I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
Author Message
TonySandos Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,438
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 35
Post: #1
Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
I got a kick out of this article my brother sent to me. Written in October of 2009.

Quote:The Return of Patriarchy


Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies destined to become extinct? Hardly. It's more likely that conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born into families who believe that father knows best.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. "Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

With the number of human beings having increased more than six-fold in the past 200 years, the modern mind simply assumes that men and women, no matter how estranged, will always breed enough children to grow the population — at least until plague or starvation sets in. It is an assumption that not only conforms to our long experience of a world growing ever more crowded, but which also enjoys the endorsement of such influential thinkers as Thomas Malthus and his many modern acolytes.

Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next — from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East.

Fearful of a future in which the elderly outnumber the young, many governments are doing whatever they can to encourage people to have children. Singapore has sponsored "speed dating" events, in hopes of bringing busy professionals together to marry and procreate. France offers generous tax incentives for those willing to start a family. In Sweden, the state finances day care to ease the tension between work and family life. Yet, though such explicitly pronatal policies may encourage people to have children at a younger age, there is little evidence they cause people to have more children than they otherwise would. As governments going as far back as imperial Rome have discovered, when cultural and economic conditions discourage parenthood, not even a dictator can force people to go forth and multiply.

Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy.

Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents’ investments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.

Through a process of cultural evolution, societies that adopted this particular social system — which involves far more than simple male domination — maximized their population and therefore their power, whereas those that didn’t were either overrun or absorbed. This cycle in human history may be obnoxious to the enlightened, but it is set to make a comeback.

THE CONSERVATIVE BABY BOOM

The historical relation between patriarchy, population, and power has deep implications for our own time. As the United States is discovering today in Iraq, population is still power. Smart bombs, laser-guided missiles, and unmanned drones may vastly extend the violent reach of a hegemonic power. But ultimately, it is often the number of boots on the ground that changes history. Even with a fertility rate near replacement level, the United States lacks the amount of people necessary to sustain an imperial role in the world, just as Britain lost its ability to do so after its birthrates collapsed in the early 20th century. For countries such as China, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain, in which one-child families are now the norm, the quality of human capital may be high, but it has literally become too rare to put at risk.

Falling fertility is also responsible for many financial and economic problems that dominate today’s headlines. The long-term financing of social security schemes, private pension plans, and healthcare systems has little to do with people living longer. Gains in life expectancy at older ages have actually been quite modest, and the rate of improvement in the United States has diminished for each of the last three decades. Instead, the falling ratio of workers to retirees is overwhelmingly caused by workers who were never born. As governments raise taxes on a dwindling working-age population to cover the growing burdens of supporting the elderly, young couples may conclude they are even less able to afford children than their parents were, thereby setting off a new cycle of population aging and decline.

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 one’s 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 today’s 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


In the primordial past, to be sure, most societies did not coerce reproduction, because they had to avoid breeding faster than the wild game on which they fed. Indeed, in almost all the hunter-gatherer societies that survived long enough to be studied by anthropologists, such as the Eskimos and Tasmanian Bushmen, one finds customs that in one way or another discouraged population growth. In various combinations, these have included late marriage, genital mutilation, abortion, and infanticide. Some early hunter-gatherer societies may have also limited population growth by giving women high-status positions. Allowing at least some number of females to take on roles such as priestess, sorcerer, oracle, artist, and even warrior would have provided meaningful alternatives to motherhood and thereby reduced overall fertility to within sustainable limits.

During the eons before agriculture emerged, there was little or no military reason to promote high fertility. War and conquests could bring little advantage to society. There were no granaries to raid, no livestock to steal, no use for slaves except rape. But with the coming of the Neolithic agricultural revolution, starting about 11,000 years ago, everything changed. The domestication of plants and animals led to vastly increased food supplies. Surplus food allowed cities to emerge, and freed more people to work on projects such as building pyramids and developing a written language to record history. But the most fateful change rendered by the agricultural revolution was the way it turned population into power. Because of the relative abundance of food, more and more societies discovered that the greatest demographic threat to their survival was no longer overpopulation, but underpopulation.

At that point, instead of dying of starvation, societies with high fertility grew in strength and number and began menacing those with lower fertility. In more and more places in the world, fast-breeding tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any remaining, slow-breeding hunters and gatherers. It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle; it mattered more that there were lots of them.

That was the lesson King Pyrrhus learned in the third century B.C., when he marched his Greek armies into the Italian peninsula and tried to take on the Romans. Pyrrhus initially prevailed at a great battle at Asculum. But it was, as they say, "a Pyrrhic victory," and Pyrrhus could only conclude that "another such victory over the Romans and we are undone." The Romans, who by then were procreating far more rapidly than were the Greeks, kept pouring in reinforcements — "as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city," the Greek historian Plutarch tells us. Hopelessly outnumbered, Pyrrhus went on to lose the war, and Greece, after falling into a long era of population decline, eventually became a looted colony of Rome.

Like today’s modern, well-fed nations, both ancient Greece and Rome eventually found that their elites had lost interest in the often dreary chores of family life. "In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and a general decay of population," lamented the Greek historian Polybius around 140 B.C., just as Greece was giving in to Roman domination. "This evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life." But, as with civilizations around the globe, patriarchy, for as long as it could be sustained, was the key to maintaining population and, therefore, power.

FATHER KNOWS BEST?


Patriarchal societies come in many varieties and evolve through different stages. What they have in common are customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation. Of these, among the most important is the stigmatization of "illegitimate" children. One measure of the degree to which patriarchy has diminished in advanced societies is the growing acceptance of out-of-wedlock births, which have now become the norm in Scandinavian countries, for example.

Under patriarchy, "bastards" and single mothers cannot be tolerated because they undermine male investment in the next generation. Illegitimate children do not take their fathers’ name, and so their fathers, even if known, tend not to take any responsibility for them. By contrast, “legitimate” children become a source of either honor or shame to their fathers and the family line. The notion that legitimate children belong to their fathers’ family, and not to their mothers’, which has no basis in biology, gives many men powerful emotional reasons to want children, and to want their children to succeed in passing on their legacy. Patriarchy also leads men to keep having children until they produce at least one son.

Another key to patriarchy’s evolutionary advantage is the way it penalizes women who do not marry and have children. Just decades ago in the English-speaking world, such women were referred to, even by their own mothers, as spinsters or old maids, to be pitied for their barrenness or condemned for their selfishness. Patriarchy made the incentive of taking a husband and becoming a full-time mother very high because it offered women few desirable alternatives.

To be sure, a society organized on such principles may well degenerate over time into misogyny, and eventually sterility, as occurred in both ancient Greece and Rome. In more recent times, the patriarchal family has also proved vulnerable to the rise of capitalism, which profits from the diversion of female labor from the house to the workplace. But as long as the patriarchal system avoids succumbing to these threats, it will produce a greater quantity of children, and arguably children of higher quality, than do societies organized by other principles, which is all that evolution cares about.

This claim is contentious. Today, after all, we associate patriarchy with the hideous abuse of women and children, with poverty and failed states. Taliban rebels or Muslim fanatics in Nigeria stoning an adulteress to death come to mind. Yet these are examples of insecure societies that have degenerated into male tyrannies, and they do not represent the form of patriarchy that has achieved evolutionary advantage in human history. Under a true patriarchal system, such as in early Rome or 17th-century Protestant Europe, fathers have strong reason to take an active interest in the children their wives bear. That is because, when men come to see themselves, and are seen by others, as upholders of a patriarchal line, how those children turn out directly affects their own rank and honor.

Under patriarchy, maternal investment in children also increases. As feminist economist Nancy Folbre has observed, "Patriarchal control over women tends to increase their specialization in reproductive labor, with important consequences for both the quantity and the quality of their investments in the next generation." Those consequences arguably include: more children receiving more attention from their mothers, who, having few other ways of finding meaning in their lives, become more skilled at keeping their children safe and healthy. Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.

PATRIARCHY AND ITS DISCONTENTS


Patriarchy may enjoy evolutionary advantages, but nothing has ensured the survival of any particular patriarchal society. One reason is that men can grow weary of patriarchy’s demands. Roman aristocrats, for example, eventually became so reluctant to accept the burdens of heading a family that Caesar Augustus felt compelled to enact steep "bachelor taxes" and otherwise punish those who remained unwed and childless. Patriarchy may have its privileges, but they may pale in comparison to the joys of bachelorhood in a luxurious society — nights spent enjoyably at banquets with friends discussing sports, war stories, or philosophy, or with alluring mistresses, flute girls, or clever courtesans.

Women, of course, also have reason to grow weary of patriarchy, particularly when men themselves are no longer upholding their patriarchal duties. Historian Suzanne Cross notes that during the decades of Rome’s civil wars, Roman women of all classes had to learn how to do without men for prolonged periods, and accordingly developed a new sense of individuality and independence. Few women in the upper classes would agree to a marriage to an abusive husband. Adultery and divorce became rampant.

Often, all that sustains the patriarchal family is the idea that its members are upholding the honor of a long and noble line. Yet, once a society grows cosmopolitan, fast-paced, and filled with new ideas, new peoples, and new luxuries, this sense of honor and connection to one’s ancestors begins to fade, and with it, any sense of the necessity of reproduction. "When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard ‘having children’ as a question of pro’s and con’s," Oswald Spengler, the German historian and philosopher, once observed, "the great turning point has come."

THE RETURN OF PATRIARCHY

Yet that turning point does not necessarily mean the death of a civilization, only its transformation. Eventually, for example, the sterile, secular, noble families of imperial Rome died off, and with them, their ancestors’ idea of Rome. But what was once the Roman Empire remained populated. Only the composition of the population changed. Nearly by default, it became composed of new, highly patriarchal family units, hostile to the secular world and enjoined by faith either to go forth and multiply or join a monastery. With these changes came a feudal Europe, but not the end of Europe, nor the end of Western Civilization.

We may witness a similar transformation during this century. In Europe today, for example, how many children different people have, and under what circumstances, correlates strongly with their beliefs on a wide range of political and cultural attitudes. For instance, do you distrust the army? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ronny Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids — or ever to get married and have kids — than those who say they have no objection to the military. Or again, do you find soft drugs, homosexuality, and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? For whatever reason, people answering affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone, or in childless, cohabitating unions, than those who answer negatively.

The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies. Consider the demographics of France, for example. Among French women born in the early 1960s, less than a third have three or more children. But this distinct minority of French women (most of them presumably practicing Catholics and Muslims) produced more than 50 percent of all children born to their generation, in large measure because so many of their contemporaries had one child or none at all.

Many childless, middle-aged people may regret the life choices that are leading to the extinction of their family lines, and yet they have no sons or daughters with whom to share their newfound wisdom. The plurality of citizens who have only one child may be able to invest lavishly in that child’s education, but a single child will only replace one parent, not both. Meanwhile, the descendants of parents who have three or more children will be hugely overrepresented in subsequent generations, and so will the values and ideas that led their parents to have large families.

One could argue that history, and particularly Western history, is full of revolts of children against parents. Couldn’t tomorrow’s Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of ’68?

The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of modern societies married and had children. Some had more than others, but the disparity in family size between the religious and the secular was not so large, and childlessness was rare. Today, by contrast, childlessness is common, and even couples who have children typically have just one. Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as always happens. But when they look around for fellow secularists and counterculturalists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not. In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage, and therefore spur even higher fertility. As governments hand back functions they once appropriated from the family, notably support in old age, people will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values akin to the Bible’s injunction to honor thy mother and father.

Societies that are today the most secular and the most generous with their underfunded welfare states will be the most prone to religious revivals and a rebirth of the patriarchal family. The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father.

Cobra Wrote:  Thinking too much about alpha vs beta is beta.

Due to the triggering nature of my commentary, I feel that it's important to declare that I am completely calm and not angered when participating on this board. You may put away your personal offense now
12-06-2015 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 7 users Like TonySandos's post:
billbudsocket, Vice, Tim in real life, Quintus Curtius, Handsome Creepy Eel, Nevsky, Max Henrich
rw95 Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 392
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation: 1
Post: #2
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
Yes, Patriarchy will inherit the Earth.

However, it will likely be in the name of Islam. Unless a reckoning happens real hard and real quick.

Trump 2016.
12-06-2015 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like rw95's post:
262, eradicator, Cortés
HighSpeed_LowDrag Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,888
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 57
Post: #3
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
Great find. This would be an awesome article to use against feminist/SJWs for purposes of demoralization. I'd love to see how they hamster out the inevitability of their self-extinction.

Article link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-...atriarchy/

HSLD
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2015 06:17 PM by HighSpeed_LowDrag.)
12-06-2015 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
LEMONed IScream Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,978
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 16
Post: #4
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
Interesting article, however. It is also to be considered that families that traditionally collect benefits also tend to have plenty of children, who will in turn also continue this trend... Theoretically.

"Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin. Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the sellers from temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth."

- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
12-06-2015 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Durango Offline
Sparrow
Gold Member

Posts: 64
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 4
Post: #5
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
(12-06-2015 05:44 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  I got a kick out of this article my brother sent to me. Written in October of 2009.

Quote:The Return of Patriarchy

Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next — from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East.

Fearful of a future in which the elderly outnumber the young, many governments are doing whatever they can to encourage people to have children. Singapore has sponsored "speed dating" events, in hopes of bringing busy professionals together to marry and procreate. France offers generous tax incentives for those willing to start a family. In Sweden, the state finances day care to ease the tension between work and family life. Yet, though such explicitly pronatal policies may encourage people to have children at a younger age, there is little evidence they cause people to have more children than they otherwise would. As governments going as far back as imperial Rome have discovered, when cultural and economic conditions discourage parenthood, not even a dictator can force people to go forth and multiply.

I always love when people point out falling birthrates, aging populations, rising debt, etc and simultaneously there is no expectation at all for the government/elderly to restructure the government benefit programs that are clearly draining the system. I almost think if the elites admitted they screwed up mathematically and were running a ponzi scheme that people would have more children, with the new bode of confidence that raising a family would be less expensive. Like any other economic decision, having children is a cost (today an 18-25 year one), and when the system has a generous welfare state, we are all paying for it through higher prices and taxes. Should we really expect the young not only to support a family of there own, but the lives of others they are not directly involved with? In the West, this is a one-way ticket to the poorhouse on a one-parent income, and having your wife work a full-time job to make ends meet is hardly an attractive offer. Not that I think it would be good to just abandon the elderly and retirees, but to increase the birthrate and change the course, it would make sense to restructure the albatross known as mandatory entitlements.
12-06-2015 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Durango's post:
LEMONed IScream, TonySandos
Paracelsus Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,181
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 149
Post: #6
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
Quote:Under a true patriarchal system, such as in early Rome or 17th-century Protestant Europe, fathers have strong reason to take an active interest in the children their wives bear. That is because, when men come to see themselves, and are seen by others, as upholders of a patriarchal line, how those children turn out directly affects their own rank and honor.

In other words, you not only have to have kids if you want the patriarchy to return, but you also have to give a shit about said kids and about the tradition that lies behind you back for generations. You have to regard yourself as the descendant of a long line of worthwhile men whose achievements and strength you are born to uphold. From such an idea did sons follow in their fathers' professions; for such reasons did sons feel a responsibility to exceed or at least preserve what their fathers had achieved.

One of the best lines out of the Cecil B. DeMille version of The Ten Commandments comes from Seti, when there's a debate going on over whether Rameses or Moses should succeed him to the throne of Egypt. Rameses (played by Yul Brynner) basically says "I am the son of your body; who else could succeed you?"

Seti's reply is pure patriarchy: "The man best suited to rule Egypt will follow me. I owe that to my fathers - not to my sons."
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2015 01:25 AM by Paracelsus.)
12-07-2015 01:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 8 users Like Paracelsus's post:
Durango, Canopus, PapayaTapper, TonySandos, Menace, Vice, Nevsky, Tactician
262 Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,778
Joined: Dec 2014
Post: #7
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
(12-06-2015 06:17 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  Great find. This would be an awesome article to use against feminist/SJWs for purposes of demoralization. I'd love to see how they hamster out the inevitability of their self-extinction.

Article link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-...atriarchy/

They'd say the Earth is overpopulated.

Even though that claim has been made many times in history, to no avail.

But this time will be different!
12-07-2015 04:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Scorpio Rising Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 177
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 4
Post: #8
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
So the first biological lesson of history is that life is competition. The second biological lesson of history is that life is selection. We are all born unfree and unequal. Nature loves difference. Inequality is not only natural and inborn, it grows with the complexity of civilization.
The third biological lesson of history is that life must breed. Nature has no use of organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly. She has a passion for quantity as prerequisite to selection of quality. She does not care that a high rate has usually accompanied a culturally low civilization, and a low birth rate a civilization culturally high; and she sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group.


The advanced nations of the so called west are just beginning to find this out. The "chastening" is going to get ever more intense with each passing year.
12-07-2015 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
N°6 Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,547
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 26
Post: #9
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
(12-07-2015 04:07 AM)262 Wrote:  
(12-06-2015 06:17 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  Great find. This would be an awesome article to use against feminist/SJWs for purposes of demoralization. I'd love to see how they hamster out the inevitability of their self-extinction.

Article link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-...atriarchy/

They'd say the Earth is overpopulated.

Even though that claim has been made many times in history, to no avail.

But this time will be different!

Who is being told that the Earth is over-populated? The very women who should be having more children, not less.
12-08-2015 01:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
rw95 Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 392
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation: 1
Post: #10
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
To reiterate and build on my previous post;

Yes, patriarchy will eventually once more dominate the world. But we have two different roads which ultimately lead to the same goal.

The first is to elect Donald Trump and the political figures who will (hopefully) follow in his wake and mark a strong shift back to the right. Patriarchy will not return in Trump's presidency obviously (unless of course he becomes an American version of Putin), but it would still be a solid first step in the right direction.

The second is that Hilary, Sanders or one of the Cuckservative candidates are elected. Yes, leftism and feminism will flourish in a newfound golden age, but it will be short lived. Eventually, Islam will become more powerful and more feared, and within a half century it will be the only religion in the west. It will be barbaric, and all good aspects of Christian/western culture will be erased forever, but there will still be a strong and, dare I say it PERMANENT return to patriarchy.

Those are our two options. Both of them lead to patriarchy. Let's see which one America chooses.
12-09-2015 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes rw95's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel
N°6 Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,547
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 26
Post: #11
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
It is a very interesting essay. Good comparisons with the ancient world.

However modern history seems a bit weak. Written in 2008 the author may have had no idea how Christianity in the US would have declined so much during the Obama presidency. There are now a lot of people who have reached late parenthood age who haven't been in church since they were teens. Once generational gaps begin in any institution, decline isn't far off.
12-09-2015 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
DjembaDjemba Offline
Pelican
****

Posts: 1,116
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 27
Post: #12
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
I'm not convinced that patriarchy will be sustained for long in the Arab world.

Even in the most patriarchal reactionary islamic state; Saudi Arabia, women have been allowed to vote and run for elections for the first time in it's history this winter.

This is pretty big news with significant consequences down the line.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business...tions.html

It'll take one generation for this to make a significant difference.
12-09-2015 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like DjembaDjemba's post:
Vice, Handsome Creepy Eel
Easy_C Offline
Crow
*****

Posts: 4,221
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 28
Post: #13
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
(12-06-2015 06:42 PM)Durango Wrote:  I always love when people point out falling birthrates, aging populations, rising debt, etc and simultaneously there is no expectation at all for the government/elderly to restructure the government benefit programs that are clearly draining the system. I almost think if the elites admitted they screwed up mathematically and were running a ponzi scheme that people would have more children, with the new bode of confidence that raising a family would be less expensive.

First rule: politicians always lie.

Second rule: politicians will never admit that they were wrong. EVER.
12-13-2015 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Easy_C's post:
Master Of My Own Kingdom
Byzantium Away
Pigeon

Posts: 46
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 1
Post: #14
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
(12-09-2015 04:12 PM)N°6 Wrote:  It is a very interesting essay. Good comparisons with the ancient world.

However modern history seems a bit weak. Written in 2008 the author may have had no idea how Christianity in the US would have declined so much during the Obama presidency. There are now a lot of people who have reached late parenthood age who haven't been in church since they were teens. Once generational gaps begin in any institution, decline isn't far off.

Decay and growth cycles. The ones falling away aren't any different than the surrounding society, their leaving actually sets the stage for rapid growth, as people will increasingly associate Christians with happily married couples homeschooling large broods of children (contrasted against a nation of sterile freaks).

Orthodoxy in the USA grew 16% over the last decade.
01-19-2016 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Byzantium Away
Pigeon

Posts: 46
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 1
Post: #15
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
(12-09-2015 07:38 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  I'm not convinced that patriarchy will be sustained for long in the Arab world.

Even in the most patriarchal reactionary islamic state; Saudi Arabia, women have been allowed to vote and run for elections for the first time in it's history this winter.

This is pretty big news with significant consequences down the line.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business...tions.html

It'll take one generation for this to make a significant difference.

The Saudi monarchy is going to fall, the oil fields will run dry, the population will collapse, whoever comes to power next will probably make the current regime at their historically most conservative look like like leftists.

The same thing will be happening worldwide, as per the source cited by the OP:

"The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father. "
01-19-2016 12:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Paracelsus Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,181
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 149
Post: #16
RE: Patriarchy will inheret the Earth once again? Foreign Policy thinks so.
It's important to absorb the implications of patriarchy for men, though. It means no more fucking a string of bitches until your early thirties or so and then hoping to find a virgin hottie somewhere in the continental US. Someone engaged in that lifestyle is much more likely to wind up in a SEA country a literal exile. Absorb this quote again:

Quote:Patriarchy may enjoy evolutionary advantages, but nothing has ensured the survival of any particular patriarchal society. One reason is that men can grow weary of patriarchy’s demands. Roman aristocrats, for example, eventually became so reluctant to accept the burdens of heading a family that Caesar Augustus felt compelled to enact steep "bachelor taxes" and otherwise punish those who remained unwed and childless. Patriarchy may have its privileges, but they may pale in comparison to the joys of bachelorhood in a luxurious society — nights spent enjoyably at banquets with friends discussing sports, war stories, or philosophy, or with alluring mistresses, flute girls, or clever courtesans.

No time for self-improvement. No approaching the 8 or 9 in the bar once you're married. You'll be busy looking after your children or teaching them about sex roles. And your parents, in particular your father, are going to have a solid say in who you marry or will be able to disapprove of the 9 you bring home because, despite the fact she fucks like a rabbit and has lips that can suck a nut off a bolt (figuratively or literally), she's the child of a single mother and is therefore highly suspect. Patriarchy means manning up in the way it was originally intended: find a good wife, marry young, breed, and save looking for the meaning of your life until your first midlife crisis or heart attack (or both).

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Fatherhood has its own strange and beautiful energy to it, something that's hard to explain to someone who hasn't got kids, but you need to understand the sort of society that's being pushed for and which is probably on its way according to this article.

I personally think the article's off base because it doesn't take into account the immense technological difference between previous iterations of patriarchy and the present day -- Rome and 17th century Europe didn't have reliable and simple methods of birth control, for example, and sure as hell couldn't conceive a baby in a test tube -- but either way, understand the implications not for women, but for men.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2016 10:51 PM by Paracelsus.)
01-19-2016 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Paracelsus's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel, DjembaDjemba, Master Of My Own Kingdom
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The truth about the flat earth The bone 118 6,110 Today 01:18 AM
Last Post: N°6
  The Trump China Policy Thread Arado 540 145,668 10-22-2019 10:15 PM
Last Post: Wutang
  Question for young earth creationists Delta 27 1,750 07-15-2019 12:31 PM
Last Post: True Position

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication