I’ve had this forever and I’m looking for the author. Please comment if you know who it is. Spelling issues preserved.
—
Satire n. – A novel, play, entertainment, etc., in which topical issues, folly or evil are held up to scorn by means of ridicule and irony.
For many thousands of years we humans fought wars to settle arguments. Those who were up for a scrap to protect their way of life used to kill as many people as it took, one by one and personally, for them to be able to live as they pleased. Many a time folk would gather either side of an open field and advance toward each other with intent to kill to protect their respective lifestyles. However, there is a natural limit to the number of such battles a society can sustain. The available pool of warriors diminishes rapidly and it takes at least until puberty, perhaps fourteen years, to create replacements. Those who survive as warrior chiefs are respected for having had the courage of their convictions enough to have killed every person who has tried to kill them, whether or not one might share their philosophies. But even the mightiest warrior eventually becomes old and feeble, by which time the babies whose fathers he slaughtered are just becoming strong enough to express their convictions in the same manner. This brutal cycle slows as generations pass. Each administration is a softening of the last until the population grows to outstrip its provisions and those who are greedy become takers from those who are not. Those with little end with less and those with the lot want more. When those who had little have none they have nothing to lose. With only the certainty of death to look forward to, minor philosophical differences pale against the common backdrop of pure survival. Thus the cycle becomes a revolution. A successful revolution is only possible when there are sufficient have-nothings to overpower the have-plentys. It is, therefore, in the interests of the h-ps to enlist those h-ns who display violent tendencies into armies where they can be controlled for a tiny share of what there is. These soldiers can be utilised to eliminate the courageous h-ns who might upset the status quo. Create a law and it is easy to justify punishing anyone who breaks it. It is those not prone to lawbreaking that then pose the greatest threat, for they form the vast majority and it is vast majorities that win revolutions. The most subtle form of peaceable control of a population is through religion. If life has no worth and h-ns feel they have nothing to lose by dying they become dangerous. If, however, you can convince the h-ns there is something after life that is blissful beyond their wildest dreams and that to break a rule of the church will not only exclude them from the blissful place but will consign them to a place more terrifying than their wildest nightmares you have them conforming quite readily. Between the military and the church, all but the few at the top were neatly oppressed.
The Illusion of Patriarchy
In literal terms only a small number of men will be accurately bastards but, in the colloquial, “all coppers are…” sense, the chances are the statement holds an element of truth. From time to time, some bloke will seriously piss you off – without reason other than his being a man.
The basics
Consider the continuation of the species. Each individual must strive to perpetuate its own gene strain. For the woman it is simple, any child borne will have their mother’s gene element intact. It is, therefore, in the woman’s interest to copulate with as wide a range of males as possible to ensure fertilisation. The stronger the male they can breed with, the greater the chance of their gene strain surviving. Once the offspring is initiated, the foetal growth occurs within the mother human and the soon to be infant is naturally protected by the exaggeration of the mother’s self interest. Literally, to hurt the foetus you must hurt the mother first. She contains it within her body.
For the man, however, things are not so simple. For the man to be certain any offspring is the continuation of his gene strain he must ensure no other male can have impregnated the female in his stead. This requires round the clock surveillance and, in the event of the female catching sight of a stronger male to share genes with, possibly forcible restraint of either prospective party to any uncertainty that may arise. This uncertainty, and the subsequent uncertainty about whether or not such an initial uncertainty would be appropriate, gives rise to a wide range of unpleasant manifestations.
Example:
This bloke comes over and wants to shag your partner (from the traditional male point of view). He thinks he is the better gene strain, though he may not be aware this is an accurate expression of his motive, and he wants to shag everything in order to best ensure the perpetuation of that gene strain. She knows, if all her girlie-bits are in working order, she will perpetuate her gene strain regardless and should attempt impregnation by the best she can find to improve the chances of her offspring surviving to breed in their own turn. Man against man, not for personal survival but for sureness in mind. He wants to shag her. What are you going to do about it? All or nothing, dependent upon on the life expectancy in conflict with the challenger. Win some, lose some. Better to survive with genitals attached and to shag someone less dangerous/sought after than to die without having bred. Violent competition is not unnatural to a man. Unfortunately.
The “civilisation” of modern society has done much to cloud this simplicity by imposing rules and inventing structures for relationships. Though less clear in the cold light of day, the dull of evening and the effects of alcohol or similar drugs, in removing the conditioned reflex of modern inhibitions, can find this primal survival instinct showing itself quite readily. Many a fight begins with the words “What (are) you looking at?”
So, to recap, man cannot naturally be certain he has bred, that the child a woman carries and bears is actually his. The woman can know. Only in circumstances of exceptional promiscuity will a woman have any doubt about who the father was. Man knows woman has this edge. It is something he can never take away. Unable to equally compete with woman, man used his physical strength advantage to change the rules and thus bias the game heavily in his favour.
Marriage.
The state of marriage, in primitive survival terms, is of no use to a woman. To man, however, to create an artificial allegiance, and to justify it by clever combination of the two old standards of oppression, religion and restriction of education, is to create an image of supremacy, an image of control. If, by moral and religious engineering, man can instil guilt within and have society ostracise any woman who dares to respond to her natural instinct to perpetuate her gene strain to greatest effect he assumes a very real, if fragile, control. Ever sub-conscious of this fragility, modern man is nervous.
Education.
By restricting women’s access to education and rendering them an underclass, man took on all the responsibility of providing. This took time. To provide adequately could take a lot of time. Spending all this time making the outside world their exclusive domain and burdening themselves with the commitment to work, each individual man found they had less power over their own partner precisely because this contracted separation gave the womenfolk more time to be themselves.
Machines.
The advent of the machine age backfired somewhat for man. The single area where man had had a genuine advantage over woman was in physical strength. Machines that made man’s work less strenuous rendered it within the capability of woman. Revolution had become possible. The religious and moral engineers were urgently called upon to enhance the oppression and it became absolutely crucial women remained unable to gain access to education and the proof of man’s deception.
War.
Mechanisation of war was the single most profound error on man’s part. Men fought. Women didn’t. It was the man’s rule. Oops. Whereas prior to the age of machines each warrior could kill only a very few of the enemy before being overcome, if only by tiredness, and individual battles only lasted a day, now it was possible for even small people to kill hundreds of the enemy and barely break into a sweat. The quality of the warrior became second to the quality of his equipment. In the 1914-1918 war in Europe all sides were pretty evenly matched. An unprecedented and previously incomprehensible number of men died.
Peace.
While all the men were off being manly and killed, the women had been encouraged through necessity to carry out tasks and to take on duties that they had been raised to believe were beyond their capabilities. This period of emergency emancipation during the conflict, and the concurrent significant reduction in the male population, marked the end of the total patriarchy that had been the way since the dawn of “modern civilisation”.
The country not having completely fallen apart in the four or five years they had been preoccupied with slaughtering each other for the sake of a redrawn map, males of a nation saying to males of other nations collectively “What (are) you looking at?” before mechanically beating each other up, it simply wasn’t possible to pretend women were less than capable.
Whilst it was impossible, under these new circumstances, to deny the vote to women, it was deemed prudent to only allow the vote to women over thirty years of age. Any women with the vote, therefore, will have been raised in the pre-war oppression and will be less likely to play seriously with the status quo. Whilst this was a magnanimous gesture, the odds remained in the male favour with the simultaneous granting of the vote to all males over twenty-one. This imbalance held for ten years.
War again.
Much of the same but with more modern, advanced and efficient killing machines. More men die. A few more women die, too, especially thanks to the aeroplane. But the overall effect is the same. The differences between male and female roles blur further still.
Peace (ish)
A better educated and post-war-cynical populace naturally diminished the power of the Churches. The efficiency of killing technology had become so great no country would exist if they started a fight and lost. Automation in the workplace left very few tasks the preserve of the physically strong. Man had no advantage. The establishment would remain until its own rules, created under an assumption only men would have a say in what transpired, ate at its fabric enough for it to crumble to dust.
The contraceptive pill.
If a woman didn’t want a baby she didn’t have to have one. Note how the Roman Catholic Church still refuses to permit contraception. Note a patriarchal regime still insistent nobody at all shagged Mary. Note how likely that is. Consider how likely it is a woman made it up. A woman would have had a girl child. But then again, a woman wouldn’t have needed to make it up at all.
The Present.
Information is everywhere. Men can’t pretend anymore. They are back kicking their heels and showing off to each other. And it isn’t going to get any better for them. Your average 1996 man is flailing wildly in a changing world. The values his ancestors held and taught are seen to be bollocks. To some, the inherent advantages of such sociological distortion outweigh the callousness of the oppression, but they would, whatever. To others, it sits as an uncomfortable heritage, an embarrassment and sometimes a guilt. The average is a total uncertainty. It will take a long time for the average man to accept this uncertainty is beyond his control.
