In a recent opinion article, Phillip Longman bemoans the lack of life fostered between liberals.
Conservatives are breeding like crazy which accounts for the historical rise of Bush hegemony and even apparently forgotten patriarchal values. He cites Utah as the conservative example and gay loving Vermont as the liberal signifier of childlessness.
Do you think the army is bad and feel an overwhelming urge to protest their killing ways?
Do you believe that “soft” drugs aren’t that bad?
Are you of the mindset that being gay isn’t a one way ticket to the pits of hell?
Then you are probably going to have a dog instead of shuffling the kids to soccer practice 3 days a week.
Looks like my womb will be barren.
This must be due to the fact that the generation before me fostered ideas such as feminism and civil rights which will leave “no genetic legacy”.
These opinions are adapted from the full article entitled, The Return of Patriarchy. Longman (a strong patriarchal name) harbors such ideas such as:
“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.”
Patriarchy is set to make a comeback? How obnoxious!
Longman continues his patriarchy is good for the evolution of mankind rant:
“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.” (emphasis added)
There’s more …
“Another key to patriarchy’s evolutionary advantage is the way it penalizes women who do not marry and have children.”
Longman’s tongue-in-cheek endorsement for patriarchy:
“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.”
Again – patriarchy was on the decline? Last time I checked the news, the society I live in hasn’t fostered the advancement of women in quite some time. Ask me where I can fill out my prescription for EC. Or is this the first in a series of effective strategies of the state to increase U.S. world domination?
“Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not.”
May advanced societies everywhere heed this warning. The alarm has been sounded. We can no longer advocate for women to have equality for fear of a barren planet.
Don’t worry – it’s the conservatives that advocate for abstinence only.