3.03.2006

Patriarchy is evolutionary?

Conservatives inherit the earth?

Well, well, pets, somethin' is astir---that'd be the liberals. Ya'll better getcha' stogies lit--this here ain't for sissies.

Seems a demographer says it won't be the "meek" who inherit the earth, but the last group standing--and that' d be the folks living according to traditional values--or "conservatives" as some say. (Guess it'd be tradition they's trying to conserve?)

Joe-Bob's sister-in-law was here for a spell, jes' passin' through. But tidying up after her I found one her high brow magazines--she doan read Oprah or Comsoflirt.

NO, this here was Foreign Policy. The fellow, Philip Longman, was insisting in his article "Return of the Patriarchy" that there's a heap o' difference in fertility rates betwixt "secular individualists" and religious folk. Claims big ole' whale of a change is a comin' due to demographics (Ya'll ever hear of that fizzled balloon, Paul Erlich? That was the first time I heard of "demographics".)

Seems this leftist Longman fella (New America Foundation, Daily Kos devotee) was studying polling data from Europe, and he found out "how many children different people have, and under what circumstances, correlates strongly with their beliefs on a wide range of political and cultural attitudes." He thought he'd best get the info out to his brethren.

And so he found out that Europeans who "distrust the army," but who live for their "soft drugs, homosexuality, and euthanasia," but "seldom, if ever, attend church . . . are far more likely to live alone, or in childless, cohabitating unions," than those others--that most suspicious thang, a "conservative."
( 'Course I could'a told him that--doesn't ever'body KNOW it??)

So this fella and his buddies is all in angst over the numbers. They's a chewin' the insides o' they cheeks. He worries that leftist childlessness is common, but those right-wingers is jes' a spawning right on, as if there will be a tomorrow and the world won't be blown to smithereens.

This is scaring the piddle outa' the New America jeans. They even think generation 2020 "will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society." (But I doan understan' why he's worried so...I mean, if the world is gonna get nuked, ain't it better not to have children? And iffin' the world is gonna be nuked, why do he care how many babies the Red States have--won't the nukes nuke red babies as well a Blue State blue-hairs?)

Longman's article explains why "patriarchal" families have historically been important for the survival of the species, even though he and his fellas doan like it. "No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it," he said.

Well, why doan he jes' ask Algore to invent it?

Now this heah is frightening talk for some folks. Longman thinks that those ole' patriarchs insure "customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation. Of these, among the most important is the stigmatization of 'illegitimate' children. One measure of the degree to which patriarchy has diminished in advanced societies is the growing acceptance of out-of-wedlock births, which have now become the norm in Scandinavian countries, for example."

How unenlightened.

One interesting point that he is at some pains to make, is that he means Western Patriarchy--not the Taliban sort with stoning wimmin' an' such. That Muslim brand of manhood is nothin' but "examples of insecure societies that have degeneated into male tyrannies" and they doan "represent the form of patriarchy that has achieved evolutionary advantage in human history."

Well, pets, I tell ya' this is bustin' ole Aunty Belle's brain a bit...tryin' ter follow what all this "evolutionary advantage" means....but mebbe it ain't all bad...mebbe the answer is to make love not war! Heard that somewhere's.

Yeah, that's it...make the sorta love that makes babies and then mebbe the world will go on in spite of over thinking the thang. When you gots a passle a babies, mebbe you try harder to make the world keep on turning...could that be it?

Mercy, iffin' I'd know'd these tough topics was a commin' to the back poa-rch, I might not have given up the sherry for Lent. Dang.

One thang fer shure, Joe-Bob's sitster-in-law done ruined me for Martha Stewart Living.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on sister!

Reverend X said...

Hi ya Auntie,
That is a bleak future depicted. Of course, that ole boy forgot the most important thing about Men and their children. The Children tend to rebel and become the antithesis of their parents. So Hallelujah! Let the Right wing pump em out like rabbits, just makes for a more progressive future. Oh, and recalcitrance and failure to adapt have never been dominant traits in any species that has ever flourished. Evolution without adaptation is impossible. So don't worry, there is still hope.

One more thing I've been meaning to chat with you about. A bit back you mentioned to me about it not being the governments job to allay my suspicions or anyone else's about events. In practice you are correct, but you see, that is precisely what is wrong with our society nowadays. We have a representational government with absolutely no concern for the will of the people it has sworn to represent. It failed so slowly that I doubt you noticed it's betrayal of us or its programming of you to go along with it. Deep down you were conditioned to not see them as directly accountable to us. They should be concerned with allaying public suspicion. Remember, they are in their positions to represent us and defend the Constitution. Not the other way around.
-X
Check this out

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Rever'nd! Where you been?

you say,
"That is a bleak future depicted."

No sir, doan worry so much,jes' remember that there will be folks--it'll jes' be family folks, is all. Its the liberal elites thas a dying off--

Rev said,
" Of course, that ole boy forgot the most important thing about Men and their children. The Children tend to rebel and become the antithesis of their parents. So Hallelujah! Let the Right wing pump em out like rabbits, just makes for a more progressive future."

Heh, heh, Rev, I ought a have KNOWED you'd think of that. I was jes' busy trying to get the post up I left out that part. You see, that author, Mr. New America Longman, he made mention of that very same angle--you been talkin' to him? Anyhow, he ain't as cheery as you 'bout the thang. Course, he doan like patriarchy, ya' see. Here's what he said:

"This cycle [patriarchy]in human history may be obnoxious to the enlightened, but it is set to make a comeback."

He is all balled up in angst over it. His take was that in rebellious 60s, ALL folks was havin' babies-
--the libs and the trads, an at about the same rate. Now that ain't the status, with libs havin' one or none. So,

"The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation' (as their parents had done).

Instead, says Longman, we are starting to resemble ancient Greece at the stage where it began to falter:

" Like today's modern, well-fed nations, both ancient Greece and Rome eventually found that their elites had lost interest in the often dreary chores of family life. 'In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children
and a general decay of population,' lamented the Greek historian Polybius around 140 B.C...." and it 'grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life.' "

My my Rev, that's an mighty heavy contemplation even for the Back Porch, so in case you wanna see fer yeself, check it out:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/
cms.php?story_id=3376&page=2

Hellpig said...

The only way the West can be saved

It is among the evils, and perhaps is not the smallest, of democratical governments, that the people must feel, before they will see. When this happens, they are roused to action—hence it is that this form of government is so slow.—George Washington to Henry Knox, 8 March 1787.

The wages of sin is death, and the wages of long-standing indifference to the informing genius of a culture is—not just the death of the culture, but the pain and fright that attend death.—L. Brent Bozell, Mustard Seeds

I keep saying that the West must endure much more suffering and horror, many more surrenders and losses, before it will abandon its liberalism and start to defend itself from Islam—if it ever does. But no matter how many times I’ve said this, I realize I haven’t yet got to the core of the problem.
We must focus our attention on the fact that the key to this unfolding disaster is LIBERALISM. I am not speaking of liberalism in the classical sense, as constraints on the power of government, as free speech and free inquiry, as a single rule of law for all citizens, as individual rights. Nor I am not speaking of liberalism in the New Deal sense, as the use of government to correct imbalances in the economy. I am speaking of liberalism in its pure, modern sense, the sense in which it is most authoritative and active for us today—liberalism as non-discrimination, liberalism as non-judgmentalism, liberalism as the belief that individual rights and individual freedoms constitute the defining content of our society, the principle that rules all other principles. All of which comes down to the belief—for us, a sacred belief—that we must not define ourselves as a group, a collective whole, and therefore must not define any other group as fundamentally different from our group.

This is the belief that led the West to admit millions of unassimilable, hostile, and dangerous aliens into the West, and this is the belief that even now makes it impossible for Westerners to think critical thoughts about Islam as such, let alone to take effective action, or even imagine taking effective action, against it. In April 2001 I wrote an article called “America No Longer Exists,” by which I meant that America no longer sees itself as a nation, culture, and people, and therefore is unable to respond to obvious threats to itself as a nation, culture, and people. The same state of spiritual non-existence is much further advanced in Europe, especially Britain. Liberalism, by taking over the minds and hearts and souls of the Western peoples, has literally dissolved them as peoples. Having done so, it is now leading them to their political and civilizational destruction as well .

Now, what can turn this hideous situation around? There is only one thing that can do it: Westerners must feel the horror that liberalism has wrought. When they see their societies progressively taken over by Muslims, when they see Muslim sharia being implanted and enforced in more and more parts of their country, when they see Islam being taught in their children’s schools and promulgated in the mass media, when they see Muslim imams in the councils of state, when they hear the Muslims’ increasingly strident demands for every more Islamization, when they see Muslim razzias (a.k.a. riots and “random” murders) grow in intensity and audacity, when they see the government paralyzed even in the face of the most palpable crimes and threats, and when, most importantly, they feel the horror and despair and pain and humiliation of all this, and when, finally, they see that this situation was brought about by and is sustained by LIBERALISM, by the liberal belief that the acceptance of alien cultures is the highest virtue of society, then, only at that point, they will see that LIBERALISM, which they had imagined to be the fairest good, is the darkest and most disgusting evil, the smiling destroyer that has seduced them to their ruin. Then, and only then, will they be ready to repent of their liberalism and start defending themselves and their civilization.

Aunty Belle said...

Hail-pig,
your know lots o' folks don't even know that pigs is smart! I mean,seriously, science tells us that pigs is among the smartest of mammals.

Ole' Aunty here would add one thang more to your insight: All cultures are not equal. Now that's upsets some, who want to believe, "I'm OK, you're OK." But that jes' aint right, objectively speakin'. We gotta face some realities, and that is that everyone does NOT make a good basketball player, or doctor, or anything else. If you want to have a winning (surviving) team, you better find players that can run, jump and hit the basket and remember the rules.

Societies is in the smae bucket, they gotta do the same- find those of talent and let them get on with it (within the rules). You put on players who want to change the rules, the game/team folds.

If the West is to survive it will have to decide it IS better than other cultures in terms of how we want to live (in freedom, high standard of living), and that we are right to be proud, and to defend ourselves.

Now I know that offends some hearts, but live long enough, and you'll see how I mean that--all FOLKS is due equal respect until they make personal choices that forfeit that respect, but all CULTURES are not due respect because the culture is not worthy of being immitated, only eliminated. Aztecs were murderous. Cannibals as well, many died as result of canniblaism, more died from human sacrifice---this is not a culture we would want to admire.

Nothin' wrong with acknowledging that democracy ain't perfect, but it the least worst system we got on this here spinning ball.

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

well well
Aunty Belle
poark rinds on the poarch? do tell!
conserves gonna inherit the earth?
thanks to the liberal baby dearth!
piddle? is that a hot golden pilar riddle?
yeah, its flowing freely auntybellum
but what i think is you just caint tellum!

/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Aunty Belle said...

K-9!! Well well.
welcome back

We missed ya', you ole' Rapppin' Rotweiler.

Hound dawgs is one thing, hounds of Reconquista is another--I seen ya' postcard to Freya! We'uns glad you are home.

eyesallaround said...

Hi Aunty B,

Hope I didn't scare off any of your regulars with my "preachy" rhetoric:>)

I think the difference here is conservatives tend to produce more conservatives (especially wrt morals) whereas liberals will often produce the rebellious youth who convert to conservatism. Liberals tend to value rebellion. So either way, there will be more conservatives.

Still lovin' the lingo!