Ironically, the wanton destruction of the Western nuclear family by feminist culture-warriors will inevitably bring some different form of marriage, because without some cooperation in child-rearing our population will simply die out and be replaced. Prime candidates include the Muslim paradigm, as in Afghanistan, or The Law of the Jungle, as in the Congo. Either way women are big trouble. East Asian style patriarchy is out, because it is proving to be just as susceptible to the ravages of Western family law as Western families.
25 comments
As a successful, middle-class, agnostic, liberal, single mother with no financial support except my own, whose daughter is graduating with honors and ranked number 7 in her class of 400 and has been accepted to university, DIAF. But first, go fuck yourself with a cactus.
@anothga It means the standard 50's conservative family. One god-fearing dad to do the work, one mom to stay at home in the kitchen, one kid to get good grades and go "gee wiz this is swell", one baby to be cutesy, and one dog to keep the kid happy and drive away anyone black or gay. Look up Leave It To Beaver sometime.
OT: You know why patriarchy is crumbling worldwide? Because it's a bad idea! One of the reasons Japans birth rate is so low is because women don't want to have to stick to all the bullshit rules they've been forced to for centuries!
You know, my wife and I view our marriage as a partnership, and it works out pretty damn well. Well enough to last 14 years so far and provide a warm, healthy environment for our two kids with rarely an argument between my wife and I.
I'm guessing that our marriage is working out far better than most fundamentalist conservative "men are head of the household" marriages that people like WTF Price think are best.
@Gearheadmk2
I wouldn't say patriarchy is an absolute evil. It did have its merits in early agrarian states, enough to warrant their survivals.
But applied to today's world, I agree 100% with you : it is completely obsolete. In our competitive world, we need the best workers at the place they'll be the most productive, whatever their gender(or ethnicity, or age, or religious beliefs, or whatever, as long as they do the job). Patriarchy prevents this, and is therefore a great handicap in this XXIst century.
Waste container!
Tharrgh be racism, matey!
How about a new standard of family, one that is neither of those standards, and that embraces equality? Wouldn't that just be great?
Unfortunately, you'd mess it up because "Waah! I want women to be my sex slaves and be in charge of Kinder, Kuche, Kirche!"
'Nuclear Family'? So last century, I'm afraid. [/Chernobyl]
As I'm all for progress , how about the Fusion Family? [/Joint European Torus] Or even the Antimatter Family? [/Large Hadron Collider]
[/hyper-smartarse] X3
If you're mourning the loss of the days when women could stay at home with their young children instead of competing with you in the workplace, the first place to lay the blame would be "conservative values" and your beloved Ronald Reagan, whose war on the middle and lower classes ended those days forever for most families.
Meanwhile, back in the 1930's....
Ironically, the wanton destruction of the Western Victorian family by feminist culture-warriors will inevitably bring some different form of marriage, because without some cooperation in child-rearing our population will simply die out and be replaced. Prime candidates include the Muslim paradigm, as in Afghanistan, or The Law of the Jungle, as in the Congo. Either way women are big trouble. East Asian style patriarchy is out, because it is proving to be just as susceptible to the ravages of Western family law as Western families.
You know, the weird thing about this thing is how the idea of the women just being a mother and not working was something that was impossible for any but the very rich for most of history... it sure as all hell didn't exist at all just 200 years ago.
I guess we all died out then... so where the fuck did we come from?!?
The nuclear family was created by economic pressure, and is being altered as much by economic pressure as by anything else. I guess when we all lived on farms or in little villages, we were more likely to live with seniors, siblings, and various other relatives.
@Mike Litoris: I don't see anything in the OP's comment that suggest's he's gay. And if he were, why would that be worthy of comment?
"women just being a mother and not working was something that was impossible for any but the very rich for most of history... it sure as all hell didn't exist at all just 200 years ago."
The problem with people like Price is they believe that the Leave It To Beaver style family has been the norm since..well, forever.
An example of the fundie tendency to think "Until [more or less specified amount of time ago] humanity had a perfect world, based on what we regard as 'traditional values' where none suffered, where everyone was happy! And then modernity came along and ruined everything!"
Prime candidates include the Muslim paradigm, as in Afghanistan, or The Law of the Jungle, as in the Congo.
Both being third-world hellholes in civil war.
East Asian style patriarchy is out, because it was too oppressive relative to Western families.
FIFY.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
