When making a claim or defending a concept using the English language, it is often important to define the terms to be discussed. In this case, I use the definition of patriarchy as supplied by Merriam-Webster:
Patriarchy:
Main Entry: pa·tri·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \-?är-k?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pa·tri·ar·chies
Date: 16321 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy
I contrast this definition with that offered by Dr. Paul Elam in his recent article “Patriarchy for Dummies“. In this article, Dr. Elam posits that patriarchy
…is all about power. Power to protect, power to provide, power to dominate and control.
Power to be corralled and used.
When all that power gets channeled into a box and served up on a platter for women’s benefit, you have the ultimate aphrodisiac. There’s your patriarchy in a nutshell, and all the laws, codes, social norms and gender roles that came with it. Women use the illusion of submission and being demure, coupled with sexual appeal, to get men to perform for their benefit.
Ultimately the master is the slave. He lives under the illusion of power, when in reality he is only the provider of it.
In other words, patriarchy is little more than a vehicle to transfer power and wealth from the masculine to the feminine, and therefore is an institution that, rather than empowering men or ensuring an equal seat at the social table, oppresses them instead. In this opinion, he joins the feminists who like to claim that ‘patriarchy hurts men too’. The fembots even have an acronym for it, it is used that much: PHMT.
Well I’d like to differ with that argument. Here’s why.
In a nutshell, we haven’t had a patriarchy in our culture since the late 19th century, since the dethroning of the husband and the father as the master of home with the shift in father custody to mother with the tender years doctrine. In fact, the culture that we are living in can be more accurately called matriarchal, described as
a gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is taken by the women and especially by the mothers of a community
Can one dispute at all that we are not living in a matriarchy these days, a matriarchy where it counts, what with near-universal mother custody and automatic man-at-fault divorce, soaring rates of choice mommyhood, female dominance in the workplace, female salary dominance in many urban settings, female dominance in lower- and mid-level government positions, and ueber-feminist Sarah Palin’s ‘mama grizzlies’ pushing men aside in politics? Sure, alpha men occupy the apex of society; ask yourself which sex wields the power on the social ladder starting at the level immediately below the apex on down.
Thus I find questionable the claim that the current state of affairs is the “same as it ever was”, implying that the patriarchy responsible for bootstrapping Western Civ from mud huts on the banks of the Rubicon to a complex post-industrial society is also the very same patriarchy that turns men into kitchen bitches today. Yes, patriarchy…literally, the ‘rule of the father’…places responsibilities on men. Responsibility to act in a socially productive manner. Responsibility to care for his kin, his children, his woman. Responsibility to fight in the defense of his community. In exchange he is guaranteed a link to his seed, and in a monogamous patriarchy, is more or less guaranteed access to sex. His role as the master of his home is codified and protected in law. Usurpers of that order–cads, women too big for their britches or who attempt to abrogate the terms of the social contract, adultresses, rapists–are punished commensurate with their violation.
But just as patriarchy places limits upon the freedom of men in favor of the larger social order, patriarchy also keeps the voracious appetite of the hungry beast known as female sexuality in its box. More importantly, patriarchy keeps the feminine, a spirit that knows no limits, justice, or fairness, a force that is all id and no superego, productive in moderation and destructive in excess, inward-focused on the self as opposed to outward-focused on others, in balance with the masculine. Just as patriarchy channels men’s excess energies in a socially productive manner, patriarchy also channels and caps women’s energies in a socially productive manner. It keeps her innate hypergamy in check; indeed patriarchy prevents the feminine from becoming intensely dysgenic and destructive of the social order.
The absence of patriarchy can be easily seen in the scenes that Dr. Elam describes. It is the out-of-control feminine that sends the heaving love letters to Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot in prison. It is the unfettered feminine that showers sexual favors on thugs and criminals while socially approved yet less dangerous men wait in the wings. It is the empowered feminine that cashiers the steady yet unexciting man in favor of the more powerful and more dangerous State. It is the buck wild self-destructive feminine that drops the self-sacrificing coal miner in favor of the selfish cad, dragging her children into a future of arrested development and dysfunction along the way. In short, it is not patriarchy but grass-hut matriarchy or, more precisely, the alpha-male dominated oligo-matriarchy–that characterizes the behavior of the women Dr. Elam describes. These women are a near-perfect manifestation of feminine wiles in a state of nature run amok, manipulating and fornicating their way to power and resources, destroying the lives of their children as well as the social constructions that keep men tied to society along the way.
Similarly, it is a compromised patriarchy that makes the male the disposable sex while his woman sits atop a pedestal in a gilded cage. It was a compromised patriarchy that permitted a bored Betty Friedan to fantasize about what it was like to act like an apex-dwelling man–idle hands being the devil’s playground and all that–just as it was a diminished and curiously self-hating patriarchy that declared men disposable with its rallying cry ‘women and children first‘. This stands in stark contrast with an intact patriarchy which requires the feminine to labor and toil alongside the masculine in a true economic and social partnership, one in which the male has the final say, and one in which males and the masculine is at least as valuable as females and the feminine.
