Tags
In the 8th century BC, Sparta conquered Messenia a neighbouring territory, rich with agricultural land. It was also rich with a labour force, that later came to be known as the helots. Now the helots outnumbered the Spartans 10:1 but were unarmed. [1] Spartans were known for their military prowess and it is not an urban legend that their newborn male children were subject to physical scrutiny for it’s continued life. Spartans killed malformed male babies, most likely because of their male privilege I’m sure.
The combination of this captive labour force and the agricultural land led to an interesting dilemma, the Spartan Dilemma if you will. If the Spartans did not expand their military prowess and become even stronger and more ruthless, the helots could revolt and that would be the end of that. However, if they did not delegate labour to manage the helots and the acquired estates the territory would be useless. This was an incurred opportunity cost and would result in redirection of the labour of men. The Spartans thought they’d found a way out – allow women to manage the estates.
What followed was revolutionary for the time – nowhere else in Greece did such a society exist – where women were given property rights at par with men. The reason for this was because men were engaged full time in training for war. Men would live in barracks till they were 30 and were full time soldiers till they were 60. They were not needed to till the land, for that there were the helots. They were needed to manage them, but for that no man could be spared.
So what did the Spartans do? They educated their women, such that the women were almost equally as educated as their men if not more.[2] Women were allowed to own property just as men did. The inheritance laws for property were revised and women were allowed to directly inherit property, thus increasing their incentive to manage the estates. Women owned 40% of the land in Sparta, a truly astounding figure. To reinforce the incentive for women, adultery was not even considered sufficient grounds for divorce, so that men could not falsely accuse women of adultery and acquire the lands bequeathed to these women. Spartan women also began to marry later than the other Greek women of their time. Women were trained in horse-riding so that they could manage the estates. Sparta had granted it’s women equality with men.
The discerning immediately understands the opportunity cost of allowing something of this sort. In 480 BC Sparta had some 8000 citizen males, but 100 years later, that value was down to a fifth. Women were simply not incentivized to have and raise children. The result? Around 370 BC when Sparta lost to Thebes, Messenia succesfully revolted and never returned to Spartan control. Women lost their equal status and were treated the same as they were in the rest of Greece.
The lesson to take away here is not that equal rights for women is inherently bad, but that loss of demography is. It is quite obvious that there is no such thing as a work life balance. Treating women as equal to men, and making them aspire to masculine roles such as employment has the effect of lowering their TFR. Demography is destiny, and without it civilization falls.
This push for equality is an unstable equilibrium as illustrated by the Spartans. Stability lies in treating women like women, as nurturers and caregivers. They are naturally more empathetic than men, and evidence suggests they are better at health related topics such as medicine.
Equality has brought nothing but ruin on women. For instance, women’s suffrage is responsible for the ever burgeoning United States government. Taxes have increased, so has expenditure both of which are highly undesirable. Sexual liberation has caused disaster in the lives of the women who embraced it wholly. They are depressed, more likely to be divorced, more likely to be single mothers [3]. It should be of no surprise to anyone that women are unhappier under equality than they were under patriarchy, both absolutely and relatively to men.
The Spartan Dilemma really boils down to how to handle inevitable destruction. Does one allow destruction to progress unfettered immediately or does one simply delay it for future generations to deal with. In the same way the impending doom of global warming is a Spartan Dilemma. One should be quite skeptical of the models used to predict the effects of global warming [4]. Increased CO2 levels will not kill us all off, especially since plants do better in droughts due to increased levels of carbon dioxide. The founder of Green Peace Patrick Moore himself states that there are benefits to increased levels of CO2 [5].
Really global warming is a moral dilemma – without industrialization the poor in India will suffer since they do not have access to the facilities the average upper middle class liberal in Urban India has. But the industrialization comes at the cost of damage to the environment, which is impossible to estimate and will only affect future generations. Does one trade the rights of the present for the rights of the future? There will be inevitable wars over access to potable water, as well as resources like coal and oil. But does the UMC liberal in all his ignorance, really believe that he should dictate how the lives of the villager should be?
And what of other nations, how will they respond to this dilemma in the future? Should the Hindu lose the industrialization race, succumb to civilizational decay before it has even reached it’s new peak in the history of the human race? Suffice to say, the only move is to play defect.
