There is only one person in this entire world who is responsible for the Democrats loosing 2016, and that is Hillary Clinton. This is true for three reasons:
She insisted on replacing Sander's best idea (Medicare for All) with her already failed idea (public option. See 4 below.)
I was very uneasy about this election for several reasons:
1 - 2 above.
Trump utterly dominated the media, it was all about him, all the time.
With what was perhaps the absolute apex of hubris, Hillary's campaign was "happy to let him have the attention of the media."
Hillary insisted on propping up Obamacare instead of going for Bearnie's "Medicare For All." Obamacare kept getting more expensive for individuals and businesses, while allowing the main culprits - the health care insurance companies - do as they please.
Hillary perpetuated culture war with her "deplorables" comment. That kind of elitism belongs in the GOP, not with progressives.
Hillary's high-price-tag hawkishness. Should my taxes really go to killing Arabic speaking children with American bombs?
And what really terrified me about her, kept me up at night, is that she basically represented no significant diversion from Obama's domestic policy - no actual change in a country starved for change.
Now Obama and Hillary are saying progressives should give Trump a chance? The same m*********** who is gutting the Environmental Protection Agency - are they so out of touch that they have some other place in mind besides Earth for humanity to live? After 8 years of obstructionism - we couldn't even get a supreme court justice appointed in over twice as long as it took to appoint the last one - now we should just stand by and watch Trump do what now exactly?
We are supposed to give Trump a chance, like the chumps who fell for Trump University and Trump Network? We are supposed to stand by while Russia and our own FBI are not held accountable for interfering with this election? We are supposed to capitulate in the face of a massive popular vote win in spite of a massive electoral college loss? THAT is what is best for DEMOCRACY?
It is time to clean house in the DNC (WARNING: foul language follows that is tamer than what I use in private on this same topic):
For a very long time now I have been infuriated by the priorities of the left. Some things matter a LOT more than others. In development land there's a theory called "Bike Shed," which states that the trivial, easy to understand, peripheral issues dominate everyone's attention (a critical resource in democracy) while important, complex, critical issues are too much work for people to bother with:
I spent the last few days after Trump's election in South Seattle in mid-November needing to REMOVE my coat instead of adding more layers. Global warming effects us all, to such a degree that this is one way the USA actually threatens the rest of the world: we ARE the world's biggest problem now that we have elected a president who has promised to let industry do whatever they like to our natural environment. Terrorism and Nuclear proliferation? They got nothing on US.
How did we get here? How is this possible? If there are so many critically important things going on right now, how is it we have failed to reach any kind of common ground?
Priorities. In ANY relationship, when one person starts to get really heated over a specific subject, the other person should ask themselves "is this worth it? Do we need to have this much conflict in our relationship, or should I compromise?" When there is no exploration of each other's ideas, and one side is convinced of their own inherent virtue, then that relationship dysfunctions and ceases to serve those in it.
Lets look at some things here that might not have been prioritized well.
Bathroom Equality
If someone told me, as a CIS male, I had to dress up as a woman when I go out, or I could not use the bathroom, that would be horrifying and inconvenient for me. I would feel rejected by society, I would be loud about this injustice. When the LGBT community complains about restroom use, I might not completely understand, but I can clearly see the problem.
But let me tell you that as a CIS male I am uncomfortable using the bathroom in public all the time anyways. Society constantly judges men by their penis size. Consider my options when I need to use the public restroom:
If I stand and pee in a urinal, wow, creepy. What if kids are around? What if some guy peeing next to me is taller or shorter than me? What if I hear a sound in his direction and want to look his way? What if one of my friends shakes my shoulders and says "ha, I knew you couldn't aim!" Society is forcing me to expose myself against my consent.
If I pee in the toilet, I am a big sissy for not standing to be judged like the real men. Or maybe someone will want to kick my ass because they think I was born female. Or maybe I am just not man enough to make the water flow in front of others. Or maybe my penis is so shockingly inadequate that I can be hardly considered a man in the first place and should hence not pee in front of others anyways.
