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 labour 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 honour.
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 labour, 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 honour 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 honour 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
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 wouldbe fellow travellers 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 honour 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.
3.83 Re-creating the traditional patriarchal social structures
When we, the cultural conservatives, seize political and military control of Western
European countries within 20-70 years we will re-establish the patriarchal structures by
partly deconstructing certain matriarchal fundaments. Doing so will ensure the survival of
the nuclear family among many other factors. This should not be done by excessive
regulation through banning women from attaining positions of influence (with the
exception of areas relating to immigration, security and certain other segments). The
Marxist ideologists of the Frankfurt school understood that the power of the patriarchy
lies within the nuclear family. To illustrate this, look at Japanese and South Korean
policies. They do not have any laws directly banning women from attaining positions of
influence (becoming prime minister or president of a corporation). Yet they are
traditional, patriarchal and very successful societies. Obviously, the Marxists did not
succeed in Japan and South Korea as they did in Western Europe and the US. The
Marxists knew that in order to deconstruct the patriarchy they had to undermine and de-
legitimise the structure of the nuclear family. To a Marxist, the nuclear family is nothing
more than a miniature model of an oppressive state. By implementing measures which
will secure and strengthen the relevancy of the of the nuclear family we will ensure
considerable and far reaching results and it will be unnecessary to directly ban popular
feminist doctrines. As soon as women once again will be conditioned through just
institutions and are raised in a strong and unified nuclear family lead by a confident
patriarch she will know her place in society and further regulations will be unnecessary.
Directly banning a multitude of popular feminist laws is not a wise approach as it would
be labeled as despotic and would undermine us in the long run. Instead, we must change
A FEW strategic laws which will act as indirect force multipliers. The single most
important regulation we have to change is the law that guarantees that the father will
always get the custody of the child. It is the most essential law which will act like a
positive domino effect. Law number two must be the regulation that criminalises physical
disciplinarian methods. This will ensure order within the family and within our schools.
Obviously, physical punishment will not be glorified and must only be used under
extreme circumstances. However, the essential thing is that it will no longer be
considered a criminal offence. The third law will be the abolishment of a regulation
related to marriage. The law which facilitates the so called “no fault marriages”. There
might be other essential and strategic laws we will have to change but we should limit it
to a minimum.
Fathers should be favored (prerogative rights) when child custody cases are
decided in courts (ROUGH DRAFT)
The new laws will assume a powerful role in defining status, rights and appropriate
behaviour. A fundamental revision of the married woman’s place in the legal order lay at
the center of the laws branches, domestic relations. Post-cultural Marxist (feminist)
changes in family life which was changed from a patriarchal manner to a matriarchal
model in the 1970s will be reversed in order to combat an excessive feminisation of
family structure and males in particular. The goal is to re-introduce the father as the
authority figure and family head and will therefore strengthen the nuclear family. It is
estimated that these changes will result in a decline of the divorce rate/broken families
by approximately 50%. Furthermore, the father can without fear of being punished by
the law, reassert an authority role in the family. Physical disciplinary methods will once
again be a factor in the upbringing of children.
Post-cultural Marxist changes in family life, ones which cultural Marxist/feminist
historians label as “modern” have proven to have a devastating impact on the nuclear
family. These changes have contributed to the institutionalising of and implementing
deliberate “broken family policies”. Influenced by the society’s growing glorification of
single parent upbringing and female domestic supremacy, judges granted women
supreme legal powers in family affairs. In the 70s bourgeois women mounted a campaign
to attach superior legal rights to motherhood and thereby exterminated traditional
Changing these laws will reverse the destructive effects due the last four decades of
feminisation. Divorce rates will be reduced by approximately 50% which will also
contribute to reverse excessive self-centeredness (and lifestyles related to such
behaviour). Men’s domestic rights will be considerably strengthened.
Fathers will regain the domestic courage to teach their children discipline, moral codes
and traditional codex’s without the fear of persecution or discrimination from the mother
or the cultural Marxist regime.
A more moderate suggestion would include giving the fathers equal rights to the children
relating to custody decisions.
Grandparents should play a central role in their grandchildren’s life (ROUGH
Grandparents should have a central part in their grandchildren’s life, and this newly re-
introduces “civilisation change” should be reflected in government policies and how the
medias glorifies it.
Lifestyles that propagate that sons and daughters move out and establish an independent
life completely separated from their parents should no longer be glorified by the media.
Instead, lifestyles glorifying the nuclear family should be propagated.
Re-introduction of the generational home, large homes with enough room for the children
to raise the grandchildren in an environment where the grandparents play an essential
This social structure has several benefits:
Many single people live in small flats or in segments of apartments. Many are lonely and
some commit suicide. Others refrain from establishing a family of their own because they
know it involves significant burdens. This however, would not be the case if we followed
the traditional family model (social structure) where generational home and the nuclear
family are glorified by the media. The grandparents should play an essential part in their
children’s life. This will have positive social and economical effects for the society (costs
for kinder garden and nursery homes will be substantially reduced and there will be
significantly less suicides as a result of loneliness).
Physical disciplinary methods (ROUGH DRAFT)
More discipline at home, and school. This includes allowing physical disciplinary methods
in extreme cases where this is needed (It is always needed as a last option). Because it
is essential that children show the proper respect for the adult and know that the adult
has the required “sanction methods/tools” in their arsenal without the fear of being
persecuted by the state. A society (school institutions especially) cannot function
properly without the right to allow physical disciplinary methods in extreme cases.
Family & Society - The Traditional Family is Disappearing (ROUGH DRAFT)
Area of Study: Social Theory, Social Structure and Change
The traditional British family structure is in decay and is facing extinction. Liberal
permissiveness has wrecked havoc with our society and the results are there for all to
The recently published Social Trends report states that single parent households have
nearly tripled from 4% in 1971 to 11% in 2008. The percentage of traditional nuclear
family households had fallen by 52% to 36% over the same period and women are more
likely to give birth by the time they are 25 than get married.
Since the early 1970s there has been a decline in marriage, and a marked rise in the
numbers of lone parent families.
The ongoing rise in family breakdown affecting young children has been driven by the
dissolution of cohabiting partnerships. The majority of these are less stable than marriage
(European data shows that by a child’s fifth birthday less than 1 in 12 (8%) married
parents have split up compared to almost 1 in 2 (43%) cohabiting parents).
The intergenerational transmission of family breakdown and its associated disadvantages is
seen in the way children who have been neglected or un-nurtured are highly likely to go on
to create dysfunctional families subject to further breakdown. Similarly there is an
overrepresentation in teen pregnancy statistics of girls from fatherless and broken homes.
Crime is strongly correlated with family breakdown - 70% of young offenders are from lone
parent families and one third of prisoners were in local authority care (yet only 0.6% of the
nation’s children are in care at any one time).
Costs of family breakdown to the exchequer are estimated to be well over £20bn per
annum in Britain alone.
By Edna McNicholas (Note: Edna McNicholas wrote this essay using a cultural Marxist/PC
Family forms are shaped by the attitudes toward gender roles in a given society which, in
turn, are influenced by the demographic, social, economic, and political realities of the
time. The traditional family, idealised during the Victorian era and reestablished in the
1950s, is identified as a unit consisting of a married couple with two or more children
where the breadwinning father goes out to work while the mother stays home to keep
house and care for the children and her husband. This profile of the family, which
reflected and was supported by the prevailing attitudes and realities of a particular period
which no longer exists, continues to be lauded, endorsed, and longed for by right wing
politicians and religious groups.(1) However, due to the major socio-cultural changes of
the past three decades, a variety of family forms has emerged and now the traditional
family accounts for "only 5 percent of American households."
The Way We Were
After the second world war, government propaganda was combined with effective
advertising, and supported by Freudian psychology, to restore the traditional family as
the societal norm where women were assigned the identity of wives and mothers, with
increased emphasis on gender difference, and men assumed the role of breadwinners
and strong, male heads of families. In this traditional family, specific male and female
gender roles are instilled in the children from the outset. Males learn to be assertive,
aggressive, and dominant while females learn to be docile, gentle, and passive. They
learn that men are expected to be tough, courageous, and rational while women are
expected to be tender, timid, and emotional. They learn that men are the power holders
while women are expected to be submissive, that men make the decisions while women
are expected to comply. In other words, the traditional game which is called gender-role
socialisation is really a very clever way of ensuring that women learn that their place in
the scheme of life is to be dependent on and subservient to men where they are denied
direct access to economic opportunity and control of their own sexuality. However, such
gender-role socialisation also takes its toll on men's physical and mental health because
it necessitates repression of their feelings and denial of their needs. It seems that
traditional gender-role socialisation "limits the options and opportunities open to males as
well as females" and can prevent both from achieving their full human potential.
Black American families were not confined by such gender-role socialisation because the
segregation laws that operated to keep black men out of the labour force thrust black
women into the role of breadwinners for their families and thus contributed to more
equitable gender roles in black households. Black parents instill both instrumental and
expressive behaviours in their sons and daughters from an early age because they
learned from their own experience that "black men and black women had to develop
together strength, perseverance, and resiliency in order to survive."
In the 1960s, family life began to change when the student movement led the revolt
against sexual repression, social injustice, the Vietnam war, and racial discrimination.
This was the decade when the baby-boomers came of age and changed societal norms
irrevocably. This was the decade when the civil rights movement challenged the
discriminatory laws and practices of white supremacy, and equality of opportunity
became the right of black Americans. This was the decade when the second wave of
feminism emerged and gave birth to the women's movement, a movement that has had
the most lasting and profound effect on both public and private life in America. In short,
this was the decade when children, women, and men challenged the patriarchal,
authoritarian structures of family, society, and government and demanded equal rights
for all, regardless of gender, colour, or race. In my discussion, I will focus on changes in
gender roles in relation to economic opportunity and sexuality, and how these changes
contribute to the autonomy versus intimacy struggles in human relationships.
Changes in Gender Roles
In the traditional family, men were socialised to develop instrumental behaviours and
women were socialised to develop expressive behaviours. This insured that, while men
had direct access to economic opportunity and independence, women were always
dependent on their husbands for social and economic rewards. As access to economic
opportunity is a source of power and prestige in all societies, it follows that women
lacked this power and prestige because of their confinement to the domestic sphere. In
order for women to achieve equality of status with men, it was imperative that they
participate in paid employment in the public sphere and that they have some degree of
With this emphasis on changing their role, unprecedented numbers of women have not
only joined the labour force since 1960 but have also become highly educated and have
won the right to compete with men in all areas of professional, business, and public life.
However, even though women have achieved equality of status through education,
occupation, and income, a corresponding change in men's roles has been slow to
develop. While men have supported the changing role of women, at least in areas in
which it benefits them, many have allowed their wives to continue to take full
responsibility for the domestic sphere in addition to their sharing in the breadwinning role
and have failed to see that "to be effective, change must move in two directions: men
must share in domestic and childrearing tasks even as women share in the world of
Prior to the 1960s, abstinence from premarital sex was considered the official standard
for men and women. However, the double standard, which holds that sexual intercourse
before marriage is permissible for males but not for females, was widely practiced. In the
1960s, young people rejected the double standard and set more egalitarian standards:
permissiveness with affection, and permissiveness without affection. Permissiveness with
affection allows premarital sex between males and females when love is present;
permissiveness without affection sanctions premarital sex for fun between a man and a
woman in a casual relationship. As men engaged in such behaviour down through the
decades, the greatest changes in premarital sexual norms have been changes in female
Changes in sexual behaviours are influenced by the social realities of the time and in the
1960s the United States was not only becoming a postindustrial society but was also
engaged in a major war with Vietnam. Society was in a state of turmoil and young people
especially were questioning its values and its morals. The upsurge in premarital sexual
permissiveness during this period is viewed as the "desire for autonomy, for control over
one's own sexual destiny." Women wanted the right to control their own lives and what
better time to stake their claim on their autonomy than at the beginning of a new era.
While the goal of feminism is the achievement of equality of standards in attitudes and
behaviours for both men and women, feminists did not necessarily envisage an increase
in sexual permissiveness. However, the findings from sociological research carried out
during the 1970s among female and male teenagers indicate that they were much more
sexually active at the end of the decade than they were at the beginning. Studies
undertaken among college students point to a similar pattern, especially among women.
Not only has the sexual behaviours of teenagers and young adults changed during this
period, their attitudes toward the morality of this behaviour has also changed
considerably. Between 1969 and 1985, the number of young adults who do not believe
that premarital sex is wrong increased by almost 35 percent.
An increase in premarital pregnancies is the most likely outcome of an increase in
premarital sexual activity, unless couples are using reliable forms of contraception. The
responsibility for the use of contraception usually falls to the woman because she is the
one who is most likely to have to deal with the costs and rewards related to both
contraception and pregnancy. The decision to use contraception is influenced by a
woman's attitude toward her own sexuality, gender roles, and her sense of autonomy as
well as her relationship and communication with her partner. Women holding egalitarian
attitudes toward gender roles who choose to become sexually active with their partners
for their own pleasure and expressive needs, also choose to protect themselves from
unwanted pregnancies by using reliable forms of contraception. Young adolescent
women, molded in the traditional gender-role pattern, may become sexually active at an
early age in order to boost their self-esteem and are unlikely to take contraceptive
With increasing emphasis on egalitarian gender-role conditioning, many men are moving
away from the stereotypical sexual aggressor attitudes of the traditional male when
women were considered the subordinate, sexual conquests, and are looking for the
expressive qualities of mutual love and caring in their sexual relationships. Similarly,
women look for equality in their sexual relationships where they are active participants
rather than passive objects. "The popularity of the permissiveness-with-affection
standard may indicate some convergence in the perspectives of considerable numbers of
women and men who want something more than casual sex."
Traditionally, a man and a woman became involved in a steady dating relationship as a
preparation for marriage. Men looked for partners whose physical appearance would
enhance their image, and women looked for partners whose achievements, financially
and socially, would provide security and social status. These choices reflected the self-
identity of both parties: women saw themselves in terms of their physical attributes with
their future role revolving around the needs and desires of their husbands; men saw
themselves in terms of their accomplishments and career prospects, with an additional
future role as breadwinner and head of his family.
In the past three decades, all of this has changed as feminist- minded women emphasise
their own instrumental as well as expressive qualities, and look for more expressive and
intellectual qualities in the men they choose for long-term relationships. Men who are
open to more egalitarian gender roles focus less on physical qualities and more on the
expressive and intellectual qualities of women. Women's sense of autonomy is also
evident in their tendency "to initiate dates and to share date expenses." (20) Feminist-
minded women no longer wait to be chosen, they choose for themselves the men they
want to be with in exclusive relationships.
Marriage is not necessarily the goal of long-term relationships in today's world.
"Individuals are expected to be deeply committed to the current serious relationship in
an exclusive dating partnership, a living-together arrangement, or a socially recognised
marriage." When couples decide to marry, they do so in the belief that it will provide the
rewards and satisfactions they seek in terms of both instrumental and expressive
Autonomy versus Intimacy
In traditional relationships, men had autonomy and authority while women had neither.
Women were expected to be submissive and subservient, without the right to their own
opinions, feelings or needs. In modern relationships based on equality of gender roles,
female and male autonomy are of equal importance, and intimacy, the mutual sharing of
the being of each partner, is of vital importance to the continual development and
deepening of mutual trust and love. According to Scarf, each partner not only brings
herself or himself to the relationship but also the influences of known and unknown
family backgrounds which have a profound bearing on the struggle between autonomy
and intimacy in the relationship.
Each person in a relationship needs space to be a person in his/her own right, to pursue
independent goals which meet his/her independent needs. Each one also has intimacy
needs, the need to set aside time for the sharing of oneself in love and closeness with the
other. However, despite the modern emphasis on equality of gender roles, both men and
women are still influenced by the traditional gender-role conditioning which demanded
that women be the love- and caregivers to their highly-sexed, emotionless husbands and
that men be the strong, male providers for their fragile, emotional wives. Women feel
guilty about having autonomous needs and feel they should be always available to
provide the love and the closeness in the relationship, while men feel they should be
strong and independent and cannot admit to their need for love and closeness. For both
men and women, the struggle is also in the questions: how much they can give of each
other to each other in intimacy without losing their autonomy, without being absorbed
into the identity of the other; and, how can they "be intimate without exposing yourself
to the terrible possibility of rejection and abandonment?"
Today, the struggle between autonomy and intimacy is part and parcel of the deepening
and development of mature, loving relationships.
Also, see the full report; Breakthrough Britain:
Solutions: The Japanese model, the South Korean model
3.84 Knights Templar and ethnocentrism
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested