Patriarchy Works II

Charles Martel

by Novaseeker on December 21, 2009

Fellow Spearhead contributor Jack Donovan wrote a fantastic article earlier today about how the system known as “patriarchy” actually works better than competing theoretical (or even practical) systems.  It’s well worth a read and reflection and comment.

In my own reflections, I posted a long comment there which probably should be a post of its own, both so as not to distract further from reflections and comments on Jack’s article, but also because my own take on the same issue is a bit different and touches on some disparate points of reference.  So, without further ado, reposted here, with some formatting changes, is my earlier comment.

=========================

Indeed, Jack. There is no historical precedent for a non-patriarchal society thriving in the long-term.

However, this does appear to be a cycle in the course of human history. Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin penned a book at the beginning of the 20th century titled “Sex and Culture” which explains this dynamic fairly well. Following a rather exhaustive survey of human cultures around the world, Unwin concluded that societies which restrain female sexuality tend to thrive, but eventually, as a result of their prosperity and success, tend to erode these restraints, due to women demanding this and men acquiescing. In other words, the societies thrive, and this gives rise to demands from women to participate in the success and prosperity, and men generally acquiesce (at least the powerful ones do) at some stage — and that acquiescence pretty much always takes the form of relaxing the strictures of marriage and allowing women to exist “independently” from men — sexually and otherwise. The history here is revealing and, in the broader world, largely unknown. For example, very few people are aware that ancient Babylon, prior to its collapse, instituted civil reforms to family law such as no-fault divorce and child support. Or that Sparta, which is widely known for its military tradition, had liberated women to such a degree that they ran the Spartan economy, and as a result had below replacement rate birth rates, leading to a collapse, eventually, to surrounding patriarchal states. Or that marriage in late Rome had declined so precipitously that the Empire tried to encourage men to marry by instituting a bachelor tax (to no avail, mind you, because men did not *need* to marry due to the relatively freely available sex after women were “liberated”).

The historical record is quite clear: at some point in prosperity and power, it appears that a common trend in civilizations of Europe and the Middle East is that women get, to some degree, “liberated” from having to be married to men in order to have access to the good things of life — in other words, they get liberated from sexual restraint, because one of the main points of marriage has always been to sexually restrain men and women so as to coaxe men into forming lasting pair bonds with women for the benefit of the tribe/civilization. Once the civilization gets sufficiently fat and happy, this seems to be less needed, as the whole thing seems nigh on invulnerable — so the rules are relaxed, women’s sexuality becomes liberated (and, living in the age we do, we know very well what that looks like when it happens), family life breaks down, birth rates drop, sexual immorality becomes rife, and the whole house of cards comes crashing down faster than anyone would have thought when they made the reforms to family law and social mores around sex.

What has happened in the contemporary West in the last century is simply a reprise of this pattern. The West is, by definition, the “fattest and happiest” civilization ever on the planet. The strictures of monogamy, sexual restraint, and marriage seem quaint and unnecessary to the vast majority of people living in the West. And so the laws were reformed (in ways very similar to how they had been in Babylon millennia ago), the social mores on female sexual expression were relaxed, and the West entered a period of utter sexual saturation, loose sexual mores, devalued monogamy, devalued family life, lower birth rates and so on — all following a familiar pattern. The distinctive characteristics of this particular iteration of “female liberation” are technological — abortion, contraception, the rise of non-labor-based work as the staple of the economy –> these changes made the current iteration of female liberation more robust than the earlier ones, more like “cooking with gas” than the earlier ones, and are what has made this version of it change things as fast as it has. And, the West is, in relative terms, much stronger, for the time being, than the rest of the world. This will change as the economies of the West gradually soften (already happening), requiring diversion away from military spending (already being called for), and proliferation equals the playing field in terms of tactical weaponry. Citadel West seems impregnable now, and it very well may be for the time being, but things change fast in the current environment, and the economic decline of the West, in relative terms, seems unavoidable — and this, in turn, will result in a military decline for the simple reason that there will be less money to spend on the military, relatively, than there was in the past. All of this is taking place in the context, of course, of the contemporary version of female liberation: sexually “empowered” women who live lives “independent” of men, if they wish, with the full backing of the state power, increasing numbers of unmotivated, underperforming men who are dragging down the social productivity rate, and a less than replacement birth rate when compared with birth rates of people from cultures that are not exactly embracing the values of the “contemporary West”. It’s impossible to look to the future with a crystal ball and predict what will happen, particularly due to technological advancements which are true game changers, but if the script keeps going in the direction it seems to be going, Unwin’s book may well prove to be a prophetic vision describing the decline of our own civilization in our time.

But more fundamentally, the real deal here is that, as Matt Ridley points out in his book “The Red Queen”, men and women are in competition within our species. Normally this is a kind of collaborative competition, but it is a competition nonetheless. That competition is to get the “leg up” reproductively, on the other — in other words, at the most reductive level, men and women are reproductive resources to each other, and each exploits the other. The pair bond is a way of making this more of a win/win, but there are always incentives to cheat the pair bond to make it a better deal for either partner. However, every now and then, women get the opportunity to get the “leg up” on men, reproductively, by gaining “liberation” from the pair bond itself — exploiting male reproductive resources without having to commit to sexual loyalty in a pair bond.  This allows women to access “higher gene” reproductive resources among the men (see: Lysistrata), and is a short term benefit for women as a class. As with any imbalance, however, it is not sustainable in the long-term. In the longer term, men become disincented to pair bond with women, and become relatively debauched (see: Late Rome, Late Babylon) and women tend to have fewer children, even below replacement rate (see: Babylon, Rome, Sparta). So in the long-term there is a correction, as we see in the histories of Babylon, Rome and Sparta — namely, the society cannot sustain itself with one sex having the “leg up” on reproduction due to the demotion of the pair bond from being the most sacred social institution to being an optional lifestyle choice. That can only last for so long — it cannot last in the long term barring technological changes that fundamentally transform our species. But, importantly, it is very much a part of the endless warfare between men and women in our species. Sometimes men have the upper hand and sometimes women do. We live in an age when women have the upper hand, and we are not alone historically in that. However, we also know that the societies that have thrived the longest are the ones where men have had the upper hand by having regimes of enforced monogamy (i.e., restrictions on sexuality, especially female sexuality), while societies that have relaxed these restrictions have eventually declined under their own weight and decadence. So the war of the sexes never really ends, folks, and we are simply living through a reprise of a chapter that has played itself out in the history of other great civilizations — a downward chapter, to be sure, but not a final one.

