We think patriarchies are violent because men are in charge. But every overt patriarchy has at it’s core a cult of motherhood. The more patriarchal, the more women are completely in charge of the raising of children, to the exclusion of men. So, are patriarchies violent because men are in charge? Or, are they violent because women are centred in the raising of children? If we even accept the cartoonish and simplistic popular conception of what a patriarchy is, and whether we live in one, who owns the violence in such a system? Is it Dad? Or is it Mom?
Tonight, Typhon Blue, The Wooly Bumbebee, James Huff and John the Other will be talking about the matriachal root of violence.
8PM Central Time, 6PM Pacific Time.
Call in number for the show is 310- 388 9709
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2013/03/01/mother-of-violence
248 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Tamerlame:
MrShadowfax42:
Sondjata:
Stu:
Dean Esmay:
Great line up…. will be tuning into this one.
Ok, repost to appease the spam filter:
This should be an interesting topic… well, they all are
A couple of references:
1) The brain rewires itself with experience, and this relates to recent developments in cognitive science on the topic of neural plasticity.
2) It is estimated that during the first 4 years of life, 90% of a child’s brain develops through the experiences of that child (further reference Jill Stamm on youtube)
Could it be, maybe, that most every child’s primary nurturer will have the greatest influence on how a child’s brain wires itself? Hmmmm… and what might this suggest? Where, in fact, do children first learn about violence and sexism? Is it really from the mean, nasty and oppressive patriarchy? Surely it cannot be from kind, nurturing, ever-loving mom, can it? Nah.
And what about refrigerator mothers [link removed] (in relation to autism and schizophrenia), a topic that was buried wholesale during the past progressive, liberated 50 years? Could it be that mothers have a crucial part to play in the mental health and well-being of a child? Nah… that’s just a patriarchal lie.
Or is there something else going on? Tune in and find out.
“Could it be, maybe, that most every child’s primary nurturer will have the greatest influence on how a child’s brain wires itself?”
Absolutely 100% correct. In the beginning before there is a firmly established sense of “Me” there exists only the child-environment set up in readiness for brain development. Its here in the first few years of life that the environment has maximal influence on brain wiring.
In a sense its impossible to even talk of an individual infant per se, because psychologically speaking the individual has not developed sufficient unit status to feel cognitively seperate from environment. As one pediatric psychiatrist stated, “There is no such thing as an infant!” – ie. the infant is part of a symbiotic relationship with the person caring for it, and it takes a few years for the infant’s growing sense of self to become independent from the initial symbiotic relationship.
The child, it’s character, it’s growing sense of being an individual, its attachment style, unique fears etc. all come into being and take shape as a result of environment-organism interaction particularly in the first few years of life. And in the first few years the mother is (usually) the dominant environmental influence.
Another way of putting it… it is the primary nurturer that first defines the things that matter. This relates to a different paradigm that I’ve been working with, and comes under the topic of pragmatism, but in a semiotic context (it extends the question of truth from the experimental context and into the context of experience and perception).
It is a lie that patriarchies are violent. One of the most violent societies today are american slums, where adult men are whisked off to prison and the kids are raised (or neglected) by mothers.
Adult patriarchs are a stabilizing, calming influence, and patriarchies are prosperous and well-ordered. Notice how this article does not argue that patriarchies are violent or introduce evidence, but simply assumes it.
The reason men these days are raised by mothers is broken homes.This is not a result of too much patriarchy, but of too little – patriarchy is all about the legitimacy of offspring. This is so obvious that the fact that it needs mentioning is telling.
I am disappointed to see the feminist canards about men being violent being peddled here at AVfM, and the sly “Patriarchy is bad for men, too!” argument being made.
I agree a 100%. These insights were well known to the MRM. It’s stuff that Paul Elam and JTO used to be talking about since the very beginning.
Telling them now though will get your comment downvoted as this is not the MRM anymore but the MHRM – a different movement with a similarly sounding name.
I don’t recognize this place anymore. I used to donate to AVfM, but this is not A Voice for Men anymore, it’s a different community with the same name. Bad tongues refer to it even as the Girl’s Voice for Gays… And the ‘HR’ part will sooner or later ostracize the ‘M’ part of the name. Ostracizing it like Paul Elam recently ostracized the godfather of the MRM himself: Angry Harry. This was a very telling act.
This comment will probably get deleted by Paul Elam like many of the comments who utter certain issues with the recent events.
Farewell AVfM, I was here since the very beginning and you were fucking great while it lasted. The-Spearhead, here I come.
“If we even accept the cartoonish and simplistic popular conception of what a patriarchy is, and whether we live in one, ”
This is an important paragraph before you throw your toys out of your pram. Pfft.
“I don’t recognize this place anymore.”
You mean you dont recognise your fantasy of what this place was….. as far as its core aims go it hasnt changed a bit.
@meninrevolt:
I dont understand why somebody leaving a forum has to write such a note.. I have left a few forums myself.. just left quietly. If you were important, then people will miss you and ask about you. If not, all’s well.
Unless you are a serious contributor/activist, you wont be missed. As long as your awareness has been raised, you have actually gained from AVFM.. and it has helped you even while you offer nothing in return. Anyways, have fun at whatever forum you go to.. just save them the melodrama if and when you leave.
I am quite in support of deletion of big-swinging-dick comments.. they add no value. The lesser the number of value-less comments, the more time rest of us save.
“I dont understand why somebody leaving a forum has to write such a note… Unless you are a serious contributor/activist, you wont be missed.”
Well said Astrokid. I’ve never heard of meninrevolt before, and suspect its a sockpuppet of that tiny percentage of grumblers who try to make themselves look more prevalent than they are.
Thank you for being a comrade. As I understand from your post AVfM has deviated from your principles and values and it’s time for you to find another place which is a better fit for you. I wish you the best of luck and thank you for your support while you were with us.
Goodnight, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
Your body your choice, dear one.
Anyway I’ll see you at The-Spearhead, sometimes I enjoy visiting it. I do not have problems in considering different perspectives on MRM, sorry,… I meant MHRM.
Please don’t go. I like an array of opinions, and it’s through respectful debate that we are offered different perspectives on the issues.
Thank you for your kind words.
Unfortunately there’s no respectful debate possible on AVfM, the last good example being Angry Harry’s disagreeing with an article on the accuracy of repressed memories. He thinks that when such memories emerge they are not accurate representations of the events that happened. The “discussion” went on for a bit, he got heavily attacked and now the “Activism”-tab that used to feature Angry Harry is now void of him. This isn’t good grounds for “an array of opinions”.
AVfM is a community which tend to be very “intolerant” (I hate this word) of differing opinions. We’re not talking about big differences in opinion but subtleties within the MRM. You don’t agree with an article? Chances are that your comment will get down-voted and attacked, and the last time I saw this PE personally commented in a very angry way to a regular here… You either agree and worship AVfM (which I used to do) or you face hostility that was not seldomly extended to a ban like RockingMRE can tell you (although I don’t know what happened)…
I think the Activism tab has been completely redone – didn’t it used to have JtO on it and his mention has disappeared also?
Did you happen to read this article?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/new-years-wishes-from-avfm/
“My deepest gratitude goes to the following people. There is no particular order, save the first person on the list.
To Angry Harry, for inspiring me to believe that the internet could be used to challenge cultural misandry, and for the hours of counsel, guidance and wisdom. And for tolerating the occasional chip on my shoulder.”
While I agree with AH on the repressed memories, if you look at that thread, AH mentions that in his last comment. i.e he had made different arguments earlier.. repeatedly I might add.. which were countered and tempers had already risen.
Its an unfortunate event, but saying that its an intolerance of opinions is BS.
“I am disappointed to see the feminist canards about men being violent being peddled here at AVfM,”
I’m disappointed with your reading comprehension skills.
Hmm, I suppose I did miss that bit: “If we even accept the cartoonish and simplistic popular conception of what a patriarchy is, and whether we live in one”, but I don’t see that it modifies in the least the “have you stopped beating your wife” questions in the previous paragraph. I’m also somewhat at a loss as to what that word ‘even’ is doing in that sentence – it seems a little lost and alone.
The trailer JTO uploaded on Youtube leaves no doubt how it’s meant. To be honest I didn’t read the introduction above, I saw the YT-video multiple times to make sure that my confusion whether this is really coming from AVfM wouldn’t go away. Then I came here to see whether there were any “criticizing” comments because I was still baffled… It’s feminist narrative coming from AVfM.
I stopped listening to the radio show a couple of shows after GWW got hired, so I didn’t listen to this one either. Maybe they used the “teaser” for “provocation” but I don’t think so.
EDIT: typhon blue’s comment below shows that it’s not provocation. They are serious about it. I agree with PE’s opinion that society treated men as disposable before feminism and that patriarchy is as much if not more more “oppressive” to men than women – to reuse that abused word – but typhon blue is talking about violence coming from patriarchies which just isn’t true…
Feminists propose that patriarchies are more violent. When we look around the world, yes, societies with “overt male dominance” appear more violent.
The question is… is it because men are “in charge” or because women have a monopoly on child rearing?
The same situation occurs in single mother broods. Because men are excluded from raising children, boys develop an insecure identity, a sense of expendability and a victimhood mentality from their mothers.
These factors combine to create explosive violence.
I agree with all but your last paragraph, except I would rather call it the “Family unit” rather than patriarchies, because I do not think we have had true patriarchies for 100 years, if ever.
As for the last paragraph, I think you have misunderstood, at least I did not read it that way.
I may have missed something in the article…are you sure you read it correctly?
“Patriarchy” or, rather, culture prior to modern feminism did hurt men; it’s patriarchy theory that distorts reality to pretend it didn’t.
If you don’t root for the “male utopia” imagined by feminist myth-makers you’re not anti-feminist?
Why not just point out that it’s all feminist myth-making? The solipsism is so all-encompassing that its captured even its “opponent’s” reality in its own web of lies.
If you want “patriarchy” to be real, then you are dependant on the feminist myth-makers to create it for you.
I like it! Good perspective.
I’m having a bit of trouble unpacking this response. Obviously, my reading comprehension sucks balls. Either that, or we need to define our terms a little. I rather thought that patriarchy – “rule of the father” – meant that kids of the union belong to the father, that the male partner has the right to make decisions on behalf of the family unit.
Good show guys…Thx
Semi-OT:
http://global.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/world/asia/in-vietnam-some-chose-to-be-single-mothers.html?ref=thefemalefactor&_r=0
Be careful how you praise others. There’s a difference between doing justice and myth-making:
“When single men who survived the war returned home, they often preferred younger brides, exacerbating the effects of a sex ratio already skewed by male mortality in the war.”.
Translation (given the tone of the article): Let’s focus on how the death of those men harmed the women who got to be protected and live on. It’s a tragic situation, not because the men were killed, but because the women couldn’t have babies. Right.
Clearly the kind of “independence” that is being romanticized here doesn’t involve women picking up a gun themselves in order to avert the apparent greater “tragedy”.
Let’s try and keep this stuff in context, jesus.
Oh an here’s one more:
http://charlesclymer.blogspot.ca/2013/02/why-are-we-so-ashamed-of-our-women.html
I just finished a response to that last link, here:
http://getironic.blogspot.com/2013/03/she-defines-he-gender-shaming-language.html
Very interesting show which gave those of us who have had children a lot to think about. I very much recognize the father whose own agency has been removed from my own childhood, as well as the abhorrent situation that has occurred with my own child. Im just proud of the man for putting up with the hell my mother put him through for us children.
Can’t wait for the feminist to english dictionary either
I just got an email from GWW (along with a short video) announcing this program. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UYyvwCbeIA&feature=em-uploademail The video appears to be of young women (Hitler Jugend) exercising, then the camera pans to a wide shot of what looks like a Nuremberg Rally type event.
So what was the family structure in WWII Germany? Was it traditional/patriarchal, or a nanny state? Journalistically speaking, I think opinions (arguments) could be made for both positions. Families in pre WWII Germany had been of a “traditional/patriarchal” structure for the most part, but considering the family structure in Nazi Germany as “traditional/patriarchal” appears to be a misnomer, IMO, considering programs like the Lebensborn, and the fact that the Nazi nanny state (government as daddy) gave medals to mothers who produced children for the nanny state’s use (gold, silver or bronze – depending on the # of kids). After all, they had to replace all those disposable men who died in wars some way.
Apparently, some argue that the WWII “German family” programs are worthy of comparison to ideologies and social programs in America today. “A Comparative Analyses of the Nazi Lebensborn program and Contemporary Child Welfare Laws and Practices.” http://tinyurl.com/a9soxkx
See especially the last paragraph, bottom of page two.
I bought that paper for $5.00 and am reading it. It’s an excellent read.
In WWII Germany, the Nazis falsely accused the Jews of all kinds of bad things, and embraced a psuedo-scientific theory of “racial hygiene” in their efforts to “purge” the “undesirables.”
Gender feminists in America today falsely accuse males of a wide variety of malfeasance, especially “gender based violence,” using the thug-government authority (club) of the Violence Against Women Act. They then proceed to purge males from families and fortunes (transfer the wealth). Can we call that “gender hygiene” and refer to the VAWA thugs as Nazi-Feminists, because in reality they’re Nazis more than anything.
I finished reading the paper. It was largely a comparison of Nazi State kidnappings of children in the WWII era, compared to state seizures of children by Child Protective Services (CPS), using psuedo scientific psychology theories as justification. There are a number of typos that made it a little harder to read, but I’d recommend it, especially, for people with Paul, and Dr. T’s background.
The article doesn’t allow you to print it, or even copy and paste from it, just read it online.
It was a nice show, a bit too short.
Nice topic.
“The more patriarchal, the more women are completely in charge of the raising of children, to the exclusion of men. ”
Wrong. The west has become increasingly less patriarchal yet fatherless homes have increased.
You can also look at Iroquois society considered the closest culture to a matriarchy, childcare was still predominantly female.
“You can also look at Iroquois society considered the closest culture to a matriarchy, childcare was still predominantly female.”
I find your last five words to be very ambiguous.
Tell me more…
@ James
“The west has become increasingly less patriarchal yet fatherless homes have increased.”
Has it? Or has it simply become a harem patriarchy in which women are “wedded” to the most powerful men who, in turn, provide them a living?