The situation that Dr. Elam describes is deplorable and must be corrected. But to call it a patriarchy is to abuse the queen’s English as well as an insult to the memories of our forefathers who painstakingly handed down 3,000 years of Western Civilization.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at
the blog The Elusive Wapiti.
{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }
*applause*
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Well said!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
It is interesting that you paint a late 19th century male-dominated patriarchy as some sort of utopia. But it wasn’t.
Read the history of feminism in the West. Three major events were responsible for the rise of feminism, all caused by men, who you acknowledge were in charge of society.
1. The rise of industrialized alcohol production. The more famous quotations of the 19th century problem with alcohol has been described many times: “Work is the curse of the drinking class”, or in the words of Chris Rock, alcohol was “the Crack of their day”. In short, men of all classes were starving their families because they would take their pay to the bar instead of home. You can think of it this way: if you believe women are naturally submissive, then it shows how desperate women had to be in order to become feminists.
2&3. The massive industrialization that helped create factory produced liquor also produced the 1st and 2nd World Wars, in which the Men of the world destroyed each other (and in the latter, a significant number of women and children). As we all know, women went to work in the factories, blah blah blah. In this case, female empowerment, ironically, came from a shortage of men because it allowed women to express their hypergamous instincts.
And again – look at the downsides of the patriarchy in the age of Empires. Men were leveed en masse right onto the battlefield starting with Napoleon and ending with Soviet Afghanistan. Where is the upside to patriarchy (for men) when your corpse is rotting on the fields of the Somme? Where is the upside (for women) when your man is drinking themselves to death and your children go hungry?
Men gave up their power because it was destroying them. As someone has said before, Feminism was just another shit test, and we failed it.
I agree that the world we know today, the so called “PHMT” world is not a patriarchal world – rather, it is a world where women cherry-pick the parts of the remaining patriarchal social structures that benefit them, and cherry-pick the best of “equality” that benefits them as well. This is truly why “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too”. When men attempt to use the patriarchal social structures to their benefit, they run headlong into Feminism. When they attempt to use Feminism to their benefit, they run headlong into what’s left of the Patriarchy.
The answer, thus, is not a return to the Patriarchy, but rather a true and principled equalism that recognizes the naturally differing tendencies of men and women while allowing those who differ from those tendencies to have full choice in their roles and choices in life.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
A very well written article. Thanks for posting!
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Awesome article.
Can we really say that alot of previous civilizations gave men the same value as the women? Or that the women were used as disposables in war time?
On a biological level, humans are herd based creatures. What you will find with most herd based animals is that when the herd is threatened by a predator, the males will form a defensive line around the female center, basically using themselves as human shields so the bulk of the females can get away from the predator. Now just think about civlilizations past in the macro sense. I don’t know of a single point in history where females formed a perimeter to protect the males? What I see in my mind is this:
Tribe A threatens Tribe B and both tribe A and B gather males to defend and make war with the other tribe.
This is why every country has a draft, and the only ones that draft women are the smallest countries, meaning they are vulnerable to invasion. Basically their herd is too small.
Now the greeks and romans did elevate men above women, even as aesthetics and what is termed ‘womens domain’ go. And this is another point of contention with your article. Everywhere I have been that is called a patriarchy by the anglosphere seems like a matriarchy by your definition.
For example, I spent years in egypt at different points in my life. Egypt isn’t Saudi Arabia, but Ive been to several places in the middle east, and egypt is usually called a patriarchy by most people. The men do run the country, women are barred from certain outside jobs and are expected to work within the home as their primary occupation, though they are allowed to work in offices too. There are strict rules for both genders, and breaking those rules will result in social shame to prison(trust me you don’t want to go to prison there, the muslim brotherhood controls them just like gangs here control our prisons) time, but it is a little liberal, but more strict than say lebanon, because it is a tourist economy.
Here in the west we think of the word ‘harem’ as meaning a sheik sitting on his thrown with wives and concubines and what not. This simply isn’t true. Infact the word harem comes from the word ‘Haram’ (Ha-R-aam, in egyptian arabic) and ‘haram’ means simply this: FORBIDDEN!!!!
If there is one arabic word that can turn the strongest egyptian man into a dog with his tail between his legs, it’s this word. I have seen egyptian men make cat calls at a woman, and then either the same woman or an older woman looks at them with a mean look, wags her finger, and shames them for not being ‘good’ muslim men while using the word haram ever third word. I must have seen over a dozen women chase their husbands into the street wagging their finger and impuning his manhood. The police would come over and tell the woman to go back inside and tell the man to man up or divorce her. The good thing about islamic divorce is you just have to say, “I divorce you” three times in a row and it’s done and she doesn’t get the house and car and what not.