{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }

Tom December 21, 2009 at 15:29

This was a fascinating read for me because I noticed this pattern based on only my limited knowledge of history of the Roman and Greek empires (both were incredibly technologically advanced for their times, both were unbelievably sexually decadent (think mass orgies, homosexuality..), and both collapsed and were followed by “dark ages” that left very few historical records – leading scientists to beleive that their civilizations and social orders completely disintegrated)

I would like to add that the West is only an “impenetrable citadel” to those looking for external threats, for there is a major internal threat that seems to go unnoticed – the elephant in the room: evangelical christians! These people are multiplying like rabbits. They do not believe in feminism, science, human rights, democracy or even the US constitution (think US supreme court judge Scalia). They are a massive political force that will overthrow our “enlightened” civilization in barely a few decades. Who do you think elected our chimp-in-chief, Mr Bush? Now imagine a few more born-again christian presidents, and see how long America remains a superpower!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Icaros2K December 21, 2009 at 15:41

Demographics are important, but I’m not so sure about the rise of evangelical Christians in the U.S. “White Americans’ majority to end by mid-century“.

Skepticism is always warranted when making projections to the future based on current trends.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 21, 2009 at 16:16

You know, it’s funny that you mention Babylon, because I was just at Walmart buying some gifts for the kids, and as I looked around at the people gathered from the four corners of the earth together in one megastore, the name “Babylon” came immediately to mind.

It’s kind of surreal at these centers of consumption, and it seems almost as though international trade is a force of nature. I look around, and it doesn’t appear as though there’s any order to it all except for the constant flow of people, goods and money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 21, 2009 at 16:39

Thumbs up on the photo choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Retribution December 21, 2009 at 16:57

Tom, you’re an idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Talleyrand December 21, 2009 at 16:59

The thing that is sad, is that the cycle repeats. We are so stupid to think we are wiser than our forebears.

One can hope that future generations will realize what a foolish thing the west has done and doomed itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 17:17

A great analysis. I saw this as a comment to the Patriarchy article earlier this morning (well, it’s morning for me in the land of the Rising Sun) and was stunned to see that the article had already reached 80 comments and this had spawned its own article in a matter of a few hours. The community activity here is invigorating!

In any case, I’d spent the morning considering the post. It is certaintly a convincing argument demonstrating patterns in known history. The problem with patterns is that they can be broken. (In the case of feminism, however, that may be a good thing!) One example of such a pattern being broken would be from American history. In one class we took, we studied the way in which American politics would shift from a conservative mindset to a liberal mindset something like once every 32 years. This happened without fail and with only one minor exception (I think Carter’s presidency broke the pattern?) and it was on the basis of this that many analysts believed Bush would not be re-elected. I apologize for not having all my facts straight and remembered clearly – I don’t have the time to look this information up right now but I wanted to comment before this thread got drowned in other discussions.

In any case, my point here is that we (men, and the men’s movement as a whole) doesn’t have to concede or acquiesce to the implied inevitability of feminism and matriarchy that is so compellingly articulated here, if we don’t want to. One thing I think we certainly have on our side this time that the Romans, Greeks and others did not is the internet. Feminism may be reforming our education system and poisoning the minds of our youth, by it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to poison the whole of the internet. Furthermore, the internet allows for the preservation of the truth and the existence of the real facts about feminism and all of the issues it speaks to to come about. This is a massive boon that did not exist – in any sort of form, not even one vaguely reminiscent – in any of the cultures mentioned in Novaseeker’s essay. Hell, I’m not even sure if literacy rates in the civilizations mentioned approached those of modern society (even though I think I read/heard somewhere literacy rates are on the decline, I think they’re still higher than in ancient societies – something I need to investigate when I’m not on my way back to duty!), so even if the facts did exist in these ancient civilizations in the form of books, they were harder to access than the internet (it’s more difficult to go to the library than it is to access the net, even moreso in the ancient world where transportation wasn’t up to modern standards) and less people could potentially access these facts as they were unable to read!

So, take heart, brothers. There may be hope yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 21, 2009 at 17:29

Heh…Tom, actually, if you’re going to go that direction with it, I’d put my money on the Mormons, not the evangelicals (who seem to be “past-peak” in terms of power). As a group, Mormons seem to be both fecund and highly successful. And perky.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Red December 21, 2009 at 17:34

@Talleyrand said

The thing that is sad, is that the cycle repeats. We are so stupid to think we are wiser than our forebears.

One can hope that future generations will realize what a foolish thing the west has done and doomed itself.

This may be the first time we actually have good records of what happens when you liberate women. Whoever replaces us might get it right for a change.

Or not. Was the knowledge of what happened to Rome, Babylon and Sparta well known?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 21, 2009 at 18:24

Cicero famously warned that if you liberate women they will become men’s masters. I think there were quite a few who knew the score previously, really.

whiskey December 21, 2009 at 18:35

Scalia (a Roman Catholic btw) is a strong defender of the Constitution as above all a limiting document. Saying what the government CANNOT do (to people and the states) rather than what it MUST DO (the choice of feminists, i.e. free abortions, health care, affirmative action, etc.)

It is the “Wise Latina” folks like Sotomayor who believe in a “living Constitution” i.e. one that is whatever they say it is (and indeed, whatever laws are passed by foreign governments) that debase it past meaning.

You can see this most clearly in the VAWA passed by Congress. Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution as advocated by Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, the government has no power to mandate special protection for women and penalties for men and states that don’t specifically protect women above men, by an expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Blacks, Hispanics, and Women like the expansion of the federal government because they find it most responsive to their lobbying.

Generally, under degenerate, debauched feminized elites, over-centralization and power held by an oligarchy in one city is measure of the society. And also, the obvious weak spot (destroy the city, destroy the society).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Max December 21, 2009 at 18:37

Would I be a complete dick for pointing out that you’re talking to the Mob? On one hand, the birth rate/sexual immorality/civil decline argument makes sense. On the other, you’re arguing to a bunch of guys who are memorizing the Mystery Method because they want to take advantage of the “fall of Western Civilization”.