Oppress and Survive
It is unstated Party policy that the family shall be undermined. That parental influence shall be reduced and that children shall not be allowed to benefit from the experience of their parents but instead shall be taught only those things the State has authorised.
From the earliest possible age, a child shall be removed from the care of its mother and shall be placed with a state registered childminder, for as much of each day as can be achieved. The time a parent may spend with their own child shall be limited to a brief period in the early morning and another late at night, ensuring parental contact is made only at times of greatest stress and tiredness for all concerned parties. For the periods during which a child is at its most receptive it must be kept apart from its parents’ influence.
To ensure the above is adhered to by the majority, without the necessity for explicit legislation, it shall be implied that to pay a larger sum to buy accommodation of no increased standard will result in an increased level of individual wealth. However it will not be possible for any increased value of these properties to be realised without the buyers rendering themselves homeless.
Relaxation of lending restrictions to encourage joint applications for mortgages will enable the market price of houses to rise more swiftly than individual earnings. Within a year, it will become a requirement for two average incomes to be combined in order to borrow sufficient money to purchase even the lowest grade of property that may be considered suitable for a young couple to accommodate themselves and a child.
Without the daily and continual availability of the parent for guidance and education, the first years of the child’s life will not be years of learning as they have in the past. Rather than have the child accompany an adult, observe the adult way and thereby learn from experience, with the occasional relaxation of play with other children, the child of the 1990s will spend almost all its waking hours in the company of its peers, with an adult present only to oversee the group and to limit the risk of accidental injury.
In order that the knowledge and wisdom acquired by parents is not passed on to children, it is paramount their time together be limited. It is only by grouping children away from adult influences it is possible to reduce education standards. Any child left in the company of adults for extended periods will learn such skills as speech, reading, writing and counting by simple mimicry.
To contain such development it is absolutely necessary any parental contact be limited to, at most, the rush before the workday commences, the tiredness at the workday’s end and the weekend which, both parents having been occupied throughout the rest of the week labouring on behalf of their employers, will be as busy as possible with supermarket shopping, housework and other such activities serving to limit the time available for parents to have direct influence on their child’s development.
For as long as two incomes are required to support the average family, that family cannot exist in the traditional sense. Only those who have conformed with sufficient vigour to achieve above average earnings will be able to pass this influence on to their successors. Those who question their employer’s right to earn money by whatever means may be most effective, whether in strict accordance with the rules imposed upon themselves or otherwise, shall be prevented from influencing their children as much as is possible without imprisonment.
A naturally timid child raised away from their parents’ influence will be subjugated by their peers and will grow up to be easily intimidated and controlled by an employer. Those who grow up displaying tendencies toward independence of thought or action shall be deemed disruptive and shall be blamed for the decrease in education standards of the majority and shall be removed from them, locked away if this is considered necessary to prevent their influencing other children to question the authority of their superiors. The costs of secure accommodation will be passed, where possible, to the parents concerned, further reducing their ability to provide adequately for themselves.
The breakdown of family will be blamed upon the irresponsibility of parents and measures will be taken to penalise them for their failure to raise their children in a proper manner. By nurturing a feeling of guilt among parents, it may be possible to create an imagined necessity for specialised adult education which, while removing parents from their children for additional periods, will serve to reinforce their feelings of inadequacy.
At all times the Government must be portrayed as caring for the welfare of all citizens. At no time must any inference be made that society would naturally evolve its way out of the difficulties were it given the opportunity by the elimination of the requirement for both parents of the average child to be in permanent and full-time employment. At no time must it be divulged that should such a requirement be eliminated there would be more jobs available for those families currently with no income at all and that a fairer and more balanced society would exist.
The increase in house prices, made possible by relaxation of the lending regulations, serves to increase the wealth only of those with either spare land upon which new houses may be built or existing houses they have no absolute requirement to retain. All other persons will suffer a reduction in their available disposable income as a greater proportion of their earnings will be required to acquire and maintain necessary accommodation.
For employers to ensure their authority is at all times unquestioned, it is necessary every employee feels vulnerable to easy replacement and subsequent homelessness should any disagreement arise as to the correctness of the duties they are expected to perform.
By containing the development of the child today we contain the development of the future population. Without access to education and subsequent understanding, the average person will not be confident to question our judgement.The few who rebel and raise issues that might affect the status quo will become unemployed and thereby denied the ability to bring their findings, however realistic, to the attention of the majority, without whose cooperation the individual remains powerless.
