Tuesday, November 27, 2007

On the Origin of Specious.

Dad's Deadpool Blog had a link to a charming article on the evolutionary virtues of patriarchy.

Basically, it claims that when the menfolk are properly in charge and religiously motivated, we wimmen get to breedin' lots of children, especially healthy sons. And everybody knows that big families and a positive population growth rate are important in a post-industrial economy, right? Well, they are if you want to prop up that post-industrial economy with payroll-tax-derived welfare programs. This leads to a delicious irony when you think about it: The under-reproducing Bohemians on the Left are going to need the offspring of the God & Grits Anti-Choice segment of the Right in order to keep the workforce at levels large enough to supply the funding needed for the social programs the Left so loves. It'll be interesting to see how they try to ride that tiger.

29 comments:

OA said...

"It'll be interesting to see how they try to ride that tiger."

They'll avoid it altogether and legalize the illegals.

Tam said...

Yeah, because your average cervezas-swilling devoutly Catholic Chicano roofer is going to be a big donor to NOW and GLAAD.

These guys make Bubba at the Dew Drop Inn look like Woody Allen.

OA said...

They have absolutely no problem sucking on the socialist teat, I assure you.

Tam said...

"They have absolutely no problem sucking on the socialist teat, I assure you."

True, but neither do a whole lot of "Social Conservatives". The Populists that have overrun the GOP since the early '80s are no more averse to government cheese than any other welfare leech, just better dressed on Sundays.

Tam said...

In fact, it would be accurate to say that we don't have a Liberal/Left party and a Conservative/Right party, but rather a Libertine Anti-War Socialist party and a Morally Repressive Hawkish Socialist party.

LabRat said...

In an agricultural society, it pays to have lots of children because more kids equals free labor, which offsets the cost of raising them. In a post-industrial society, children are just plain a giant cost whose only payback are the intangibles.

No amount of god-bothering or asskissing of men will change that. The author seems to have some inkling that in a society where children don't carry high value in and of themselves, patriarchy is just plain out-and-out misogyny and is a hallmark of failed states, but he seems to have no clue as to WHY there are no more societies like the preindustrial cultures he seems to think we should model ourselves on.

OA said...

"...patriarchy is just plain out-and-out misogyny..."

Damn that evil patriarchy!

And is the present nanny state plain out-and-out misandry?

Broad (oh, the carnage) brush, no?

LabRat said...

Read the article. He notes that all the extant "patriarchal" societies that he describes have "gone into" misogyny-driven societies that are more about fear and hatred of women rather than exaltation of the family, which is what he endorses (via the expedient of removing all choices for a woman's future other than "mother", "nun", or "whore").

If you care to defend his definition and how, exactly, to avoid the current state of modern societies explicitly organized around male domination of women, be my guest.

OA said...

a) Just screwing around, mainly. I'm in a good mood, damn it. Let me be goofy.

b) "exaltation of the family"

Hey, good idea.

c) "(via the expedient of removing all choices for a woman's future other than "mother", "nun", or "whore")"

Why can't women be whores, mothers, then nuns? Isn't that was Catholicism's all about?

d) "If you care to defend..."

Oh, in the proper mood I can defend anything. Homeless used as dog food; bears and rhinoceros being released into cities; arming turkeys; Red Bull for toddlers....you name it.

OA said...

A bit off topic, but it turns out the line is "In the meadow we can build a snowman, Then pretend that he is Parson Brown", rather than "Possum Brown". This came as a bit of a revelation to me, I guess because I knew a "Possum". Pumpkin-headed little bugger, I'll tell you that. Got the name because he'd eat anything for a quarter.

Now back to the misogyny, or misandry, or plain-ol' shotgun venom.

LabRat said...

Oh, cool. There really needs to be a "playful" html tag.

I'm all for family values (besides, Sex in the City style singledom looks like MISERY), I'm just irritated by people who seem to think that the root of their destruction is women having some form of independent thought, which Article Guy all but flatly states.

comatus said...

I agree with him! When he says, "This claim is contentious." After that, we part company.

The Spengler Conservatives have always been with us, and have always had a following. Yes, they're socialists, and, pressed, they admit that. They just define around it. "After all, a people's character is reflected in their laws." Run, do not walk, from this.

He's all over the map with his definitions of patriarchy. He skips right over the part about the eldest son inheriting every jot and tittle, and then providing for every member of the extended family, parents, ancillae, younger brothers, in-laws, blow-bys, the lot. That precept alone accounts for a lot of ancient military careers, bought seats, cloistered orders, fratricides, and the well below the valley-o. He's thinking Robert Young, but he'll get Tony Soprano.

Naturally, for this to play out the way the creator intends, women cannot own or inherit. The great transitions of the Framers' Generation were the establishment of females' real property, and the disestablishment of state churches. Youse can look it up. It's what they were busy working on when they could have been settling slavery. I can stop right there, as it shows, in light of American, not faux-Roman, experience just how full he is of wholesome, hearty shit.