From my readings of history, what I call patriarchy 1.0, the women ruled the house and this is why this word exists. It was the place that only women and children were allowed into and the only person other than that was the husband(or his eunich slaves) because his job was to protect the haram. Now the boys, depending on culture were kicked out of the haram around the age 8-12 to join the men in the mens sphere. The mens sphere, or outside world, was about producing and protecting the harams, or tribe or community.
I tend to think of it like this:
Women hold baby boys less often(all sorts of studies have been done and feminists have claimed it was nurture, scientists claimed nature…if it is nurture then that just seems like females are evil by nature, haha) and I can look at this from a biological perspective. Boys simply died more often and at younger ages than girls, this is the origin of male disposability, and why would a woman invest into a child that is likely to die before the age of five? Add on the female nature to look for a protective partner and the male nature to protect and you get this division where men die and women control the home while guys defend and build the home. Boys are weaker than girls, but when we grow up we are better than women.
I can imagine back in the early days of human history, there was a female herd and most males roamed individually. When the males mated with a female they left to secure food for the female until the child was born and then probably wondered off to find another female. I can imagine these females in the herd looking at the baby boy and decided that it wasn’t one of them and just tossing it out to either live or die on it’s own, or maybe the male would later find it and take it under it’s care. My point being that, I think mankind was built on the smart surviving, not the strongest. This would make sense if young males were left by their mothers at the mercy of the jungle, because the male that survived would have to be faster and smarter, not heavier and stronger. Basically, females kicked us out of the house and the ones that lived learned how to built their own houses, these houses morphed into cities and then the men realized that they could control the female herd, so they invented religion, and patriarchy 1.0.
My theory explains the ghetto we see today. men are kicked out of the house by their mothers, one of the first things most guys in the projects learn is that when they become a man their mother gives them the cold shoulder or worse, is reminded about the boys father and begins calling him a reflection of his sperm donor or she just goes off the deep end one way or another. These males find solace in the company of other males and decide to do whatever they are going to do, so they start a gang. They compete with other males over territory(the hood) and access to females. The difference today is that we live in a comfortable place, not the jungle or stepp. Brawn wins over bwainz…in the concrete jungle.
I guess, the spartans could be called a true patriarchy in your words or a patriarchy 1.5 or 2.0 in mine. Just my thoughts.
Troll King
http://trollkingdom.blogspot.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Palin proclaims herself a feminist.
Her tweets should be called “The Palin Monologues”, as she spews forth but accepts no unscripted questioning. Kinda like feminists.
“Mama Grizzly” = Women What Runs With the Wolves
“Moms just sorta know when something’s wrong” = Women’s Ways of Knowing
We’ve heard it all before.
If she wants to pour old whine into new bottles, i.e. “conservative feminism”, she will realize that it has a very bitter aftertaste.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think Paul was saying that nothing has changed. Nor would he deny that we live in a gynocracy as opposed to the patriarchy you defined.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have nothing to add to this intriguing debate. I’ll just wait till’ someone says something stupid, then I’ll pounce on them.
BTW: Where’s Puma been lately?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
THANK YOU!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Ok, Welmer, please fix this. Even when I’m logged into the forum I can’t post on the main page without going into moderator queue and waiting two hours. You have to bring back a login to the main page.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
interesting point, however patriarchy was gynocentric as well, concentrating on protecting women with things like conscription, we had the massive suicide rate prior to the modern system (suicide by emile durkhiem was written in 1898) and nothing was ever guaranteed, lack of compitence would not win over a woman which was still part of patriarchy (not “the patriarchy” the evil feminist definition where women had no voice were raped and beaten for fun) and patriarchal decisions were often made under the idea of protecting women, but not oppressing them
the industrial revolution changed alot of stuff. It bred feminism because there was a lack of a need of dependence on men and men still “called the shots” regardless of the fact that for major decisions the wife was also confronted.
now the household is run by the women alone instead of them taking care of things in the local community when they were mostly the stay at home parents they have almost absolute control
but the government is run be mostly men (politicians or corporations take your pick) and it creates things like Title IX, VAWA, the tender years doctrine etc…so we have patriarchy but with a matriarchal body? does that make sense to anyone else
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s a good follow up to Dr. Paul’s piece.
Women have always had significant INFLUENCE over their men; Mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.
The “partnership” began to degrade when household duties became automated, (“idle hands”). Maintaining home and hearth was a full time job, while he was plowing the fields. Other than infant care, it became very much a part-time gig in the 50′s. So then she WANTS to work at a soul destroying corporate or government job, and only now discovers she doesn’t like that much either.
