Matriarchy & Patriarchy

[Nordicvs]

Hey, folks...

I've been trying to comprehend both "matriarchy" and "patriarchy"---both theoretically and in practice---for around a year now, and I'd written something a little while ago on some (admittedly full of vim; and bold) thoughts I'd had on these two subjects. I'm still uncertain if I have this quite right, but it seems close somehow.

You guys seem pretty sharp, so I'll post it here and hopefully some of you can give me some feedback and add your own thoughts.

(Thanks in advance.)

If 'Matriarchy' exists, society would be entirely feminine---indirect, subtle, deceptive, materialistic, over-populated, and "control" or "female power" would not be very observable...it would, however, pervade every aspect of society, from the bedroom to the bathroom and living room to the school, media, workplace, entertainment industries, as well as politically. It would be complex with excessive bureaucratic rules, many intricate laws for behaviour (male behaviour), and male suffering would be viewed as something honourable or comical. Matriarchy would have unspoken heirarchies, sweeping ones like "class" and large girl-cliques beginning in school (high school) and expanding into female culture and society. And it would contain an aristocracy of women ruled by rich women and apparently rich men, who are in fact ultimately ruled by their wives---the most influential women, not necessarily with any title or official power. Also, it would be a feminine-worshipping society---female sexuality would be absolutely everywhere. A "cult of female sexuality?"

There's a pure *matriarchy at work. A very liberal, material, greedy, sex-obsessed, overpopulated global commune.

The thing most people can't decide on is "omg! is this matriarchal or patriarchal ???!!!1" but what they do not seem to understand is that neither exist, in our conception: civilization itself is that very matriarchy.

And what we view as "patriarchy" appears to be man's futile attempt of countering female control---a loud "I want my ball back, Mommy! I know I'm not allowed to hunt anymore, but I wanna play sports!" And she says 'No, not until you invade that other place and take their stuff, cut down those trees and make chairs for us.' (The first human story of the first civilization, the first city, the first matriarchy, and the first king---Gilgamesh---has within it the pattern repeating since Sumer.)

What is **real "patiarchy?" A wolf pack---a small, efficient heirarchy---and nothing much bigger than that. Only within matriarchy would this explode (over-complicated, over-organized, overpopulated) into a monstrous heirarchy (like the military today in most nations). A true patriarchy would cease to exist inside civilization (because it is the opposite), or it would be expressed through sports, games (masculine-themed simulations---masculine virtual reality), things that almost satisfy that male need to be out hunting, fishing, being in bands and teams, gangs, squads, packs, small groups.

Men with masculine thinking might be unable to conceptualize a patriarchy, because such a thing simply makes no sense in the world---even so, an average man knows there is no such thing as patriarchy, even if he can't put it into words. Men never say to each other, "Hey, Bob, what a great day it is today in our man's world," because we know it's not true; most men don't know any males in positions of power, and most men have little power in their lives (a true masculine thinker desires no power), and those who are in power (corrupted and feminized by it) are typically supporting a wife and kids, not themselves.

I see no evidence of a patriarchy---no "class" of men are ruling women, and men are not "heads" of their households, especially if they're slaving away for others. I see only patriarchal elements, but these are as indicative of "patriarchy" and male behaviour as dogs chasing a tennis ball is indicative of wolf behaviour. Both civilized men and dogs are domesticated within a matriarchy for similar purposes---directly or indirectly serving materialism: more.

[**My concept of "patriarchy," a masculine system (reflecting masculine characteristics, just as a matriarchy reflects feminine characteristics), I reason to be no larger than a tribal "system." (The "wolf pack" notion is strictly analogous.) If the masculine is more spiritual than the feminine---taking into consideration, of course, that no human is purely masculine or purely feminine---and is essentially based upon "less-is-better" thinking, it would be reflected in the size of population, the greater of which dictates how materialistic (matriarchal) it becomes; the more people, the more food the people need, and so on, of course.