Ironically, if I have to take a legitimate crap, no matter how loud and how stinky, I still have to be worried about 2.
Unisex bathrooms are MUCH better for CIS males. I am relieved when in medical settings I have business to do and all that is available are single occupant restrooms. Trans-friendly bathrooms are everyone-friendly bathrooms.
But it was really clear that this was pissing off the right. They were willing to get violent over traditional bathroom use. It was clearly going to influence the election, and bathroom equality became the new sexual equality issue.
But now that the left has lost the election, ALL sexual equality progress is now in jeopardy, with multiple supreme court vacancies likely over the next few years. Marriage equality? Reproductive rights? Was bathroom equality really worth the damage done?
The damage was also done to the very planet we ALL have to live on, so no, sorry, it wasn't worth it.
Gun Control
I am really not comfortable with the idea that at any time a bullet could come flying off the street, go through the walls of my home, and kill one of my family members. Just thinking about it makes it hard for me to sleep.
However the USA is so saturated with firearms that any legislation, no matter how draconian, would take DECADES to significantly reduce the number of firearms available to the general public. But you know who does have some GREAT ideas about regulating guns? The far right.
But you wouldn't know that, because you have been so convinced of your own righteousness, that you haven't realized there was effective gun control common ground just laying around for a few decades now. The far right would like to have a concealed carry permit that is recognized across state lines. This was a real opportunity for the LEFT to say "OK, how about everyone with a gun in public require a TEXAS license-to-carry":
An almost Utopian level of regulation by left-wing standards, and it's just laying there, right there in Texas, like a ripe apple falling towards your hand from a tree.
But you didn't know. Were all the self-righteous thumbs up from your bleeding heart friends worth losing the election over this? Because now what Trump's pushing for has nothing to do with the Texas version, it's just "go ahead and bring guns into military recruiting centers and basically anywhere else, with basically no training at all to speak of, because nothing could possiblie go wrong."
This election loss is destroying the air we breath, the food we eat, the water we drink, the land we live on. So no, sorry, as Sanders noted, the Gun Control debate was not worth it.
Obamacare
One major reason why the left lost the election was because health care expenses increase too rapidly for our incomes to keep up with, and Clinton continued to support Obamacare in the face of that. You can't keep propping up Obamacare when the price in the health insurance exchanges keep going up 20% per year.
Single payer was the alternative put forward by Sanders. Did you notice all those NPR interviews with the old white guys in the midwest during the primaries who said "my first choice is Trump, but my second choice is Bearnie!" The rust belt deplorables have almost no problem at all with single payer. Their problem is that having had real industrial jobs in the past, they have been exposed to practical mathematics which quickly tells them Obamacare must be Repealed and Replaced: 20% per year, that's the problem.
Single payer is anti-establishment, and that's really what the deplorables were all about (and think about it - they must be also pissed about medical bills and lack of medical care access):
And as Trump lights the health insurance industry on fire and leaves it to die, as he has been saying he wants to do for some time now, he's probably going to do it using compromises with the left, gradually raising he income limits on getting medicaid (adding fuel to that fire.) Ironically we probably will have something like unto single payer with Trump, perhaps even more so than the "public option" Nixon-era crap Clinton had in mind.
Why didn't Hillary take Trump & Sanders "medicare for all" proposals seriously? Was Obamacare worth losing the election over? Will I be allowed to have a campfire in 2017 when Cascadia's ecosystem is as dehydrated as a tumble weed in August in Phoenix AZ?
Labor
You will find that most deplorables and libertarians completely agree with lefties more on the following sentence: "all other things being equal, if a woman does the same job as well as a man does, she should be paid the same amount." Hearing about continued pay inequality for women enrages me - and pretty much everyone else as well. Low hanging fruit, easy to find common ground on, right?
Wrong, because it is shadowed by a much more extreme and earth-shattering problem. Just as it is pointless to try to save an antique sofa with a fire extinguisher when the rest of the building is burning down around you, any type of workplace equality is becoming less and less relevant to voters everywhere. The problem is mechanization.
Here's the number you need to understand: every 100 years, 90% of jobs humans do are replaced by machines. This is great for social progress, as it reduces slavery, women feeling forced to stay at home, hazardous work environments, unsustainable lifestyles and so on. Mechanization IS progress.
The problem with mechanization is "how do we adapt to it?" The midwest deplorables have adapted to mechanization by voting for Trump.
The battle that must be fought for here, and which has been completely neglected by the left, is the need for Universal Basic Income. I know this sounds like nanny-state cradle-to-grave entitlement, but stop thinking in terms of the 1980's and instead imagine a world where every cab driver and truck driver has been replaced by a self-driving vehicle.
In THAT imminent world we are all now currently relocating to, where machines DO EVERYTHING, the only thing that matters is WHAT THE MACHINES ARE DOING. The machines will be providing goods and services. What those goods and services are and how much are provided will be the most important decisions society faces. In that world, spending money on goods and services will determine what the machines do. In that world Universal Basic Income will be as foundational to Democracy as voting rights.
Captain of industry Elon Musk has raised this issue, yet the DNC just sits there, slack jawed and ineffective:
Ironically Marco Rubio and his developing theories about EITC was the closest thing in the political sphere we've had lately to serious conversations around universal basic income. Raising the minimum and wage and tuition free education doesn't matter much in the face of jobs constantly disappearing. Was all that worth loosing the election over?
Conclusion
The left needs to prioritize, because WE LIVE IN THE FUTURE. The left (and everyone else) should be focusing on issues of real consequence:
With wide spread protests of the Trump presidency throughout the USA, it is easy to think that protesters are not respecting the institutions of our democracy. But consider the following:
Clinton got over 350,000 more votes than Trump, while Trump got over 50 more electoral college votes than Clinton by the time the election was decided. If this was another country, you would think the electoral college was there for the express purpose of suppressing the will of people.
The FBI clearly tried to influence the election with opportune timed announcements, making a big deal out of e-mails that never materialized into charges.
The FBI seemed to collude with Russia, as Russia hacked DNC computers and took other various steps to leak information. Meanwhile the FBI was silent about the Russia's criminal influence.
Though Harry Reid threatened the FBI with the Hatch Act, so far no action has been taken against the FBI.
Sanders was expected to take such conservative states as Utah in a massive landslide victory, when the nomination was stolen from him by Hillary's supporters in the DNC.
Does that sound like a legit election to you? Should Gore have conceded the election in light of the evidence we have now of the election fraud from the Florida voting machines?
Should millennials stand by and watch the votes of people in their 70's voting for other people in their 70's destroy the natural environment of the world that the millennials still have to spend the rest of their lives in? Would that be the responsible thing to do?
Though I certainly am horrified by Trump's election, as a Tai Chi guy I try to always look for opportunities when bad things happen (and unforeseen consequences when good things happen.) There are opportunities created by Trump's election:
The electoral college, with Hillary having won the popular vote, is now despised by powerful (and most other) people on the left and right.
Postmodernism - the crippling vice of the left - has been fatally weakened and will hopefully soon die. Self righteous identity politics have been proven an ineffective strategy in the face of representative democracy.
Facts matter. Don't expect Obamacare to be politically viable as costs on exchanges keep going up 20% per year.
Political qualifications no longer matter for office. Michelle Obama 2020? Easy.
Clinton era neoliberalism is clearly dead, with Trump elected on an anti-Globalization platform.
Bush era neoconservativism is clearly dead, with every Bush family member openly opposing his election.
Peace is now possible. No matter how much the thought of a white supremacist president enrages me, I can't help but wonder "how many Arabic speaking children will now be saved from American bombs because of this election?"
Elections are no longer bought, as Trump was massively outspent by Clinton. The Party with the Most Effective Message Wins.
Elections are harder to steal because electability really matters. Clinton clearly underhandedly stole the Democratic nomination from Sanders, as Bearnie Bros warned time and again that Clinton's electability was a huge problem. Sanders represented a landslide victory that would even take Utah in the face of the Trump hatred found there (think "everything west of the Mississippi.") She stole the nomination, we were supposed to be cool with that, and Trump is the price that has to now be paid.
The youth vote matters. If you ignore what the youth of the country want and need, you are ignoring the future of our country, and they won't vote for you.
State-level political evolution is guaranteed. Some states will have the laws you want, and others won't, and young people (the future population) will be voting with their feet.
Trump must act to dismantle Obamacare. Health insurance provided by employers, with labor now politically maimed, will soon be a thing of the past. The last thing he would repeal, if he repeals it at all, would be requirements to take preexisting conditions. First goes the individual mandate, then goes the state boundaries in health care markets. Either of these things alone, if health insurance companies are to be believed, would destroy our current health insurance industry. The only alternatives are single payer or regulated medical fees, either of which amounts to socialized medicine.
On one hand the electorate was supposed to pay for increased global security, while not only needs were neglected at home, but also our own personal security concerns (2nd Amendment) were belittled and ignored. Hopefully the left has learned their lesson and will focus on important relevant issues (single payer, affordable education, and dare I say Universal Basic Income as recently suggested by Musk) instead of political bike-shed such as bathroom equality or gun control:
I hear Nintendo is announcing some new hardware innovation again, and we should all be saving our lunch money for the Next Big Thing. This is the same thing they always do. They come up with a hardware gimmick and then remake all their old games for the new platform, usually not even using the new gimmick:
The original NES used to come with a robot. How many games did they (or any 3rd party developers) make for that robot? Since the NES, how many of their new platforms have come with robots?
The Super NES came with more controller buttons than any game could actually use. Since then, how many platform games have needed that many buttons? More than use crappy robots, but still a low fraction.
The Game Cube introduced mini-DVDs. The piece of crap didn't even play DVDs and as far as I know none of their systems since have played DVDs in spite of being disk players. The other innovative thing about that platform was the compact design... and that was the last time they made a cube-shaped game platform.
The Wii added the wand. Thank goodness for that, because where would the gaming world be at now if it weren't for wands. Look at all the amazing wand games that came up that changed the gaming world forever on the Wii. Oh wait, the wand made exactly zero impact, even on Nintendo games, and again they just pumped out exactly the same old side-view-scrolling-jumping-crap they always make, which technically did use the buttons and track pads and joy sticks on the wands, but did not use wand functionality.
The Wii U added game-boy-like controllers to the Wii design (may as well, the wands were useless) because you know what we all need more than anything else? Two screens to watch while playing a game instead of one. Oh wait, I guess not.
Generation after generation of Game Boy has been produced with only the slightest bare bones enhancements, and then remarketing nearly identical games from the last gen to the new gen platform.
Numerous other failed projects like the Virtual Boy, 64DD, power glove, etc. had the least inspiring possible level of innovation.
Nintendo has made only two hardware innovations that impacted game design:
The track pad on the original NES controller instead of a joy stick. It was innovation, a step back in technology from a joystick, but innovation none the less which did massively impact consoles (for the worse, since joysticks are better.)
The alternative/fix to the track pad, the analog/thumb joystick on the Nintendo 64.
Nintendo has no problem selling you a new console, making you pay for their risks, and reselling you the same old crappy games for the 7th time in a row in 3 decades.
The main problem Nintendo has for innovation is an extreme intolerance for indy developers. Their policy for 3rd party developers is the most draconian I have ever heard of. Though their hostility towards 3rd party developers likely caused the downfall of the Wii U as the 3rd party devs abandoned the platform in droves, their policy towards indy developers is even far worse, which basically states: "If you are not a major established game company with lots of money and highly experienced game developers, you are unwelcome to even experiment with our platform."
A note here on Nintendo censorship: River City Ransom, the best game for the original NES, has only been brought to one other Nintendo platform. RCR was part of the Double Dragon franchise and was a violent street fighting action RPG, and it was 3rd party. Nintendo's policies guarantee that their best games will NOT come out for new platforms, only the same lame cliche Nintendo crap.
Want a good platform? Don't get another nintendon't, instead get a PS4.
I have been volunteering on Dale Magneson's campaign for Judge in Kitsap County. Obviously I am supporting him in this election, and here I am going to explain why.
First let me start by clarifying that I really like his opponent, Judge Bassett. Bassett is the first openly gay Judge in Kitsap. He's heavily involved in issues around family, adoption, child advocacy, etc. In his personal life him and his husband do more than talk, they themselves take care of a number of children. There's every reason to like this guy, and if he wins, I believe we will be in good hands. (The two gripes I have are things he's rumored to have said, such as "how old are you" in response to meeting someone from Dale's campaign, and "they will let just about anyone run for judge" in a public comment indirectly referencing Dale, leading me to wonder if Bassett is slightly elitist.)
Magneson has more legal experience, practicing as a lawyer for 28 years.
Magneson grew up in Bremerton.
Magneson raised his family in Bremerton.
Magneson is an Army Veteran.
Magneson worked at PSNS.
Bassett in contrast is from Florida, and has lived in Bremerton for less than a decade since he last lived in Florida. He was appointed to serve here by the Governor, and was not elected. This is key: if Bassett wins, he will be the first openly LGBT judge elected in Kitsap, but that election will mean nothing if he is not strongly opposed. This is the main reason why I have no problem working hard against Bassett even though I like him as a candidate.
But here in lies the two problems about this campaign, and is why I am supporting Magneson so strongly:
In the otherwise progressive state of Washington, there is now a tendency for Judges to be APPOINTED instead of ELECTED, and then run in future campaigns UNOPPOSED or with very weak opposition. This is very bad for our democracy, which should be headed towards more direct democracy and less authoritarianism. ALL appointed judges must be strongly opposed, because this creates a win/win situation: a) if the appointed judge is defeated, then hip-hip-hooray, democracy has been restored. b) if the appointed judge is elected in the face of significant opposition, then the appointed judge has been forced to recognize that he is accountable to the will of the people, and hip-hip hooray, democracy is restored. (No thanks to Tim Eyman, radical right wing policies using loop holes of direct democracy have done significant damage to WA, and the progressive reaction is to have our democracy be more authoritarian, but process really matters here, and we must not give up our right to elect local judges!)
Local-vs.-from-Florida is a really big deal in Kitsap. If you have known anyone with legal troubles in Kitsap, there's some chance you may have heard complaints that the judges in this county are very disconnected from the local culture here. Your friend says one thing, the judge clearly hears another. At one point Bassett's website bragged that his father was a judge and Bassett has always aspired to be a judge. In no place in WA is that kind of father-to-son handing down of occupation considered a good thing. On the right wing conservatives see that as the worst kind of bureaucratic nepotism, and on the left wing we have a clear example of patriarchal authority being handed down from father to son. On the East Coast that kind of generational aspiration is respected, but here in WA that is pure heresy. This is an example of how Bassett does indeed have some cultural disconnect with this area (as do most of his peer judges in Kitsap.)
As a lefty I have no sympathy at all for the 2nd Amendment, and if you ask me the so-called "militias" mentioned there in at the time were bounty hunters that collected escaped slaves. However a big part of why I live in Kitsap is our access to the out of doors, and guns are a critical part of Kitsap culture and why I love this place. As someone who is much more concerned about kids accidentally shooting themselves than I am about intentional gun violence, I feel responsible, safe, child friendly gun ownership needs to be encouraged in Kitsap (while IMHO more casual glocks-under-pillows "self-defense" gun ownership should be discouraged.) The most critical infrastructure for encouraging responsible gun ownership is shooting ranges - yet ours are under constant attack from our own county administration. They have been trying to shut down the all-VOLUNTEER Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club for 17 years. This is just one example of how we need local judges who are sensitive to our local issues. Simply being on the correct side of the national political climate does not begin to prepare someone for the local issues here in Kitsap.
We need cultural diversity in the Kitsap Superior Court, and that means having one of our own, a person who grew up and raised their family here, who has worked in the Shipyard, who is a veteran, who understands our motivations and language we use, regardless of where we stand on the political spectrum.
Many see Magneson as a ideological black-box, finding his personal agenda hidden (unlike Basset, who's lifestyle implies very specific politics, to his credit.) I grew up with attending the same church congregation as Magneson, and attended Sunday school with his children for over a decade. Here's what I can tell you about his ideology:
He strongly believes in getting his facts straight before making a decision or acting, and is quick to question assumptions.
He believes that when someone has a job, they should do that job as good as they can, with the least amount of bias possible.
He values political neutrality.
I have talked with one of his sons recently, trying to figure out who Magneson would support as president in the general election. I personally am a hard-left post-Bearnie DNC platform supporter, while his son is a disillusioned former Trump supporter. After some interrogation, his son still has no idea who Magneson would support for president. We both know Magneson will vote, as he sees that as his duty, but we don't know who for. Normally in our congregation we grew up in being private about politics would suggest left-leaning views, however his son can't get a read, and neither can I, and most of those congregation members are fairly conservative.
I can't tell you where Magneson stands on the local shooting ranges, because Magneson's opinion will be based on what he finds out about the situation and law, should any such situation appear before him as judge, and it would not be based on his personal political biases - which he basically keeps under lock and key. Magneson cares a lot more about the PROCESS, the fairness, the justness, than he does about his personal political beliefs. Magneson's agenda IS political neutrality, with strong support for the political process, and his bias is simply having a local voice as a judge in Kitsap.
There are two sides to this post, a secular side and a religious side. I will present the secular side first, warning the reader before it goes religious.
I don't want to defend my leftiness here. You don't have to read too many random selections of my political or religious posts to figure out I am a far-flung lefty social-justice-warrior type of person. Obviously I am very concerned about numerous issues regarding sexuality, politics and religion.
As an amateur anthropologist, I can't change the fact that I am a straight white guy. My question in this post is largely about what is the appropriate role for a heterosexual male in the new cultures we now find ourselves in. I am not defending any privilege or trying to justify any advantages, I just want to reorient to the new reality.
Secular
Society is inherently, by default, matriarchal. There has not been any globally influential culture where women did not exercise considerable authority over their children. Though this is a generalization, in today's industrialized democracies women have more authority over their children than men do.
The question then is what roles should fathers play, considering that the mother's role in most cases is guaranteed. There are numerous arrangements in today's industrialized democracies: strong authoritarian fathers ruling with an iron fist over their household, more laid back fathers attempting equal power sharing with the mothers, fathers separated from the household but who still regularly spend time with the children, estranged fathers who rarely see their children, and absentee fathers who's identity might even be concealed from the children. Besides investment in time in the children, a father's investment of financial resources in the children also varies greatly.
Let me here define purely matriarchal cultures as where women have clear authority above and beyond men in the same culture, usually with far less binding definitions of marriage than what we normally have in industrial democracies. Such cultures have failed to transition to industrialized democracy, 1st world level that most people on Earth want to live in. In fact they tend to be extremely marginalized, normally at the complete mercy of far more influential neighboring cultures who better manage the contributions men can make to child rearing.
This is patriarchal chaos: the mismanagement of the potential contributions men can make to the culture. I do not here justify extreme patriarchy, where instead women's contributions to culture are stifled. For example the trend in the USA of men making more money than their female peers must be putting the USA at a disadvantage as women are given unequal incentive to contribute. However in any culture the women's contribution is guaranteed, and the question remains to what degree do the men contribute.
I recently read a blog post on how roosters, when their numbers are not sufficiently culled, routinely gang rape hens. It amazes me that animals with such simple brains could even grasp the concept of that kind of team work for that abstract of a cause: could it be that the most man-hating criticisms of maleness are true and in the wrong circumstances we are all gang rapists? This post apocalyptic road warrior scenario seen in some sci-fi films is one extreme example of patriarchal chaos.
The other extreme is where the men do not engage or contribute to the rearing of children what so ever. At first is seems like this far-fetched scenario would only be possible in one of the marginalized purely matriarchal cultures alluded to above. However there are numerous examples in recent history where a male parent was so involved in his career that even though he technically remained in the household with the children, compared to the mother, his time contributed to rearing the children amounted to a handful of hours per month, so that in the end his contribution was almost purely financial.
Numerous examples also exist where fathers contributed nothing at all in time or financial resources. In nearly all of these cases the mother is considered to be at a major disadvantage in society along with her children. Such cases exist also with fathers, and even with males making more on average than females in the USA, the father in this case still is considered to be at a disadvantage along with his children, simply because he does not have another parent with which to share the burden of raising children. But it is far more common to have mothers without the involvement of fathers, and their resulting disadvantage is the other end of patriarchal chaos I refer to.
Managing the resource that is maleness - or in other words patriarchy - is key to industrialized democracies. Sexual harassment laws in the workplace are a good example. When a man is being paid, it is reasonable to expect him to keep from making advances on his female coworkers - because THAT is part of what he is being paid to do. Today's definition of professionalism demands that male coworkers refrain from complicating the relationships in the workplace with their rooster-like instincts.
But what about in VOLUNTEER organizations? At a paid job, what the man's needs are being met through him receiving a pay check in exchange for his labor. But at a volunteer position what needs of his are being met and how? I hereby assert that in volunteer organizations men are NOT being paid to reign in their rooster-like instincts.
I think this is why we see more division of sexes when it comes to volunteer organizations ("Boy Scouts" vs. "Girl Scouts," "Masons" vs. "Eastern Star," etc.) In some cases it is fine and good for hetero couples to pair up as a result of their participation in the volunteer organization (Church-based singles groups, many college clubs, etc.) However when the volunteer labor of married people is desired, especially child rearing heteros, new hetero couples forming from these married heteros is extremely destructive, creating more patriarchal chaos in the form of divorces and less involved fathers.
This is the end of my explanation of patriarchal chaos from a purely secular perspective:
Religious
As an LDS who is clearly lefty, I understand the concerns around how the LDS religion handles major issues around sexuality, especially LGBTs and issues around women "not having the priesthood." Here I am not defending the Church's stance on anything LGBT, or their definition of who does and does not hold priesthood in spite of the literal text of various sacred temple ceremonies, nor do I think it is wise to tell women they do not hold the power of God to bless others, when the exact opposite teaching was practiced for the first half of our religion's existence. I am not here challenging or demanding that the LDS leaders to change their views, but I see these concerns clearly.
With that said, obviously the term "patriarchal chaos" is derivative of the term "Patriarchal Order" in LDS theology. With the most common and important type labor contribution in the all-volunteer LDS Church (Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching), or in other words the primary form of overt ministry our religion engages in, women contribute as much or more than men do. As you can see from the last few paragraphs from Secular section above, I think this is possible not because the type of labor is sexually divided (Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching are identical in practice,) but WHO we do that labor with is sexually divided.
If women are formally recognized as holding the Melchizedek Priesthood after their temple endowment, this will create the following problem: asking a partner in a hetero child-rearing couple to spend significant time with a partner in a different hetero child-rearing couple of the opposite sex. So let's say a wife of a bishop is called to be the Elder's Quorum President. She calls a newly wed male college student to be her first counselor and single mother to be her 2nd counselor. Can you think of a place in secular society where it is considered appropriate for a married man to be spending many volunteer hours alone with a single mother and a woman of another marriage without his wife present? Social catastrophe, if not happening in most cases, would still happen frequently enough to counter the Church's family-building agenda and efforts.
THAT is the bag of worms the LDS church is not prepared to face when it comes to recognizing women as priesthood holders. Right now we are keeping it simple. Patriarchal Order is invoked to prevent patriarchal chaos, because as our excommunicated polygamist child bride raping enemy rivals have proved, under the wrong circumstances, we may not be any better than roosters:
