Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Return of Patriarchy
By Phillip Longman
Page 2 of 4
...
Declining birthrates also change national temperament. In the United States, for example, the percentage of women born in the late 1930s who remained childless was near 10 percent. By comparison, nearly 20 percent of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having had children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents.
Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Nor do single-child families contribute much to future population. The 17.4 percent of baby boomer women who had only one child account for a mere 7.8 percent of children born in the next generation. By contrast, nearly a quarter of the children of baby boomers descend from the mere 11 percent of baby boomer women who had four or more children. These circumstances are leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with ones own folk or nation.
This dynamic helps explain, for example, the gradual drift of American culture away from secular individualism and toward religious fundamentalism. Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry. It may also help to explain the increasing popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as world citizens are also those least likely to have children.
Does this mean that todays enlightened but slow-breeding societies face extinction? Probably not, but only because they face a dramatic, demographically driven transformation of their cultures. As has happened many times before in history, it is a transformation that occurs as secular and libertarian elements in society fail to reproduce, and as people adhering to more traditional, patriarchal values inherit society by default.
At least as long ago as ancient Greek and Roman times, many sophisticated members of society concluded that investing in children brought no advantage. Rather, children came to be seen as a costly impediment to self-fulfillment and worldly achievement. But, though these attitudes led to the extinction of many individual families, they did not lead to the extinction of society as a whole. Instead, through a process of cultural evolution, a set of values and norms that can roughly be described as patriarchy reemerged.
Population Becomes Power
...
I agree, good article.rtwngAvngr said:I disagree that being pro reproduction is Patriarchy. Other than that, good article.
mom4 said:I agree, good article.
As to increased fertility leading to an increase in a patriarchal system, I believe it very often does.
mom4 said:I agree, good article.
As to increased fertility leading to an increase in a patriarchal system, I believe it very often does.
Agreed, on both points.Avatar4321 said:I don't think a patriarchal system is necessarily bad. It's about time men started standing up and taking responsibilities for their families. I think if men lived up to the responsibilities as a husband and father then need to live up to, a patriarchal society will be good because it will cause strong families. Children will get the proper support, love, and education that they need to be successful in the future world.
Note on the article: I don't think it should have ignored the aspect of abortion on destroying liberal populations.
Any wife who demeans her "patriarchal" husband as a fool, is the ultimate fool, herself. She shouldn't bite the hand that feeds her.rtwngAvngr said:Just in the sense that men are not demeaned as fools. If normal family is considered patriarchal, then I guess .... I don't know what I guess.
mom4 said:Agreed, on both points.
It only makes sense that increased fertility leads to increased "patriarchy." I know, with 4 kids, it would be hard for me to work, even if I wanted to. I would basically be working just to pay daycare. And how many men AND women want the man to be the one to stay at home? In some families, this might work better, but I think most women want to stay home, and most men would find that very frustrating in the long run.
I agree with your assessment of patriarchy, too. The primary childcare giver necessarily incurs a greater loss of personal freedom. This is why parental (uncompensated) childcare is seen as such an evil thing. Loss of personal freedom is the ultimate evil to some. But the "patriarch" isn't necessarily a tyrant. Love and support are due to the wife, too. And the "meaningfulness" of her work can be a great compensation and motivator.
mom4 said:Any wife who demeans her "patriarchal" husband as a fool, is the ultimate fool, herself. She shouldn't bite the hand that feeds her.
By the same token, a husband who looks down on his wife because she isn't paid for her work doesn't know which side his buttered on.
Very true.Avatar4321 said:Ironically, It is through our duties and responsibilities in family and society that make us free. It is when we disregard them and try to run away from our responsibilities that we are our children after us come into bondage.
You like the cliched proverbs?rtwngAvngr said:Yes!
mom4 said:Any wife who demeans her "patriarchal" husband as a fool, is the ultimate fool, herself. She shouldn't bite the hand that feeds her.
By the same token, a husband who looks down on his wife because she isn't paid for her work doesn't know which side his buttered on.
:
mom4 said:You like the cliched proverbs?
Hey! I see you trying to slip the spanking in there! :bat:rtwngAvngr said:butter, hands, feeding, spanking, slippery, greasy, rich and tasty?
mom4 said:Hey! I see you trying to slip the spanking in there! :bat:
acludem said:So that's the conservatives secret plan, crank out lots and lots of babies and overrun the world population with little Pat Robertsons and Dr. Laura Schlessingers.
acludem
acludem said:So that's the conservatives secret plan, crank out lots and lots of babies and overrun the world population with little Pat Robertsons and Dr. Laura Schlessingers.
acludem
