No,this may not be an archaic axiom by some misogynist male in antiquity. In plain English; it’s not referring to a male who rules the home with an iron fist.The Merriam-Webster defines castle as a large fortified building or set of buildings. We think of a castle as not only architecturally beautiful but as a darned safe place [back when people were building them]during a particular time period. They protected the residents inside from the possibly nasty stuff outside. Whatever the author meant at the time has no bearing on where i’m going to take it based solely on the dictionary definition of castle.
When i was growing up we thought of the role of our father and mom’s husband as being a protector. Men were meant to protect women.Dad’s were meant to protect their family. It’s not as if we thought mom couldn’t do it if she had to;of course she could. Dad was our superman and that was all there was to it. He was also the spiritual leader of our home and made sure mom and us kids went to Mass on Sundays. If we were acting up and giving mom a hard time there were those famous last words, ‘wait till your father gets home.’ Mom was a toughie but if she was truly exasperated she’d resort to Dad. Yes,mothers actually said that.
It always worked too.
The point is, the husband and wife had a role and they shared the responsibility of raising the kids. A family would contribute to the community and the relationship between families were central to how well the community functioned. You had to have that castle though. It’s where it all begins.
The castle was autonomous. It was meant to be a safe space. A place where everyone could retreat from the world and enjoy all the things that were important to them. So what happened? How did we get to the point that an old saying like a man’s home is his castle might offend people?What they’re really saying is the nuclear family is offensive. They’ve been tearing down the castle.
Before we get into how they’ve torn down the nuclear family we need to look at the role of men and women. i’m going to use a Catholic framework. The gender roles are established in Genesis. There are 2 genders. You’re born either a male or female.Yes, i know there is a medical condition but we’re not going to jump into medical conditions and get on a rabbit trail.Male and female were created EQUAL but different Genesis tell us, stating the obvious. Male and female were meant to be intimate-they are creatures who can relate to each other. They are created to have children,again stating the obvious.Even after the fall,they would still be able to have children.
The main difference between the 2 genders is that the male is physically stronger so we can assume he was meant to protect the more vulnerable female. As a matter of survival that would have to be the case.
For current liberal thought about gender roles and the nuclear family we’ll use Marxism as a framework. Friedrich Engels, a friend and colleague of Karl Marx put communist thought on the family into writing
“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as molecules.”
Marx considered the nuclear family as oppressive. There we go with the idea of 2 groups of people [divided] who are either the oppressor or the oppressed. It creates conflict doesn’t it? Naturally Marxism would want to destroy the nuclear family and insist the state raise children. Communism is well known for pitting children against parents. IMHO modern society has let these Marxist ideas creep into our culture and we have adopted them either deliberately or by acquiescence.
I’m going to fall back on a Catholic framework again by quoting the Catechism -the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
The Catechism on Subsidiarity
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
The left has 2 groups of people joined at the hip; one group are the useful idiots who are unwittingly embracing Marxism(communism). They will probably have an ‘how dare you’ defensive attitude if you call them Marxists. They are but they don’t know it. They could either be indoctrinated by a liberal school or they find it attractive and don’t know what it is. The other group is Marxist by organization and they knowingly embrace Marxist ideology. I would bet the people who know and embrace it are leading along the useful idiots.Biden is definitely a useful idiot. Some pundits believe he knows exactly what he’s doing;that may be true but he doesn’t realize what it is. You can do a lot of harm with policies you believe are establishing your liberal legacy not realizing they’re closer to a communist state than a republic. (Worse,the Biden surrogates like to crow how he’s a devout Catholic when he’s attacking everything the Church teaches).
I can point out the dangers to the nuclear family in a nutshell: distraction from our values by the entertainment industry, pornography including soft pornography aimed at youth, birth control,abortion and no fault divorce, the welfare state rewarding destructive behaviors, lack of respect for legitimate authority, same sex ‘marriage’.
Andrew Breitbart was right when he said politics flows downstream from culture. Unfortunately, our culture has been biting at the heels of the nuclear family for a long time-and here we are.
Now the question is what do we do and how do we do it? How do we protect the castle from outside invaders?