Patriarchal family norms.

[Man of Ethics]

I concede that since the end of XIXth Century, every system based on subordination is on non-viable. In USA 2022, Patriarchal norms are dead and can not be revived. Strangely these norms are alive and well in much of the World.

In many Nations in Asia and South America most people believe that a man should be a head of his family. At the same time some of these places have a lot of sex work and freedom for men.

I understand that any sexism is wrong. But in Western Culture, Old Sexism has been replaced by New Sexism. Is it better?

The data is from 2013. Here.

This data is from 2014. Here.

 

[playtime]

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I cannot imagine a world in which I was suborned to anyone. Ever.

 

[JGalt]

No idea about the rest of the world but here, very few Black males want to hang around the house with a pushy, mouthy woman who want to run shit. That probably explains why there are so many fatherless kids in the hood.

 

[Man of Ethics]

I cannot imagine a world in which I was suborned to anyone. Ever.

I agree.

These norms have been very viable for socioeconomic reality of pre-Industrial Society. These norms were accepted in many Societies for 40 Centuries.

Nevertheless, since the end of XIXth Century, these norms became unviable and disappeared in the West.

Patriarchal Norms are disappearing globally. Hopefully they are replaced by Egalitarian rather then Matriarchal norms.

 

[Man of Ethics]

No idea about the rest of the world but here, very few Black males want to hang around the house with a pushy, mouthy woman who want to run shit. That probably explains why there are so many fatherless kids in the hood.

Everything on USMB returns to race.

 

[Blackrook]

Every couple is different.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Every couple is different.

Culture and Law affects families very much.

 

[Disir]

OK. I think there is some confusion as to what that patriarchal system really looked like in early American history (colonial).

It was way, way more than telling your wife what to do. The head of the household controls the sons too. The oldest son inherits the property-usually a farm is the property. The head of the household decides who his children marry and why. It was understood that those marriages brought something to the table.

That was unsustainable here. It was primarily about class and...English.

Did you know by 16th century in what is now Germany the merchant class was finding ways to circumvent laws and educating their daughters to take over the business so it wasn't handed over to whatever leaching son in law they might win? Or how about fathers and husband's Training the female to become blacksmiths? Take over inns and taverns?

 

[JGalt]

OK. I think there is some confusion as to what that patriarchal system really looked like in early American history (colonial).

It was way, way more than telling your wife what to do. The head of the household controls the sons too. The oldest son inherits the property-usually a farm is the property. The head of the household decides who his children marry and why. It was understood that those marriages brought something to the table.

That was unsustainable here. It was primarily about class and...English.

Did you know by 16th century in what is now Germany the merchant class was finding ways to circumvent laws and educating their daughters to take over the business so it wasn't handed over to whatever leaching son in law they might win? Or how about fathers and husband's Training the female to become blacksmiths? Take over inns and taverns?

A patriarchal society in early America was necessary to the safety and survival of the family. Women have never traditionally been raised to hunt, fight, and protect the family unit, as have men.

Actually, this goes much farther back in history. Mankind has an inherent desire to survive, propagate, and prosper. That's hard-coded into our DNA. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, survival was always a struggle: A day to day fight against the elements, against hostile people and governments, and against nature. Only men were physiologically-suited to doing those tasks, while women were meant to be sheltered, protected, and cherished as the ones who had the job of propagation of the species.

 

[Disir]

A patriarchal society in early America was necessary to the safety and survival of the family. Women have never traditionally been raised to hunt, fight, and protect the family unit, as have men.

Actually, this goes much farther back in history. Mankind has an inherent desire to survive, propagate, and prosper. That's hard-coded into our DNA. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, survival was always a struggle: A day to day fight against the elements, against hostile people and governments, and against nature. Only men were physiologically-suited to doing those tasks, while women were meant to be sheltered, protected, and cherished as the ones who had the job of propagation of the species.

A patriarchal society in early America was class based. It was ultimately destroyed by men because....why be forced to work on a farm you would never inherit? The lower classes get slapped with "rugged individualism" in the 1920s to end all family support in all classes.

Cherished and protected...in a certain class, right? We all look back in history as if we would have been rich. The reality is most of us would not have been rich. It's class based. Women have always worked outside the home.

Many women were terrified and sought to become nuns because they were most likely to die during childbirth prior to the Industrial Revolution.

And that's fine. The issue truly isn't men v women. The issue is simply another exercise of divide and conquer between genders.

Brutish and short.

 

[Man of Ethics]

OK. I think there is some confusion as to what that patriarchal system really looked like in early American history (colonial).

It was way, way more than telling your wife what to do. The head of the household controls the sons too. The oldest son inherits the property-usually a farm is the property. The head of the household decides who his children marry and why. It was understood that those marriages brought something to the table.

Agree 100%.

Definitely, after the Industrial Revolution, every system based on inequality is unviable.

Nevertheless, at the time when it existed and in places where it exists now, Patriarchal system has benefits -- primarily to men. Even very poor and disabled men were at least heads of their families.

In most Patriarchal Societies, women did and do have a right to divorce, to own property, and protection from abuse. In American Colonies, wife assault has been forbidden since the beginning. In modern Pakistan, Indonesia, and almost all nations, Domestic Violence is prohibited by the Law of the Land.

 

[Disir]

Agree 100%.

Definitely, after the Industrial Revolution, every system based on inequality is unviable.

Nevertheless, at the time when it existed and in places where it exists now, Patriarchal system has benefits -- primarily to men. Even very poor and disabled men were at least heads of their families.

In most Patriarchal Societies, women did and do have a right to divorce, to own property, and protection from abuse. In American Colonies, wife assault has been forbidden since the beginning. In modern Pakistan, Indonesia, and almost all nations, Domestic Violence is prohibited by the Law of the Land.

Well, colonial history carried over laws from England so it fell under correction.

And then this: Bradley v. State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis