June 2008

Barack Obama And Fatherhood


This is the first part to which I was responding, the rest is below my polemic:

Lil Joe
---

Adey wrote - or was he quoting his handlers?

> Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that
> family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how
> critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches.
> They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men
> who constantly push us toward it.


On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Lil Joe wrote:

This is ridiculous, you cannot base an argument concerning empirical matters, or social phenomena on analogies. The premise to an argument has to be phenomenological. Peoples lives are not based on rocks, but on food, clothing and shelter. Food, clothing and shelter is the basis of every family - food and shelter are empirical universals, and the various family formations - matrileneal matriarchies as well as patrileneal patriarchies, are based on these empirical foundations.

Family formations are the result of the levels of development of a community's productive technological powers. Paleolithic and Mesolithic percussion and pressure flake technologies provide the means to scavengers - gatherers, and then as hunters -gatherers. Scavenging didn't require and economic division of labor, anymore than there are divisions of labor between flies or vultures. It wasn't until humans produced the means of making microliths and thereby spears, then composite tools like bows and arrows, that they begin to hunt. From this economic activity that there arose a natural division of labor between women and men.

Among homo sapiens, the females were naturally mothers, and from that became the primary gatherers and keepers of the hearth, compared to the anatomy and physiology of men, the made the the relatively natural hunters. Among lions there is also a natural sexual division of labor between males and females: the females hunt, while the males remain at the base camp to protect the infants and young from predators and male rivals. Thus, the division of labor is the opposite of the human hunters-gatherers.

Primatologists - those who study comparative primate behavior - and anthropologists, who argued for patriarchy as natural relied on the social structures and behavior of of Chimpanzee, and to social structure of baboons in military formation on savannas. They also point to gorillas, which also are apes. The solitary orangutan species, and the matriarchal bonobo, although both are ape species, are conveniently ignored.

Baboons are monkeys, not apes. Monkeys and apes have common ancestors, but monkeys and apes parted company into the formation of different branches of the primate family tree tens of millions of years ago. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.
See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317052241.htm

It is true that chimpanzee and gorilla clans are led by males, single male per clan, which must fight off other male challengers. If there is a political structure, however it is of the male hiarchy of the fathers and the sons, where the sons are beaten into submission, and at a certain age forced to leave the troop. The same is true of male lions, although the males are not leaders.

As to baboons, anthropomorphic project from humans political - military structures in class societies based on property -propertyless relations of production unto these species of monkeys. Yes, among the males of these relatively large troops, needing many males to protect the tribe, as opposed to the single male of a pride of lions. But, there is a corresponding hiarchy of females.
See: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/ Spring2004/diefendorf/Social%20Organization.htm

Yet, according to recent observations:

"All males emigrate from their natal troops, with 85 per cent of males emigrating prior to the time that they reach full adult size. Upon settling in a new troop, males must establish themselves in the male dominance hierarchy of that troop. This typically involves aggressive behavior between males, with the "winner" of an encounter establishing dominance over the "loser." Some males may emigrate into new groups in pairs. These male pairs may be half - or full- siblings from the same natal troop. Aside from such occasional life-long affiliations, males do not maintain long-term bonds with their male kin, as is seen in hamadryas baboons. (Melnick and Pearl, 1987; Pusey and Packer, 1987)

"An interesting phenomenon in P. anubis is the secondary transfer of aged adult males from their troops. Because the ability of a male to compete for mates is related to youth and vigor, or to long-term social relationships with females, transfer to a new troop in old age can only reduce a male's opportunities to mate. In addition, transferring to a new group exposes a male to a great number of hazards, including increased risk of predation, and dangers from aggression while integrating into the male dominance hierarchy of the new group. However, it appears that aged males who once had high dominance ranks are the subjects of constant harassment by younger males, who seem to remember the former "greatness" of such older males. It seems that males with larger numbers of female "friends" are more likely to stay in their troop in spite of harrassment. Males without many female friends are more likely to transfer to new troops, thereby avoiding the costs of such harassment. (Sapolsky, 1996)

Because males do not maintain life-long social ties with their kin, it is female kinship that forms the core and stability of P. anubis society. Because females of this species do not emigrate from their natal groups, female kin have life-long associations. Within a troop of anubis baboons, there is a dominance hierarchy of matrilines which is very stable over time. In general, an individual female occupies a place in the dominance hierarchy immediately below her mother and her younger sisters. Dominance relationships appear to develop from infancy, when maternal kin intervene in encounters with other baboons, and through the differential treatment of the young of higher-ranking females by unrelated animals. Within a matriline, the dominance relationships of sisters are the inverse of birth order. (Melnick and Pearl, 1987)
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Papio_anubis.html


With respect to the bonobo, they are completely matrileneal and matrileneal, and they are closer to humans genetically, compared to other apes, including compared to the observed patriarchal social, sexual and political structures of the chimpanzee.


"Peace-Loving Primates' Population Plummets; Only Female-Led Primate Species, Bonobos Under Siege from PoachersWASHINGTON, Dec. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ - Bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees, arguably our closest relative, may have been hunted so extensively that the survival of the species is at risk, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) warns. ...

"Bonobos live in matriarchal societies that reinforce cooperation, and unlike male-dominated chimpanzee troops, exhibit little aggression toward each other. The species resolves conflict through sex, a behavior not found in other primates and one that strengthens group cohesion. Although often equal in height to chimpanzees, bonobos' limbs are more slender; they have smaller, more rounded skulls; and they have a black face with reddish lips.
http://www.womensspace.org/RANDOMTHOUGHTS/364.html


Human beings, genetically closer to bonobo, but the most social and creative of all primates, have no "natural" family structure of system of consanguinity, which has on the contrary changes along with technological developments all over the world.

Given hundred of thousands of years of human social evolution and displacements, by technological efficiencies, there has been corresponding changes in the economies that forces changes in family structures and cultures.

There has been human matrileneal matriarchies based on common clan property with consequently egalitarian communities of hunters-gatherers based on evolving Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic technologies - passing inventions on from one hominid species to the next, technology progressed from generalized Stone Ax of scavengers to spears to bows and arrows of hunters to the stone hoe invented in context of, and derived from horticulture, where vegetation was abundant on the one hand. And on the other hand the thousands of years of hunting, and observational analysis gave rise herding, and from there to pastoralism and private property.

Then, given the evolved knowledge of seeding derived from human analysis of plants and animals over thousands of years, the domestication of plants and animals on the one hand, horticultural mode of production, on the one hand, and on the other the invention of metallurgy, the inventions of the bronze plow, and then the iron plow, in the Great River Valleys ( the Nile, the Tigris & Euphrates, the Indus, and the Yellow rivers) inundations created fertile land and the possibility of natural source irrigation, thus the rise of agriculture using draft animals.
See: http://www.indiana.edu/~ancient/theories.html

Women had been the gatherers, pharmacologists, keepers of the hearth as well as mothers and nurturers who formed the central foundation of the community. These societies were communal and egalitarian. The mean with their spears and bows and arrows, were the hunters who returned to distribute their prey. They also became warriors, establishing a military hierarchy, perhaps similar to the baboon troops, as they along with baboons lived in savannas. The humans were subject to attack by other tribes of humans, as well as animals.

By the developments of nomadic pastoralism and agriculture men became the chief providers, and the women were restricted to the house - barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen and a sex object for the pleasure of the man.

The work in the fields and the pasturing the cattle, sheep, goats and so on became mens work exclusively, and with this the desire to pass on this field or that animal flock to his son gave rise to both the negation of both communalism and egalitarianism with the transfer of social and political structures now based on patrileneal inheritance and political power based on men as warriors and farmers or pastoralists owning the lands and livestock, and the herds of pastorals. Polyandry was abolished and patrileneal patriarchal polygamy displaced it, and later was itself displaced in some places by patrileneal patriarchal monogamy.