In summary, it is clear that Hindus must learn from history as to the pit-falls of so called equality [6] foisted on them by the mleccha and guard against the Lysenkoisms popularized by their main stream media. The Occident is keen on maintaining it’s hegemony and does so through deception [7] in various forms. It is imperative that Hindus break their mental conditioning and begin to see power structures as they really are.
[1] Compare with Ibn Battuta who mentions that the “Lower classes” were heavily armed, so much so that they could resist Mohammedan tyrannies. No recorded history of a revolution of the well-armed V4s exist in history, but the unarmed helots most certainly did revolt against Spartan tyranny. It makes one wonder as to the nature of “Brahmanism”, and if it is rooted in anything but a Marxist conjuration.
[2] Women in America have more degrees than men.
[3] Single motherhood is detrimental to children in a number of ways. A stable married couple’s children are better off.
[4] Moldbug: “To estimate climate sensitivity, all you need is an accurate model of Earth’s atmosphere. Likewise, to get to Alpha Centauri, all you have to do is jump very high.”
[5] Patrick Moore left green peace because it was taken over by liberals and SJWs with no formal science education. Instead of focusing on the science, they pushed for their political agenda. It is a warning to Hindus to be careful of supposedly humanitarian organizations – PETA, Green Peace, the Red Cross, the Ford Foundation etc.
[6] Equality is incoherent, and it’s application would involve tyranny.
[7] No state is secular. In addition the author of this paper forces secularism onto Athens instead of onto Christianity, to mislead us into thinking that secularism has a tradition older than it really does. Webs within webs.
Note: Some phrases are lifted entirely from Fleck and Hanssen’s marvellous paper.
Kunal said:
very good article.but one question:
what if the man is cruel and mistreats his wife?shouldnt she seperate and to support herself might need a job.a man need not be honorable always.the man could be cruel,lazy,ill,incompetant too.Do you say women must endure all of that just for sake of demography?
I`m not well read on all this.saying this after seeing some women suffer for above reasons.kindly answer.
LikeLike
pagantrad said:
There are no easy answers to these questions.
In the traditional family structure, if a woman is mistreated her parents/her family would immediately come to her rescue and possibly make life miserable for the husband in question. They would then be supported by the parents or she would get a job.
My argument is not – don’t educate women it is that regardless of what you do loss of demography is the one thing we have to look out for. Hindu women of 2nd century BC (pre-invasion) were well educated and knew how to take care of themselves. But there was no hint of this delusion called modernity, they were feminine and the society was a patriarchy. That is the ideal scenario.
LikeLike
Kunal said:
Firstly I want to clarify that I am not a feminist,marxist,liberal,etc.I do believe in family,tradition,etc.Probably,you have misunderstood me to be one of them.I am no intellectual I ask as a layman.I ask questions only based on what I see around,not based on any philosophical study.
I agree there are women who treat men badly,misuse laws against husbands,etc.I am not at all denying that.I am on the men`s side there.But there are some parents who themselves treat their daughters badly,in case of such girls whose parents also don`t support,what will they do? What about female infanticide?
I ask because my own grandmother was very badly treated by her parents,husband and son(my maternal uncle) too.My grandma is in no way a feminist.I agree that Hindu women in ancient times were empowered and took care of oneself.But it would be difficult to take the society back to those days because there are some men who believe in mistreating their wives,daughters,etc,they might take advantage of situation where power is in their hands.Today`s people are not as ethical,dharmic people as the ancient times you talk about.
Secondly,issue is not just a husband-wife issue.Mother-son,father-daughter,brother-sister can also be issues.Children snatching parent`s property,mistreating elders is a rampant issue.Look at all those old age homes.In most cases its mothers who get that treatment because 1)fathers are more emotionally tough and hence troubling them might backfire 2)fathers usually die earlier than mothers and its easier for children to mistreat the mothers because mothers are very emotional and hence do not take action against them.You probably come from a happy family,hence will not understand this.This happens very often.An ideal society must take note of this too and have solutions for them.What could they be in your point of view?
Thirdly,even some housewives treat their husbands badly.Some housewives create fights between brothers,instigate their husbands against their parents,creating fights in family, etc.This might sound funny to you but is common.I have not made this observation from saas-bahu serials,I see it in real life.I think sending them to work will dilute these issues to a large extent.They will have less time for these things.
Fourthly,what about women who have husbands suffering from diseases and can`t work?Shouldn`t they work.What about widows?If they don`t work how will they bring up their children?
I have conveyed all doubts here.I know its a very long post but I feel opinions can be formed only over debates and discussions.An ideal society must take account of all such issues and if women were to stay at home and then it must be ensured that they are treated well.Just like how all men aren`t cruel chauvinists,all women also aren`t feminazis.Even traditional,feminist hating women have same concerns as mine.I believe purpose of your blog is to promote your views,hence must answer in detail not say `there are no easy answers,etc’.Thank You.
LikeLiked by 1 person
pagantrad said:
Female infanticide is an absolute disgrace and the evil must be rooted out from our society.
The origins of female infanticide can be traced here and this is something that I think everyone
should read so that it restores a little bit of confidence in the Hindu. http://indiafacts.org/was-ford-foundation-culpable-in-aborting-female-foetuses-in-india/
Either way most of your questions are really to do with how the individual family deals with it.
I could write my own Dharma shastra or make a smriti with the exact ways I should be attacking these problems
but those are often not very useful.
In essence each and every one of these problems can be sorted out by going back to a non-nuclear family setting where
each member is forced to respect their other family members and value them over all others. Enforcing a strict respect
for the family is the answer to all of point 2. My parents beat it into me that my brother will be the only one
to help me out when they are gone, so I have a great amount of respect for him and treat him accordingly.
More than anything you are missing my point about whether women should work or not.
It is not that women should not work, it is that demography should be maintained.
If a woman was to work but she is having 3 kids that is good. If she is unable to have children due to biology this rule would obviously not apply to her.
It is also to do with teleology for example take the telology of marriage. https://darwinianreactionary.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/how-a-lack-of-teleological-thinking-lost-the-marriage-debate/
Marriage is to protect children but that does not mean that marriage between barren people is somehow illegitimate.
In a similar way let us discuss your 4th case – Of course a woman should work to support her family. It would be
thoroughly irresponsible for her not to. I am not saying do not work, I am saying understand the trade-offs involved.
Wherever possible this should be the norm and should be followed (and it is incumbent on us to make sure it *is* the norm).
There are many reasons for this including the two-income trap and they are discussed here
by Dissident Quill. https://dissidentquill.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/working-women/
As for whether you think sending women to work will solve 3, I highly doubt it and I do not find it funny I am
very aware of it. This is actually a problem with Hindu laws like 498A which make life very difficult for men.
It is also to do with the middle class entitled princess syndrome. http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/03/13/the-entitled-middle-class-princess-syndrome/
As much as I loathe the idea, it would seem only a prenuptial agreement can sort this out for the time being until the laws
are repealed. Marriage can only survive when men are incentivized to marry. Rome had already started to decline
when they started their Bachelor Tax.
In the past there have been made mistakes.
The new generation of Hindus must let go of the past and reform their families.
It is difficult and it may not always work, but a strict patriarchy where men and women are treated with respect
and are allowed to explore their respective roles in society can never be enforced by the law
(at least in a democracy, it would be possible in a monarchy), only by the people themselves.
I hope I have answered your questions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
kunalmohann said:
Yes.My questions have been answered.Sorry for replying late,I forgot my password.
You are a very intelligent person.You should write a book.Thanks for patiently answering my questions.By the way how old are you?Just curious to know.
LikeLike
pagantrad said:
Closer to 20 than 25.
I do have one follow up though, it has come to my attention that prenup arrangements are illegal in India. The only way for a marriage to survive in that case is for both parties to have skin in the game.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SITG.html
How that would work is not uniform, quite obviously.
@YugaParivartan suggests that if the bride files a false case against you, you file a case using a female member of your family as proxy, against a male member of their family. Tit for tat strategy essentially. But this is just a thought.
LikeLike
Kunal said:
what about women suffering from domestic violence,women married to lazy or sick men,elderly women(also men) abandoned by their children? This is a reality too.I have seen all of it happening around me.agree with your concerns on tfr.your article is good.But this was a question I had in mind.
LikeLike
pagantrad said:
I think I have answered everything in the other comment, but I think this needs to be said. Men also suffer. I’m in no way a “meninist”, but this hysteria that feminism is brought is ridiculous. Men have it equally as bad and always have. “Oppression” stems from Cultural Marxism, which is a tool used by Leftists to destroy traditional families. It must be rejected.
There is only one type of privilege – wealth.
LikeLike