Главная страница Случайная страница КАТЕГОРИИ: АвтомобилиАстрономияБиологияГеографияДом и садДругие языкиДругоеИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураЛогикаМатематикаМедицинаМеталлургияМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПсихологияРелигияРиторикаСоциологияСпортСтроительствоТехнологияТуризмФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияЧерчениеЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника |
Re-creating the traditional patriarchal social structures
When we, the cultural conservatives, seize political and military control of Western European countries within 20-70 years we will re-establish the patriarchal structures by partly deconstructing certain matriarchal fundaments. Doing so will ensure the survival of the nuclear family among many other factors. This should not be done by excessive regulation through banning women from attaining positions of influence (with the exception of areas relating to immigration, security and certain other segments). The Marxist ideologists of the Frankfurt school understood that the power of the patriarchy lies within the nuclear family. To illustrate this, look at Japanese and South Korean policies. They do not have any laws directly banning women from attaining positions of influence (becoming prime minister or president of a corporation). Yet they are traditional, patriarchal and very successful societies. Obviously, the Marxists did not succeed in Japan and South Korea as they did in Western Europe and the US. The Marxists knew that in order to deconstruct the patriarchy they had to undermine and de-legitimise the structure of the nuclear family. To a Marxist, the nuclear family is nothing more than a miniature model of an oppressive state. By implementing measures which will secure and strengthen the relevancy of the of the nuclear family we will ensure considerable and far reaching results and it will be unnecessary to directly ban popular feminist doctrines. As soon as women once again will be conditioned through just institutions and are raised in a strong and unified nuclear family lead by a confident patriarch she will know her place in society and further regulations will be unnecessary. Directly banning a multitude of popular feminist laws is not a wise approach as it would be labeled as despotic and would undermine us in the long run. Instead, we must change A FEW strategic laws which will act as indirect force multipliers. The single most important regulation we have to change is the law that guarantees that the father will always get the custody of the child. It is the most essential law which will act like a positive domino effect. Law number two must be the regulation that criminalises physical disciplinarian methods. This will ensure order within the family and within our schools. Obviously, physical punishment will not be glorified and must only be used under extreme circumstances. However, the essential thing is that it will no longer be considered a criminal offence. The third law will be the abolishment of a regulation related to marriage. The law which facilitates the so called “no fault marriages”. There might be other essential and strategic laws we will have to change but we should limit it to a minimum. Fathers should be favored (prerogative rights) when child custody cases are decided in courts (ROUGH DRAFT) The new laws will assume a powerful role in defining status, rights and appropriate behaviour. A fundamental revision of the married woman’s place in the legal order lay at the center of the laws branches, domestic relations. Post-cultural Marxist (feminist) changes in family life which was changed from a patriarchal manner to a matriarchal model in the 1970s will be reversed in order to combat an excessive feminisation of family structure and males in particular. The goal is to re-introduce the father as the authority figure and family head and will therefore strengthen the nuclear family. It is estimated that these changes will result in a decline of the divorce rate/broken families by approximately 50%. Furthermore, the father can without fear of being punished by the law, reassert an authority role in the family. Physical disciplinary methods will once again be a factor in the upbringing of children.
Post-cultural Marxist changes in family life, ones which cultural Marxist/feminist historians label as “modern” have proven to have a devastating impact on the nuclear family. These changes have contributed to the institutionalising of and implementing deliberate “broken family policies”. Influenced by the society’s growing glorification of single parent upbringing and female domestic supremacy, judges granted women supreme legal powers in family affairs. In the 70s bourgeois women mounted a campaign to attach superior legal rights to motherhood and thereby exterminated traditional domestic governance. Changing these laws will reverse the destructive effects due the last four decades of feminisation. Divorce rates will be reduced by approximately 50% which will also contribute to reverse excessive self-centeredness (and lifestyles related to such behaviour). Men’s domestic rights will be considerably strengthened. Fathers will regain the domestic courage to teach their children discipline, moral codes and traditional codex’s without the fear of persecution or discrimination from the mother or the cultural Marxist regime.
A more moderate suggestion would include giving the fathers equal rights to the children relating to custody decisions. Grandparents should play a central role in their grandchildren’s life (ROUGH DRAFT) Grandparents should have a central part in their grandchildren’s life, and this newly re-introduces “civilisation change” should be reflected in government policies and how the medias glorifies it. Lifestyles that propagate that sons and daughters move out and establish an independent life completely separated from their parents should no longer be glorified by the media. Instead, lifestyles glorifying the nuclear family should be propagated.
Re-introduction of the generational home, large homes with enough room for the children to raise the grandchildren in an environment where the grandparents play an essential part. This social structure has several benefits: Many single people live in small flats or in segments of apartments. Many are lonely and some commit suicide. Others refrain from establishing a family of their own because they know it involves significant burdens. This however, would not be the case if we followed the traditional family model (social structure) where generational home and the nuclear family are glorified by the media. The grandparents should play an essential part in their children’s life. This will have positive social and economical effects for the society (costs for kinder garden and nursery homes will be substantially reduced and there will be significantly less suicides as a result of loneliness).
Physical disciplinary methods (ROUGH DRAFT) More discipline at home, and school. This includes allowing physical disciplinary methods in extreme cases where this is needed (It is always needed as a last option). Because it is essential that children show the proper respect for the adult and know that the adult has the required “sanction methods/tools” in their arsenal without the fear of being persecuted by the state. A society (school institutions especially) cannot function properly without the right to allow physical disciplinary methods in extreme cases. Family & Society - The Traditional Family is Disappearing (ROUGH DRAFT)
Area of Study: Social Theory, Social Structure and Change
The traditional British family structure is in decay and is facing extinction. Liberal permissiveness has wrecked havoc with our society and the results are there for all to see. The recently published Social Trends report states that single parent households have nearly tripled from 4% in 1971 to 11% in 2008. The percentage of traditional nuclear family households had fallen by 52% to 36% over the same period and women are more likely to give birth by the time they are 25 than get married.
Consequences
· Since the early 1970s there has been a decline in marriage, and a marked rise in the numbers of lone parent families. · The ongoing rise in family breakdown affecting young children has been driven by the dissolution of cohabiting partnerships. The majority of these are less stable than marriage (European data shows that by a child’s fifth birthday less than 1 in 12 (8%) married parents have split up compared to almost 1 in 2 (43%) cohabiting parents). · The intergenerational transmission of family breakdown and its associated disadvantages is seen in the way children who have been neglected or un-nurtured are highly likely to go on to create dysfunctional families subject to further breakdown. Similarly there is an overrepresentation in teen pregnancy statistics of girls from fatherless and broken homes. · Crime is strongly correlated with family breakdown - 70% of young offenders are from lone parent families and one third of prisoners were in local authority care (yet only 0.6% of the nation’s children are in care at any one time). · Costs of family breakdown to the exchequer are estimated to be well over £ 20bn per annum in Britain alone.
Family forms are shaped by the attitudes toward gender roles in a given society which, in turn, are influenced by the demographic, social, economic, and political realities of the time. The traditional family, idealised during the Victorian era and reestablished in the 1950s, is identified as a unit consisting of a married couple with two or more children where the breadwinning father goes out to work while the mother stays home to keep house and care for the children and her husband. This profile of the family, which reflected and was supported by the prevailing attitudes and realities of a particular period which no longer exists, continues to be lauded, endorsed, and longed for by right wing politicians and religious groups.(1) However, due to the major socio-cultural changes of the past three decades, a variety of family forms has emerged and now the traditional family accounts for " only 5 percent of American households."
|