An interesting essay. Naturally I dislike it, and provide a key reason for my demurral.
ALthough he discusses various past societies, and their rises and falls, he doesn't mention how factors like the role of literate women and their predominant success in education, simple and effective contraception, and mass communications and transport devices have affected patriarchal societies as they arose in the past.
What? Those are new to the last hundred years, and most common in the liberal secular West?
Hmm. Might there be reasons to assume differences in this cycle, I wonder...?
My serious point is, that the human condition for the vast majority basically changed minimally between ~8000BC and ~1500-1700AD. Since then we've seen some rather dramatic differences.
I therefore think it unwise to draw too many conclusions from societal cycles before the modern era, not least because in the past such cycles were never even studied whereas now we are all too aware...
Unless of course he's foreseeing a collapse of society (maybe induced by catastrophic climate change?) and a return to neo-feudalism... and once more this will not be the endorsed choice, simply the only one.
Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options—be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children—has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.
Personally I find soft drugs, homosexuality, and euthanasia acceptable and seldom, if ever, attend church so I am disappointed that rather than living alone, or in childless, cohabitating union I am married with four children... still, nobody's perfect. |