The reason Civilizations fall is because men build them to be commodious, and then once they’ve got free love flowing in from multiple consenting partners, maybe even at the same time, (preferably without spending a million dollars) . . . They get a little soft in the belly and things fall apart.

I’m not saying it’s a bad argument, or a flawed argument. However, it is a bit like talking to Somalians about TransFats.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David December 21, 2009 at 18:55

Max:

” Would I be a complete dick for pointing out that you’re talking to the Mob? … you’re arguing to a bunch of guys who are memorizing the Mystery Method because they want to take advantage of the “fall of Western Civilization”. ”

David: Not all of us. I am trying to improve a marriage of over 20 years. With some success. Using “game” techniques.

This morning, I was contemplating the notion of a short booklet for newly married men. Title: How to be a Happy Husband. First Chapter heading: Treat Her as an Inferior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 19:07

@ Nova

“Cicero famously warned that if you liberate women they will become men’s masters. I think there were quite a few who knew the score previously, really.”

Was this when he was at his peak of influence, or after he was suffering from illegitimacy later in his career? Once popular opinion swayed against him or anyone else throughout history, it has notably been difficult to change. (There have been exceptions. Lincoln, for instance, was unpopular to the point of almost being voted out of office, until the victories Grant provided in the war turned public favor of him.) In the (old) old days, it took something of a miracle to restore faith once it had been lost.

People have been mastering the use of other “mass media” such as television and radio to sway and mold public opinion in more modern times. Where once it took a miracle, now all it takes is some advertising savvy and a large budget.

I don’t think anyone has, as yet, fully appreciated the internet or fully taken advantage of it. It might be something that could change the landscape. I do not think we are necessarily “doomed” to repeat the past, though it certainly is probable. Understanding patterns can also help you understand how to break them apart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 19:18

I suppose I should also add that I see the status of feminism as something of an insurgency – maybe it’s best to say that they won their insurgency and now men have to stage their own to gain control back. Either way, the major element of an insurgency is what is telling – in any insurgent situation, you have an active minority that supports the status quo, an active minority against the status quo, and a vast majority of people who are passive and largely undecided in the middle.

It has been noted in several different sources by several different authors that the movers and shakers of the feminist movement have patently extremist views that only a relative minority of women actually take to heart and truly believe. Why women may parrot some of these teachings, deep in their hearts they don’t truly buy into the philosophies (and often, when confronted with the facts of what their feminist leaders are saying, women will just deny and decry them as “extremists” who “don’t matter” in the big picture, unaware of how powerful and influential this extremist minority really is). This would be the active minority against the status quo.

On the other side of the coin, you’ve got places like The Spearhead and the MGTOW forums, who are the active minority supporting the status quo. The prominent men (the “leadership”) here really believe in what they’re doing in a way similar to the pushers of the feminist agenda, and are taking action in the best way they know how to – making plans, trying to bring other men into the fold, offering solutions and alternatives. But as many have noted, it is hard to get very many people active in any one movement. There’s a lot of passivity.

Let me quote the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, developed by the United States Army and Marine Corps: “…a passive populace may be all that is necessary for a well-supported insurgency to seize political power.” Feminists have made so many gains because they’ve set up a system where they don’t require active support in order to seize and wield political power. All they need is passive support at best – so long as no one is actively trying to stop them, it doesn’t matter if the vast majority of people really believe the agenda they’re pushing. And so long as feminists can use shaming tactics, or whatever you’d like to call them, to quiet dissent and stifle criticism and thoughtful debate, they aren’t likely going to go anywhere.

Access to information, facts, figures, and counter-strategies would go a long way in combatting the tactics feminists have devised to reign in their power. That’s why I think Zed’s suggestion back in October (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/13/upping-mra-game-honing-our-rhetoric-of-ridicule/) to “hone our rhetoric” may be a viable one. Once we’ve honed that rhetoric, it’d be a matter of distributing it throughout the undecided middle majority of people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 19:20

I wish I had an edit function. Above, when I said “why women may parrot…” I meant: “While women may parrot…”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko December 21, 2009 at 19:50

Great post.

Would be interested in how hyper patriarchies fare ala the Islamic world at its peak and how it collapsed several times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
TG December 21, 2009 at 21:37

“Access to information, facts, figures”

HA!…you can’t fight women with facts, figures and information

which is exactly why we are doomed…women understand the world through feelings and emotions…and it’s impossible for women to understand the pain men feel…

which is why….we’re doomed…case closed…I know I should have started learning mandarin 2 years ago….never to old to start I guess…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
POIUYT December 21, 2009 at 22:44

Do you think everyone is fooled by the endless total outrage and endless hysterical outpouring of grief over, quote-unquote “feminism” and equality/political issues of concern to quote-unquote “women”. You and they are cleverly giving females an importance to the question they really do not have at all at all at all at all.

Even going further… females and feminists attitudes towards men is absolutely irrelevant and of no consequence to the status of men. WHAT COUNTS IS THE ATTITUDE OF MEN TOWARDS MEN here and everywhere.

“Feminism” and “womens political/equality” is an elaborate distraction conveiniently used by men whom dont want to face the real questions and actual reasons why man has fallen so low and has such a degraded and diminished status in society.

Even so called activists for men either through ignorance, delusion, femaleist sentiment or a secret malice for their own genderclass engage in this pretend game of shadow boxing with the phantom of feminism instead of facing reality. That is facing themselves.

Unless males, voluntarily or forced at state gunpoint, respect males and male intrests as they respect females and female interests voluntarily or at state gunpoint, every political thing they do and say is 100% suspect. The relevant and only key thing is male attitudes as individuals, and as a genderclass towards themselves.

This fight has absolutely nothing to do with females or feminism, whom should not be brought into it a second time to further the deceit, but mens attitude towards men. Until every concerned man admits this to himmself and personally changes accordingly we are wasting our time … forever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fschmidt December 21, 2009 at 22:53

Congratulations, Nova, for writing one of the few good articles on The Spearhead. Other than the odd reference to Lysistrata, I agree with what you wrote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 23:21

@POIUYT:

Part of the problem is that men have been convinced it is in their best interest to support feminism. That is why it is important to educate them that this is absolutely not the case. (I hear people toss around the metaphor of waking people from the Matrix, and I think that fits well.) Additionally, it doesn’t make sense to me to alienate women who would support our causes, though I do agree that convincing men is the primary objective (as men, really, are the ones with the power to enforce societal rules).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad December 21, 2009 at 23:35

Damn , you’re gud…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 21, 2009 at 23:44

””””POIUYT,
This fight has absolutely nothing to do with females or feminism, whom should not be brought into it a second time to further the deceit, but mens attitude towards men. Until every concerned man admits this to himmself and personally changes accordingly we are wasting our time … forever.””””””

Well the females do matter in that men have to hold them accountable for the paradigm we find ourselves in. It may not be there fault it may not be our fault but the game has changed. No longer can you assume you will be still married to the same woman like our fathers did. So what ya got to do is front end load the shit and make the woman save a nice fat chunk of cash before you give them that ring or kids. Make them do some sacrifice for the both of you and that entails not spending all the fucking money or getting a great apartment or house but living well below the means and saving some bank so that you don’t start out life 500 k in debt as a couple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin December 22, 2009 at 01:04

Novaseeker,

I have some sympathy for the idea that there is a “cycle of decadence” that civilizations go through, and the dominance of women in our society is

typical of a late-stage civilization heading for collapse.

But I really think the industrial revolution was a game changer. I have to step up to those thinking that The West will collapse like the decadent

societies before it and No, not this time.

A hundred years after Jules Verne imagined fax machines and a moon landing, we did those things for real. Today, our writers imagine nanobots, space

elevators, children grown in artificial wombs, AI, killer robots and life extentions treatments. There’s a good chance we will see all those things this

century.

You talk about a war between men and women to gain the upper hand. Well, men are about to get reinforcements of our own creation.

We are on a path to create, within a few decades, household domestic robots that can care for, protect and educate a child better than the average woman.
Imagine a nanny than never gets tired, never gets distracted, is infinitely patient,cannot be manipulated, and has an inexhaustible supply of interesting

stories, games, tricks and puzzles, all graded and sorted to cater to the individual childs ability.

At first, such nannies would be the preserve of the rich, adopted as a status symbol and bodyguard – no more childhood accidents. As they came down in

price, they would be bought by educated middle class women – SWPL trend setters. Eventually, they would cost a couple of grand and would be subsidised by

the state out out of the education and welfare budget.

Such a robot makes a mother largely obsolete – but feminist women will likely welcome them as a relief from the drudgeries of motherhood. Your typical

liberal female secretly fantasises about having servants and being a princess.
What will domestic help like this do to the birthrate? Well, it will probably rise to replacement levels again. We’re talking about the automation of

motherhood – taking the drudgery and stress out of it, giving every mother an unflagging assistant. So, like other forms of automation, you’ll see a jump

in productivity – women can have more children with a smaller loss of person freedom.

What this also means is that the quality of care children recieve will go up. Many women are lousy mothers – but robotic nannies will be programmed to be

good mothers, and will likely become exceptional good carers as the technology progresses.
Can they substitute for a mother’s love? They don’t have to. They just have to take some burden off the mother, and provided stimulation and care.

What I’m suggesting is that there are potential technological props for the things that ail our society. If you have bad mothers, give them tools to help

them be better mothers ( or pick up the slack). If your children are growing up messed up, introduce some stability into their lives, even if it has to be synthetic. It’s not ideal of course. It’s a prop for a sick society. But it may be enough to put off collapse for centuries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
ThousandMileMargin December 22, 2009 at 01:10

Apologies for the bad formatting on the last post – I pasted from wordpad, came out wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad December 22, 2009 at 01:28

All , that is new , promising and inventive, is child like , in its essence,.in its newness , and it has been said in the bible…”And then , a child shall lead them” ? …Technology perhaps ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 22, 2009 at 01:46

@ThousandMileMargin,

my thoughts go pretty much along the same lines. Something drastic may just happen, but industrial revolution and the resulting technological developments seem to be a game changer to me. For example, nuclear weapons protect borders quite efficiently.

Why does a civilization or a country “decline” or go the way of Rome/Sparta/what have you? Reasons often suggested here, partly following from or related to feminism, are (1) below replacement-level birth rates, (2) male motivational problems from not getting any action or bonding with a woman/raising children. Thus not being productive members of a society and not investing to the future.

(1) can be remedied and battled and (2) should somehow be quantified to see how big a threat it is in the end. I’m not sure if men do the things they do just because of women or children and slack off otherwise. Sure, if ones job is not in any way meaningful or intrinsically interesting, it may be a problem, but automation can be of help.

Demographic changes may be a threat to progress, but I personally doubt that this century will know as the one when the new “Dark Ages” begun. Worker productivity will probably continue to go up, and genetic engineering, artificial wombs, robots etc. can make significant changes in how societies function.

There are, of course, all kinds of scenarios which may be plausible enough.

From Less Wrong, Superstimuli and the Collapse of Western Civilization:

I leave you with a final argument from fictional evidence: Simon Funk’s online novel After Life depicts (among other plot points) the planned extermination of biological Homo sapiens – not by marching robot armies, but by artificial children that are much cuter and sweeter and more fun to raise than real children. Perhaps the demographic collapse of advanced societies happens because the market supplies ever-more-tempting alternatives to having children, while the attractiveness of changing diapers remains constant over time. Where are the advertising billboards that say “BREED”? Who will pay professional image consultants to make arguing with sullen teenagers seem more alluring than a vacation in Tahiti?

“In the end,” Simon Funk wrote, “the human species was simply marketed out of existence.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fschmidt December 22, 2009 at 02:45

Those who think the industrial revolution and modern technology are a game changer are missing a key point. All innovation in the world comes from societies that were patriarchal 100 years ago. Those societies that were not patriarchal 100 years ago produce no innovation at all. Innovation will cease when the time comes that no society was patriarchal 100 years before. And even with modern technology, those societies that have long been matriarchal/promiscuous, as much of Africa is, are currently extremely poor. So even modern technology cannot prevent extreme poverty when a culture is too weak to able to take advantage of it. This is our future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 22, 2009 at 04:15

As I said, technological advances make divining the precise future rather uncertain — I agree. But divining such technological advances in advance is also rather uncertain, it seems to me. I’m much less sanguine about the idea that we can predict the pace of technological development — if anything, it seems to come in fits and starts. Transport is an example of this — we seem to be effectively stuck with the same transport technologies that we’ve had for more than a half century now with only minor tweaks being offered here and there, despite the myriad problems caused by our current transportation technologies. Communication has exploded in advancement, but transportation has not. A decade or two ago, people were predicting we’d be living like the Jetsons by now, but we’re still slogging back and forth to work in cars just like folks did in the 60s and 70s. And while we can video chat with someone around the world instantly in real time, it still takes just as long to get there in person as it did 20 years ago. So, as I see it, technological advances at different rates in different fields, and so I think it is difficult to predict what technological advances will happen when, and whether they will happen soon enough, and in a big enough way, to matter much. I agree that technology is the game changer, and that it’s possible that technologies developed in the 21st century will alter human life in ways that we can’t really predict, and that will largely moot the sexual war once and for all — that’s possible.

I do know, though, that every single human generation in the past has also assumed that history would not play itself out in a similar pattern in their own generation’s time because their times were different from the past. That seems to be a universal human assumption. Perhaps it is an adaptive one, as well, because it helps humans avoid adopting a fatalistic perspective on life — regardless of whether, of course, historical patterns do, in fact, repeat. In other words, generations of our human forebears have been consistently wrong about historical patterns not repeating in their lifetimes, but perhaps this very tendency to be wrong about these things is itself adapative, even if history does, in fact, cycle and repeat — ironically, in part because this “adaptive” perspective can prevent people from doing things in their own time to prevent the pattern from repeating itself.

dhurka December 22, 2009 at 05:05

Thousand mile margin I have to say I disagree with what your saying. While I agree that the west will not revert to subsistence farming with hand tools – your idea ignores the economics of the situation.

The fact is when your robot nannies are made, they will not be made in the west. We don’t really make anything anymore. These things will be made in Japan, China or some third country with a motivated populous and a good education system.

When this comes to pass what do you think the American dollar will be valued at? I’m no ecomomic guru but I think that only the most wealthy americans will be able to afford ‘A couple of thousand dollars’ in todays money. The wealth of a country is in production, the rest is window dressing. What will we be producing to trade for these machines? I don’t think we will have the money to spend on what is essentially a luxury.

Our future is modern Russia. How many Russians could afford a couple of thousand US dollars for a luxury. Only the wealthy – not enough to be a game changer. And remember Russia was the second most advanced country in the world only 30 years ago.

It is very dangerous to assume that we are so advanced that the rules of civilisation no longer apply to us. I’m sure the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians and Mayans all felt the same. They were all very advanced compared to their contemparies and thought that they would last forever.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
3Dog December 22, 2009 at 05:21

The truth is mankind is stupid, nothing mankind has done has “worked” the so called “success” of patriarchy was mostly hell for many people. Consisder religion: The bastion of patriarchy, religious people are dumb motherfuckers.

If people could historically be secular and be steered into responsibility rather then embrace hedonism as a rejection of their parents awfulness and stupidity we could do a lot to improve the world.

The truth is all current generation humans are going to be replaced with superior models when genetic engineering finally takes off.

Human incompetence is at the root of civilizational decline, the most intelligent men are rejected by most women because most women are not that bright.

We select for stupid people who get along socially with other stupid people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Kevin K December 22, 2009 at 08:14

Our future is modern Russia. How many Russians could afford a couple of thousand US dollars for a luxury. Only the wealthy – not enough to be a game changer. And remember Russia was the second most advanced country in the world only 30 years ago.

In what technologies were the Russians superior to Japan, NW Europe and the British Commonwealth countries in 1979?

The US and Russia both have lots of farm land and lots of natural resources and those will be important as the world population increases dramatically in the next 30 years, so that shared future may not be all that terrible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman December 22, 2009 at 08:52

Nova, thanks for the extra input my friend. I had gotten back to the Romans and I suspected the Greeks were sabotaged in similar fashion. Try looking up ‘Assembly Women’ an old greek play. But I had not heard of the Spartans and Babylonians suffering the same fate.

It is obvious that as soon as woman are ‘liberated’ society falls because about the ONLY thing that a man is really willing to fight and die for with great dedication and commitment is his ‘wife and children’ be they today or ‘in t he future’. With no ‘wife and children’ men tend to ‘goof off’ a lot more. I am a good example of that.

The Illuminati designed ‘marriage’ to force the males to defend the babies because they were so poorly developed and so unable to defend themselves. Those who know WHY human babies are born with such a prolonged development time to self defense are also clearly aware WHY ‘marriage’ was instituted and why men who failed to fight to the death to protect the ‘women and children’ might themselves be enslaved or put to death by the ‘elders’. Simply put, it was required that men be expendable all through history such that population growth occurred. Now the bad guys want population decline what better way to achieve it than to have men refuse to have babies or to protect/provide for babies.

And more evidence that this has been done before simply adds more evidence that the bad guys have been raising and destroying empires for millenia to ‘divide and conquer’ and make sure that not too many people woke up to what was going on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rollory December 22, 2009 at 09:16

The Russians have always been better at space travel (and still are). But other than that, yeah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rollory December 22, 2009 at 09:18

” more evidence that the bad guys have been raising and destroying empires for millenia to ‘divide and conquer’ and make sure that not too many people woke up to what was going on”

aaaand Globalman is nuts, as usual

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman December 22, 2009 at 09:46

JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“Access to information, facts, figures, and counter-strategies would go a long way in combatting the tactics feminists have devised to reign in their power.”

My experience with strawman recapture is being documented here for the Irish Freeman Society.
http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/globalmans-progressexperience

This includes all the templates for all the docs I used and links to Arthur Cristians site http://www.loveforlife.com.au. This ‘counter-strategy’ allows me to not be subject to any femnazi legislation.

My hold harmless agreement between my strawman and my human self says that I am harmless for any action taken against my person/strawman by any ‘authority’. Basically this is a sword to the heart of feminism. It means I can not be arrested or incarcerated under any ‘legislation’. To do so is a crime for which I can raise a jury to incarcerate the offender. I am now up to the point of raising such a jury in Sydney and it is up to 12 good men in Sydney to sit on that jury and to decide if a magistrate has any right to take the proceeds of a free man against his will.

If the jury finds that a free man does not have property rights then that jury will sound the death knell for Australia. If that jury finds I have property rights under common law (‘thou shalt not steal’ implies these property rights) then they must find the magistrate guilty of violating my property rights and issue a punishment that they consider commensurate with the crime to punish the magistrate and clearly warn all others that stealing is a crime even when done by a magistrate.

If I am successful I will have put the sword to feminism in Australia. I will then work on Ireland. It amazed me at first how few men were actually interested in killing off feminism when given a chance. I now realise that most men are addicted to whinging about their ‘problem’ rather than solving them. Many men have accused me of the same. Especially the ones to whom I point out I have made great progress.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman December 22, 2009 at 09:48

Rollory December 22, 2009 at 9:18 am
“aaaand Globalman is nuts, as usual”
Yep….all these civilisations rose and fall all as a ‘co-incidence’. It couldn’t possibly be that there were puppet masters ‘pulling the strings’ even though todays puppet masters say that there ancestors were pulling the strings. Go back to sleep Rollory. Give your brain a break.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman December 22, 2009 at 09:51

JDApostasy December 21, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“I hear people toss around the metaphor of waking people from the Matrix, and I think that fits well.”
My mate and I use this ‘matrix’ metaphor. Most men, and I mean most men even here, are ‘in the matrix’ when it comes to women. They still think there is something ‘good’ about them.

I was dragged kicking and screaming to my current view. My mate was telling me this stuff three years ago and I would not believe him. I told him to stop a few times even, but he could read the situation and kept going. He could see I was ‘in the matrix’ and he wanted to help me get myself out.

Once I was out, and it was a very disruptive experience, and women were ‘laid bare’ to me I was really, really disgusted with them for a while. I was more disgusted at their deliberate deception than anything else. What men ‘in the matrix’ do not realise is that women KNOW the stuff I talk about and they go to great pains to lie to us men and decieve us. I would have been far less disgusted if women were much more honest about themselves. Basically, women rely on lies and deceit to persuade men to sacrifice for them and they know it.

Once you know exactly what women are REALLY like what they are doing is obvious. And their ONLY chance of success is to make sure the man never realises just how lop-sided the deal is. Once you are ‘out of the matrix’ it is clear women have nothing of value to offer and that there is no such thing as a ‘relationship’ with a woman apart from a ‘parasitic’ relationship fraudulently presented as a ‘symbiotic’ relationship. That many men buy the fraud is neither here nor there. I bought it to my 45th birthday. This is why men criticising what they see as my ‘harsh’ view of women are somewhat amusing to me. They are still ‘in the matrix’. They simply can not see what I see. Those of us ‘out of the matrix’ are simply far better informed which gives us a much different point of view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 22, 2009 at 10:31

@TMM

We are on a path to create, within a few decades, household domestic robots that can care for, protect and educate a child better than the average woman. Imagine a nanny than never gets tired, never gets distracted, is infinitely patient,cannot be manipulated, and has an inexhaustible supply of interesting stories, games, tricks and puzzles, all graded and sorted to cater to the individual childs ability.

I have some limited professional insight into the technologies required to create the domestic robots you describe and I am very confident that such machines will not appear “within a few decades.” Copying the strength, versatility, sensitivity and adaptability of the human body is an enormous task. This will require not only a great leap forward in computing power, but also important inventions in software, materials, sensors, mechanical actuators, and in energy storage and transmission. Today’s robots, even Honda’s ASIMO, are about as far from the machine you describe as the Wright Flyer (1903) is from the Space Shuttle (1981). The ASIMO is basically a technology demonstrator with very limited capabilities while the robot nanny will need to operate autonomously and mimic human capabilities in all important respects. My guess is the robot timeline will look like the Wright Flyer/Space Shuttle timeline – i.e. ASIMO (2003) – Robot Nanny (2081).

All of the above assumes there are no major disruptions to our current technology-based civilization between now and 2081. I can imagine widely differing scenarios and outcomes for the USA and Europe over the next 70 years, so who knows?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 11:29

@Charles Martel-

I think I have a man crush on you. Thanks for being here, and being so concise and articulate and logical.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DoubleMindedMan December 22, 2009 at 12:51

This morning, I was contemplating the notion of a short booklet for newly married men. Title: How to be a Happy Husband. First Chapter heading: Treat Her as an Inferior.

Please do!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DoubleMindedMan December 22, 2009 at 12:52

Please do, as in please write it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DoubleMindedMan December 22, 2009 at 12:54

My guess is the robot timeline will look like the Wright Flyer/Space Shuttle timeline – i.e. ASIMO (2003) – Robot Nanny (2081).
There is less difference between the Wright Flyer and the Space Shuttle than there is between ASIMO and a robot nanny, so that would be a conservative estimate at best

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Niko December 22, 2009 at 14:24

Globalman

“Illuminati designed marriage”, common dude, Christ sanctioned Godly marriage and was nailed to a tree. Common law and contract afforded the husband great rights and duties.

The straw man is simply a legal personality, you are in the domain of the Sovereign and are subject to his jurisdiction.
You are arguing legal philosophy, a priori natural law (inalienable rights) versus positivism.
I wish you well but there is no chance your going to override statute. If that were the case they’d have to repeal thousands of laws and restrict QUANGO’s right to enact law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DF December 22, 2009 at 14:36

Novaseeker, this was an excellent thought provoking post. Well done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avinguda Diagonal December 22, 2009 at 17:44

Furthermore, the internet allows for the preservation of the truth and the existence of the real facts about feminism and all of the issues it speaks to to come about. This is a massive boon that did not exist – in any sort of form, not even one vaguely reminiscent – in any of the cultures mentioned in Novaseeker’s essay

we’ll see where this goes now what obama appoints a “cyber security co-ordinator”

there may not be much more days left to communicate freely on the internet!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JDApostasy December 22, 2009 at 19:05

RE: Nova

“I do know, though, that every single human generation in the past has also assumed that history would not play itself out in a similar pattern in their own generation’s time because their times were different from the past. That seems to be a universal human assumption. Perhaps it is an adaptive one, as well, because it helps humans avoid adopting a fatalistic perspective on life — regardless of whether, of course, historical patterns do, in fact, repeat. In other words, generations of our human forebears have been consistently wrong about historical patterns not repeating in their lifetimes, but perhaps this very tendency to be wrong about these things is itself adapative, even if history does, in fact, cycle and repeat — ironically, in part because this “adaptive” perspective can prevent people from doing things in their own time to prevent the pattern from repeating itself.”

