The feminization of the Western male?

[Jonah]

Patriarchy and matriarchy are just fancy words for the rule of the father and the rule of the mother. They are complementary forces just like yin and yang, male and female, and night and day. You certainly can't have one without the other, as they are completely synergistic and harmonious.

 

To say that the rule of the father and the yang principle is harmful to humanity and that we would be better off without it, really doesn't even make any sense. And it goes completely against the symbolism of taoism, the swirling union of yin and yang. It would be like stating that heat is harmful to humanity and we should stick with the cold or that night is superior to the day. How can we get rid of just one force?

 

(Also, when I hear someone talk about the "problems of the patriarchy" (and no offense to those who have) I generally think, oh boy, this person has some psychological issues with their own father that they should take a look at. In regards to women, The Onion had a great spoof on this last year: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48978 )

 

Anyhow, Mom and Dad got together and created you. Mom birthed you and gave you nourishment through her breasts when you were a baby. We all love our mothers. But do we love our fathers as well? Moms are easy, warm and accepting. But Dads are a bit more difficult, as they represent boundaries and discipline. They push you. And lately it's been easy to shrug him off as too much work. It appears as if the attitude today towards fathers is just give us your sperm, pay the bills, and shut up.

 

Mom provides comfort but if you want to stand on your two feet you need that push from Dad. We all have free will of course and if you want to keep on sucking on her breast long into adulthood that's your choice. But trust me, you'll get fat and lazy. In fact, a recent scientific has just proved this very point: the more strict and authoritarian your father is, the less likely you are to become fat and obese.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/firm-d...7788466104.html

 

Hmmm, I wonder why there is such an epidemic now of obesity in this country? ;-)

[Uncle Fester]

.

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[Jonah]

Let's take a look at what our friends at Wikipedia have to say about the patriarchy:

 

Patriarchy describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, in which fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of their families. In some cultures, slaves were included as part of such households. The word patriarchy is often used, by extension, to refer to the expectation that men also take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, and hence fulfil the duties of public office.

 

The feminine form of patriarchy is matriarchy, but there are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history. Encyclopia Britannica says it is a "hypothetical social system." The Britannica article goes on to note, "The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed."

 

Margaret Mead (a famous anthropologist) said, "All the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed. ... men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. ... men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home."

 

 

Hmmm, looks like we were both wrong. There is no other option. Everywhere you look, every country you visit, every workplace you enter, it's the patriarchy!

 

Oh the horror, the horror!!! ;-)

[gendao]

American society's view of women is that they should be thin, big breasted, blonde sex toys, while the men run the shop. And maybe a few women who can act like men might advance within the ranks of society. But for the most part, American society is designed to serve the wealthy white male first and foremost.

I think that this is a pathological trend. Call it what you want, I call it Patriarchy.

Again, that is feminists' 1-sided view of patriarchies. Naturally, there is nothing positive. When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail.

 

But when men died on the battlefield for the welfare of their nation as a whole while women and children stayed safely at home...was that also merely to serve their own self-interests?

 

There is a natural SYMBIOSIS between men and women. And when that symbiosis is nurtured - BOTH mutually gain from it. Just because men are more dominant in patriarchies doesn't mean only they benefit from it. Women and children do too - otherwise patriarchies wouldn't have evolved so prevalently. They became predominant because they were the most natural and successful family structure. Also, the flipside of dominance that everyone here forgets is RESPONSIBILITY. And that is a great burden that men in patriarchies must also bear.

 

People tend to envy only the fruits - but never the labor. But you don't get fruits without labor...

[Pietro]

Well that is what Patriarchy means in Latin, but it has a more elaborate definition in a socio-political context:

A hierarchical social system and way of thinking where "fathers" or "patriarchs" rule which has become a model for every form of domination and subordination.

 

American society's view of women is that they should be thin, big breasted, blonde sex toys, while the men run the shop. And maybe a few women who can act like men might advance within the ranks of society. But for the most part, American society is designed to serve the wealthy white male first and foremost.

I think that this is a pathological trend. Call it what you want, I call it Patriarchy.

 

Hi Darebak,

before and without entering in the question if Patriarchy is good or bad, if there are other possibilities or not, (mostly because I don't have the time to enter in thsi discussion), I want to strongly oppose to this use of language. That is to the redefinition of technical terms to fit different socio-political situation. By all means, let's invent new terms if we need to, but let's not use and abuse original idioms. I patriarchy something in latin, then that's what it means. Full stop. Feminist can try to rewrite the vocabulary as much as they want, but in the measure in which they are moving away from truth, they are moving away from the possibility to act without abuse. In the moment in which you redefine the term patriarchy into anything else you are mixing two different concepts, and eventually people who follow you will fight society A, thinking they are fighting society B. How can this not lead to abuse?

 

it is like with the term 'Terrorist'. The meaning is, someone who tries to change society by scaring people. Coming from the root 'Terror'- fear. Now this is very far from the meaning that is given by some of our governments. But if you look close enough you will notice that the space between what they say litterally they fight and what they actually fight is the space where their abuse travels. Changing the terms is then conducive to confusion and out of confusion comes the possibility of abuse.

[Lozen]

[Pietro]

[Lozen]

Are you arguing that men in patriarchies do not have a disproportionately large amount of power? No judgement, I'm just asking.

[Pietro]

Are you arguing that men in patriarchies do not have a disproportionately large amount of power? No judgement, I'm just asking.

 

I argue that the word patriarchy does not stricly imply an abuse. Although historically, especially in recent history most patriarchal societies might have been abusive. And on this point I would stand separated from most women in saying that even those abusive societies where often not so much busive against women, but against most of people, of either genders. Eventually when anyone suffers in a society the society as a whole suffers, because we are all tied up. As such to bash patriarchy in whole, is not correct. What we need to do is to sort what is ok and what is not, society by society. Using our knowledga about different societies to help us develop the flexibility to think about how society might look like.

 

This in short is my position.

[Jonah]

I would second that. I can understand, it is tempting to be a revisionist and look back and judge our ancestors.

 

But the fact is, only up until the last 150-200 years, humans lived a very very difficult life of backbreaking work, with both men and women doing their absolute best to keep their families alive and pass something on to the next generation. Without adequate forms of birth control available most women not too long ago lived a life of siring 10-12 children, half of which would most likely die before age 5. Go into your local graveyard and take a look at the really old graves, you'll find nearly half of them are children!

 

My grandparents were pretty smart cookies, and they made the best choices they could. And I have faith that so did their grandparents, and the grandparents before them. And so on. Given the incredibly difficult situations of the past I know that our ancestors made the choices that worked best, ones that kept the most people alive. Survival of the family and the group was paramount, and individuals took a backseat in many circumstances.

 

The difference between now and then is staggering. We can now slowly unloosen the structures we have created over thousands of years and try new things. Some new things have worked, some haven't, and some are still experiments in process.

 

As our environment became less harsh, we needed to work less, and we actually had something called "leisure time," both men and women had the opportunities to try things they had never been able to do. And this freedom really only kicked in for the masses in the past 100 years or so.

 

We are standing on the shoulders of great men and women throughout the ages who struggled together to bring us to where we are now. And throughout all of recorded history, all around the world, all of our great achievements have been under the patriarchy.

 

Now excuse me, I must go back into the den and smoke my tobacco pipe...

Edited May 18, 2007 by Jonah

[Uncle Fester]

.

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[Wayfarer64]

All this back & forth didn't make me horney -but it does remind me of a joke from my sites' joke page -

 

Subject: The Social Contract or PoliSci 101-

 

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What's politics?"....

Dad says, "Well, son, let me try to explain it this way:.....

"I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me Big Business. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we will call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the People. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. Now your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense."......

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. So he goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep, (dad having given her a sleeping pill), not able to wake her, he gives up and goes back to bed........

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now."......

The father says, " Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about."......

The little boy replies, "Well, while Big Business is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep do-do."......

 

[Jonah]

most of the worlds death and destruction has been committed by men who are in privileged positions due to the patriarchy.

 

No. That's not true.

 

The number one cause of death throughout history has been infectious diseases. The plague, influenza, yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, etc. Historically, death through war and violence has been very low on the list of ways to die.

 

In fact, even with all the wars going on around the world recently, according to a report by the World Health Organization in 2002, death by physical violence - both homicide and war combined - now accounts for less than 1% of all deaths worldwide annually.

 

Less than 1%.

 

War is truly hell, and is an absolutely horrendous event. Best to avoid if at all possible. But the fact is, it's been part of the human condition as long as recorded history and beyond. Even our closest relatives, chimpanzees, battle one another all the time. And the female chimps are just as violent as the males.

 

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/sc...036;1085551.htm

 

War isn't going away anytime soon. Despite the bloodshed, societies have become stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more technologically advanced because of warfare and military advances. A good chunk of the technology that we use for modern living - gas powered engines, planes, helicopters, computers, compact discs, headphones, GPS systems, cell phones, etc. were all initially developed for military purposes.

 

Bottom line, people are living like the kings and queens of yesteryear thanks to the science, know-how, and technology developed by primarily by men and for use in warfare.

 

Thank God we have had some peace for a while to enjoy all this cool stuff!

[Lozen]

there have been cultures in history where the men sacrified their women, or their girls even

and all of those cultures have died out

hmmm

[Pietro]

War is truly hell, and is an absolutely horrendous event. Best to avoid if at all possible. But the fact is, it's been part of the human condition as long as recorded history and beyond. Even our closest relatives, chimpanzees, battle one another all the time. And the female chimps are just as violent as the males.

 

May I add that the size of conflicts follow a power law, that is there are few big clonflicts, and more smaller conflicts. But there is no division at all between war and homicide, for example. They are just part of the same continuous curve. For the technicians around here I will add that the steepness of the power law changes slightly from society to society. Big societies tend to have more big events (clash of armies) and less smaller ones, while small societies (tribes) tend to have the opposite. And if you plot the steepness of the curve respect to time, in a country in war the steepness tend to a particular value. This value represent how war is in the 'natural' society. The one where social norm has broken down and all you have is the power of the stronger and bands of brigants and war lords (think Afganistan, right now).

 

Unfortunately war is not only here to stay, but it can be studied as you would study a physical phenomena, and in the long run it is statistically as predictable.

[Pietro]

If you think about it the basic mission statement of western society is "lets bend nature to our will in order to make ourselves really, really comfortable, regardless of how people in other nations or the planet itself might suffer for it." It is about exploiting resources in order to stay on top. This is what patriarchy has brought us.

I think this is unhealthy. I don't think it is working.

What does this say about patriarchy?

Yours is an analysis of one statement of one of the patriarchal society.

 

Infact your analysis is unconsistent in itself.

If most of societies that exist or have existed in recorded history are patriarchal. (we agreed on this based on anthropological records before)

If one of them is dominating the others, while the others would if not live in balance with nature. If we agree that this dominating society is sick, then obviously the sickness cannot be in patriarchy, or the others would be sick too. But there are plenty of societies that live in balance with nature.

 

 

The problem is a deeper problem. The problem is not that this society is sick and the others are healthy, the problem is that this society is so succesful in keeping us alive that nature cannot cope.

 

 

Meanwhile women are oppressed even in our supposedly free and open society. Women are oppressed simply by being born into the unfair and unnatural expectation of what a woman should be(this role of course is created and enforced by men). If any category of people have been stripped of their innate power in this society it is women.

Actually I see many men being enslaved by entering into a marriage and then being divorced and having to keep on feeding their ex wife. I see men who are not allowed to see their kids. I see women who divorce, get the kids (always better with the mother), get from the government the house(a mother with kids), get from the husband a monthly allowence. While the husband lose the possibilityt ot see the kids (oh, except every other weekend), get to pay, and find a different house. And if the husband had a house the judge can declare that it goes to the kids... and the mother. And you think this is fair, or even bad against women? What are you speaking about?

I see woman who have the choise to work or stay at home, and I see that statistically the ones who chose to stay at home answer that they are more happy. It does not seem to be a picture of great malais for the women in THIS society. I see the percentage of suicide of men being double the one of women (how is that as a temperature for malais). I see suicide being the number one cause of death in men between 16 and 60. I see men being raped more than women (if you count rape in jail, yep that is rape too), and although I am not totally sure about this last I think there is even a higher probability for men to be killed in a dark alley than for a women to be raped. I see a society that is slowly reaching the point where jokes against men are ok, while the same joke against a women is sexist and unacceptable. I see no respect or honor for male sexuality, and an unacceptable awe around female sexuality. Where are you from Darebak? Maybe you are from a very different society than mine.

[Jonah]

Timeless wisdom from one of our modern day sages:

 

[iadnon]

Just some thoughts.

 

This feminization of men is a phenomena I've been observing for several years. Many friends of mine (males) have passed from being rude and tough to be delicate and art-friendly. It's great! It seems the female energy of their partners has affected them somehow.

 

According to some texts the female energy enters the male during a het sexual intercourse, and vice versa, mixing even more the yin and yang in their bodies.

 

And if we refer to other texts the being who has a male physical body has a female astral body, fulfilling the law of planes-inversion (always, talking about energy vibrations, not "genders", at least outside the physical universe).

 

While practicing the microcosmic orbit with sex energy I've fantasized several times being a female having sex with a male (I'm a male). The energy sensations were completely different and the muladara chakra expanded with more force (which, presumably, must be in the astral).

 

I think the planet would have evolved better with females ruling.

[gendao]

I think the planet would have evolved better with females ruling.

I diagree.

 

There's already enclaves ruled by women.

 

They're called "ghettoes" here in the US - where women choose to get knocked up by bad boys and raise their sons alone as single moms. 70% of Black babies are now born to single moms here, for example. Whereas it was only 20% in 1890 and 23% for them in the 60s! Wow, what "progress!" No wonder gangs arose here after the 60s - they were daddyless sons looking for father figures in each other.

 

We're talking about a social breakdown within 1 generation...

 

Without strict male guidance and discipline - women tend to make emotional decisions impulsively. You find this in society as well as the family. Moms tend to "baby" their kids and without a father to play the firm "bad cop," these kids often end up spoiled, too soft and get into a lot of trouble. Thereby repeating the downward cycle.

 

Liberalism is essentially Yin politics. And while it has done some good - over time it becomes self-destructive as it promotes professional victimhood, denial of accountability and underachievement. This whole country is suffering a lot of fallout from the 60s liberal counterculture (along with some of the benefits).

 

Conservatism is more Yang. We all know its faults, but in the long run it does create a more orderly society that encourages competition and progress. I mean, we've gone from "Leave It To Beaver" to "Jerry Springer" here in just 50 years! Neither is close to perfect, but which is worse?

 

Personally, I'm Independent politically - but I feel that liberal Yin politics can be more destructive than Yang politics in the long run. Just look at Communism. Marx's flawed ultra-liberal ideology has actually caused more suffering and deaths than any other memes in modern history!

Edited May 22, 2007 by vortex

[dachengchuan]

Hi Peregrino ...

 

I agree ... check out the Myth of Male Power book ... pretty awesome .... the author contends that the cultural focus of the last 20 years has been on the male dark side and the female light side, totally missing out the male light side and the female dark side etc ... I loved the Tao of Steve apart from the wimp-out ending, it contained a few great nuggets ... whats MRA websites ....??? That's a new one one me ...

 

thanks ...

 

 

 

OK, my experiences as a humanities grad student have instilled an automatic self-censorhip mechanism--"What do you mean by 'feminization'? What sort of monolithic characterization is implied by referring to the Western male?"--but still, I must press on . . .

 

Since the topic came up during the latest Sean Denty slugfest on another thread, I thought I'd re-introduce it here: I would contend that many men in most every Western country are sorely lacking in male role models, male virtues, and basic self-respect, and so turn to teachers like David Deida, PUA and MRA websites, to seek (however incompletely) to make up for this great lack.

