The emergence of a rift between the younger proponents of Game and the older conservative establishment has come to expose some of the pathologies that have festered for many years beneath the surface of American society. One, in particular, can explain many of the symptoms of our social decay and the deconstruction of marriage, that bedrock of civilization. Interestingly, it is not radical liberals who bear the most responsibility in our ongoing national tragedy, but rather a close and curious bond between America’s young women and the paternalist elements of society.
Many have blamed “chivalry” for the breathtakingly irrational and hypocritical actions and views of the American establishment when it comes to gender equality and justice, but that is an insufficient explanation. Chivalry, even at its most vile, is a mere juvenile sort of commingling of morality and sexuality — a youth’s fantasy of winning a fair maiden through acts of valor. However, for the aging man who sits on the bench and dishes out judgment, the gray-haired politician who casts his vote, and the polished executive in his suite, there is no fantasy of slaying dragons and storming castles, for he has already done those things. Yet there remains the smoldering desire for the maiden, and it is reciprocated.
Of course, it is natural for men to retain an attraction for fertile women throughout their lives, and this is recognized in all cultures. However, in America it appears to have become a pathology because of American family dynamics.
In my article on Carl Jung and Game, I quoted Jung and his analysis of American marriages. One theme that Jung found particularly problematic was the mother-son relationship of American wives to their husbands. Jung states:
[...] up to this time your American man isn’t ready for real independence in woman. He only wants to be the obedient son of his mother-wife.
Jung goes on at length about the dysfunctional husband/wife dynamic in American marriages, suggesting that something is seriously askew in our society’s management of sexuality. Jung focused on the damage this was doing to American women, and how they were wandering confused, unsure of what they really want or where they belong. But Jung did not address the effects this sexual confusion might have on men. It would be natural for a man, married to a woman he sees as a mother figure, to transfer his passion elsewhere, and this is what has happened in the American family and American society.
As the woman who becomes a wife becomes the mother figure, the husband’s passion – both emotional and sexual – is transferred to the maiden, who is the daughter figure. The American man, who is the “obedient son” in his marriage, becomes the lover in paternal relations with younger women, and the confused American woman (whether actually a maiden or not) develops a romantic attachment to men who are father figures.
This principle is illustrated by a number of American and British works of art. It may be Charles Dickens who, in one of the defining works of Victorian fiction, best demonstrates this dynamic at work. In Tale of Two Cities, Lucy Manette, the epitome of woman as doll on a pedestal, is depicted as having a very intense relationship with her father, Dr. Manette. Dickens’ portrayal of Lucy as pious, beautiful girl, whose father fondles a lock of her hair, is positively orgasmic. There is nothing unnatural about a father’s love for a daughter, but Lucy clearly plays the spiritual and emotional role of wife in her relationship with her father. It is ironic that Dickens transfers this very Anglo relationship to a French family, because there is typically a closer bond between father and son rather than father and daughter in France.
An even earlier rendition of this peculiarly British tendency exists in Tom Jones, one of the first English novels, written by Henry Fielding in the mid-18th century. In Tom Jones Squire Western has an especially close relationship with his daughter Sophia. Western, a boorish man with excessive appetites and a fondness for the hunt, is violently protective of his daughter, who cares for him and sings to him when he is drunk and sentimental. So we see that our American dilemma is nothing new, and was in all likelihood inherited from the motherland.
Not long ago, I watched a very American portrayal of the same dynamic at work. Lonesome Dove, the iconic American TV series about a great Western cattle drive, plays directly to the paternalist fantasy. In Lonesome Dove a couple of old Texas rangers, Captain Augustus “Gus” McCrae, and Captain Woodrow Call, decide to drive a herd to Montana and establish the first ranch in the territory. In the most important subplot, former colleague Jake Spoon, who is significantly younger than Gus and Woodrow, decides to take the town hooker, Lorena Wood, to San Francisco. Gus has an ongoing relationship with Lorena, which combines both paternal and sexual elements. Jake Spoon follows the drive for a while, leaving Lorena for a time while he goes to town to gamble. Gus, naturally, has at her, winning rights to a “poke” through a card game, in which he cheats to win. Lorena apparently doesn’t mind so much that he cheated.
Lorena is stolen by an Indian named Blue Duck, and subsequently rescued by Gus. In the meanwhile, Jake Spoon takes up with some bandits, hoping to get some money out of the deal. Jake’s bandits turn out to be murderous bad men, and Gus eventually catches Jake Spoon after killing the bandits. Gus stoically hangs Spoon, acting as judge, jury and executioner.
The rivalry between Gus and Jake Spoon hinges on Lorena, who is a beautiful and very young woman. Gus plays the father figure to Lorena (despite having sex with her from time to time), while Jake is the husband figure. The climax of the subplot is clearly the hanging of Jake Spoon, which symbolizes the killing of the husband by the father. This act epitomizes the relationship of the paternalist power structure to the American husband and wife. It is, in essence, the father murdering the husband to assert his authority over and rights to his daughter. This act is played out in millions of divorces across America, sometimes quite literally. It is the secret, smoldering passion that drives the abuse of American men by the paternalist power structure.
This is why social conservatives often come off as inarticulate when defending “traditional” marriage. They may point to social benefits of marriage, and virtually everyone would agree, but when they attempt to find someone to blame, their finger always ends up pointed at young men, upon whom they heap abuses such as VAWA, summary arrests and dispossessions based on a woman’s crocodile tears, unconstitutional and coercive child support and custody laws, and slanderous accusations of sloth and effeminacy.
They are not driven as much by an altruistic desire to improve society as they are by the lack of sexual and emotional fulfillment in their own relationships with their mother-wives. They find fulfillment of these desires through an incestuous relationship, both symbolic and real, with the daughters of America, and they wage war against America’s sons with all the primitive passion of savages raiding a village to carry off its maidens.
19 responses so far ↓
1 miles // Aug 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Welmer pointing the flashlight upon a real insight here, worthy of note.
2 ganttsquarry // Aug 26, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Excellent take.
Lonesome Dove is one of my favorite books and the movie was good as well.
I never looked at their relationship in that way. Your view on it makes alot of sense though.
3 Derek // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Very interesting Welmer. I have noticed how devoted my father is to my sister and yet how he lives in fear of my mother. I have never really respected him as a man for not standing up to my mother. He is however a wonderful and loving provider and I esteem him greatly for the sacrifices he has made for his children.
4 Ovid // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm
That was masterful,Welmer.Compliments.However,I dont think its as complicated as you say.Patriarchs are essentially two things;stooges for the matriarchy,and social animals who maintain their supremacy (over other men,NOT women) by ingratiating themselves with the female herd at the expense of their brothers.In a word they’re sell-outs.
Here’s an interesting web site you may find interesting:
http://www.menstribune.com/home.htm
5 njartist49 // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm
American men have been known to be momma’s boys since at least the eighteenth century: an English woman who toured the United States around the same time as Tocqueville made the observation. Southern men where the most so.
Also, at the start of the industrial revolution , when the men were pulled into the cities, the pastors began an alliance with the women as they became the ones most frequenting the churches. This trend united with already prevalent protestant tradition in the U.S. that the wife was responsible for the household as the husband was for business outside the home. The American church in the person of its pastors and priests became the head of the wives and thus came between the husband and his wife. As time went on the woman was considered by the Church to be the moral head of the family, not the man as is represented in the bible.
As pastors laud the woman for being the moral head, the woman can only assume that position if the man she chooses can be manipulated: such are the bad boys and lovers of money: dicks and wallets if you will. The woman becomes the moral educator of the man; the church becomes polluted and effeminized: the pastors have greater power: this is the civic religion, not Christianity.
6 njartist49 // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I had the experience in the mid 1990s of attending a small Reform Episcopalian church. It was somewhat Calvinist and the headship of the husband was emphasized. A man would attend for a couple Sundays and then bring his wife: once she caught a whiff of the patriarchal headship, she pulled herself and her husband out of the church. the church never got above three or four core men.
7 D // Aug 26, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Intriguing analysis Welmer. I’ve got to reflect on this one for awhile.
8 novaseeker // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Very well done, Welmer. This one is an insightful keeper.
9 Puma // Aug 26, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Very well written Welmer. This belongs in the MGTOW classics.
10 ray // Aug 26, 2009 at 8:12 pm
reading this piece i recalled that recently a minor, miley cyrus, performed a “pole dance” at the Kids Choice Awards, to an audience of what i’m assuming were mostly v young girls
a lot of male somebodies unconnected to such activities are going to pay for that little indulgence, and your essay, in part, explains why
“In Tom Jones Squire Western has an especially close relationship with his daughter Sophia. Western, a boorish man with excessive appetites and a fondness for the hunt, is violently protective of his daughter, who cares for him and sings to him when he is drunk and sentimental. So we see that our American dilemma is nothing new, and was in all likelihood inherited from the motherland.”
yes squire “Western”
the pathological dynamic you describe has anglo-european roots, magnified in a matriarchy like the u.s. — because the son (potential husband) receives the violence not only of the paternal authority, but of the maternal, raging like demeter
the p.a. is conflicted over responsibility vs attraction to the daughter/girl, which must remain unconscious/unspoken if their particular dynamic is to abide (the potency of the dynamic is in the energy of libidic tension)
toss financial and power incentives into the mix, things get even nastier
esp in the past half-century, the p.a. and “daughter” act in (largely) tacit alliance against the “sons of the nation”
the film “there will be blood” touches on this issue, but only tangentially to themes mostly involving money and (nonsexual) power
“It is, in essence, the father murdering the husband to assert his authority over and rights to his daughter.”
his sexual authority chiefly, yes
this is primal stuff, from the reptilian and early mammalian parts of the c.n.s. — you cant reason people out of this, but you can rub it into the face of collective consciousness
” This act is played out in millions of divorces across America, sometimes quite literally. It is the secret, smoldering passion that drives the abuse of American men by the paternalist power structure.”
exactly
and not just divorces, by any means
the destruction and trauma translates into homelessness, legal iniquities, vast prison networks, and all manner of retribution, shaming, etc, stemming from an unreqitable attraction
the mother/son cults are as ancient as humanity, it was v difficult to dislodge them from the western world, but the embers always remained
now theyre back bigtime
as in modern america, the “son” role in those cults was filled by the paternal authority/tyrant, nicely personified by squire western
jung or erich neumann would call the p.a. the mother’s brother or sinister uncle of aboriginal or tribal kinships
most of the founding fathers, btw, were p.a./mother-son cult guys, dedicating their states, cities, and nation to the “great goddess”
the current admin is perfectly representative of social arrangements in ancient mother-son cults
you look at a group shot and obie is, really, just one of the kids…. has he even camped-out on his own?
the mother/dauther unit dominates
america, and not coincidentally the white house — obie’s a p.a., yes, but mostly just kind of a functionary, executing the wishes of the mother/daughter and the p.a. elite, drawn largely from corporate, military, closed fraternal orders, political and church “leaders,” and of course old money/power
the loser in such a culture has to be the vast numbers of “potential husbands” (the “son” or unconnected male) and the gulag proves how far they’ve been willing to go to preserve — and further — the dynamic
outstanding post here, it’ll last
11 WLindsayWheeler // Aug 27, 2009 at 6:20 am
There is a good book out there called The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity by Leon Podles. Mr. Podles points out that one of the most important lessons of maleness is that the boy must be separated from the female when growing up. That has not happened in the Anglosphere. That may be the biggest problem.
Again, we live in a heavy socialistic culture outside of any norm and woman’s suffrage. You mention “gender equality” in the post; are you advocating that, if so you are shooting yourself in the foot.
Are we to have gender equality or not?
Next, Larry McMurtry, the author of Lonesome Dove and who also cowrote the series with an Afrian American woman, also did some work for the screenplay of “Brokeback Mountain”. Is that not a little strange to you? Does that skewer your take on the series?
12 Welmer // Aug 27, 2009 at 10:44 am
I was making a point about the hypocrisy on display.
As far as gender equality, I think there should be more in some professions, e.g. teaching, but I don’t think the genders are “equal” by any means.
13 njartist49 // Aug 27, 2009 at 11:09 am
The mother/ son religion is Babylonian mystery religion; Roman Catholicism is the main practitioner of this age.
I made the mistake of attending a RC charismatic meeting and was shocked to hear the priest refer to the husbands of the women attending as boys; no such allusion was made of the women.
14 Justin // Aug 27, 2009 at 11:32 am
A war of all against all…
That is all that seems to remain.
15 jz // Aug 28, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I understand your Husband-son/wife-mother pathology, and how it plays out to the detriment of young men.
I’ve seen the reciprocal (mostly in older generations) : Husband-father/wife-child. The husband dominates and tramples the wife until her esteem, emotional and sexual passion wilts.
In the later case, it would be interesting to speculate as to who suffers or advantages from his brand of patriarchy.
16 Welmer // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I think it is pathological in either of the cases you describe, jz.
There is another way. I was thinking about it today while walking in the tall grass of Genessee.
17 Chuck // Aug 29, 2009 at 2:02 am
i thought for sure you were going to draw an analogy between women and the snake nest scene in “Lonesome Dove”.
18 Savvy // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:44 am
Chivalry is still alive and well–and even the gays can be chivalrous. I was hanging out with a bunch of gay guys and my best friend from childhood. I got a tour of the house and just listened to this guy talk about all he had done to the house–which was fascinating. When it came time to leave, he walked us out to the car to make sure we got there safely. I think the desire to be chivalrous results from showing interest in what a man really loves–whether it is a friend or a date.
19 WZ // Aug 31, 2009 at 8:18 am
‘I think the desire to be chivalrous results from showing interest in what a man really loves–whether it is a friend or a date.’
Whatever definition of chivalry you might have, I reject it.
Chivalry is vassalage and mounted combat – both of which require self-control and courtesy. The “courtly love” business is a separate thing.
However, the notion of chivalry as protection of the weak is relevant to the twisted “father-daughter” meme. Judges in divorce cases are acting like ultra-powerful father-figures. Power is a rush. Judges who cannot be corrupted by money can be corrupted by the thrill of wrecking a man’s life.
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Leave a Comment