The precipitous population declines in both Greek city-states and Rome were caused by plagues, not gheyitude. As Roman slaves, the Greeks bred like rabbits.

oa gets a pass for the rest of the evening, from my corner. He's being goofy, and, for a change, admitting it. I'm down with that, but damn, fella, bring your A-game next time, will you?

To try to close on a more dignified and Johnsonian (Samuel, not Lyndon) note, How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for evolution--from those who deny it?

OA said...

LabRat said...
(besides, Sex in the City style singledom looks like MISERY)

Given the recent spike in STDs, in more ways than one.

"I'm just irritated by people who seem to think that the root of their destruction is women having some form of independent thought..."

The problem comes when most independent thought revolves around demanding the government increase its level of micromanagement of our lives. Tends to put some people off. Makes some think the mostly single women that do it are using the government as a daddy/brother/husband/I need protection/ replacement. Obviously, a "not all women hold these views" disclaimer rides along...

Also, you have to remember that we now have a couple of generations that have done without a father too often. Popular Lifetime/We/Oxygen stereotype hold that it's almost always the guy that walks out on the family, but in reality women initiate 75% of the divorces. Kids need a father. When they don't have one anger tends to ensue. Too many guys (different than men, in this case) project their mother onto other women and take that anger out on them. Women that can't afford a therapist start blogs to bitch about their mothers, so the anger's there from the other side as well. Hell, even the kids that have a dad often are treated to a woman that's bought into some crazy-ass "you're a superwoman, you can have it all!" ideal that's driven herself neurotic because she constantly feels like an overextended failure. Then comes the passive-aggressive snark or outright shrewdom towards their dad. Doesn't do kids much good either. Then of course you have the limp-dicked, "sensitive" doormat guys that don't bring diddle to the table either...wait, what was this about?

When you get right down to it, there's plenty of blame for both sexes. Most of it starts and ends with being self-centered. Hell, even in the 50's with a whole family unit kids went bugshit. Just not enough time and love for them. Toys don't replace either.

OA said...

"...but damn, fella, bring your A-game next time, will you?"

By God Red Bull for toddlers is briliant, as is a rhino on Atlanta's perimeter come five post meridiem.

LabRat said...

Part of the problem was that feminism as it began was promptly grafted to the remnants of the Old Left, who were more than happy to use a cause that could actually gain some ground and willing ears to pour their poison into.

I've got a very detailed history of the early feminist movement by Susan Brownmiller, who stands unique as one of the very few women of that movement who could actually write. She's no conservative, but she is an honest reporter, so she spells out just how much the Old Left- including the anarchists and the communists- was involved in steering and shaping the movement.

Some of the earlier feminists, like Mary Wollstonecraft, were if anything radical rationalists whose position was that female equality was impossible unless women embraced the virtues held as "masculine"- quite the opposite of feminists who wanted to neuter men and make them sensitive.

It ain't the sex, it's the philosophical and cultural baggage.

OA said...

"...position was that female equality was impossible unless women embraced the virtues held as "masculine"


That can be seen today with women that feel the need to tell anyone and everyone that they're "strong and empowered".

Never have understood why any woman would willingly embrace virtues held as "masculine" or why any man would embrace virtues held as "feminine". Women make lousy men and men make lousy women. Anyone with a functioning eye can see it hasn't been good for society. Hell, I've always thought that men and women should compliment each other, not constantly engage in that "battle of the sexes" inanity. Seems like little more than politically engineered crap.

Incidentally, what are your thoughts on penis envy?

Roberta X said...

More than ever, I am pleased to be divorced and embittered. 'Cos gee, I sure like watchin' the fight ever so much more than doin' the fighting.

Patriachy, smatriachy: the hand that rocks the cradle can poison dinner, too.

Y'know, populations tend to level off at about what they can feed. Funny, that. You don't think Malthus missed something?

LabRat said...

Oa: Well, when "masculine" virtues, especially as in Wollstonecraft's time, are held as rationality, independence, strength, and the triumph of reason over emotion... yeah, I don't see why women shouldn't try for that. It's a popular stereotype that women are just less rational than men, but as we've seen since the Sensitivity Squad rode into town, you can ruin a man just as easily by encouraging him to feel rather than think as you can a woman. Given that plenty of women defy the stereotype by choice as well, I see no reason why expecting both sexes to control themselves and reason rather than react is a bad idea.

That can be seen today with women that feel the need to tell anyone and everyone that they're "strong and empowered".

No, they're just giving it lip service. Anyone who is ACTUALLY strong and empowered has no need whatsoever to go around talking about it.

I don't think men and woman can or should be the same. I DO think that there's a boatload of bullshit attached to both the traditionalist camp and the "boys are only different from girls because of society!" camp.

As for my thoughts on penis envy, I think it's an excellent example of Freud's basing most of his theories more on a combination of neuroses common to 19th century Austrians plus his own issues than actual human nature. The only women I have ever met that wanted to BE a man as opposed to having the same opportunities were transsexuals.

comatus said...

