Women instituting polygamy if the quality of the average British male declines further
It would be a rational decision because:
- many hands make light work
- more women would at least get a decent man, ie an alpha male
- wives would never be bored and lonely
- the burden of childcare would be easily shared
- children would be better behaved in a more competitive environment
- a winner-take-all culture would persuade other men to up their game, and not be the penniless losers, drug addicts and drunkards most British men seem to be these days
- a patriarchy would at least be ruled on rational principles and be essentially Libertarian
- a matriarchy is chaotic, irrational, censorious, micromanaging, as we have already seen in our cradle-to-grave Neurotic Nanny State
Comments
Previously this has all been put to me from the male point of view, and they all view themselves as the alpha male.
Thanks Claire, this is brilliant.
If you take away a mans steak in society he will withdraw from society. When that happens anarchy ensues. So, no men will not improve.
The only way this can be avoided is if the society is strongly religous or is tyranical.
As our society is in moral decay, from which it is not likely to recover, we only have the last option which is where we seem to be heading. Strangely enough this has appeal to some women.
The destruction of our society was assured sometime ago. Every society that built a civilisation started with the principal of one man, one woman with sex strictly regulated within the confines of a that union. It wasn't perfect, but it worked.
It appears that female emancipation has occurred with regular monotony throughout history, in every civilisation. Every civilisation started off with strict sexual regulation. Over time the rules were relaxed and women were emancipated. What followed, in every case, destroyed that society within three generations or 100 years.
J D Unwin researched this and wrote a book,in 1934 I believe. You can download the zip file Here
Thank you for bringing J D Unwin's book to my attention.
I am quite sure that there are many liberals who want to stone me to death for suggesting that
1) we deal very firmly with female promiscuity by withdrawing child benefit for all
2) we make bastardy a disgrace
3) we make divorce a disgrace
4) courts apportion blame accordingly when a marriage breaks up
5) make the behaviour of the parties a factor in the settlement
Why don't more men challenge feminism, I wonder?
Is it because the married ones know that their wives could divorce them any time and take their money and children for holding such subversive political views?
And the single ones don't think this sort of thing is ever going to happen to them, I suppose.
There are many facets involved in controlling populations. One such facet is the crushing of the male and elevating the female, hence feminism. I believe it was Lenin who described women as ‘useful idiots.’ And some modern women seem to prefer 100% of nothing than 50% of something.
Divorce law, taken from the Russian model, and ignorance play a big part in the silence of men. There are other laws, such as harassment and of course the all pervasive Political Correctness, also play a large part (men can and have lost their employment through standing up to feminism)
The battle of the sexes was won without firing a shot as men failed to turn up. After all, we trusted women to do the right thing!
1) not being vigilant in preserving our liberties
2) not thinking straight
3) not seeing the virtue in thinking straight
4) no longer being taught how to think straight
5) lying to oneself (that one has perhaps been screwed by the system)
6) pretending it is OK to be screwed by the system
7) not complaining because you think you're going to lose
8) not admitting that you've been screwed because you don't want other people to think you are a loser
9) not caring enough to warn other people
10) warning other people but not doing it cleverly enough
11) denying the truth
12) obscuring the truth
13) hoping it will all just go away
You can't just blame the women for that, though. You would have thought that the men would organise themselves when they have so much to lose.
Perhaps they don't think it will happen to them, ever.
Perhaps they think people who join Fathers4Justice are a bunch of sad losers whom nobody wants to know.
Perhaps people who join Fathers4Justice should stop behaving like a bunch of sad losers whom no one wants to know because they will feel tainted by association.
No more silly superhero costumes and idiotic stunts would be a start, wouldn't it?
I don’t know a lot about Fathers4Justice. I have never been in their shoes or ever will be. What I do know is that one was jailed for climbing onto Harriet Harm-men’s roof and another was jailed for waving at his daughter. Recently some of them crossed over the pond and climbed onto Abe Lincoln’s statue. However, there they faced a complete news black out. I have read, in the MSN, that their campaign, despite receiving ridicule and contempt from the media and society, has been the biggest success of any type of campaign of recent times.
Not having been in their shoes it is difficult for me to judge. If I put myself in the shoes of their children however, and I look at a man who dresses up in a silly costume, risking imprisonment to have contact with me, would I be proud of him? Yes.
Sad losers they may be, but at least they are still fighting. Incidentally, there are other fathers rights groups. Have you heard of them? They have no recourse to law, have little support and are fighting with the tools they have.
Can men organise themselves to march to save their jobs so that they can feed their families? Yes.
Can men organise themselves, for their own rights, to march or campaign in sufficient numbers to make an impact? Doubtful.
Will men wake from their slumber to protect their families? Yes.
Will men wake from their slumber to protect their own rights? Doubtful.
Will men, outside the family structure, wake from their slumber? Will they care? This is my area of concern, the consequences of men outside the family structure.
As for 1 – 5, your points are well taken. I’m afraid it would take another book to establish how this has come about. It’s a good read but I will not labour you with any more links.