Prof. Daniel Amneus, devoted his book, “The Garbage Generation,” to the description of the consequences of feminist extremism and how little there is about the outcomes of communism and feminism that can be used to tell them apart. On page 64 to 66 he stated:
According to feminists Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin:
“The matriarchal mode of child-rearing, in which each individual is nurtured rather than dominated from birth provides the rational basis for a genuinely healthy society, a society of self-regulating, positive individuals.”
Things are this way in the ghettos, where half of the young bear the surnames of their mothers, and where the proportion of such maternal surnames increases every year, along with crime and the other accompaniments of matriarchy.
“You Frenchmen,” said an Iroquois Indian three hundred years ago to the Jesuit Father Le Jeune, “love only your own children; we love all the children of the tribe.” In a promiscuous matriclan this is the best way to see that all children are cared for; but it will not create the deep family loyalties needed to usher a society out of the Stone Age. “At the core of patriarchy,” says Adrienne Rich, “is the individual family unit which originated with the idea of property and the desire to see one’s property transmitted to one’s biological descendants.” This creation of wealth cannot be motivated by a desire to transmit it to an ex-wife or to a welfare system which undermines the families whose resources it feeds upon.
The patriarchal family, whose linchpin is female chastity and loyalty, makes men work. That is why civilization must be patriarchal and why it slides into chaos, as ours is doing, where family arrangements become matrilineal. What feminist Marie Richmond-Abbott says of men in general is especially true of men in capitalist patriarchy:
“A man’s life is defined by his work, his occupation. The first question a man is usually asked is, “What do you do?” People shape their perception of him according to his answer.”
A man’s life may be defined by his work even under matriarchy, but it is only loosely defined. Here, described by the 19th century German explorer, G. W. Schweinfurth, is the way males perform when females regard them as inessential. The tribe described is the Monbuttu:
“Whilst the women attend to the tillage of the soil and the gathering of the harvest, the men, except they are absent either for war or hunting, spend the entire day in idleness. In the early hours of the morning they may be found under the shade of the oil-palms, lounging at full length upon their carved benches and smoking tobacco. During the middle of the day they gossip with their friends in the cool halls.”
Similarly, under communism, the state’s guarantee of economic security weakens the male’s commitment to work and undermines his productivity. “The other day,” writes Eric Hoffer,
“I happened to ask myself a routine question and stumbled on a surprising answer. The question was: What is the uppermost problem which confronts the leadership in a Communist regime? The answer: The chief preoccupation of every government between the Elbe and the China Sea is how to make people work — how to induce them to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines, and so forth. It is the most vital problem which confronts them day in day out, and it shapes not only their domestic policies but their relations with the outside world.”
Who wants to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines — unless the work, unsatisfying and unfulfilling in itself, is made meaningful by a man’s knowledge that it must be done if he is to provide for his family?
—The Garbage Generation (Nov. 1990), by Daniel Amneus, pp. 64-66 (The full text of the book is accessible at that link, at the Internet Archive.)
Considering that 27 years have gone by since the book was published, is it admirable that Daniel Amneus was right on target, but then he most certainly made sure that he went by what he had learned from history.
The majority of men’s rights activists then never accepted what Daniel Amneus wrote. The majority of them considered him to be a dinosaur. That is, the younger ones of them did, the ones who already had become indoctrinated by the feminist curriculum (yes, already then it had rubbed off, to a lesser or greater extent, on everyone who had graduated since the 1960s). It would have been a good thing, had they listened and paid attention, but that is not the way of the world. Humanity tends to force itself into having to re-invent the wheel, rather than to learn from the experiences of previous generations, when it comes to fundamental, vital social issues.
Mind you, now we must come to terms with something else, something that neither Daniel Amneus nor most definitely the feminist social engineers saw coming, even though it had been at play since people began to work: mechanization of work, only now not merely to have machines serve instead of human- and animal-muscles, but now to increasingly do man’s thinking, too.
So, how will The Rise of the Machines affect people, after feminism just about finished making men as well as women obsolete? It is of course not so much a rise of the machines as it is a bit of mopping-up that still needs to be done to make leisure a necessary condition and work a luxury for all. The Rise of the Machines figures we have about 20 years to adapt. If I could live that long, I would wish I could do it in the company of a woman, one who respects men and respects and loves her man, and who will be loved and respected in return.