'Never have understood why any woman would willingly embrace virtues held as "masculine" or why any man would embrace virtues held as "feminine".'

Appropriately goofy. Depends on who's "holding" what, doesn't it. You're on a female-run gunblog here, so you're in on the joke. I used to write poetry. These days, now that I have the time, I cook a lot. So what chew call me, boy? We're not going to have to go back over all this shit again, like with Neo-whatsisname--are we? 'Cause that's who you're climbing in the sack with. "Complement" is wa-ay different from "compliment." Though it's nice when they do that, too. Steakhouse menus always get those wrong.

lab, I don't agree with the proto-Malthusian contention. In true patriarchies, agriculture was always in trouble, because of succession. Farm lands could rarely support that excess labor population, and it always headed down some peninsula or other, loaded for bear. A muscular, manly era of migrations! And a world of hurt for about everybody. Blame 5th-cent. global warming?

What's just popped up, though--and forms the basis for the op.cit.--is a truly post-industrial socialist claim for forced population growth. Where in the 50's we asked "who will dig the ditches?," and in the 60's, "who'll buy all these cars?," Our Author is peeing down leg about who'll finance his Social Security. That's the basis of his religion. Some family guy.

Let's not fall for a false dichotomy. The world is only divided into Women and Men if you let this asshole do that. Wanting to raise a kid with two parents does not make you a candidate for "Handmaid's Tale"; nor does outliving American Victorianism and asserting rights every woman always had qualify as fellow-traveling.

comatus said...

Apologies labrat, you pushed the button first; the "goofy" is for oa, and "Malthusian" refers to your very first comment, 'way back up there.

Funny, lookit: there's the three of us, all disagreeing, and all ending up at the same exhortation.

"Penis envy" ha, hadn't heard that since the 70's. Most guys under 40 think it happens in a locker room.

OA said...

"It's a popular stereotype that women are just less rational than men..."

Yup, hence the whole 'hystera' for 'uterus' and 'hysterical' thing.

"yeah, I don't see why women shouldn't try for that."

Certainly agree there. To me it seems condescending to treat women ostensibly as children in that regard, but some eat it up. Lord knows there's enough guys playing the role of "enabler".

"...you can ruin a man just as easily by encouraging him to feel rather than think as you can a woman."

Are you telling me that the guy I saw crying in the wal-mart parking lot because he saw a small tornado could have picked a better time to piddle down his leg? His emotions were liberated! So what if he was utterly useless...

"No, they're just giving it lip service. Anyone who is ACTUALLY strong and empowered has no need whatsoever to go around talking about it."

Bingo. Or as C.S. Lewis put it: "No man who says 'I'm as good as you' believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an
inferiority which the patient refuses to accept."

"I DO think that there's a boatload of bullshit attached to both the traditionalist camp and the "boys are only different from girls because of society!" camp."

Humans are odd that way. People just need things to fight over and be proud about. Ever been to an SEC football game?

"...plus his own issues..."

Which is why I have a problem with most psychologist type people in general. Known too many that went into the field to find out what was wrong with themselves.

I think most of the stuff that could be attributed to penis envy is the afore mentioned lip service. Newspeak, and all that. As if it's forced on people...then again, it's a great way to play "spot the insecure wienie."

OA said...

"I used to write poetry. These days, now that I have the time, I cook a lot."

I do both here, as well. And I also have enough courtesy to not call you a "boy". You will extend the same to me.

Tam said...

"That can be seen today with women that feel the need to tell anyone and everyone that they're "strong and empowered"."

I've never felt the need to tell anyone that.

Anyone who doesn't figure it out on their own is so dense light doesn't escape.

Feanaro said...

http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Read that if you want a more scientific(relatively speaking) treatment of the same theory.

comatus said...

oa, please call me "boy" whenever it suits your line of argument. But that's a movie quote, in tribute to the good-mood goofiness you invoked earlier--"whatchew call me" is the parking-lot challenge of a hulk whose masculinity has been called into question (for "embracing virtues"). The pro forma response references "14 inches of swinging meat," the gentlemen apparently having been employed in a butcher's shop.

Roberta X said...

"Penis envy?"

(Giggles. Bites lip. Chortles, snickers, breaks into guffaws and falls out of chair, laughing).

Slim, I can buy those things, with or without attachment straps, in a variety that leaves even the highly-varied natural sort lookin' like a gross of last week's sausage. And they'll stay firm without fluffing, too!

But whatever for? Why keep a bull when s--s-- is cheap?

"Penis envy." OMG. I really thought that one had done got debunked.

Roberta X said...

... I might want to keep a copy of Bowlder's Minced Oaths and Aphorisms handy, though: that's "Why keep a bull when b--s-- is cheap?"

::sig:: I always trip when I try that turn.

Tam said...

"Incidentally, what are your thoughts on penis envy?"

My thoughts are that Freud never heard any good dirty jokes. You know the one; where the little girl tells her brother "Mom says that with one of these, I can get as many of those as I want."

perlhaqr said...

I agree with this zoo liberation plan. Manhattan needs more free lions.