Nomadicty seems, to me, to be as well a crucial indicating factor: the more pregnant females in a tribe, the greater the tendency towards "staying put," which uses up resources quickly and, if permenant structures are built, creates the drive towards expansionism and war. (Sumer, for example, created an army, in addition to walls around Uruk, for the protection of not only the populace but also the wealth accumulated, and this army was transformed into an invading force to acquire more---of nearly everything. Agriculture created more food to feed the swelling populations, but it was largely timber, of course, and other resources that were in short supply.)

*My concept of "matriarchy" is based on home-rule, which is traditionally central to female power (and feminine-thinking: more-is-best, hoarding, organizing), women's historical base of operations---a city is an expanded version of that home, an empire or republic is an expanded version of that city, and this so-called "global village" of humans (civilization) is an expanded version of the empire or republic.]

Cheers.

[David Quinn]

What you write here is pretty hard to argue against. Patriarchy is definitely an illusion, one created by women as further means of controlling men.

One of the ways that women are able to maintain their firm psychological grip over men is to constantly make them feel guilty. Invoking the spectre of an "oppressive patriarchy" does the job nicely.

-

[Nordicvs]

What you write here is pretty hard to argue against.

Alrighty. (I had thought there'd be more of a debate here with this, but it appears that most people see it the same way.)

Patriarchy is definitely an illusion, one created by women as further means of controlling men.

Do you think this control originated as an actual conscious "plan," or did it perhaps develop over time unconsciously?

(It just does not seem likely, to me, that this illusion of patriarchy is some type of conscious conspiracy; and all the ardent feminists I come across, aside from appearing quite parrot-like, give no indication other than that they believe it's a scientific fact---I suppose all it requires is belief, like any other type of dogma. Many of them even look at aboriginal peoples and call those matriarchies...and immediately my eye starts twitching.)

One of the ways that women are able to maintain their firm psychological grip over men is to constantly make them feel guilty. Invoking the spectre of an "oppressive patriarchy" does the job nicely.

-

Yes, and some do not need the "oppressive" bit: once identifying "the patriachy," they're then able to view historical and current social ills and attach blame, connecting all of thier dots without any chain of evidence, and without even looking at women's part in "his"story.

[Kevin Solway]

I think patriachy dominates over matriarchy if we consider that only conscious desire for control is meaningful.

That is, since men are slightly more conscious than women - since women are hardly conscious at all - then men's desire for control (self control, control of their environment, etc) is also more conscious.

So there is a patriarchy, since consciousness is superior to unconsciousness.

However, the unconscious power of women, and of Nature itself, while not superior, has a greater force.

[Nordicvs]

I think patriachy dominates over matriarchy if we consider that only conscious desire for control is meaningful.

In a small group of men (or in most other social mammals), a base heirarchy is always established, of course---in the natural world, most often that heirarch is the strongest, and his control is asserted physically; technically, that physical force would be "patriarchal." (The dynamics of something like a wolf pack reflects this.) In civilized society, laws prevent such physical force from being employed except through appointed heirarchies (police force, armies, of course) and heirarchs (kings, et cetera); in a natural "patriarchy," no one is appointed, obviously; it is naturally arrived at. Only in a matriarchy would they be appointed (giving the illusion of patriarchy---and whether these "shadow rulers" did this consciously or subconsciously initially, and whether or not they've maintained it consciously, is what I'm really wondering about).

Would not patriarchy only dominate in its natural environment---where no invented laws combat natural physical force (direct and conscious control)?

If civilization crumbled tomorrow and humans were reduced to living for only survival, no laws or rules, disorganized, "patriarchy"---expressed in small heirarchies---would dominate only in sparse populations; in larger populations (with more children, more women about to have children, and hence fixed dwellings; stationary society), humans would reform mass heirarchies with centralized leadership (today's version of patriarchy: matriarchy's fist in patriarchy's glove). No?

That is, since men are slightly more conscious than women - since women are hardly conscious at all - then men's desire for control (self control, control of their environment, etc) is also more conscious.

That seems to be the case---but men do not run the world. All they have done and all they've sacrificed (with the exception of an elite upper-class of feminine-thinking men, many of whom who are appointed to positions of "power," and profit from it all, even though their families profit more than they do) is for women and children.

As far as conscious control goes...I find that women are vastly more controlling then are men, and they're barely aware they're doing it. On a social scale, they organize men to do what they want. In relationships, it seems to be even less conscious. (Sometimes, things they do were conscious but through significant repetition, conditioning, their awareness fades.)

So there is a patriarchy, since consciousness is superior to unconsciousness.

(*)However, the unconscious power of women, and of Nature itself, while not superior, has a greater force.

But how do you define conscious control as opposed to unconscious control?

The collective will of women directs their collective intellect to attract, lure, men to chase after them, have sex with them, have children, for both of which the men must work in a form of voluntary slavery, forgoing many things they'd rather be doing and putting their lives at risk; most men hate their jobs and even thier lives but continue along for the potential of sex and love, and then their kids---and it's vaguely conscious.

A woman puts on make-up consciously to attract men, who are largely unware of why they're so attracted (why they're so drawn to certain areas, like the darkly enlarged eyes, et cetera) to them.

The controller seems more conscious than the controllee, or the controllee is aware, in varying degrees, and doesn't mind.

Anyway, I'd like to read why you think consciousness is "superior" to unconsciousness. And (*) why that which is superior does not have greater force; it would seem to have superior force, hey?

[sue hindmarsh]

Nordicvs wrote:

As far as conscious control goes...I find that women are vastly more controlling then are men, and they're barely aware they're doing it. On a social scale, they organize men to do what they want. In relationships, it seems to be even less conscious.

Relationships are the key to woman’s power, for it is only through her relationships that she exists. Therefore, society is truly the domain of the feminine, for within it there is near endless opportunity for her to form new relationships – and thereby strengthen and develop her impact on what society values. For example, love and coupling are highly prized, as are children and money. It is due to these feminine values being highly prized by society that the feminine – the unconscious – lords over the masculine (the conscious).

-
Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Unconscious control? Is that what you call it when you do something for someone else's benefit (?) that you--consciously--didn't really want to do?

.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . humans would reform mass heirarchies with centralized leadership (today's version of patriarchy: matriarchy's fist in patriarchy's glove). No?

I don't think so. I think our current society is patriarchal.

All the big decisions are made by men. Take the space program for example. It costs trillions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on helping women, by paying for childcare, or for Phd's in nail manicuring or handbag fashion design. The decision to spend all that money on the space program is a partially conscious decision made almost entirely by men, and which women simply go along with because men are keen to do it.

Of course, it could be argued that all the partially conscious ambitions of men, and all of his genius, is for no other purpose than to impress and please women. All that he does is a sex display, like the colourful tail of a peacock. The purpose of the space program is to eventually provide more material goods for women. In this case woman and unconscious Nature has the upper hand.

The consciousness is hobbled and enslaved, without the freedom to express its pure nature - put to the service of an unconscious master.

As far as conscious control goes...I find that women are vastly more controlling then are men

I find that women's power and control is too automatic to be called conscious.

For example, a woman might think, "If I wear make-up and sexy clothing, then I will be able to manipulate a man to serve me." That's about as far as it goes in my experience.

If that can be called conscious at all then it is only on the absolute lowest level. Really, I don't think that women have to think about it at all, or ever have, but do it out of animal instinct.

But how do you define conscious control as opposed to unconscious control?

It is conscious to the degree that it is reasoned, and the long-term consequences carefully considered.

The collective will of women directs their collective intellect to attract, lure, men to chase after them, have sex with them, have children, for both of which the men must work in a form of voluntary slavery, forgoing many things they'd rather be doing and putting their lives at risk; most men hate their jobs and even thier lives but continue along for the potential of sex and love, and then their kids---and it's vaguely conscious.

I think once a man has given his life over to being a slave - once he is older than about 24 and entered full-time employment - then he has largely sacrificed any potential for consciousness he might have had.

Before that time there is sometimes a hope that he might become his own person.

A woman puts on make-up consciously to attract men

I wonder how conscious it is, or whether it is an animal behaviour that is coded in the genes in some way. The more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that it determines our behaviour.

Anyway, I'd like to read why you think consciousness is "superior" to unconsciousness. And (*) why that which is superior does not have greater force; it would seem to have superior force, hey?

Consciousness is only "superior" as a personal preference of my own, since I choose to value it.

Even though consciousness is superior, it can be wiped-out by unconsciousness Nature in a moment - eg, hit by a bolt of lightning or destroyed when a space-goat devours the solar system while grazing.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Unconscious control? Is that what you call it when you do something for someone else's benefit (?) that you--consciously--didn't really want to do?

Leyla,

Wouldn't anything done that you didn't conciously really want to do be being done unconciously?

[Pye]

.

patriarchy . . . . was the first move of the human animal who could negotiate instead of kill. Patriarchy is the first agreement among male animals, that, rather than have to fight and kill for breeding rights (and property), we shall live by these agreements instead: self-control by agreement over the objects of our greatest drive: We shall not bed our mothers. nor our sisters, but pass them off to other men to satisfy their own chance at paternity and progeny; Younger, stronger sons cannot overthrow the father for access to the women in the house, mother or sisters. He too must control his urges until which time the system set forth gains him access to breeding rights (and property) as well. These configurations will more readily secure that each male shall know his own progeny and not unwittingly have to support a human who is not of his flesh. These configurations will more readily assure that his property that is rightfully his will be inherited by the flesh that is rightfully his. These patriarchal rules ("rule by the father") will ensure in theory each man a chance at breeding rights and property, in his turn, and that each man who has already "earned" these securities need not fear overthrow by younger bucks. Patriarchy addresses those deepest and most violently defended animal things (breeding and territory/property), and raises them to the beginnings of civilization -- that male animals shall have these rules for civilization to raise them from beasts to negotiators, and to ensure them a rule of law that still gets them what they need and covet most.

Patriarchy's greatest influence takes the form of the family, this same family pretty much as it looks today: It also agrees (in theory) not to bed its mothers and to pass off its daughters and sisters to men outside the home & family; it continues to maintain the property chain and the attendant "rights" to it. It agrees to exogamy for reasons of property -- both that the father can give it away in marriage and that the son can cast outside the family to bring in the property/women from another clan. Though female children are most usually in the inheritance chain now along with their male siblings, the vestiges of the male-to-male only property exchange exists in everybody's last name. It exists in women who marry and take a man's last name. Patriarchy is neither "gone" nor a fabrication of 70s feminists. It is the underlayment of an entire system of human values from their earliest established time -- buried in memory and repetition. Getting up underneath the ideas of "property ownership" and people in a family thought and referred to as "mine" or "ours" -- these would be deep ideas to be overthrown in humanity's future; a greater distance from the animal-reactive, ego-encased individual of the past, who gathers his objects around him and calls them "his" in so many petulant displays.

Freud thought patriarchy one of the deepest human dramas of libidinous human animals, in fact, the drama of human sexuality, with rules created outwardly from the deepest and most inward roots.


.

[Pye]

.

There is no archeological evidence for a corresponding configuration called "matriarchy." There is evidence for matrilineal societies, which are not the same thing. These are still a property matter, and did nothing to improve the overall lot of women bearing labors of all kinds; excluded from community decisions. Stories of ancient matriarchies that sprung up in the feminist-reactive 70s share the same pathology as all stories that excavate the past as a time when we were "smarter, happier, all in tune with things, getting along," etc. -- romantic fiction. It was a vain effort on the part of feminists to create a picture of a time when women ruled a peaceable world, as if to resurrect credentials from the past. Matrilineal societies are all that might have existed; there have been no matriarchies; and the feminist movement itself is guilty of fallacious self-aggrandizing.

The phrase "goddess culture" encompasses a patriarchal outcropping itself -- for the same reasons that a system of self-control and rewards was needed to civilize the male libidinous appetite, so too were deities made of these powerful creatures (women) and so too shall we placate them -- all this coming from the male interfacing with his world of overwhelming object-desires and how to negotiate them with others who can kill for it, too. Goddess culture had nothing to do with actual women living in fuller subjectivity or better conditions; women themselves were not "worshipped," the same old crap went on for them. It was these abstractions -- these female deities -- that represented (in the oldest and most sweeping act of bad faith) the uncontrollable desires of males, and thus needed placated and worshipped as such.

So, no matriarchies; and no goddess culture, at least in the way you might think.

Just patriarchy. That's the biggest, longest-running ideational system that humans collectively have had. It comes from the need to attend to the loudest, strongest, and most potentially destructive desires listed in humans, and that is male libidinous desire for breeding rights and territory.


.

[Carl G]

.There is no archeological evidence for a corresponding configuration called "matriarchy."

At least none you've seen, apparently. The full archeological record is not accessible to us, largely due to patriarchal censure.

But on the subject of matriarchy, I can think of one recent society that comes close in at least three respects, and that is the Iroquois people of N.Y. (and lately, Canada). Traditionally, and to this day to a large extent, it is women who own the homes (although not in a possessive sense). It is the woman's family/clan that the man joins upon marriage. And it is women who nominate the chiefs (who are men), and who can remove them if their character does not continue to uphold tribal values.

[David Quinn]

Pye wrote:

Just patriarchy. That's the biggest, longest-running ideational system that humans collectively have had. It comes from the need to attend to the loudest, strongest, and most potentially destructive desires listed in humans, and that is male libidinous desire for breeding rights and territory.

The problem with the term "patriarchy" is that it implies men actually have power and control in their lives, when it is evident they are still slaves to women's desires and feminine aims.

Kevin mentioned the space program as evidence of a patriarchy, but the truth is the space program has always been severely hampered by a lack of funding. Our society always howls in protest the moment scientists start asking for more than the few crumbs they manage to get. It's still the case that most of our wealth is being squandered on a multitude of feminine purposes, such as making handbags, devising entertainments and fighting wars.

You stated that men initially devised agreements and laws amongst themselves as a means to check their own primitive desires and that this constituted the first steps towards civilization. No doubt this is true. But I can't really think of this as a "patriarchy", mainly because the laws and agreements were reactionary in nature and didn't issue forth out of a deep-sighted, masculine intelligence. It's always been a case of desperately plugging up the holes whenever a leak is observed, just as our laws evolve in this manner today.

In short, the term "patriarchy" implies a level of consciousness and discipline in men which isn't really there.

The phrase "goddess culture" encompasses a patriarchal outcropping itself -- for the same reasons that a system of self-control and rewards was needed to civilize the male libidinous appetite, so too were deities made of these powerful creatures (women) and so too shall we placate them -- all this coming from the male interfacing with his world of overwhelming object-desires and how to negotiate them with others who can kill for it, too. Goddess culture had nothing to do with actual women living in fuller subjectivity or better conditions; women themselves were not "worshipped," the same old crap went on for them. It was these abstractions -- these female deities -- that represented (in the oldest and most sweeping act of bad faith) the uncontrollable desires of males, and thus needed placated and worshipped as such.

A lot women these days are attached to the ideal of the "goddess". Many of them become New Agey and seek to "worship the goddess inside them". And indeed, almost all women are slaves to their conception of what a perfect woman should be, a conception that resembles the traditional goddess ideal. Are you saying women have unwittingly absorbed this conception from men and are worshiping what is, in effect, a foreign ideal?

So, no matriarchies; and no goddess culture, at least in the way you might think

From another perspective, it is easy to see that modern Western society is a goddess culture. If we ignore all the meaningless external structures for a moment, we can see that Woman forms the centre of nearly everyone's life. People everywhere, both male and female, are constantly sacrificing themselves on Her alter. It is meaningless to talk about a "patriarchy" on this level.

-

[Pye]

.

Yes, I mentioned that there was evidence for matrilineal societies. That's what you're describing above. But not matriarchy. There's never been such a thing. Nor is there any reason to recommend such a thing.


.

[Pye]

.

(sorry . . . above in reference to Carl G.
Back to David soon.)


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

most of our wealth is being squandered on a multitude of feminine purposes, such as making handbags, devising entertainments and fighting wars.

How is was a feminine thing? It seems to me that war is of the male world - most little boys will turn anything into a gun or sword as most little girls will turn anything into a babydoll. Wars have been started and mostly fought by men throughout history. Women fight, but in their natural state women fight much differently than men fight.

Packing up a bunch of people with a bunch of supplies to go kill and maybe be killed is more the male way. Females would be more likely to call up the other side and give them an earfull, and if that didn't work, go with embargos and propaganda, and only as a last resort go for the kill - but at that only go for the responsible leader(s) with sugical precision.

[Kevin Solway]

How is [fighting] a feminine thing?

If you do a survey of people who believe in the death penalty, you will find that at least 50% are female.

Women approve of killing others at least as much as men do, but women are able to tell men to go and do the killing for them.

Those men who are able to kill and amass material wealth, or at least protect what they already have, are rewarded by being able to get themselves a wife and reproduce.

Business is a kind of war in which men go out and kill for the sake of being attractive to women. In business, not only do you kill the natural environment (through deforestation and pollution, etc), but you also seeking to destroy your competition through monopolizing resources and the market.

[beebuddy]

Business is a kind of war in which men go out and kill for the sake of being attractive to women.

Strong men don't need to compete for, or even look for mates. Oppurtunities for procreation just fall into their laps. :)

[Cory Duchesne]

They also did a study trying to determine if women, due to estrogen, dealt with an abusive situation more peacefully than men.

The experiment involved first decieving participants into the thinking that they were answering general questions about life in general.

The person who questioned the participants was dressed up like a scientist and did his best to look serious as he asked questions.

He was actually a proffesional actor and his job in the experiment was to gradually initiate a conversation with the participants and then at a certain point, begin to skillfully insult the participant in a realistic way.

the test results showed that on average, the men who were on the recieving end of the abusive behavior, dealt with it much more calmly and rationally.

The women on the other hand were distinguished in that they retaliated with much more swearing, shouting, viciousness and anger.

[Cory Duchesne]

It's also interesting to note how, when a fairly charismatic serial killer is brought to trial, hundered of letters from females start pouring in for him and in two instances that I know of, the serial killer marries one of these crazy women.

[Carl G]

.Yes, I mentioned that there was evidence for matrilineal societies. That's what you're describing above. But not matriarchy. There's never been such a thing. Nor is there any reason to recommend such a thing.

Hmm, my dictionary defines matriarchy as having a mother as the head of the family, in which descent, kinship and succession are reckoned through the mother, instead of the father. And it defines matrilineal as pertaining to, descended from, or characteristic of the maternal line.

Not sure how you are choosing to delineate or differentiate the two.

[Gretchen]

I think once a man has given his life over to being a slave - once he is older than about 24 and entered full-time employment - then he has largely sacrificed any potential for consciousness he might have had. Before that time there is sometimes a hope that he might become his own person.

Pye’s argument does seem to hold out here because if this pre-slave man of under 24 became his own person, his genius genetic material would not be passed along for future generations, in short, he cannot reproduce without a woman.

I am not quite sure why you favor the masculine when it is not whole without the feminine. They are equalizers. It is humanity that screws around with the perfect nature of this wholeness. In this mating [that should be for life] there is either the male or the female who becomes ungrounded by the perfect whole and tips the relationship into an unbalanced situation. Unless a homeostasis is achieved over a short time, divorce and/or separation is bound to occur.

What I cannot seem to understand is the successful male, who marries, has two children, raises these children into adulthood and suddenly finds himself overwhelmed by the attentions and affections of someone half his age…only to start the whole process over again. Whereas, if he would have grounded himself by recognizing and coming to terms with the ridiculousness of his irrational behavior, he would have been a complete success.

Business is a kind of war in which men go out and kill for the sake of being attractive to women.

I don’t agree with this at all. Masculinity, by definition, is ambitious, competitive and goal oriented. There are many men whose first love is their job, the wife and family come in somewhere after thereabouts in descending order, even if the wife works. While it may be true that a wife controls the relationship, his job is one of his few, if not only, sanctuaries. A woman, on the other hand, has none. In my experiences, I also find it interesting how men lose their masculine nature as they age, and it is a fear that paralyzes some, whereas women seem to take on some, not all, masculine qualities as they age.

[David Quinn]

Kevin wrote:

If you do a survey of people who believe in the death penalty, you will find that at least 50% are female.

Women approve of killing others at least as much as men do, but women are able to tell men to go and do the killing for them.

During the American civil war, pacifists and conscientious objectors used to be paraded down the street so that the womenfolk could spit on them.

-

[Carl G]

I think once a man has given his life over to being a slave - once he is older than about 24 and entered full-time employment - then he has largely sacrificed any potential for consciousness he might have had. Before that time there is sometimes a hope that he might become his own person.

Pye’s argument does seem to hold out here because if this pre-slave man of under 24 became his own person, his genius genetic material would not be passed along for future generations, in short, he cannot reproduce without a woman.

There are so few 24 year old men (boys) willing to sacrifice family/career for spiritual development that the human race will not suffer for births. The average joe will never make that choice. So far as genius genes, maybe they won't get transferred biologically, but isn't genius primarily passed through teaching?

I don't agree with David that generally the game is over once a man enters the workforce. Maybe that's the case if he has no interest to begin with. I've heard of a traditional practice in parts of India, where a man concentrates on his family and then after the kids are grown, dives wholeheartedly into his spiritual work.

Business is a kind of war in which men go out and kill for the sake of being attractive to women.

I don’t agree with this at all. Masculinity, by definition, is ambitious, competitive and goal oriented. There are many men whose first love is their job, the wife and family come in somewhere after thereabouts in descending order, even if the wife works. While it may be true that a wife controls the relationship, his job is one of his few, if not only, sanctuaries. A woman, on the other hand, has none. In my experiences, I also find it interesting how men lose their masculine nature as they age, and it is a fear that paralyzes some, whereas women seem to take on some, not all, masculine qualities as they age.

The primary motive driving successful businessmen is not women. It is a measuring of oneself against the world, and indirectly, against other men. It is true what you say about the most successful ones, they tend to neglect their women. They are workaholics for the (obsessive) sake of wealth. They want to pile up the chips just to see how high they can.

Now rock stars, that's a different story...

[Kevin Solway]

Strong men don't need to compete for, or even look for mates. Oppurtunities for procreation just fall into their laps. :)

This is only if men are able to display to women that they are "strong" - or at least what women perceive to be strong.

The normal way for a man to display this so-called "strength" is to have either money, a job, or both, or at least the potential for them. Preferably also a car.

A peacock without a tail will not attract females.

Since the majority of men are behaving unconsciously, and are unconsciously making their sex-displays, they don't need to consciously compete with others, even though they are still doing so without their knowing it.

If you contract a severly disfiguring disease, and find yourself unemployed, unemployable, deaf and dumb, penniless, and homeless, you will soon become aware of your lack of ability to compete for females.