as a practical requirement of patriarchy. I afforded the only thing I could think of that made this so : a reference to the Christian scriptures.

even when he is wrong, because he is the one with the decision making power. You deny her the right to rebel and establish a family that does not include him (via divorce), because disobedience towards the head of family is not warranted.

Please tell me I have misread your views here.

I would also deprive the father of a "right to rebel," by establishing a new family. The "right to rebel," in the context of family, is simply a veiled right to abandon or deprive in one fashion or another. The central point here is the unity and solidarity of the family - not a game of who is right and wrong, or a fettish over decision making power. In my view and belief, and from everything I have read, the patriarchal model places children as the ultimate benefactors of the family. It's the children's needs, ultimately, that regulate and orient the policy of the family, be it mom or dad's idea or decision ; however, the children's rights to have both Mom and Dad in the family are considered inalienable, except in those situations where either Mom or Dad become something that alienates the welfare or interests of the children.

Tim

Edited October 6, 2010 by Timothy17

[Melanie_]

Tim, you are avoiding my questions, or perhaps I haven't been clear. Let me try again.

If the head of family (male or female) is demonstrably wrong,and the subordinate partner is demonstrably right, does that subordinate partner have a right to oppose the head of family, in a patriarchal system? Is the subordinate partner bound to follow along as the head of family makes decisions for him/her that he/she opposes?

What is the extent of responsibility the head of family (male or female) has for his/her partner? You've earlier in the thread (post 18) stated that the head of family is responsible towards the courts for the behaviours of his/her family - to what extent, then, should he/she control those behaviours, and to what extent does his/her partner have personal freedom?

Edited to add a question based on your last post...

Is a family truly unified if one person makes all the decisions, and the others are compelled to go along with it?

Edited October 6, 2010 by Melanie_

[ToadBrother]

I think a system that has a 50%+ divorce rate fails.

And the previous system was a success?

I am curious : do you honestly believe women are forced to the altar, and marry only for reasons of compulsion ?

It often depended on the time and place, but as a general rule a woman's right to choose her husband was at the very least sharply limited by her father's desires. The woman was chattel, she had no effective reliable independent voice in her future.

And if so compelled, how come did the partiarchal system include the possibility of annulment specifically for reasons of such compulsion ?

Which again forced a woman to go on bended knee to another authority. Her free will all but did not exist. If the magistrate was not sympathetic to her, there was nothing else to be done.

Lastly, the third option - the option of legal seperation - yet remained, and I can think of no reason on earth either annulment or seperation would be discarded in even a modern patriarchal system, or what modern society would for a moment hesitate to permit especially the latter in cases of abuse.

There were numerous cases in the 19th century where separation did not resolve the issues, since the husband still essentially maintained economic and legal control over the wife. As I said in a previous post, this was one of the major impetuses for the feminist/suffragette movement in the early days.

The bedrock for it all was laid earlier anyways. In the US, in particular, the anti-slavery and suffragette movements were closely bound, and in many cases it was very much a conscious decision for these Abolitionist groups to first concentrate on slavery and then on to equality for women. But underlying both Abolitionism and Women's Rights was the inherent notion that all people are equal, that all deserve the same rights and protections, that a just society cannot have one group singled because of the color of their skin or indeed because of the shape of their genitalia. A person is a person, and that person has inherent rights that cannot be revoked.

Patriarchy, as I understand it, has always been a societal option, available for both men and women to participate in. The State recognized the societal benefits to civilization that the Patriarchal system manifestly created, not the least benefit is the inclusion of men in the reproductive order that gave him reason and incentive to be responsible, productive, law-abiding members of society. The Libertine is hardly a man who inspires confidence in society : the family man is.

The state simply continued to propagate social structures that had been there long before the state came into existence. But society changed, as societies are wont to do, and full liberties and rights were extended to women, and the laws underpinning the older patriarchal system were torn out, being completely incompatible with notions of liberty. Patriarchy is dead and will not come back to life, certainly not as we view extreme forms of it in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, reminding us of just how vile and inequitable a system it was.

Family law has nothing to do with partiarchies ? We have both at one point or another conceded that patriarchies by default require legal props, and you want me to believe that the deprivation of those props has no consequence in a topic about patriarchal societies ? I am forced to but sigh at the impossible situation you hope to place me in.

You are forced to accept the will of the majority, which has during the last fifty years made it clear that women, as human beings, must certainly enjoy all the rights and privileges accorded to men, that the eyes of the law must be blind to gender just as they are blind to race, creed, color or religion.

That's not to say that the law is without fault, and I'll concede that family law as it stands can create inequitable situations. The proper response is to seek changes to the law to assure a more equitable outcome. The solution is not to take a position so at odds with reality that you, frankly, come off looking like a kook. Your allowed to, of course, but if the real struggle is over better rights for fathers, you do that struggle no favors by seemingly endorsing a socio-economic view that most in modern society find not alien, but inequitable and just plain wrong.

That is a good question : how many cases does it happen in ? How many is too many ? How many situations of our legal system in a free society rob and then yoke one of its citizens to others it has just permanently and officially estranged from him ? Is this precedence or occurence any better than the alternative ? I could cite the fact that as of 1991, 75% of the inmates of the United States shared one thing in common : they came from single parent families, which at that time constituted something like a quarter of the population.

So one in four families had the curious distinction of producing three out of four delinquents. If that's not manifestly evidential proof of something being very, very wrong with that situation, I am not sure what indices we ought to use.

First of all, I'd actually want to see the source of that statistic. Second of all, I never said that a single family is a good thing, but again, your supposed solution simply replaces one inequity with another, much worse one.

Come up with another solution.

My father. That's meaningful enough to me, as it is and will be increasingly with other and increased numbers of children who are deprived of their homes and families and exposed to all the hazards that Mom or Dad shopping for a new mom and dad go with it.

Tim

Well, at least we know that this isn't just some hypothetical argument.

I hate to be cold and cruel, my friend, but anecdotal evidence such as yours is absolutely useless. I want numbers, not personal stories of tragedy. You'll find me as hard a bastard as they come. Want to move me, then provide statistics, studies, something that can verify that the problem in fact exists beyond a small minority of cases.

And it still doesn't justify turning back the clock a hundred years. Stripping women of their hard-won rights and equalities won't make you feel better. What I'm beginning to sense is a deep fountain of distrust and fear of women out of you, and that's a pity. Not every woman is your mom, and not every father is your dad, but since you want to bring these issues into a public forum, and you now admit that this is a topic you have a rather enormous personal stake in, it inevitably shifts from flights of fancy.

I think you need to grow up. Being an adult often means facing the darker parts of your past and viewing them dispassionately enough that you can try to get rid of the more prejudicial aspects that grew out of those events. I mean, how are you any different than the southern racist who claims his beliefs are justified because some black guy raped his sister? You have glued yourself to a most unfortunate and nonconstructive line of thought and you will find few takers around here.

Edited October 6, 2010 by ToadBrother