Friday, October 10, 2008

What I REALLY want to say...

There's a fun discussion going on over at Boundless

I don't agree with Driscoll, that its a MUST to have men be the providers (meaning no SAHD's whatsoever), though I don't think that's completely what he's arguing for. However, I think its a VERY big mistake to allow SAHD's to become the norm and not just the occassional exception.

#96 on was my first post...this is what I want to post, but decided against it. Let #96 speak for itself.

Oh...

More to go with #96...

There are a ton of modern conveniences that have been invented over the years.

We have the refrigerator, CD players, and computer chips...

I read somewhere not so long ago that communities that were led by women (matri-focal societies) were not technologically advanced like their patriarchal counterparts. The societies focused on the men being primary care-givers. Eventually, the societies would die out.

Did you know the vast majority of the technology created (its not that women aren't SMART enough to do this) would have been near impossible to do if relying on women to carry us forward to the future?

First of all, heavy machinery is not safe.

Second of all, radiation is a common hazard in the development of the vast majority of our technology.

Maybe its just THIS culture and THIS society that doesn't get this, but previous cultures and societies placed GREAT importance on protecting the children of that society - why? Because they were the ones that would make sure the civilization would continue growing. Children were taken more seriously as an investment...especially healthy ones - mainly because the death rate of infants was so high (probably as high as our pre-birth death rates...)

Everything would be done that was known to be done by all involved in the society to ensure that healthy, hardy children were produced - including protecting women capable of having and raising young children (while the man worked).

Its odd that our society is so willing to go backwards and completely reverse itself. Even jared in #95 is willing to let it reverse itself... let women work. When they stop, I'll step up and get a job. But until then, I'm staying home - cuz its damn hard getting a job with my skill set cuz I have to compete with so many women.


Seriously, there's a reason Madame Curie was one of the ONLY women to pioneer radiology...

Why do I feel a need to add to this?

First of all, I'm not saying men are incapable of raising children. I am, however, saying they are incapable of bearing and nursing children =p (I'm correct here, right? Or did I miss something in Biology class? The Pregnant "Man" notwithstanding...)

I AM saying that society would not be able to have made the kinds of technological progress (or intellectual progress) if women were solely in charge - because until VERY recently, progress included dangerous work not suitable to a pregnant, breastfeeding woman (I'm not talking about paper pushing and desk jobs). Which, if you're a woman (back then) and being pregnant about 12-14 times, maybe 3-4 miscarriages, 1 stillborn, and 2 early-infant deaths, you'd be out of commission for 3 months for each miscarriage (1 full year), 9 months for the still born and infant deaths each (27 more months) + 3 months for each early infant death (breast-feeding...) (30 months now?) and then 1 yr + 9 months for pregnancy and weaning for 7 kids...lets be generous and say she'd get pregnant about halfway through the first year...apprx 7 years on top of 3.5 years - THAT'S 10 YEARS OF STALE MATE IN WORK OUTPUT!!!

Oh...but wait...they could just NOT have kids...

Its a good think we have patriarchal societies...let me tell you...

Cuz of them, we have buildings, houses, roads, cars, electricity (in light bulbs), cd players, tv's, radios, microwaves, refrigerators...the list could go on and on and on...

4 comments:

Bhanu Prasad said...

Excellent Post.

I would show this to any woman who rants of male "privilege" or how men are "shirking" their share of contribution.

As they say, the greatest trick feminists ever pulled off was convincing the worlds that they were sane.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"The societies focused on the men being primary care-givers. Eventually, the societies would die out."

This is not quite true. In matriarchal / -focal societies, women make the rules as well as raise the children. The men orbit on the periphery of the family and do not have much influence. Usually this is accompanies by a loose attitude toward adultery.

As for SAHDs, I personally don't see what the big issue is once one gets beyond the actual biological parts of bearing and (maybe) nursing...although I suppose it's always possible to hire a wet nurse, so that consideration is not a big one.

You make some good points about inventions and that sort of stuff, and I think that you are on to something there. It's not that women are incapable of such stuff...for crying out loud you are a software engineer, so you can't be too close to the mean...but the high g that is required for stuff like that falls much more often on men than women*

Another note: due to maternal mortality even as recent at the early 1900s, single-dad widower families were much more common than they are today.

Lastly, I agree that patriarchy is a good thing. But the high standard of living isn't just as a result of inventions, IMHO. That is a side effect in my book. The real reason for a high standard of living is that patriarchy, first and foremost, invests men in society. It ties them to their children which they know are theirs and gives them a role to play. Their energies become invested in society and are not squandered or directed into crime.

Without patriarchy, men become shiftless, aimless, a drag on societal resources.

Patriarchy succeeds because society benefits from twice the resources being dedicated to moving the society along, not just women's energies alone.


* As a side note, the high g distribution for men means that there are way more high IQ men than women, just as there are way more low IQ men than women. Guess who the low IQ types become?

Christina said...

The men orbit on the periphery of the family and do not have much influence. Usually this is accompanies by a loose attitude toward adultery.

Ok :) Thanks for that correction.

although I suppose it's always possible to hire a wet nurse, so that consideration is not a big one.

For nursing, correct...but that costs money and not everyone has money. During the hierarchy period of Europe, manors and up were likely to have peasants at their disposal for wet-nursing...

You make some good points about inventions and that sort of stuff, and I think that you are on to something there.

Thanks :)

due to maternal mortality even as recent at the early 1900s, single-dad widower families were much more common than they are today.

Which only enforces my point...

Father widowers were forced to take on two roles in the family or provide other means of care for the 'young' children. No matter what, someone HAS to be making the money... which keeps father in his work that facilitates more progress done by more men. Nanny McPhee was a good example of this...

Patriarchy succeeds because society benefits from twice the resources being dedicated to moving the society along, not just women's energies alone.

I like that statement...

Guess who the low IQ types become?

I have no idea...

Wonder Woman said...

Guess who the low IQ types become?

I have no idea...

Crack addicts?

LOL Tell us, we're dying over here!