This process was occurring while politically the men with weapons were expanding ownership of land and cattle, sheep &c. and patriarchal on one hand, and the owners of arable land were engaging in trade with pastoralists - first bartering meat and meat products on the edges of the communities: resulting from tribal communal property becoming private property of individual men.

"Objects in themselves are external to man, and consequently alienable by him. In order that this alienation may be reciprocal, it is only necessary for men, by a tacit understanding, to treat each other as private owners of those alienable objects, and by implication as independent individuals. But such a state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on property in common, whether such a society takes the form of a patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca State. The exchange of commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points of contact with other similar communities, or with members of the latter. So soon, however, as products once become commodities in the external relations of a community, they also, by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse. The proportions in which they are exchangeable are at first quite a matter of chance. What makes them exchangeable is the mutual desire of their owners to alienate them. Meantime the need for foreign objects of utility gradually establishes itself. The constant repetition of exchange makes it a normal social act. In the course of time, therefore, some portion at least of the products of labour must be produced with a special view to exchange. From that moment the distinction becomes firmly established between the utility of an object for the purposes of consumption, and its utility for the purposes of exchange. Its use-value becomes distinguished from its exchange-value. On the other hand, the quantitative proportion in which the articles are exchangeable, becomes dependent on their production itself. Custom stamps them as values with definite magnitudes."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm


All these transitions result in the rise of the economic divisions of labor between agriculturalists and pastoralists, the later over time, due to the nomadic character of their profession came to buy and sell articles from the different agricultural and from other pastorals communities. Thus, merchants and money arose. The first class es mutually formed were creditors and debtors.

Since here we are debating the American monogamous patrileneal patriarchal family, private property and the state comprised of armed men, and the power of men replicated in the home as ruler over wives and children, being a product of European history, it is useful to refer to Engels book "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" :

At our stage of development, however, the young merchants had not even begun to dream of the great destiny awaiting them. But they were growing and making themselves indispensable, which was quite sufficient. And with the formation of the merchant class came also the development of metallic money, the minted coin, a new instrument for the domination of the non-producer over the producer and his production. The commodity of commodities had been discovered, that which holds all other commodities hidden in itself, the magic power which can change at will into everything desirable and desired.

The man who had it ruled the world of production - and who had more of it than anybody else? The merchant. The worship of money was safe in his hands. He took good care to make it clear that, in face of money, all commodities, and hence all producers of commodities, must prostrate themselves in adoration in the dust. He proved practically that all other forms of wealth fade into mere semblance beside this incarnation of wealth as such. Never again has the power of money shown itself in such primitive brutality and violence as during these days of its youth. After commodities had begun to sell for money, loans and advances in money came also, and with them interest and usury. No legislation of later times so utterly and ruthlessly delivers over the debtor to the usurious creditor as the legislation of ancient Athens and ancient Rome - and in both cities it arose spontaneously, as customary law, without any compulsion other than the economic.

Alongside wealth in commodities and slaves, alongside wealth in money, there now appeared wealth in land also. The individuals' rights of possession in the pieces of land originally allotted to them by gens or tribe had now become so established that the land was their hereditary property. Recently they had striven above all to secure their freedom against the rights of the gentile community over these lands, since these rights had become for them a fetter. They got rid of the fetter - but soon afterwards of their new landed property also. Full, free ownership of the land meant not only power, uncurtailed and unlimited, to possess the land; it meant also the power to alienate it.

As long as the land belonged to the gens, no such power could exist. But when the new landed proprietor shook off once and for all the fetters laid upon him by the prior right of gens and tribe, he also cut the ties which had hitherto inseparably attached him to the land. Money, invented at the same time as private property in land, showed him what that meant. Land could now become a commodity; it could be sold and pledged. Scarcely had private property in land been introduced than the mortgage was already invented (see Athens). As hetaerism and prostitution dog the heels of monogamy, so from now onwards mortgage dogs the heels of private land ownership. You asked for full, free alienable ownership of the land and now you have got it - "tu l'as voulu, Georges Dandin."