 

I know that _The Tao of Steve_ was pseudo-indie Hollywood Taoism Lite, but I did appreciate that flick's affirmation of male assertiveness, though I think my ideal of manliness would be more of a cross between Lee Marvin and Laozi! My personal experience in the past few years of embracing more traditionally masculine values is that whatever I've lost socially from giving up supplicating, PC sycophancy I've gained tenfold in self-respect . . . and [transition to pimp voice] the ever-burnin' passion of my fine woman!

 

(Oops, a woman once told me that emoticons were unmanly, but I'll keep mine up because I'm manly enough not to care about seeming unmanly . . .) >>>AND DAMN IT, ADD A LEE MARVIN CIGAR TO THAT EMOTICON!!!

 

PS

Robert Bly's a wuss. The only feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings a man should regularly share in public settings is the righteous anger to smite his enemies! (I would say j/k now, but that sounds wussy too! )

 

So, is masculinity all about "performance," or a re-training/-awakening of instincts?

[myheadisbrokenwideopen]

our one sided fixation on prioritizing a masculine rationality, seeking to dominate nature, over feminine intuition. everything feminine has undergone a profound depreciation, bywhich our Western psyche has evolved. this depreciation includes not only women but the intuitive and shamanic forms of thought denigrated by our rigidly masculine rationality... i think that says it...

 

"act like a man"... so there is no being in a man?

[iadnon]

I diagree.

 

There's already enclaves ruled by women.

 

They're called "ghettoes" here in the US - where women choose to get knocked up by bad boys and raise their sons alone as single moms. 70% of Black babies are now born to single moms here, for example. Whereas it was only 20% in 1890 and 23% for them in the 60s! Wow, what "progress!" No wonder gangs arose here after the 60s - they were daddyless sons looking for father figures in each other.

We're talking about a social breakdown within 1 generation...

 

That's just one example in where there can be more variables involved. The planet is going to collapse after centuries of male-ruling, don't blame women in this last critical period.

 

Basque Country (Spain-France) (Euskal Herria) has had, for millennia, a matriarchal society. We've been able to safeguard our culture, our language and a strong economy, even if the surrounding elements have tried to shut us down. Unfortunately, with the arrival of Christianity, women were put aside, even our old gods were too (the main figure of the Basque Pantheon was a female almighty fiery mother who lived in two mountain's caves, Mari).

 

 

Without strict male guidance and discipline - women tend to make emotional decisions impulsively. You find this in society as well as the family. Moms tend to "baby" their kids and without a father to play the firm "bad cop," these kids often end up spoiled, too soft and get into a lot of trouble. Thereby repeating the downward cycle.

[\quote]

 

Sorry? What kind of statement is that? Male guidance? Ha, ha, my Goddess, that's rubbish! Are you so far of your feminine side? The correct statement should be: a child needs a masculine pattern and a feminine one (no matter if they're given by male-female, male-male or female-female couple).

 

Remember that females can be even more disciplined and rough than men in what it's related to education. Remember that a female has to look after a house, children, and, in many cases, her husband.

[Jonah]

I've heard excellent things about the Basque Country from friends who have visited there. Sounds like an amazing place.

 

You say the Basque Country is a matriarchal society. I'm curioius to know what makes this so.

 

Do husbands change their last names to that of their wives?

 

In regards to family, does the eldest daughter automatically receive family inheritance of the estate?

 

Are women the majority of the elected leaders and business owners within the community?

 

I ask these questions because most modern-day sociologists and anthropologists now agree that historically there never has actually been a strictly matriarchal society. They call matriarchy "a hypothetical social system." It doesn't exist.

 

Mothers and grandmothers are respected in most cultures around the world. (They have a saying here, "As American as baseball, Mom, and apple pie.") And most religions around the world have very strong female aspects -- the Madonna in Christianity, Kuan Yin in Buddhism, and Kali/Parvati in Hinduism. The diety of wisdom and warfare among the ancient greeks was a woman warrior, Athena.

 

However, the fact that such cultures do honor the female does not make them matriarchies.

[iadnon]

In modern times it's lost its matriarchal spirit.

 

The key is in the house. The ancient (and modern, in many cases) house for basques is the baserri (literally, the house in the forest), a structure close related to a farm. The family lived there, even after passing away, because the cemetery was in the lower floor of it).

 

While the tasks of males were plowing, sewing, being a rancher, and so... the govern of the house was on the hands of women. They transformed what the male took home (dairy, bread,...), and even sell it, managing the flow of money (something inconceivable in the closer lands to Basque Country).

 

If you look at old photos of rustic people, women are more in number than men, and they seem as strong as men (in many cases they seem men).

 

The main figures of Basque mythology are females, as the higher Goddess Mari. There are more references to virgins in Basqueland than saints.

 

In what it's related to Basque language there is a weird aspect. The second person "YOU" has three forms: YOU MEN, YOU WOMEN and YOU FORMAL. The first was used in between men, the second ONLY for women of the same family or very closed to the speaker, and the third for women and unknown people (a kind of USTED in Spanish).

 

In some period of our history the male took the surname of the female. Most of them are formed by the geographical information where he/she has born to. For example, ZUBILAGA: place with lots of bridges, ARTEAGA: in between oaks, ETXEBARRIA: new house, and so. When a person mentioned another one it always talked about his/her house (remarking the link with the home).

 

There's another interesting and odd thing. In Basque Country the O blood type is abounding, and that type is related to cultures of the south of Europe, where lunar rites were celebrated. By the contrary, the A type abound in the norther part, where solar rites happened.

 

Christianity rammed against local witches (SORGINAK), the feminine version of the chaman. Women with a close relationship with nature and its herbs.

 

 

http://www.uned.es/ca-alzira-valencia/publ...images/hs43.jpg (to large)

 

 

[lino]

No. That's not true.

 

The number one cause of death throughout history has been infectious diseases. The plague, influenza, yellow fever, malaria, typhoid, etc. Historically, death through war and violence has been very low on the list of ways to die.

 

In fact, even with all the wars going on around the world recently, according to a report by the World Health Organization in 2002, death by physical violence - both homicide and war combined - now accounts for less than 1% of all deaths worldwide annually.

 

Less than 1%.

 

War is truly hell, and is an absolutely horrendous event. Best to avoid if at all possible. But the fact is, it's been part of the human condition as long as recorded history and beyond. Even our closest relatives, chimpanzees, battle one another all the time. And the female chimps are just as violent as the males.

 

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/sc...036;1085551.htm

 

War isn't going away anytime soon. Despite the bloodshed, societies have become stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more technologically advanced because of warfare and military advances. A good chunk of the technology that we use for modern living - gas powered engines, planes, helicopters, computers, compact discs, headphones, GPS systems, cell phones, etc. were all initially developed for military purposes.

 

Bottom line, people are living like the kings and queens of yesteryear thanks to the science, know-how, and technology developed by primarily by men and for use in warfare.

 

Thank God we have had some peace for a while to enjoy all this cool stuff!

 

If there is starvation due to that fields were burned and equipment was damaged due to war then the war is responsible. So when one neighbor has to fight another neighbor for a skinny leg of chicken or an almost rotten piece of lettuce because there isn't enough to go around, then the party that is ultimately responsible is the one that created the conditions in the first place.

If the healers and doctors run away and people start dying from preventable diseases because of a war then the war is responsible.

If a country can't trade because it is being blockaded and sieged, then it is still a war. A siege is a hostile act.

If a country can't produce clean drinkable water because facilities were destroyed then the people that get sick and/or die are casualties of war.

If a person can't use the phone to call an ambulance or to see if family and friends are okay because the phone company's facilities were destroyed it still due to war.

 

All the things that I have described are war strategies and tactics.

 

When a foreign country sets foot in another country in order to steal resources, that foreign country is responsible for every single death, every sickness, and every single inconvenience no matter how big or small.

 

When a foreign country steps into another country, they are in fact claiming that they can run the unwilling host country in a better and more efficient manner.