Maternalism and matriarchy. Maternalism is healthy and normal. Can the same be said for matriarchy?
maternalism n.: a state or trait relating to motherhood and the characteristics implied therein.
matriarchy n.: a system of social organization in which descent, inheritance, and power are through the female line.
Matriarchy on the March
For better or worse, American matriarchy is on the march. Although rarely mentioned, today it is the most pressing issue facing this fragmenting, declining nation on fire; accounting for most of its destructive trends, likely including recent mass-shootings by young, male Euro-Caucasians.
Consider the Democratic candidates for presidency. Strong, pugnacious women decrying “continuing, white, male privilege” and who have launched a War Against Men, especially male Caucasians. Weak, craven men crying about “continuing, white male privilege.” and who unashamedly proclaim their surrender to women of The Left. Strong women who demand quasi-Marxist collectivism. Weak men who demand whatever women demand.
Demographics are destiny. Women outnumber men at the ballot-boxes. Matriarchy has the support of most of Big Media. Consider the consequences.
For further discussion from a scientific perspective, visit the previous posting “Matriarchy In America” .
Excerpts from the Semi-fictional Novel, Retribution Fever
Optimally, society tempers paternalism with maternalism to achieve a balance of justice tempered by mercy . . . strength tempered by compassion. A paternalistic society without maternalism is strong but harsh, replacing liberty with authoritarianism. A maternalistic society without paternalism is compassionate but weak, confusing real liberty with excessive permissiveness.
During the first part of the 20th-century, American society and its government began to embrace a smothering maternalism with the federal government increasingly playing the role of all-knowing mother. Forgiveness of weakness . . . no matter how undeserving that forgiveness . . . began replacing demand for strength . . . no matter how necessary that strength for survival. Then, in the latter part of the century with the birth of the contraceptive pill, the nation began an even more accelerating surrender to the demands of “Radical Feminism”.
What is Radical Feminism? It is a disestablishment-oriented movement demanding a restructuring of society; so that male supremacy, even where appropriate and reasonable if not vital, is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. One element amid the decline of these United States has been the rise of Radical Feminism devolving into that which might be called “Radical Maternalism”.
What is Radical Maternalism? It is a disestablishment-oriented movement infecting normal maternalism with a combination of Radical Feminism and a perverted form of humanitarianism.
Do not confuse Radical Maternalism with genuine maternalism. They are antithetical.
Genuine maternalism, for example, does not kill normal, healthy babies about to be born. Radical Maternalism does. Some of its adherents even characterize as “unnatural” mothers’ breast-feeding their newborns natural human milk, instead substituting fathers’ bottle-feeding them artificial formula.
Over the years, Radical Maternalism increasingly had contaminated genuine maternalism, giving us the worst of the worst in the form of weakness with a hostile, aggressive attitude . . . weakness wrapped in a combination of ill-conceived concern for the welfare of others and strident resentment directed at that which gave birth to almost all of modern civilization.
With the success of Radical Maternalism, the strength and certainty of Manifest Destiny progressively had wilted into the weakness and uncertainty of a confused nation increasingly turned against itself . . . a nation that set itself afire. At home, the Radical Maternalists may have viewed themselves as strident and strong. Abroad, their enemies viewed them as strident but weak. Our embrace of Radical Maternalism emboldened our enemies. The final attack against the American vision came with the tyranny of the ex-President, who later fled like a scared rodent into a dark Hell-hole of socialism.
The ominous trend towards Radical Maternalism had not been confined to these United States. It infected Canada and Europe, even spreading to Australia and New Zealand. It signaled the decline and demise of Western civilization. Ironically, the Scandinavians, whom the Radical Maternalists promoted as their model to imitate, had begun to turn away from that model prior to the Furies.
Be advised, Western civilization with its faults historically has offered mankind more benefits than has any alternative. Now after the Furies, more than ever it still does. The plague especially, awful as it was, has given us the opportunity for a new beginning . . . a new context with new consequences.
Militarily, until 1950 these United States had not failed to win a military conflict since the stalemate in the War of 1812 with Britain. Beginning in 1950, repeatedly we courted defeat by cowering cravenly at the feet of weaker nations.
They possessed resolve. We did not.
They were willing to die. We were unwilling even to fight . . . really fight . . . not proportionately but disproportionally with whatever required to win short of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
Oh, we possessed the strength; but, like suppressed little boys in the schoolyard robbed of their masculinity, we refused to use it. We rationalized our weakness by characterizing military attacks against us as though they were crimes committed by misunderstood victims of Western “tyranny”.
In actual battle, our misguided Radical Maternalism revealed itself in misplaced concern for the welfare of our enemies. This misplaced concern empowered lawyers not soldiers to define so-called Rules of Engagement during the heat of battle . . . thereby, exposing our own troops to reckless, needless slaughter. Rules? What rules? In combat, the primary rule is kill or be killed.
After the battle, we often ignored those worthy heroes who fought in combat at the front in favor of honoring . . . for purely political and ideological purposes . . . those unworthy of such recognition who had stayed far behind, often women who had no business being on the front lines of combat, in the first place. We put politics and ideology before military strategy and victory.