With trade expansion, money and usury, private property in land and mortgages, the concentration and centralization of wealth in the hands of a small class rapidly advanced, accompanied by an increasing impoverishment of the masses and an increasing mass of impoverishment. The new aristocracy of wealth, in so far as it had not been identical from the outset with the old hereditary aristocracy, pushed it permanently into the background (in Athens, in Rome, among the Germans). And simultaneous with this division of the citizens into classes according to wealth there was an enormous increase, particularly in Greece, in the number of slaves, [2] whose forced labor was the foundation on which the superstructure of the entire society was reared.

Let us now see what had become of the gentile constitution in this social upheaval. Confronted by the new forces in whose growth it had had no share, the gentile constitution was helpless. The necessary condition for its existence was that the members of a gens or at least of a tribe were settled together in the same territory and were its sole inhabitants. That had long ceased to be the case. Every territory now had a heterogeneous population belonging to the most varied gentes and tribes; everywhere slaves, protected persons and aliens lived side by side with citizens. The settled conditions of life which had only been achieved towards the end of the middle stage of barbarism were broken up by the repeated shifting and changing of residence under the pressure of trade, alteration of occupation and changes in the ownership of the land. The members of the gentile bodies could no longer meet to look after their common concerns; only unimportant matters, like the religious festivals, were still perfunctorily attended to.

In addition to the needs and interests with which the gentile bodies were intended and fitted to deal, the upheaval in productive relations and the resulting change in the social structure had given rise to new needs and interests, which were not only alien to the old gentile order, but ran directly counter to it at every point. The interests of the groups of handicraftsmen which had arisen with the division of labor, the special needs of the town as opposed to the country, called for new organs. But each of these groups was composed of people of the most diverse gentes, phratries, and tribes, and even included aliens. Such organs had therefore to be formed outside the gentile constitution, alongside of it, and hence in opposition to it. And this conflict of interests was at work within every gentile body, appearing in its most extreme form in the association of rich and poor, usurers and debtors, in the same gens and the same tribe.

Further, there was the new mass of population outside the gentile bodies, which, as in Rome, was able to become a power in the land and at the same time was too numerous to be gradually absorbed into the kinship groups and tribes. In relation to this mass, the gentile bodies stood opposed as closed, privileged corporations; the primitive natural democracy had changed into a malign aristocracy. Lastly, the gentile constitution had grown out of a society which knew no internal contradictions, and it was only adapted to such a society. It possessed no means of coercion except public opinion. But here was a society which by all its economic conditions of life had been forced to split itself into freemen and slaves, into the exploiting rich and the exploited poor; a society which not only could never again reconcile these contradictions, but was compelled always to intensify them.

Such a society could only exist either in the continuous open fight of these classes against one another, or else under the rule of a third power, which, apparently standing above the warring classes, suppressed their open conflict and allowed the class struggle to be fought out at most in the economic field, in so-called legal form. The gentile constitution was finished. It had been shattered by the division of labor and its result, the cleavage of society into classes. It was replaced by the state.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

Now, what this shows is that patriarchal monarchy, the result of patrileneal inheritance of property from father to soon, whether agriculture, handicraft, pastoral or merchants forms of private wealth, threw women into the cubical prison called the house. She participated neither in the economy or the state. As the slaves as property of the man who owned the land could be killed by the state, which represented the slave owning land owners, so also could women as property - i.e. wives - whose primal function in the homes of the wealthy men of the ruling classes was for the sake of procreation - were she to practice promiscuity must by law in those days, be killed by the husband or by the state, were she caught or proved "guilty of adultery".

However, once the productive forces progressed the simplification of industrial labor and the need for office work emerged, in consequence of capitalist commodity production by wage labor in industrial democracies - and especially during times of wars between capitalist states, women were and are called into the work force. In the United States, for instance, both women and African Americans who had been banned from many industrial establishments were specifically called upon to replace male white workers, which had previously had a monopoly on these jobs, as well as bringing Blacks and women into the armed forces. These economic and politico--military changes which brought Black men and all women into the basic industries that were the basis of the American economy was the bases from which arose the Black Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and 70s on one hand, and the working class woman's movement of the 70s and 80s on the other.

It is not by accident that the U.S. Republican Vice President, Dan Quayle, in and for the Bush administration, attacked the weekly television setcom "Murphy Brown, played by Candice Bergen -

"In 1992, then Vice President Dan Quayle criticized prime-time TV for showing the Murphy Brown character 'mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.' "[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candice_Bergen

Quayle was speak to, if not for, the Republican and Conservative Democrats of the religious right when he denounced Bergen and her character. The critical point to be made in the analysis of the aesthetic value of the sit-com Murphy Brown, is that she had a job, and authority over her own life because she didn't need a husband providing for, and thereby dominating her. Murphy Brown wasn't anything like the wives in the 1950s sitcoms viz:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2486868224/tt0044230

FATHER KNOWS BEST

http://www.timvp.com/father.html

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm91789312/tt0051267


Leave It To Beaver

The Dick Vandyke Show:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2273548288/tt0054533

Even the 1960s sitcom The Munsters:

http://members.fortunecity.com/childstars1/webring.html

and the Addams Family:

The image

http://www.ideofact.com/archives/Addams%20Family.jpg

...and The Cosby Show:


But, the image of Murphy Brown put an end to all this male centered dominant partner propaganda in support of patrileneal patriarchate monogamy ideology:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4204371200/tt0653727


Of course the Sitcoms of working women - "Our Miss Brooks" (Eve Arden) in the fifties, and in the mid sixties, "That Girl" (Marlo Thomas) and then "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" (Mary Tyler Moore) were among the first fruits of television reflecting the new independence of women, but they were still stereotypic. It was okay for them to work, but neither of them had babies outside "wedlock" (interesting term, like locked chastity belts)

In "Our Miss Brooks", the Eve Arden played a school teacher:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/O/htmlO/ourmissbroo/ourmissbroo.htm


But, Miss Brooks was portrayed at the same time as a spinster trying to get her claws into "Philip Boynton", the biology teacher whom she was trying to trap into marriage and children, and was always, ultimately under foot of school principal Mr. Conklin.

Unlike the working class women in "That Girl" and "Mary Tyler Moore Show", the Miss Brooks character never had home scenes, or appearances of successful romantic encounters with Mr. Philip Boynton, whom she bumped into occasionally (or deliberately?) in school halls between class, or sat with in cafeteria, or the teachers lounge. Miss Brooks never referred to Mr Boynton as Philip, but always formally as Mr. Boynton., and he to her as Miss Brooks. Of course Miss Brooks relations with the school's patriarch, Mr Conklin, the school's principle was always formal, with him screaming at her. Miss Brooks never screamed back.

On the other hand, the Ann character performed by Marlo Thomas in "That Girl" begins and for the most part shows her alone - in the sense that she was living on her own in her own apartment - as her choice to not under the roofs of either her father or her boyfriend - actually, fiancée - Donald. They could be alone together, but that they were engaged to enter marriage in a monogamous life was a capitulation to the American culture of patriarchal monogamy. Ann's father frequently visited Ann, and this when Donald was visiting her apartment, always sniffing for the smell of human sexual encounters, thus the patriarchy was still dominate.


That Girl
Photo courtesy of Marlo Thomas

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/T/htmlT/thatgirl/thatgirl.htm


Conceptually, the Mary character in the Mary Tyler Moore sitcom was a cross between Miss Brooks - who was for the most part always shown on her job - Brooks a school teacher and Moore a new woman in electronic media production. But, like Ann in That Girl Mary in Mary Tyler More also had home scenes, and a friend Rhoda, who was the one who was really to some extent liberated.


Mary was a workaholic, and most of the ensemble were filmed in the office scenes, where the dominant male, Lou Grant, like Conklin in "Our Miss Brooks", was the patriarch to whom to keep her job she had to submit. Mary occasionally dated men. But, it was Rhoda who was the one into men, and argued with her mother's Jewess tradition about early marriage and babies.

But, it was Candice Bergen as "Murphy Brown" who culminated the 60s elevation of working class women into independence of patrilenealism, patriarchy and monogamy. Like Ann in "That Girl", Murphy had a private home life, but there were no male patriarchs sniffing around to guarantee chastity - to the television audience. On the contrary, the scenes in which she was openly pregnant and still holding down her job proved that she was unblushingly sexually healthy and active, happy without a husband.

The Murphy Brown sitcom didn't present the baby's father as a "dead beat dad", because being financially independent of him by holding a job of her own, made the man useful as a sperm fertilizing source, but after that he was irrelevant.

It is not the irresponsibility of "dead beat dads" that are destroying patrileneal patriarchal monogamy in the United States and other advanced capitalist democracies, but the needs of the economy to bring women into the work forces enabling them to free themselves from financial enslavement to fathers and husbands. This was but just one of the messages in "Murphy Brown" and the reason that the Presidency of the United States attacked it, and why the religious right hated and boycotted it.

"I Love Lucy" was the first television home viewed sitcom that dealt with pregnancy. It was the first to even use the word pregnant! Yet, Lucy and Ricky, the same as Rob and Laura on the Dick Van Dyke show of a young couple in bedroom scenes, slept in seperate beds - "twin beds" they were then called.
http://www.tvacres.com/censorship_lucy.htm


Laural and Rob were already married and already had a child - Richy - on the Dick Van Dyke Show. But, on the contrary, Lucy got pregnant in the course of the series itself - as did Jenny Jefferson, married to Lionel Jefferson on "The Jeffersons". But, whereas in "I Love Lucy" and "The Jeffersons", the moment of delivery focused on the men having a fit, Murphy Brown not only focused on the woman giving birth but took the viewers with her into the delivery room to watch the child birth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rqch9i8m1Y

Now, why did I have to go through all this aesthetic critiques of sitcoms? It is because all aesthetics is politics. Art imitate or explicate life situations.

Imari Baraka discussing the relationship of art and politics made this political analysis of art and aesthetic analysis of political context in his book "Blues People: the Story of Negro Music in White America" .
See: http://www.amazon.com/Blues-People-Negro-Music-America/dp/068818474X

As well as knowing personally, and having extensive discussions with musicians, including Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane and Archie Shepp, and writing liner notes on albums, Baraka is himself an artist - a poet and a playwright.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marvin+x+blackbird+press&btnG=Google+Search.

At a book fair in San Francisco, organized by Marvin X, Baraka gave a speech to the assembled audience of black liberation artists. He presented an insightful analysis based on observation that art not only reflects life - i.e. the social conditions of peoples of whom the artist is part and parcel. But, going into his analysis of the black arts movements engendered by the black liberation movement of the sixties, he said that art in turn clarifies and pushes movements forward.

This would explain why the music of Sun Ray - including with Baraka - Ornette Coleman, Archie Shepp and the freer "angry music" of John Coltrane was passed on by word of personal recommendation only, and never played on public commercial radio.

On the other hand - it also makes sense that from the standpoint of the capitalist classes that dominate American culture based on their ownerships of the means of production and communication, the economically dominate classes - considering this from Marx and Engel's "Critique of German Ideology" that:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3


It makes perfect sense that, so long as they needed restore working class white males to the labor forces which had been filled during the 2nd world war, by women and black males, that to restore the ideological basis for patriarchal monogamy and the white male dominated state, that the new electronic televisual media would used it to spread bourgeois ideology.

The ruling classes politico-ideologists, appealing to internalized cultures of patriarchal monogamy by means of which they were individually assimilated into the national culture such as in Germany the aggressive Nazi policies were justified into the psyche's of the German working classes and toiling masses by repetition of the "German family values" of patrilenealism through monogamy, and patriarchy by praising the function of the male partner as provider and protector - thus, Hitler qua fuhrer (father) used the radio communication of his speeches directly into the homes of German families.

During the economic crisis of the capitalistic universal Great Depression period, Hitler's appeal to unemployed German workers, into their homes by radio, recruited them into the State. The political and ideological Nazi demagogues did this by scape-goating "the Juden". Messages were beamed into the homes of economically stricken German workers, which transfered the nature of the crisis being engendered from the very laws of motion of capitalist commodity production by wage labor - the collapse of capital accumulation by overproduction ended market buyers.

Jews were presented in both print and radio media as international bankers and communists conspirators who were the causes of their poverty and misery on the one hand, which provided these German men with an hostile excuse for their lack of employment and financial resources to provide for their wives and children. Millions of German unemployed and angry found a means by which to transform their guilt for being failures at him, to supplant that guilt by pride engendered by joining the army in which their male egoes were restored by both the ideology of defense of the fatherland, and the money they as soldiers were paid and enabled to send portions to their family.

In the United States, the Democratic President also used radio effectively in his paternal "fir side chats". These streams of messages were entered into the homes of millions of Americans almost daily, often by repetition. These lowered voiced demagogic speeches had the same effect of mesmerizing and manipulating the thinking of American workers as were happening in Germany by Hitler. Churchill did the same thing with his mesmerizing BBC broadcasts of demagogy. While this was located safely underground in bunker, he declared to the British workers and soldiers at risk that "we" will meet them in the air. "we" will meet them on land", and "we" will meet them in the sea. Churchill has never busted a grape in WWII combat.

Wilhelm Reich has documented and in detail argued, both in "The Function of the Orgasm" and in "The Mass Psychology of Fascism", that because monogamy is unnatural and patriarchy is repressive, in the patriarchal monogamous families in class societies, based on patrileneal inheritance of property (from father to son) results in both a repressed rebelliousness resulting in an unconscious ("subconsciousness") Oedipus Complex in the male children, as Freud discovered, and also as Freud suggested can be sublimated.

In "Civilization and its Discontents", Freud suggested the suppressed libido energy can and does sublate in labor, art, religion and civilization. Reich showed, on the contrary, this repressed energy - which in later called "orgone energy" - does not, as a rule express itself in individual artistic creativity or intellectual pursuit, but in aggression and wars. Freud accepted patriarchal monogamy and made it universal, on the basis of speculation, however, rather than empirical observations derived generalizations.

On the other hand, on the basis of the observational data derived from his own clinical experiences, together with the observational data presented in "The Sexual Lives of Savages" by Malinowski from direct observation of peoples in the South Pacific islands, who were completely free from patriarchy and monogamy, and consequently were neither neurotic, psychopathic nor warlike.

Reich concluded, especially as a consequence of his own studies of the sexual revolution in the early - pre-Stalinist - period in the Soviet Power in the Russian Revolution, that the Oedipus Complex and the modern craziness is not natural; but, is socially derived from sexual repression reinforced by sexual morality inhering in the unconscious operations in human behavior: is not not natural, but socially derived from upbringing ideologies of patriarchy based on patrileneal inheritance of family property.

The emancipation of humanity is predicated upon, in the industrial democracies, the winning of the battles for democracy legislative transferring the means of production from the private possession of capitalists (mostly male) to the public property of the working classes and toiling masses all over the world, mostly female. This expropriation of the productive forces, Reich argued - is the pre-condition for the actual emancipation of women and their daughters from domestic slavery and violence.


The ideological presentation of patriarchal-monogamy in the 1950s-early 60s sitcoms mentioned above is pure ideological fantasy, directed mainly at growing children. Patriarchal monogamy has never really be directed at male behavior: they have as the money makers always had access to girl friends, lovers and mistresses, bastard children are more prevalent among men in the ruling classes than among men in the working classes and toiling masses, because land owners, princes, kings, capitalists, and other wealthy men can afford it - I am recalling Balzac's "Cousin Bette" and Flaubert's "Madam Bovary".

Percentage wise there are fewer wealthy men than there are poor working class men, of whom black men are but 10% of the working poor.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. ...


In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So, why is it that American millionaires Ronald Reagan, Bill Bennett, Kim Blackwell, Newt Gingrich, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Thomas Clancy, Louis Farrakhan, and Adey - a wealthy West African prince - are always attacking black working class poor men as for having children outside "wedlock", rather than members of their own class and political circles?

The Family Research Council says this to white working class Americans:

"Family Research Council believes, and social science has now clearly demonstrated, that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage. Indeed, the data demonstrate that adults also thrive in this same family structure. Other forms of the family arise from rejection or ambivalence between the parents, before or after marriage. This may include ambivalence about marriage (cohabitation), or the rejection by one of the parents of the other, as is the case in divorce, remarried step families (where there is almost always a history of rejection for at least one of the spouses), single parenthood, or step-cohabiting parenthood.
http://www.frc.org/marriage-family#structure


This is where Obama gets his shit from! But, where FRC speaks gently to young white women and men, Obama blast black men with accusations.

The point here, however, as I have been making throughout this polemic, is that rather than providing documentation supporting patriarchal monogamy, as I have done opposing it, Adey and his religious right wing cliques only blast assertions with no documentation whatsoever!

This is because patriarchal monogamous "marital bliss", is for the most part an illusion and it is a lie.

From the CAPEV update:
IN THE NEWS -- STUDY FINDS ALMOST HALF OF WOMEN IMPACTED BY
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THEIR ADULT LIVES
May 2006


Domestic violence has impacted about 44% of women at some point during their adult lives, according to a recently published survey.

Considerably fewer women, about 15%, reported domestic violence within the past five years, and that figure fell to about 8% for incidents in the past year, reported Robert S. Thompson, M.D., of the Group Health Center for Health Studies here in the June issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The study analyzed data from telephone interviews of more than 3,500 women enrolled in the Group Health Cooperative (GHC), a large non-profit health maintenance organization serving Washington State and northern Idaho.

"The findings are important in helping to establish that the prevalence is very high in educated, employed U.S . women with healthcare coverage, which indicates that intimate partner violence is a problem for the entire population, not just certain subgroups ," Dr. Thompson and colleagues said. (Emphasis CAEPV)

The study distinguished between physical abuse, which included hitting, shoving, or forced sex, and non-physical abuse, such as angry threats. About 34% of women reported any type of physical abuse during their lifetime, and about 35% reported any type of non-physical abuse. About 11% reported forced sex at some time during their life. The study also found that about half (45%) of abused women suffered more than one type of abuse.

Another study in the same issue of the journal emphasized the negative health consequences of domestic violence. Compared with women who had never experienced domestic violence, those who had suffered any type were nearly three times more likely to report symptoms of severe depression (odds ratio= 2.6; 95% confidence interval=1.9 to 3.6), according to Amy Bonomi, Ph.D., also of the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle. And women who had experienced recent physical or sexual violence were about three times more likely to report being in only fair or poor health (OR= 2.81; 95% CI=1.54 to 5.13), Dr. Bonomi and colleagues found. (Source: MedPage Today)
http://www.silentwitness.net/sub/latest_reserch.htm#half


Lil Joe
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Adey wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>
> Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that
> family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how
> critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches.
> They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men
> who constantly push us toward it.

> But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that too many fathers also
> are missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have
> abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the
> foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

> You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know
> that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,
> a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children. We know the
> statistics - that children who grow up without a father are five times more
> likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop
> out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are
> more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become
> teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker
> because of it.

> How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of
> another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the
> night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we
> seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a
> classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at
> least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose
> to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?

> Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands
> of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools,
> and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool
> programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and
> more opportunity in our communities.

> But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize
> that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that
> what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage
> to raise one.

> We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by
> themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up
> them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay
> the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to
> do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support.
> They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That's what
> keeps their foundation strong. It's what keeps the foundation of our country
> strong.


> Full text can be read here:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107220.html
> __._,_.___
---


LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe