How men lost the power in a family?
Main the one who makes a final decision which is obligatory for all to whom it concerns. Always domination of men kept by their force. Strong the one who is able to support a family, to work hard and to bring everything to the house. Depended on the man, the family will survive or not. Who assigns to himself a role of the supporter, that and main. It was earlier.
Women liked to order too, but by force the power could not be taken away from the man. In the village the man plowed, his death or a serious illness meant death to all family. Members of household therefore the best piece always to the father, it has to be healthy and strong, plow all day long understood it. Respectively, it is impossible to argue with the supporter. Even the dog understands that a hand of the owner throwing a bone, do not bite. And the owner will not allow, a whip always on call.
The pyramid of a family looked so: at top the husband, is lower the wife, below children. Women rather quietly endured death of the child. In large families it was severe reality. Not children were main. From there is a saying: “God gave, God took“ .
The death of the certain child did not affect life of all family in any way. The death of the only cow was endured far heavier. Such situation reflected cast in a family pyramid. By the way, the death of the woman accident was not. From there is one more national saying: “There would be a man, and the woman will always be“ .
The situation began to change since the beginning of the 18th century, gradually, but inevitably. How?
There was a concept - a maternal instinct. You think, it was always?
The historian Philip Aryes came to a conclusion that the relations of children and parents, and also concept a maternal instinct, in their modern understanding, arose in the countries of the West only in the middle of the eighteenth century. E. Badinter in work “Love in addition: history of maternal love (18 - 20 centuries)“, published in 1980, claims that up to the end of the eighteenth century the maternal love was socially casual phenomenon. The author considers the book. - Zh. Russo “Emil, or About education“ (1792), an event after which the maternal love turns into recognized cultural value. On the basis of the research E. Badinter came to the following conclusion: “… the maternal instinct is a myth. We did not find any a vseobshchegoa of necessary behavior of mother. On the contrary, we stated extreme variability of its feelings depending on its culture, ambitions or frustrations. Everything depends on mother, on her history and on History …“ .
And what was with a maternal instinct to the eighteenth century? The American psychologist L. De Mose begins the book “Psikhoistoriya“ so: “History of the childhood is a nightmare from which we began to waken only recently. The more deeply in history - the probability to be the killed thrown, beaten, terrorized and sexually offended“ less care of children and the more at the child . The author deeply investigates from the point of view of psychoanalysis styles of education throughout history of the European community. It allocates to six consecutive stages of change of styles of education .
1. Infanticides style (from antiquity to 4 centuries AD) . Children value were not, the attitude towards them was especially practical. If the child already since the childhood could help parents, then he had the right for life. If the child was ill much, required care, attention, was useless in economy, then he simpler and was more favorable to be killed, than to feed and bring up.
2. The “leaving“ style (4-13 century of our era). the Child is already perceived as the person allocated with immortal soul, however full of the evil and defect. At this time it is considered correct to be emotionally cold with children, to punish, beat strictly. “Bitiyo is - the doctrine“.
3. Ambivalent style (14-17 centuries). This stage, according to L. De Mose, belongs to the 14th century, it communicates with the advent of a large number of the guides to education of children, a glorification of a mariolatry, emergence in art of an image of careful mother. The child, by the nature, is considered as vicious from the birth. Education demands consecutive and rigid influence.
4. The imposing style (the 18th century). It is characterized by change of the attitude of parents towards children. Parents wanted to find the power over reason of the child to control his internal state, requirements, will. Beating of children becomes unpopular and is allowed more and more seldom.
5. The socializing style (19 - the middle of the 20th century). This style of education provides the direction of will of the child on the correct way. Children are socialized, learn to adapt to circumstances of life.
6. The helping style (from the middle of the 20th century). the Nature of the child is estimated as essentially kind, developing. K. Rogers brought a huge contribution to development and theoretical justification of the helping style of education.
As we see, till the 18th century the maternal instinct and affection of parents for children were practically absent. But if something appears, then it is clear that it is necessary for somebody.
The maternal instinct appeared as a way of strengthening of female influence in a family. And in this fight (as a rule, unconscious fight) for the power in a family the child is strong, and sometimes and trump, the card.
The scheme of silent selection of the power looked so:
1. In unconditional values of a family the maternal instinct appears and the supreme value in a family proclaims children. All best - to whom? In the choice between the husband and the child mother will unmistakably choose now - not the man, from a moral position having proved it by a natural maternal instinct. Claims to it disappear: a maternal instinct is what nothing can be done with, it it is simple to eat now.
2. Further it is clear, mother knows better that it is necessary for the child. There was a new family hierarchy where main - the child, on the second place - mother (with an instinct) as the performer of will of the Main thing, on the third place the husband, the man obliged to support this pyramid financially.
Men lost the unconditional power. Whether it is good for institute of a family and whether such family is necessary to the man? Questions are interesting, but they for other article.