Patriarchy is a value system that expects men to marry, and to maximize their involvement in the lives of their children. Patriarchy is a necessary precondition for social and cultural flourishing. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.
Editor's note: Dr. Steve Turley is a swiftly rising YouTube sensation, author of multiple books, blog writer and education specialist. He makes a compelling argument about the imminent worldwide return to traditional values in terms of culture, politics and religion. Check out his fascinating blog and YT channel!
Alright everyone! The return of patriarchy and the rise of conservative society: that's what we'll be talking about on today's video.
Phillip Longman over here at foreignpolicy.com has an excellent article on the rise in birthrates among conservatives throughout the world but, particularly Europe and the United States and what that means for the rising of the conservative age in our midst. I owe a debt of gratitude to one of our VIP patrons, Robert Scoval, who shared this article with me, which I'll link down below for you, for your reference.
Now, of course in this channel, we're very interested in a world-wide phenomenon that scholars call retraditionalization. What scholars have noticed is that, in the face of threats to a sense of place, identity, and security so often posed by the anti-cultural processes of globalization, populations tend to reassert historic identity and security markers like their religion, customs, and traditions as mechanisms of resistance against secular globalization's anti-cultural, anti-traditional dynamics. Scholars are increasingly noting that, as people feel vulnerable and experience existential anxiety, it's just not uncommon for them to reassert their customs, traditions, culture, language, land, ethnicity as bulwarks against threats to their sense of existential security.
Now, perhaps no traditional institution is going through this kind of renewal, this kind of retraditionalization more than the traditional family. The actual application of the notion of retraditionalization has been the subject of some very interesting research on ethnic enclaves, ethnic minorities in Kyrgyzstan, where the researchers found that, the more such minorities felt threatened by the cultural pressures of assimilation, by the wider ethnic majority, the more they turned to procreation and fertility as the primary means of resisting such pressures as larger cultural assimilation.
But what Longman gets into is the wider implications of the return of patriarchy for particularly European and American demography. Now, by patriarchy, Longman doesn't mean simply that men rule, that now men are the bosses in every area of life, and women need to remain compliant and content, bunkering up in the kitchen. That's not what he meant. Instead, patriarchy — when all is said and done — patriarchy is, simply put, a value system that requires men to marry and, in turn, maximize their investment in the lives of their children. Patriarchy is a value system that requires men to marry — or at least expects them to marry — and maximize their involvement in the lives of their children.
As Longman points out, while patriarchy may have its modern-day critics — you know, it's feminist, post-modern, cultural Marxist critics — I think he rightly points out that, whatever else you want to say about it, the simple fact of the matter is that no advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it. In short, regardless of its detractors, patriarchy is, historically speaking — and, I would even add, logically speaking — a necessary precondition for social and cultural flourishing.
And, you know, the critics of patriarchy actually have a little something they need to answer for, and that's the rather inconvenient fact that the feminist and countercultural movements in the 1960's and 70's have been so up in arms against patriarchy. Right? They're not leaving any genetic legacy. They're basically disappearing off the face of the earth.
For example, Longman cites a very interesting statistic that, while only 11% of Baby Boomer women had four or more children. . . Okay? Only 11% had four or more children. Those children made up over 25% of the total children born to Baby Boomers. So 11% of the women are having 25% of the children! That's because so many of their secular counterparts had only one child or no children. Again, conversely, the 20% of Baby Boomer women who had only one child accounted for a mere 7% of the total children born to baby boomers. I want to read for you something that Longman writes here, what he concludes from data like this, because I think it's. . . I think you're going to like it.
Here's what Longman concludes from these statistics. These are his words:
This fertility discrepancy is "leading to the emergence of a new society" (Does that sound familiar?).
It's "leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation."
I'll read that for you again: "These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation."
Now, Longman goes on to note that this demographic dynamic helps explain, for example, what he calls the "gradual shift in American culture" away from secular individualism and toward what he calls "religious fundamentalism." I think we would prefer more the term "religious traditionalism," but I won't quibble over it. And he notes that, among the states that voted for President George W. Bush back in 2004, the fertility rates in those states — these are what we call "red states" — the fertility rate . . . They were 12% higher than in states that voted for Senator John Kerry. The London demographer Kaufman notes something similar here, where he found that conservative Christians had a 30% fertility advantage over their secular counterparts.
Now, interestingly, across the pond, as it were, Longman also notes that this demographic discrepancy may account, at least partially, for why Europeans are beginning to more and more reject what he calls "the crown jewel" of secular liberalism, which is, of course, the European Union. And this is because, as it turns out, those Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens," as globalists are also those least likely to have children.
And he cites some data from demographers that found that, if you have values and attitudes that don't really care about your nation, your culture, your tradition, your custom, that you're really enthusiastic about alternative lifestyles, and feminism, and cultural Marxism, you're far less likely to get married and have kids than those who revere and love their nation, culture, customs, and traditions.
And so, in Europe and the United States, we're finding that how many children different people have and under what circumstances actually correlates very strongly with their beliefs on a wide range of political and cultural attitudes. And, like we observed in another video, when all is said and done, conservatives are having children, and liberals are not. Again, he cites some statistics from France where only about 30% of women have three or more children, but they're responsible for over 50% of all children born in France. 30% of French women are responsible for 50% of all births. And again, this is because their secular counterparts are having either only one child or none at all.
So, as it turns out, particularly here in the States and in Europe, a disproportionate amount of the burgeoning population is being born to conservative traditionalist and nationalist families. And I think I mentioned in one of our last videos we did on this very issue that we have studies that confirm that the more conservative the family, the higher the retention rate for the kids when they become adults of that conservatism. In other words, the more conservative the family, the more likely that the children will retain that conservatism when they become adults. And further, we even have evidence that liberal children are more likely to become conservatives in their adult years than the other way around by about a 21 to 15% differential. So it really is quite stunning to say the least.
So, while it's quite wonderful to see nations such as Poland, Hungary, and Russia actively reversing their demographic declines with very deliberate, very intentional pro-family policies and programs, it's just as heartening to see that the natural conservative family is growing at an organic level as well. Thus, whether we're dealing with nations that are proactively attempting to revitalize the family or whether we're dealing with nations that aren't, regardless, the traditional family is reawakening all around us, reminding us all that, in the end, it is faithful conservatives that will inherit the earth.
Transcription provided by Dormition Professional Services.
This website is how the Gleason family and the Silva family earn a living. Maintaining this website is a full time job, and this is how they feed their families. Both families now live in Russia, and they appreciate your support.