Dialog taken from the YouTube comments section of “Mormon Stories 1387: Breaking Down Patriarchy with Amy McPhie Allebest”
Me:
Every building was built by a majority of men, but every person was born of woman. And indeed, the vast majority were raised by women. Society itself was built by men who were raised by women. A patriarchy raised and influenced by the matriarchy, male centric because it was first female centric. So in a way, women create far more than men.
Responder:
That is quite the tapestry of virtue signaling.
Me:
how so?
Responder:
You sound like a little boy bringing the teacher an apple. Did you get your approval and pat on the head ? lol There is no point in a debate; you can''t decompile a thought process until it suffers the residuals. I'm just simply amused as an outsider, how deep the denial of 350 million years of the hierarchy of nature has become. The Universe will demand payment. It cares not how you feel, for your virtue, and is not based in egalitarianism.
Me:
I feel like you're just insulting me without putting forth a proper counter argument. I'm not denying any hierarchy of nature, if anything I am saying that the patriarchy is inherent in human society which is perpetuated by the women who live in it. Women are inherently more connected to children than men by virtue of the price they have to pay to reproduce children. Man cannot suffer what woman suffers. So while the woman is connected to the children, the man needs to do what makes him a man to support the woman and her children.
Now whatever payment I must pay to the universe, I will gladly pay it.
Responder:
You should be insulted by your own words.
Me:
Unless you can give me a proper counter argument, I really can't see why I should be insulted by my own words. Your inability to come up with a proper argument, apart from insults, only leaves me to believe that you have no proper counter argument, leaving you with only insults which mean nothing.
Responder:
I don't have time to write you a book on competence, discipline, leadership, responsibility, hierarchies, social organization to machiavellianism, the dynamics between the masculine and the feminine, blah blah etc etc. You clearly don't understand raising boys to be men, is not a dominate female role, nor do you understand the true nature of women. But run with it … at least it will make you "feel" good.
Me:
I'm not asking you to write a book, I'm asking you to clearly define your position in one sentence because I have no idea what it is.
I know raising boys has historically been the mother's job, but making boys into men is the father's job. But again even on this subject you are not entirely clear.
Responder:
As an example then, how has "raising boys been historically the mother's job ?" Infants ? Yes. Beyond that, I vehemently disagree.
Me:
Do you suggest that after a child has reached a toddler’s age, one stage after being an infant, then the boy should no longer be raised by the mother? By who then? Would you suppose that the boy no longer needs to be raised, is the father then to take the toddler and make him a man?
Responder:
Do you suggest parenting is a binary, either/or statement as to the role of "raising ?" Thats what you are implying. You only associate the term "raise," to the maternal.
Me:
My understanding is that parenting is indeed a binary. A joint effort between husband and wife. As indeed I believe gender in general to be a binary. Gender is a part of our eternal nature. By this I mean that both husband and wife bring something essential to the raising of children which the other lacks. They compliment each other. Historically speaking that is how it has always been. However, I equate the basic mode of raising to the maternal because women are inherently more attached to children than men. Women posses higher levels of oxytocin which allows them to form bonds easier and faster than men. As well as the fact that women suffer for children in giving birth, a way of suffering that a man never can experience. Man needed something which made him essential to woman so evolution gave him a stronger frame so he could do the heavy lifting and go to war to protect his home. Historically speaking, woman has always been the primary nurturer and man has always been the primary warrior. On many occasions, when rendered unable to perform their roles properly, men and women are obligated to help each other in these roles as best they know how.
Responder:
I would agree with your first part …. it does take both. It takes the masculine and the feminine. But boys specifically, have to have the "proverbial" breast pulled out of their mouth, in a metaphorical sense. Why ? Because the overwhelming trait of the feminine, is empathy. There are things a mother, cannot possibly teach to a boy as he gets older. It is the order of the masculine to instill discipline, honor, responsibility, competitiveness, logic, stoicism, risk-taking, leadership, competence etc. The "nurturer," cannot make a "warrior." That doesn't mean a mother does not help in this endeavor, but her biological programming is empathy, nurturing and conscientiousness. When that structure breaks down, dysfunction is created; and it exponentially creates even more dysfunction. I also disagree with your statement that men cannot possibly suffer as a woman does in childbirth. Patently false. Yea. Sorry. Women love to tell that story, and I do not discount the pain. But I would ask any woman if she prefer to give birth, or lose her arm in a drill rig coupler on an oil platform. I already know the answer.
"
Me:
Aw, now things are becoming clear. We are beyond simple insults to getting a better understanding of each other. We are more alike than originally thought.
In practice, you are right, a nurturer cannot teach a boy to be a warrior. The boy must be ripped from his mother's bosom and thrown out into the world on his own to toughen him up. That is why ancient cultures employed rites of passage. Something sorely lacking from today's culture. According to Carl Jung, a boy must be separated from his mother at the right moment. Not too early lest he becomes apathetic, not too late lest he becomes a man-child stuck in neverland. Men need to work hard to be men, whereas a woman becomes a woman much more naturally.
Now here is where we come to crossroads. If I understand you correctly, the pains of childbirth does not cause a mother to be more connected to the child than the father? Apart from just oxytocin levels, I think it is still so. You then bring up the hard work a man puts in for his family, oftentimes it means losing an arm or a leg to a drill rig coupler. It almost sounds like the age old argument, what hurts worse, giving birth or getting kicked in the balls? But I suggest that beyond the pain of childbirth, a woman also has to endure nine months of pregnancy in which the child is directly attached to her via an umbilical cord. The child is literally flesh of her flesh. The child comes from the egg of the mother which was fertilized by the father's sperm. So in a biological sense, children are indeed more connected to their mothers than their fathers. For this reason it is so hard for the mother to let go of her child. My own mother can't stand two days without me calling her. This is where the father comes in to separate the son from the mother to become a man on his own.
All of this ties perfectly back into my original quote. We were born into a matriarchy where our mothers were the dominant figure in our lives, they gave birth to us and we sucked from their breasts. But as we grew older we moved into a system of patriarchy where the father was the dominant figure in our lives. It is for this reason that those who lack proper father figures, those who lack a patriarchy, are more likely to commit suicide and do school shootings. For this very reason I said the patriarchy exists specifically because of the matriarchy.
Femininity is representative of chaos, as all things are born out of chaos. The male then comes in to represent order and organize preexisting chaotic matter. Just like how sperm organizes the chaos of an egg into a human fetus. Thus woman was put in charge of the beginning and man was put in charge of the ending. Things are male centric because they were first female centric.
Call that virtue signaling if you will, but it is virtue signaling with truth behind it.
Responder:
I would agree with much of what you stated in your previous two paragraphs, but "the patriarchy exists specifically because of the matriarchy" and "female centric" sound like something Gloria Steinem would write, or some feminist spiritual ethical agenda. Truth behind it ? There is conjecture behind it, with political expediency in a theory, that has a purpose. Your original statement is oblique to some of your following statements, especially in regard to boys. I believe you are spot for the most part in that regard, but it is not consistent with the narrative. Women that subscribe to this, don’t like to be told single women create weak men, or that they are usually an abject failure trying to teach boys or young men, masculinity. In fact, that word is literally poison now and is only coined in a negative context.
Roots of egalitarianism ?
Me:
In general, yes, it would be improper to tell a single mother that her boys will turn out as weak men. But this is why I will put emphasis on a father figure and not just a father. For while children turn out better with a present father as opposed to just a figure, the figure is still relevant to enact order. The more personal the father figure is then the better off young boys turn out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPieRkpEBM8&t=1s
I would like to think that these are the roots of egalitarianism, to say that we are born into a matriarchy only to be removed from it and enter into a patriarchy. I don't think that's what third-wave feminists are saying. They say that the matriarchy should erase the patriarchy. But the patriarchy is good and essential. I would venture to say I am on the side of Ayn Rand when she said that for a woman to be the president of the USA, i.e. a woman in a position of power over many men, would be miserable because women are naturally attracted to men in power. Women who devote themselves to a career over motherhood often turn out more angry and miserable as they enter their later years and become less and less fertile. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap
And equal rights for opportunity does not lead to equality in the workforce. As we see that the more egalitarian a community is, as it is in Scandinavian countries, the more there is a divide between the sexes concerning work preferences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
But the reason I give the matriarchy, attachment to our mothers, so much power is my attempt to reconcile the patriarchy with a basis on how we all came from a matriarchy. Even as I think about quotes such as this one by Abraham Lincoln, "All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother."
Comentarios