I think I agree with what you’re saying here. I’m not trying to argue that things are magically going to work out this time because the situation is different. I’m saying that things could feasibly work out another way if there was a concerted and organized effort to make them work out that way. If the situation continues as it is going currently – whereby feminists can wield tremendous political power even while the passive majority does not believe in their doctrine – then it seems inevitable our society will collapse.

I’m saying that perhaps there is a way to prevent this, if we intelligently employ counter strategies and utilize the powerful resources at our disposal – like the internet and other mass communication technologies – that our ancestors did not have. Is it a long shot? Maybe. Is it better than doing nothing and accepting our fate as is? I believe so. Then again, I do understand the perspective of those who would rather abandon America/the West for greener pastures. I’m not that sort – I’ve always been attracted to challenge and hardship, for some reason. Maybe I’m a masochist. :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Evolutionary Reader December 22, 2009 at 19:37

Download of scan (65.6MB) for “Sex and Culture” (Unwin)
- http://rapidshare.com/files/282672344/SexCulture.zip or

- http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W1HA6WED

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Evolutionary Reader December 22, 2009 at 19:38
Evolutionary Reader December 22, 2009 at 19:39

Femina Sapiens in the Nursery: The conflict between parenting and career is hardwired in the female brain: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_femina-sapiens.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 22, 2009 at 20:01

Thanks for the links, Evolutionary Reader. I may have to sift through some more and do a linkdump on Patriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MarkyMark December 22, 2009 at 20:47

It’s been said that the one thing we learn from history is that we DON’T learn from history…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet December 23, 2009 at 06:55

“It is obvious that as soon as woman are ‘liberated’ society falls because about the ONLY thing that a man is really willing to fight and die for with great dedication and commitment is his ‘wife and children’ be they today or ‘in the future’. With no ‘wife and children’ men tend to ‘goof off’ a lot more.”

I don’t agree with much of what Globalman writes—-but this strikes me as deeply true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
MNL December 23, 2009 at 11:32

Thank you, Evolutionary Reader, for the links. In addition, and if the Rapidshare expires or overloads for you, “Sex and Culture” can also be found via Bittorrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4341114/Sex_-_Sex_and_Culture_by_J._D._Unwin

Also, the “Femina Sapiens…” link above didn’t work for me but can also be found at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2403237/posts

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z December 27, 2009 at 17:30

Novaseeker,

You distilled it right down to its essence. That article precisely describes where we are. The parallels to ancient Babylon, Sparta, and Rome are unmistakeable. The only non-cultural way to change our present situation that I can think of would be artificial wombs, whereby men could bypass women to get to have children. Other than that, the culture will have to change (and some laws definitely need to change), or we will remain in a slow decline demographically.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian December 27, 2009 at 19:53

“It is obvious that as soon as woman are ‘liberated’ society falls because about the ONLY thing that a man is really willing to fight and die for with great dedication and commitment is his ‘wife and children’ be they today or ‘in the future’. With no ‘wife and children’ men tend to ‘goof off’ a lot more.”

Exactly. How does an “independent” career woman inspire men to acts of devotion and love? Why would men be willing to protect, fight, or die for “liberated” women? What does such a woman have to offer a man? It makes no sense, and goes completely against the male instinct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 27, 2009 at 20:14

Exactly. How does an “independent” career woman inspire men to acts of devotion and love? Why would men be willing to protect, fight, or die for “liberated” women? What does such a woman have to offer a man? It makes no sense, and goes completely against the male instinct.

Well said, sir.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
no 2 femlies February 15, 2010 at 17:43

Thousands of these men line up to die for these “independent, liberated women”; see, US Army.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epoche* February 15, 2010 at 18:16

Thousands of these men line up to die for these “independent, liberated women”; see, US Army.
__________________________
I would argue that many of these men are there for the money, not out of any sense of duty, honor or obligation. any man willing to die for this matriarchy is a fool in my opinion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 15, 2010 at 20:09

Having spoken recently to a lot of men recently who are thinking about or who are joining the military—the idea of saving women never even came up.

If anything, they may be trying to escape from a feminized world, and in some cases the women in it. It seems to be more about something they want to do for reasons of their own, than something they feel obligated to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sean MacCloud February 15, 2010 at 20:30

That return of patriarchy article at the link above (@Evolutionary Reader) has old false troots in it.

“agriculture began warfare” and the like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red0660 February 27, 2010 at 06:05

“It is obvious that as soon as woman are ‘liberated’ society falls because about the ONLY thing that a man is really willing to fight and die for with great dedication and commitment is his ‘wife and children’ be they today or ‘in the future’. With no ‘wife and children’ men tend to ‘goof off’ a lot more.”

Agreed, feminism teaches that men acquire territory and resources to oppress women but in actuality male incentive to produce is a selfless one…Without a family men are not motivated to produce…

It has been mentioned of the state of perpetual adolescence of our young men now a days… The movie failure to launch comes to mind but more specifically this video by Tom Lykis helps reveal the suspended male…one with no family…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvQDLNGGjeE

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red0660 February 27, 2010 at 15:32

Fascinating post Nova….Does anyone have any more books on the subject?

Did women in these civilizations control politics and law as well..

Our women have diverted the Stimulus Package to themselves though 80% of jobs lost have been to men and have created “women first” laws like Title IX and Affirmative Action to bar men from attending college though they now only constitute 40% of degrees. Now these laws are to be expanded to all science, technical, engineering and mathematics admissions…..

Did these civilizations give women this much power to MARRY THE STATE, to essentially provide and protect themselves until the system collapsed as well?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red0660 February 27, 2010 at 15:36

Were women able to call upon imperial guards to seize and imprison their husband on command as they do here? Did they pass laws such as the SAFE act so that they could get paid money and not work should they declare they were abused? What about alimony, were women able to banish men from the home and sentence them to the fate of “isolated resource producing male”? In my country, men don’t have ANY rights in marriage or child custody, they’ve all been taken away by women….Did women take away Men’s Rights in these cultures as well?

I also wonder about child custody in these civilizations..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
john thames January 25, 2011 at 10:50

FEMINISM IN ANCIENT SPARTA

Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta. It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women (relatively speaking) but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35%-40% of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being liberated to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90% drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
john thames January 25, 2011 at 10:53

Excellent article. There is another dimension of the problem, caused by the same tribe that caused the ancient Romans so much trouble.

THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND FEMINISM

As this writer has repeatedly emphasized in his essays, Communism was a front for Jewish revolution world-wide. The new ism of the world is feminism. Is this new ism another front for a Jewish attack on traditional gender roles? The evidence strongly suggests that this is the case. Way back on February 20, 1978 Time magazine gave the game away with an article Sexes: The Women of Israel. The article may seem dated but by 1978 the feminist movement was in full flower in America, if not in the Promised Land. According to English-Jewish journalist Lesley Hazleton in her book, Israeli Women, the liberation of Israeli women is a myth. They move in a male world of reality in the false guise of equals.

According to the Time article:

By Western standards, she reports, Israels attitude toward women is regressive. Women are not allowed to testify in rabbinical courts, which handle divorce and marriage for all Jews. They cannot divorce without a husbands permission, and childless widows need a brother-in-laws approval for remarriage, sometimes gaining it with bribes. If a woman has been widowed three times, with all three husbands dying of natural causes, she is declared the isha katlanit, the fatal woman, and is legally forbidden to marry again. If a husband simply disappears, no matter how long he has been missing; his wife cannot remarry without absolute proof of his death

In civilian employment, women are not much better off. Only a third of them work outside the home, mostly in lower paying jobs. Women account for only 9% of the higher-grade civil service positions, 2% of all professors, 1% of the nations engineersThough the law calls for equal pay for equal work, many women are paid less than men for similar tasks

In primary schools, she says, youngsters absorb a shocking degree of sex stereotyping that takes its toll on Israeli femalesIn the kibbutzim, men call the tune and fill almost all the important jobs.

The information given by Lesley Hazelton may be confirmed by other sources. For example, the Israeli academic Yael Yishai, in Between the Flag and the Banner: Women in Israeli Politics writes on p.187:

Religious courts discriminate against women in other ways as well. For example, a man may commit adultery and eventually marry his lover, while a married woman is forbidden ever to marry her lover, and any children born from an extramarital affair are considered bastards (mamzerim). In Judaism a bastard is a pariah. He or she cannot remarry unless the potential spouse is also a bastard. Neither can a bastard in Israel marry outside the faith as the exclusive control of marriage in Israel by the religious authorities precludes such a possibility. Another infringement on womens rights caused by religious law is the levirate marriage: a woman whose husband dies leaving her childless must be released from her deceased husbands unmarried brother in a ceremony carried out in rabbinical court. Often extortion payments may be involved before she gets her releaseWidows of war casualties, often childless young women, have occasionally been trapped in this bizarre situation.

Although feminism has made minor strides in Israel, the patriarchy is still very firm. Women are expected to ride in the back of the bus, only with great reluctance are women being admitted to the rabbinate. The Orthodox in particular are adamant that Torah and Talmud are for men only. Israel has no affirmative action to promote Arab girls over Jewish boys in the work place. That holy of holies, pro-choice abortion, is unknown in Israel. The Jewess must apply for permission to have an abortion to a State Board, which makes the choice for her. Such factors as the mothers ability to provide for the child financially are balanced against the states need for a higher Jewish birth rate.

One need not do much of a comparison to realize that Jews in Israel are repressing women the same way they are liberating them in America. That the feminist movement in the U.S. has been Jewish led from inception is indisputable. The early 1960s feminists were entirely Jewish. Betty Goldstein/Friedan, Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem were a few of the founders. The universities are full of Jewesses who are the driving force behind feminism. Such creatures as Adrienne Rich, the lesbian poetess at Stanford University, Elena Kagan, the former president of Harvard Law School gone to the Supreme Court, are good examples. Ninety per cent plus of feminist books are written by Jewess and published by New York Jewish publishers. Think of writers like Naomi Wolf, Erica Jong, Linda Ellerbee, Andrea Dworkin, Shulasmith Firestone and Hannah Rosin, the recent author of End of Men in the Atlantic Monthly. (One rather doubts that she foresees the End of Men in Israel, however.) Think of media commentators like Leslie Stahl and Barbara Walters. These feminists scream about the evils of white male domination in these United States. But Barbara Walters and her ilk remain silent on the subjection of women in Israel. They scream about the Taliban but make no mention of the Jewish sex slave trade and the brothels in Tel Aviv. They make no demand that the state of Israel register as a sex offender before the United Nations.

The founding mother of 1960s feminism, Betty Friedan, has a communist past as great as or greater than that of the civil rights saint, Martin Luther King, Jr. She wrote a play defending the now proven guilty Rosenbergs while in college. She worked as a newspaper editor for the chief communist union of the late 1940s/early 1950s, the United Electrical, Radio and Machinists Union. She was a member of the Communist Partys chief legal front for females, the Congress of American Women (COW). When a professor Daniel Horowitz interviewed Betty for his biography, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminist Mystique (University of Massachusetts Press), Friedan refused to provide all of her private papers for fear of the extent of the proof of her Communist background. This material still remains sealed from public scrutiny, just like the records of the FBI surveillance tapes of Martin Luther King remain similarly sealed.

The proof that feminism is a Jewish assault on white male patriarchy is overwhelming. The Jewish preponderance in the movement, the disparity between what Jews practice in Israel versus what Jews preach in these United States and the Communist background of feminisms Jewish Mother leave no doubt of the thesis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: