From Part II Chapter 7 The Polity of Male Domination
By T.L. Dayen
There is no institution more vulnerable to the abuses of the dominant male ego than the unit of the family. It is within the unit of the family that the male ego can wield its authority with impunity under the guise of “Head of the family”! Of all the male ego, American value images, it is the image of “traditional family values” that is the most fixed and most impermeable to the adaptations of reality! Traditional family values are what the male ego would call, the ‘natural order.’
The traditional family is to the male ego, what boot camp is to the U.S. armed forces. The male ego uses the traditional family to maintain the codes of the social construct that keeps it, and has kept it, dominant for thousands of years! The traditional family and communities of traditional families, indoctrinate each new generation into the enduring social construct that supports the fallacy of male dominance and female subordination. Unfortunately, in some (perhaps many) traditional families, this can even include blatant oppression and abuse, and depending on where you and your traditional family live, oppression and abuse are in fact brandished upon the human female as simply a matter of [ordained] course. Stewart spends a great deal of time illustrating in imbuing, often depressing detail, the repressive existence of many (if not most) women here at home and around the world in 2014, so I don’t need to. My goal is to expose why the animal mind of the male ego so desperately needs to maintain the image of traditional family values to perpetuate its dominance and control over women and each other; indeed our humanity. My goal is to also reveal the family values of human mind; human [female] values that will allow us to survive into and evolve past the 21st century.
What is the “Traditional Image” of the Family?
The traditional family requires traditional roles of father, mother and child. The father is head of the household. He is the supreme authority. He provides for his family. He has the ultimate say in all family matters and decisions. His food, comfort and well-being are central to the household. The mother supports the father (her husband) and sees to his needs. She bears his children and cares for them as well. She maintains the home and sees that it functions in accordance with the needs of her family. The traditional mother and wife should not have desires or ambitions outside of the home if finances are sufficient. However, if it is necessary for her to work, she is still responsible for her full traditional duties at home as well. The highest ambition of the traditional wife and mother is to attend to the needs of her husband, his children and his home. He is responsible. She is devoted. He is loving. She is caring. He has a job. She has duties. He is an overseer. She is a facilitator. The traditional roles of husband (father) and wife (mother) are critical and pivotal to indoctrinating the children into the social construct of female subordination illustrated by her physical, emotional and mental servitude; and male superiority illustrated by his complete authority. These roles should be upheld both in and outside the home.
In their traditional roles, the man is superior simply by his gender. Within the traditional family, simply the presence of the father invokes reverence; his voice invokes authority. This reverence and authority is not earned by what he contributes to the home, his status within the community, his income level, or his skill sets. The female however must earn her value as a good wife or good mother by her works alone. Her significance within the traditional family unit is only measured by her ability and proficiency to serve. In other words, the prominence of the father within the traditional family unit is innate to his gender, while the mother must prove she is worthy of respect by the yoke of her labor, and yet even a “dead beat dad” has more authority within the ‘traditional’ home than a “working mom.” This of course is only based on the physically stronger male human physique, which to the male ego animal mind denotes superiority! Moreover, the male in the traditional home doesn’t even have to be physically stronger than his spouse to maintain his authority. The traditional man’s claim to ultimate authority within his home is simply his penis.
Those who advocate for “traditional family values” understand that only within the controlled environment of the home, can a child’s indoctrination from birth to young adulthood into the social construct of male domination over the female be absolute. While this same social construct is generally supported in the greater community and through the media, there are fragments of human mind to be found outside of the controlled environment of the home that can interfere with unalloyed indoctrination. So, these same advocates also promote ‘religion’ within the traditional family unit, because religion assists in maintaining these values learned within the home by providing a safe haven of indoctrination outside of the home; whether in body or in my mind. What is learned in the home in the name of one’s religion can be used as a discriminatory filter for information encountered outside the home that may be counter to traditional family values. Religion also provides for a social network that replicates within the community, the controlled home environment of the traditional family values of traditional male and female roles.
Religious Orthodoxy and Sexual Control = Female Oppression
The ability to maintain male dominance rests solely on the male ego’s ability to control a woman’s sexuality. To achieve this, the convention of dominant male ego traditional family values is that a woman’s body is for the pleasure of her husband, and the bearing of his children. The dominant male ego uses religious decree to mandate 1) all sexual activity be conducted within the bounds of heterosexual marriage; 2) the woman copiously submits to her husband’s sexual will; and 3) the woman relinquishes any and all authority over her body’s reproductive processes to God “He.” And if “God is He,” then “he is god.” Religious hegemony over a woman’s sexuality is nothing more than the ancient protraction of male domination over the female body, and therefore the oppression of her personal freedoms as ordained by God’s law of natural order.
A man, on the other hand, has no restrictions on his sexuality. In fact, Pat Robertson from the 700 Club actually reprimanded women on national television for complaining about husbands who cheat when he said, “O.k., he cheated. He’s a man.” A woman’s egg and its biological process are divine and must be protected (controlled) by God He, but a man’s semen and his ejaculation are his own business and under his personal control; nothing “holy” about it. He can spill his own seed anywhere, anytime for any reason, but the moment he chooses to spill his seed into a woman, it becomes a divine act to which only she has a spiritual obligation. A woman’s sexuality is only under the authority of God He. The female is religiously mandated to have no personal control over her own sexual biology. The sexual biology of the male however, has absolutely no religious significance and is in fact, his own private matter. Control a woman’s body, and you control her life, her choices and her options. You control her freedom.
There is no stronger stanchion for the endurance of female oppression than thousands of years of religion and the traditional family unit. The female body belongs to the church (God is He), and to her husband (he is god). What is the difference between forcing a woman to create another human being from her bone, her flesh and her blood in the name of a Lord Father, and forcing a woman to cover her flesh in the name of an Allah? The message here either way is that a woman’s body does not belong to her, but IS whether by Biblical or Sharia law, in fact, public domain.
What are Real Family Values?
Today’s advocates for the return of “traditional family values” blame female liberation, public education and the separation of church and state for the “moral decline” of our nation. They also see the “condoning” of homosexuality as a threat to the moral fabric of our society. All four of these social changes and civic institutions have challenged the traditional family unit and the values it portends to our children. Indeed, they challenge the very indoctrination process of male domination.
As women gained their physical and financial independence through reproductive freedoms, the traditional roles of male (father/husband) and female (mother/wife) within the home began to adapt to new social realities. The man was no longer the sole breadwinner, and the female was no longer just a housewife. However, many fail to realize that women’s liberation to work was also born out of financial necessity. In 1969 when I was five, my parents bought their first house in the middle-class suburbs of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles; a 3 b/r home with a pool, for $27,000. We were the typical suburban family; mom, dad, 2 kids, a dog and a cat. My father, 32, worked and went to school while my mother, 27, was a house wife. Did it make a difference in my life having a stay-at-home mom? I’m sure it did, and I believe I’m fortunate to have had that opportunity. However, the scenario of my childhood is scarcely possible today unless you are born into wealth! So, while two working parents may have changed the landscape of the family unit, and provided more equitable role models of the male and female, it was born more out of socio economic necessity than the so called “evils” of women’s liberation. A woman’s right to reproductive freedom simply allowed families to meet new economic challenges. Unfortunately, many families that would welcome the opportunity to have just one working parent will never have the finances to do so.
Even so, the moral decline of society was not spun from non-traditional “roles” of mother and father. In fact, non-traditional parental roles teach shared responsibility; mutual respect; personal humility; and shared sacrifice for the greater good. The moral decline of society was actually spun from the lustful greed of a massive television, cinematic, internet, social media and advertising industry that preys on young, vulnerable and undiscerning minds by selling sex and violence to build and multiply its own phenomenal wealth. It should also be noted that as the family unit becomes less and less “traditional,” objectification of the female in all media has become more and more sexually demeaning even to the point of dehumanizing. Combine this with a national decline in living wages forcing both parents to work longer hours just to make ends meet, and you have a recipe for generational moral decline. The notion that female reproductive freedom, and gender and parental equity are responsible for the “moral decline” of our nation is simply a twisted image projected by the male ego to maintain its sexual control of the human female.
School is second only to the home in its level of influence upon our children. School is our first independent social contract outside of our home environment, and lasts almost as long as our entire childhood. Human mind acknowledges our public-school system is critical to maintaining the generational academic and economic success of our nation, and to maintaining the generational cognition of our national values (human and civil equality); historic successes and failures (national and global heritage), and a collective understanding of our experience (the arts) and existence (science).
Our once great public school system was critical in maintaining “national unity, purpose and promise.” The animal mind of the male ego however, has begun to see the national values of human equality and equal opportunity upheld within the “public” school system as counter to its “image” of sexual, racial and economic inequitable divisions. And the science that is taught in the public-school system is in fact counter to the religious doctrine that the animal mind of the male ego relies upon to maintain the “image” of God He and his sexual control of the female. As I’ve pointed out, the strides made by human mind in the 20th century toward equal gender, racial and income liberty and opportunity for all Americans were fiercely fought by the dominant male ego animal mind – every – step – of – the – way. They are still fighting these civil gains as we speak! A public-school system that teaches these national advancements as “virtuous” is antithetical to the traditional family values indoctrinated within the controlled traditional family home environment. There has also been a concerted effort to curtail or alter conventional historical references to the founding fathers, manifest destiny in regard to native Americans, and the Great Depression in public school texts, in favor of more ‘conservative’ hindsight.
Private schools on the other hand, are not held to a national standard of values or academia. The dominant male ego is currently working our political system to enable public funding of private schools at the same time they are working to defund the entire public school system! Christian home schooling is on the rise as well. Can you imagine an entire generation of Americans who know more about “the great flood” than the civil rights movement? What is the fate of a nation where more and more of its citizens have grown up believing the Earth is only 6,000 years old? What do you suppose our world would look like today had human mind not won the “flat Earth” argument or the “Earth orbit” argument or the “existence of germs” argument; a global Afghanistan perhaps? Who needs a representative centralized government, infrastructure, science or education, when all you really need in this world is your holy book and your gun?
By dismantling the public-school system, the manically clever male ego animal mind is dangerously close to transforming one of the world’s most successful national institutions of equitable public learning into disjointed and fragmented bastions of personal, political and religious ideology and prejudiced “morality;” further diminishing our national unity and strength. Divide a people and you conquer their unified spirit and weaken their collective potential! Alter their history, and you control their future! Fertile ground for complete male ego exploitation and domination.
Clearly, the most serious of perceived “threats” to traditional family values is the socially accepted civil equality of homosexuals. Obviously, the notion of homosexuality is in direct opposition to the traditional family roles of male-female. The entire socially constructed image of male domination and superiority is predicated upon the sexual control of the female, and this image is only indoctrinated within the traditional family home environment. The animal mind of male ego seethes with vehement hatred of the homosexual’s civil right to love, to marry and especially to parent. While the male ego may contend that it fears homosexuality is some kind of contagion that can infect those around them to “become gay,” its actual and veritable fear is the ‘social acceptance’ of any relationship that does not allow for sexual male domination over the female. It is an upset of thousands of years of social and religious conditioning that the female is sexually dominated by the male. Without sexual domination of the female, the male ego is quite literally “impotent.” If children are allowed to be raised by two men or two women, they will never be indoctrinated into the image of male domination. The fact that this could now be accepted as a civil right indicates to the male ego that the socially constructed image of male domination has already begun to crack.
The dominant male ego has been somewhat willing to co-exist with gay behavior, but until now, it has never had to contend with the civic support of gay civil equality. To the animal mind of the male ego, this is in fact, civic rivalry to the established social construct of male domination and sexual control of the human female. Just as a racist holds the government and white supporters of racial equality in even more contempt than the source of their hate, so too, the male ego holds those governments and “straight” supporters of marriage equality in even more contempt! Racial equality only threatens white supremacy, but marriage equality is a threat to the very existence of male domination. If humankind thought we knew the male ego’s capability for destruction; my friends, in the face of its own extinction I sincerely fear that we “ain’t seen nothin yet!”
True Separation of Church and State
The “separation of church and state” was tolerated by the male ego fairly well as long as the traditional family unit was intact and traditional family values were being solidly passed down within the controlled environment of the home. As Stewart so poignantly illustrates, there is no indoctrination more potent than “observation imprinting.” For a child, what happens in the world is temporal, but what happens in the home from birth to young adult will become the fundamental conception of their invariable “reality.” But as 1) the traditional roles of male and female began to change due to the human mind civilized evolution of reproductive freedom; 2) public schools became desegregated institutions of 20th century “liberalism” and 21st century “science;” and 3) as the social acceptance of civil sexual equality increases; the indoctrination of male domination and superiority is at serious risk of becoming a marginalized concept that will never be capable of maintaining this “image” within our global social construct.
Whereas devotion to the church and decree of god He [male superiority] was always an optional extended “image” within the world of “reality” outside of the controlled environment of the traditional family home, the desperate animal mind of the male ego is now attempting to interject God He into our very legislative process, to superimpose the secular image of ordained male domination and superiority, on a non-secular society. Through mandatory God He directives that do not coalesce with accomplished 21st century civilized evolutions in human equality, opportunity and harmony, the male ego is attempting to tear down the “wall of separation of church and state.”
While it is true that most of our 100 founding fathers were of the Christian denomination, they also bitterly fought for our freedom from a Christian Monarchy. In addition, the founders most influential in the independence and formation of the United States of America were not of the Christian faith at all, but were self-professed “Deists.” This includes the “father” of our nation and first President, George Washington; our second President, John Adams; our third President, Thomas Jefferson; and our fourth President, James Madison. Even Benjamin Franklin, the only founding member of our Republic to have signed all three of our founding documents, was not a professed ‘Christian.’ Thomas Paine was not a founding member of our Republic, but he wrote the Manifesto for independence from England that spawned the revolutionary war. John Adams said of Paine, “Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Yet, brave and visionary Thomas Paine disdained religious orthodoxy. In his 1789 book, The Age of Reason, Paine wrote of organized religion, “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish [Jehovah], Christian [Lord] or Turkish [Allah], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
Adams, Jefferson and Franklin worked closely together on the Declaration of Independence, that makes no references to a Christian Lord, but makes several to a non-denominational “God of Nature” and “Supreme Creator;” that our inalienable “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are innate and in accordance with the “Laws of Nature.” These men were also central authors of our Constitution in which the First Amendment clearly declares “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The sheer depth of our founders’ commitment to the non-secular founding principles of our Union can be inferred from their own words:
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” – John Adams
“Original sin is as ridiculous as imputed righteousness.” – Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson – Publicly referred to the Protestant clergy of his day as “the real Antichrist[s].”
The pervasive reference to Biblical scripture we are witnessing today from our elected officials in federal and state legislatures that are intended to shape and influence public policy is an alarming and direct threat to the principles of our Constitution! The male ego of animal mind is currently employing religion in public policy to quash any social or civil insurgency against its power and authority to dominate, oppress, battle and control:
- Repealing the female’s right to reproductive freedom based on religious dogma
- Teaching Biblical text in public charter schools
- Denying the passage of any scientific based legislation that conflicts with Biblical scripture
- Publicly arguing issues in State and Federal legislatures referencing Biblical doctrine
Our founding fathers never intended religion to impede upon our democratic republic! They were men of the “Enlightenment age of Reason.” The United States of America arose only from their fight for reason to take hold within a world up to then controlled by the irrational, emotional and egocentric impulses of men with iniquitous means and advantage whether by might of body, wealth or piety. America is a two Party human mind Democracy NOT A Tea Party animal mind Theocracy! Traditional Family Values is just another term for 19th century superior male domination by Religious decree.