the timboucher experience

Exactly 50 years ago, a book was published which accurately predicted the results of the 2004 election. No, this wasn’t a book of psychic predictions. It was a book called “Sex in History” by Gordon Rattray Taylor, a sociologist. In this book, he talked about how societies swing back and forth between two tendencies, each of which places particular prominence on one of the genders. The patrist side is the ascendant male, and the matrist side is more focused on the female. Comparing characteristics of the two cultural tendencies looks almost exactly like a comparison of the platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties.

HMMM… I WONDER WHICH ONE OF THESE WON THE ELECTION…?

Seriously though. This is probably the single-most accurate model to explain why Bush won. It fits in precisely with what I wrote yesterday about how Bush’s people tapped into the fear of the average male that their cultural importance was at risk.

Keywords in contemporary culture which denote matrist values are, “feminism,” “metrosexual,” and “equal rights”. Keywords which currently denote a more Patrist attitude are “family values,” “traditional values,” “fundamentalism”.

Bush represents a heavy swing back towards the Patrist. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, exhibits a very strong correlation to the attributes of the Matrists, especially with his very open sexuality. Perhaps the real problem with Kerry was that he represented Matrist attitudes, but he was not virile about it, like Clinton was (”flip-flopper” = an allusion to having a limp dick). Faced between having a man’s-man (ie, gun-slinging Texan) and a woman’s man (cares about harmony with international community, and has a strong independent wife), American’s instinctively chose the one whom they thought would be more able to keep them safe during this time of “war”.

Since classical American values dictate that patrist-style men are better at fighting, we chose Bush. If there was no war or terrorism, we might have chosen Kerry. Or, if we had picked a more virile man to represent the Matrist value-system - somebody like Wesley Clarke, it might have worked. As long as we remain at war, or under the (largely manufactured) threat of terrorism, then we will continue to choose leaders based on archetypal values of who is a better fighter (ie, the more patrist male). So, if you want to get Bush and his ilk out of office, and return America to a matrist value system, you’ll probably have to get us disentangled from the wars which they are currently in, or are drawing up.

Either that, or just suck it up. Robert Anton Wilson talks a little bit about how the Taoists were a Matrist group which had to live under the Patrist system of Confucianism in ancient China. There are probably other good examples in history as well. If that doesn’t work, I think we should all seriously consider this Canada 2.0 strategy.

• Sex & Emotional Need
• “We don’t mean to offend you, but gay sex is a sin, and you’re all going to burn in hell forever.”
• Now Liberals Want to Trick People Too
• Flying Humanoids
• Sex in Singapore