Monday, September 1, 2014

A collapsing civilization

Sarah Hoyt laments the decline of civilization in her old Portuguese village:
It just seems that every woman my age has been divorced three times, or is shacked up with some guy half her age who is eating out her savings. Every younger woman is having kids out of wedlock starting well before seventeen. And I keep thinking: Oh, h*ll. When did everyone who grew up with me become… low class?”

Look, the village was poor as Job, and financially we were probably the wretched of the Earth. Things I remember from my childhood could fit in a documentary on “growing up in the third world.” Stuff like getting clothes stolen from the line, because there were people who genuinely couldn’t afford clothes for their kids; stuff like eating day old peasant bed fried in lard for a meal, to stretch out the grocery money of the household; things like getting the toes of my shoes cut off when I outgrew them, so I had ersatz sandals for spring. Other things, like playing with empty containers, or thinking the days the crops were irrigated (not with water!) ideal for cork boat races (disposable, thank heavens, but…)

We weren’t rich, and my family was relatively well off.

But dear Lord, we were middle class, no matter what our actually available money was....

Again, I ask you – can the roof stay up when the walls fall? Will we turn in the “middle class” standards so many found so oppressive for medieval standards that bring poverty and misery? For places where women and children are only safe while a man is willing to defend them; where the bad men aren’t looked down on by other men?

Is this what we want?

And how is it possible we came so far so fast? How did we tumble to this?
Her answer, I suggest, can be found here: "And I’m not going to lie and say that all things that went on and the established mode was the best one. It very well wasn’t. For one, it was a genuinely patriarchal society in the sense that women had almost no power."

There is her answer right there. Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power. It’s not the only factor, but it is a necessary one. The restrictions can be cruel and enforced primarily by men, as in the case of Islamic semi-civilization, or they can be soft and enforced primarily by women, as in the case of traditional Western civilization. Or something in between, such as she describes. But the restrictions must exist, be they self-imposed or externally imposed.

There is no equality. There never will be as long as young men are willing to build, steal, or kill for sex. Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone. And that decivilizing process is exactly what she is describing.

The decline of civilization is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution combined with the Divorce Revolution. There were no winners and civilization lost.

41 comments:

Remo said...

"Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power....Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone."

This is the clearest and most concise explanation for the fall of Western civilization as I have ever heard. I wish I could require this be tattooed on every feminist, college professor, politician, and social engineer.

cranberrysblog said...

I am reminded of what Theopompous said about Etruria, and it's women. Full excerpt can be found here.

In sum, they were decadent, the women were drunk and had sex with anyone, and everyone raised the kids who patterned after their parents. The Romans easily overran them. Yes, those Romans, of the strict patriarchy and hierarchical organization.

I'm seeing similar things around me. I live in a working class area, but even if you're less well off you can still have standards. No one (i.e. men) are around to enforce standards, and women who want to enforce them are powerless to do so except for themselves. And it's just too easy to have kids out of wedlock, because my husband, and my neighbor, and all of the other working men and women will raise them for you while you share your couches with any man who comes by.

cranberrysblog said...

And I'll apologize for the way I worded that (no one - men - around to enforce standards). It's not that, or not just that. Why should men care about women's standards, when women don't care either? Women are so eager to give it away, behave badly, and just leave a mess for others to clean up, including barely-cared for babies, debt, and the emotional state of any men who might have genuinely cared for them.

In re enforcing standards, I find it difficult to influence other women, not that I try very hard. They are resistant or outright hostile to certain behaviors like dressing modestly and being generally well comported. You don't have to say anything to anyone - merely show up anywhere looking like a lady rather than someone who just left a nightclub, and it's ridicule time. I can't tell if it's because they find modest ladies threatening or...I just don't know.

Vox said...

I find it difficult to influence other women... merely show up anywhere looking like a lady rather than someone who just left a nightclub, and it's ridicule time

There is your answer. Ridicule them. Ridicule them mercilessly. That's how women influence other women. Through their fear of ridicule. If you see a woman dressed like a hooker, ask her how much she's charging these days and feign innocence when she takes offense.

"Oh, I am sorry. I merely assumed that if you dress like that, you must be an, ah, escort, shall we say?"

Rek. said...

Time to relocate. I hear Malaysia isn't doing too bad, former british colony under Islamic law. Singapour if you are a sinophile. Russia is also an option, if only it weren't freezying for the better part of the year and I don't speak Russian.

cranberrysblog said...

They are ridiculing me, pointing and laughing. Someone asked me if I was a new teacher at DD's school, because I was dressed like a school marm. It was 9 in the morning, she had on booty-hugging jeans, heels, a bedazzled tank top showing several inches of cleavage, teased up hair and lots of makeup. She was coming on to my husband...at kindergarten orientation.

Women really don't have any shame. I'm not ballsy enough to ridicule them to their faces, but I am certain to note which kids are theirs, and keep my kids away from them.

I'll work on the backhanded insults, Vox. And thanks for this blog, I'm learning as much about myself as other women, and men. It's making navigating social situations, if not easier, than at least less anxiety-inducing, because I just don't care any more what they think of me, they don't matter.

Vox said...

I'm not ballsy enough to ridicule them to their faces

And that's why you are losing. You're not even willing to defend yourself when they are attacking, when your great-grandmothers would have had them on the defensive the moment they walked in the door.

Don't be a coward. Say something to them first. It can be quite amusing to see the eyes widening in shock and hear the sharp intake of breath. It's easy.

Lots of makeup = clown reference "So, are you with Ring-Ling or PT Barnum?""
Showing skin = hooker reference OR age reference "I think you're very brave to try to pull that off at your age. It almost works."
Loud and in your face = volume control reference OR hearing loss reference "I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW SIGN LANGUAGE!"

Unknown said...

Dave Chappelle has a good retort for women who dress for "sexual success": "Well, if you're gonna show up in a whore's uniform, what did you believe I would think?"

Trust said...

Yesterday as had a guest pastor at church talking about maintaining marriage. To his credit, he did caution women in regards to their tendency to dismiss and mock any advancement their man makes while complaining the man has given up.

Unfortunately, he did parrot the absurd like that "husbands, if you want to rekindle your wife's desire remember this tip: wives see a husband vacuuming as foreplay."

I've long believed some of the worst marital advice comes from men who have good wives. Such men credit their actions, rather than their wives wisdom, and assume that is the case for other men.

In reality, for most women, the jerk who won't help around the house is more of a turn on that the idiot who doesn't load the dishwasher properly. It takes a particularly wise woman to make a good marriage today.

Imagine someone housebreaking a dog by giving them a treat every time they shit on the carpet, and telling them to go away when they go outside, and you'll have a good analogy of his ridiculous the modern female calls to "man up" are. Manning up is punished, and screwing things up gets you a variety of treats.

jimmy-jimbo said...

Civilization means men in control. How quaint. Yes, more of that.

Crowhill said...

Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone.

Exactly. If sex (real or virtual) is easy, young men will simply sit on the couch and play Nintendo. For society to function we need men to work, and the best way to motivate men to work is to hold out sex as the prize. (Be respectable, get a decent job, win the approval of her dad, etc.) Without that kind of motivation, everything that drives civilized society will fall apart.

Trust said...

Crowhill said...
Exactly. If sex (real or virtual) is easy, young men will simply sit on the couch and play Nintendo. For society to function we need men to work, and the best way to motivate men to work is to hold out sex as the prize. (Be respectable, get a decent job, win the approval of her dad, etc.) Without that kind of motivation, everything that drives civilized society will fall apart.
__________

I consider my grandma the wisest person I know. My grandpa worked his ass off and she made it worth his while. When he fell off the wagon ones (lost his job due to a drinking problem), she didn't leave him, but did not risk another child with him while he didn't have his act together. He decided being responsible was a better life than being irresponsible. Not so today. The responsible men get saddled with chores, debt, and celibacy while unemployed alcoholics get an endless supply of sex (any resulting children are usually paid for by the responsible men).

My two sisters has three illegitimate children by three different men, all convicted felons who have done time. One of my favorite memories was my sweet little grandma, who was in her late 80s at the time, said "I was married 48 years with kids... don't talk to me like I don't know how you two keep ending up pregnant by losers."

Two words: risk aversion. Losers may have always given women tingles, but the risk used to influence behavior for the better. Please note that, contrary to feminist yelping, this wasn't legal control but rather social. Women were always free to do who they wanted, but also left with the consequences. There was no legal tyrrany involved. Now, feminists think they are oppressed when someone else isn't forced to incur the consequences. Like VD has said, female thinking is alien to ours.

pdwalker said...

That's just depressing.

76a86186-641e-11e3-a4c7-000bcdcb5194 said...

If we want to fix this, the welfare state has to go. Bad behavior has to HURT again.

Public floggings would help, I suspect.

Michael said...

@Vox "Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power. It’s not the only factor, but it is a necessary one. The restrictions can be cruel and enforced primarily by men, as in the case of Islamic semi-civilization, or they can be soft and enforced primarily by women, as in the case of traditional Western civilization. Or something in between, such as she describes. But the restrictions must exist, be they self-imposed or externally imposed."

There was a time I would have thought this conclusion ridiculous. Now it seems obvious.

Michael said...

@cranberrysblog Enjoyed your post, but this caught my attention and it's a bit OT: "Someone asked me if I was a new teacher at DD's school ... at kindergarten orientation. ... but I am certain to note which kids are theirs, and keep my kids away from them."

The best and only way to keep your kids away from them is to *not* send them to the same school.

Homeschooling is the only option left to sensible people. Just do it ... you will have no regrets.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Home school or die.

Weouro said...

Chesterton's idea comes into play too: when you break the big laws, you don't get liberty, you don't even get anarchy. You get the small laws.

So we end up trying to coerce men into providing with child support, alimony, and elaborate shaming mechanisms that appeal to duty and honor. Instead of just giving men a simple incentive, sex and family.

And trying to coerce women into having kids and taking care of them with elaborate government programs and churchian schemes to protect them from scorn. Instead of just making them subject each to a man.

The sum total of suffering is way less with the big laws.

brian said...

The more stories I read about the goings-on in public schools, the more I'm forced to agree with Glenn Reynolds: sending your children to public school is tantamount to child abuse.

ray said...

There is her answer right there. Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power.


This relatively sane women illustrates why civilization will never be saved by The Almighty People. She sees it all imploding around her, even sees the causes, largely... but cannot bring herself to question (much less reject) the Female Empowerment bon-bon. The lure of fried ice is just too great, and she (and her sisters) assuredly are not suffering enough (yet) to let go of the Women Need More Power bc of the Bad Old Days propaganda.

tacticaltoolbox said...

I know I sound like a broken record, but no plan concerning civilization will really succeed until Christians begin to obey the laws of God. Slut shaming and restricting sexuality (women as well as men) are necessary components required by the laws of God in Exodus and Deuteronomy. But Christians today complain that things are shitty and wonder why they reap the curses of the law, rather than obey them. Christians would rather adopt man's laws and morality as exhibited by legal codes than ever accept God's codes of conduct.

Imagine that women who are not married or not virgins would not be protected by law from rape (consequently, prostitution is not prohibited, nor protected--just outside the law). Imagine real consequences for not protecting one's wife, daughter, sister? The end result is the strengthening of family for the purposes of civilization and life.

To illustrate my point of accepting any law system except God's system, even irreconcilable theological camps are looking to find middle ground lest the theonomists "win" by default.

http://americanvision.org/11157/a-revelation-on-the-real-reason-behind-two-kingdoms-theology/

1sexistpig2another said...

If we want to fix this, the welfare state has to go. Bad behavior has to HURT again.

Can't do that. Baby moma's have rights too. She's gotta right to have her flat screen TV and the latest smart phone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

1sexistpig2another said...

There was a time I would have thought this conclusion ridiculous. Now it seems obvious.

Every time we liberate a woman we oppress a man.

If we want to keep families intact AND save western civilization, we are going to have to "oppress women".

1sexistpig2another said...

The sum total of suffering is way less with the big laws.

And this is more or less how it was when people were self-governing. Our constitution was made by and for a religious and moral people. It can be upheld by no other.

1sexistpig2another said...

sending your children to public school is tantamount to child abuse.

If we send our children to Caesar's camp to be taught, don't be surprised if they end up learning how to be little Caesars.

76a86186-641e-11e3-a4c7-000bcdcb5194 said...

"If we want to keep families intact AND save western civilization, we are going to have to "oppress women". "

Not oppress. Require standards of conduct...for men and women alike.

"Patriarchy" means men get to put the women and children in the lifeboats...then go down with the ship themselves. It means that men don't get to rape (real rape, not some feminist hand-wringing) women without being held to account for it by other men (and historically, that accounting has been at the end of a rope). It's being generous with your meager wealth and provisions, because the people under your protection need them.

Middle-class, civilized standards of conduct weigh equally on men and women.

1sexistpig2another said...

Not oppress. Require standards of conduct...for men and women alike.

That's why I used quotation marks. Requiring standards of conduct for women will be deemed "oppressive".

John rockwell said...

The twin problems that cause the fall of civilization is promiscuity outside of marriage and frigidity within marriage. Both these disincentive the men to build civilization both contribute substantially to its demise.

cranberrysblog said...

Homeschool...that argument has been had in our house. I lost.

Googling around for "first day of kindergarten," I thought this was an interesting hit, #5 on my results list: http://www.ninewest.com/First-Day-of-Kindergarten/15768066,default,sc.html

Even First Day of School is all about mommy and her fashion statements.

otiswild said...

If we send our children to Caesar's camp to be taught, don't be surprised if they end up learning how to be little Caesars.

Pizza Pizza!

tacticaltoolbox said...

Concerning "tradition" of punishing rape at the end of a rope, it used to be that promiscuous women did not get to cry rape. I believe that was another incentive to keep women from such promiscuity. So, no, not all rape used to be punished at the end of a rope.

A Biblical law understanding would have widely different remedies, as I have discussed above. I believe those are actually the right responses real godly men should have.

automatthew said...

Cranberry, you might ask your husband to read John Holt's How Children Fail. It's not polemic in the least.

Black Poison Soul said...

"And young women are being taken advantage of, because being promiscuous is hip, and guys can have kids with them and promise marriage eventually in a future that never comes."

Reading between the lines: it's all men's fault that they are taking advantage of women who are simply incapable of keeping their legs together. Aka more female whining and blame-shame-maim game aimed towards those eeeeevil men.

Grandma: why aren't you beating the living crap out of your daughter for giving it away for free? Grandma: why aren't you teaching your daughter to see through the lies? Grandma: why are you coddling your straying daughter instead of kicking her out in the cold to starve, like in the old days?

A simple glare means nothing these days. Grandma: why haven't you thoroughly beaten it into the head of your daughter that a glare is the simple preliminary to a whole lot of physical pain.

Women. Too weak to own their own mistakes, always trying to say it's someone else's fault.

Joe Katzman said...

"I think you're very brave to try to pull that off at your age. It almost works."

Now there's a 15-20 megaton, all-purpose, triple-layer neg. MUCH better than a hooker reference, and will take far longer to forget. Especially if cranberry adds all the appropriate ambiguous female tones and shadings to it.

I do disagree with Vox re: the Western system as a soft, female-enforced system. It was also male-enforced, in ways that varied from soft (avoiding 'damaged women') to hard ('damaged women' easier to target for violence, with redress possible but less reliable). The reasons that Islam is so much more extreme don't reduce to a male vs. female enforcement split.

RE: Sarah's "For one, it was a genuinely patriarchal society in the sense that women had almost no power...." That's pretty Dowdified. Sarah goes on to say a lot more, laying out the lived restrictions on men and women in this system, and she makes solid sense throughout as she explains both the important brakes on human behavior and the problems those arrangements had. Vox should, at the very least, have added the bookend quote, meant in the moral and cultural sense of the term:

"It wasn’t ideal. It wasn’t in any circumstances ideal. But it was "decent."

I'm going to submit that the meaning of "decent" has a lot to do with the difference between what Sarah describes, and Islam.

Sarah happens to be correct that on balance, the Western system she grew up in protected women and children. It did. That's mostly what it was designed to do. It was an expression of The Feminine Imperative that supported civilization, just as there are aspects of the male imperative that can destroy or hinder civilization, depending on how they're handled.

Both must be controlled, as either sex can "Blue Screen of Death" civilization on its own. There is an argument to be made that the feminine anti-civilization path is arguably more dangerous because it's (a) presents a killing problem as a benefit, which male violence does not; and (b) corrupts the other sex in anti-civilization ways that uncontrolled male imperatives do not.

Akulkis said...

And I'll apologize for the way I worded that (no one - men - around to enforce standards). It's not that, or not just that. Why should men care about women's standards, when women don't care either? Women are so eager to give it away, behave badly, and just leave a mess for others to clean up, including barely-cared for babies, debt, and the emotional state of any men who might have genuinely cared for them.

In re enforcing standards, I find it difficult to influence other women, not that I try very hard. They are resistant or outright hostile to certain behaviors like dressing modestly and being generally well comported. You don't have to say anything to anyone - merely show up anywhere looking like a lady rather than someone who just left a nightclub, and it's ridicule time. I can't tell if it's because they find modest ladies threatening or...I just don't know.


Capital punishmen extended to minors will make these sorts of sluts take an actual interest in their kids growing up to have standards of behavior, etc.

Mom said...

Women today have no sense of propriety. Mothers need to be teaching their daughters to not only dress modestly; but to not flirt, to never go anywhere with a man alone, to not hug (one of my pet peeves when they want to hug my husband), etc.
Cranberry--dressing nice (business casual, or just in a fashionable modest way) and carrying yourself in a friendly, yet confident way goes a long way. Eye contact or a long stare takes care of most feminine bullies. I've also gotten VERY close to make sure they know I'm here and WATCHING, blocked hugs (not moving out of the way) and made a phone call to "talk" (you WILL knock off this behavior.") I'm usually pretty easy going, but women are so immoral and aggressive now, that Christian wives need to be a bit wiser and more proactive about protecting their marriages and families.

Mom said...

Also, Cranberry, I'd start finding books and articles and sharing little bits with your husband concerning homeschooling. Things like Ivy League schools are actively recruiting them, they consistently test better, public schools teaching graphic sex to grade schoolers, molestations in public school, etc. etc. And if you're a believer, pray. God still works miracles!
One more thing, until you can homeschool, get involved with your child's school. Try to be there at least once a week. Try to get older grades textbooks so you and your husband can review them. Also, you can still do at lot at home and during the summer.

hadley said...

What Sarah fails [refuses?] to notice is that WOMEN establish behavioral norms for WOMEN. It is the old ladies in her village who identified the whores, sluts and girls of easy virtue and enforced proper female social behavior.

As long as females have Uncle Sammie as their sugar daddy I don't thick they are going to change. And, from an economic point of view, why should they? If in modern society they no longer need men to take care of them, they should just cut and run whenever they get tired of their current husband, right?

CarpeOro said...

Google ate my comment because I didn't sign in first. The gist of it:
@Joe Katzman: please define Feminine Imperative as you understand it. I recall only a small portion having any postive aspects vis a vis civilization, and then only when modified/contained by a patriarchal society.

Unknown said...

day old peasant bed fried in lard

Worst . . .meal. . .ever!

Harold said...

Crowhill said...
Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone.

Exactly. If sex (real or virtual) is easy, young men will simply sit on the couch and play Nintendo. For society to function we need men to work, and the best way to motivate men to work is to hold out sex as the prize. (Be respectable, get a decent job, win the approval of her dad, etc.) Without that kind of motivation, everything that drives civilized society will fall apart.

And if sex is impossible, young men will simply sit on the couch and play Nintendo. And listen to Imans, and blow themselves up for the promised reward of 72 virgins.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.