And now that men were “trained” to accept her new role, there are no REAL men left. He has to constantly find the balance somewhere between neandrethal and wimp, depending on her mood that day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for a great article. Genuine patriarchy is a good thing. and the fact that women would attack it is proof of their traitorous and destructive nature. The reason women hate patriarchy is because God Almighty himself is the ultimate Patriarch and women are in rebellion against His authority. I repeat, patriarchy is a good thing.
OT: My latest t-shirts are by far my most popular. I get comments from men and women everywhere I go. The new t-shirts read:
1.Feminists Are Dirty, Man-Hating Bitches!
2.Feminists Are Going To Hell!
3.Marriage Is Suicide For Men!
4.What Have Women Done For men Lately?
And my personal favorite:
5.There Are No Good Women Left!
Comments please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
While I agree we are not living in a patriarchy, I cannot agree that we live in a matriarchy either. We do, however, live in an increasingly matrifocal society where familial power centers around the mother and the father is marginalized. I also disagree with you that the characterization of “women and children first” as being some sort of perversion of patriarchy. In fact, I consider it an essential element of a patriarchal society. In fact, I have argued that “chivalry” or whatever name one gives it, is the primary reason why women were never oppressed under patriarchy and is the primary difference between patriarchy and matriarchy where there is no such obligation of women to men.
In any system, matriarchy, patriarchy, or some other system, authority carries responsibility to those who must submit to that authority. Under patriarchy, chivalry defines that responsibility. The male holds the authority, but must be responsible to and for the woman, even to the extent of self-sacrifice. Under matriarchy, there is no corresponding code that holds women responsible to or for men.
This is illustrated in the lives of the Mosuo and Minangkabau, matrifocal/matrilineal societies were men have no rights to property or children, but hold the responsibility to sacrifice their labor/lives for the women who hold the familial authority. The women make no sacrifice for the men. Since these societies are as close to matriarchal as exists, they can be used to demonstarate my point. In a matriarchal society, men would be oppresssed, while under patriarchy, society norms were in place to prevent the oppressionof women. this is not to say there was nodiscrimination. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both discriminatory by definition since roles are based os sex.
Getting back to my main point about “chivalry” or “women and children first” or whichever name you wish to call it, I believe that such codes are necessary to prevent the perversion of authority, no matter the system that administers that authority. They provide a check on that authority. I have always believed two things about power and authority. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” and that those best suited to wield power are those who would refuse it. This would hold true no matter the source of power be it patriarchy or matriarchy, making such checks a necessity.
I agree with both you and Paul in that the current movetowards a matrifocal society is bad for men. It is bad, not only because men are being discriminated against, but because it has no check to prevent its abuse and will therefore go well beyond discrimination and be oppressive. A return to patriarchy, however, will likely be impossible and is perhaps undesireable. Therefore, a more egalitarian system must prevail, one where in individual partneships men and women are considered equal, but have the freedom to negotiate the distribution of power within the individual relationship and where the societal checks ensure that freedom. this would eliminate the need for societal codes of chivalry, while allowing individual realtionships to establish their owns codes which can be flexible enough to meet the needs of individual families as well as entire societies.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Spectacular!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
@ MacArthur
I like #’s 1, 3, and 4. I can’t agree with #2 because I belive we are all already there.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Great article.
I think this brings up the same themes that have been discussed before. Namely, prior to the recent state of society, it was a dangerous place to live. Women *needed* the protection/resources of men to survive (it wasn’t sexist, it was that women could simply not do those jobs!) and men needed women to reproduce. Now, the state is father, and women no longer need men (directly, they still need men’s resources stolen via the state).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@ TrollKing:
While the definition of patriarchy I obtained from Merriam-Webster was informative, to me the simplest and most workable definition of patriarchy may be derived by a simple etymology of the word: ‘rule by the father’.
Thus, if you have dads in charge of their families and have no reasonable threat of being unhorsed from that perch except by abdication, that is patriarchy at its essence.
Using this simplified definition, it becomes quite easy to discriminate between patriarchal and matriarchal societies. And yes, I can conceive of no Anglophone society that is patriarchal, fembot strawmen not withstanding. Many Asian ones are heading that way as well, viz. India and Japan. I suspect China may track down that road as well.
Man-at-fault unilateral divorce instantly turns patriarchy into a matriarchy, for the seat of power in the family changes. If a father lives in fear of being the target of a parendectomy at the hands of the mother, that my brothers is matriarchy, for she has the final say in that relationship, not him. His decisions, his very existence in that family unit is contingent upon a by-your-leave from her.
Have you seen the shirt with the picture of the smiling bride and unhappy groom that says, “Game Over”? That’s perfect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Troll King
Even the middle-east societies are turning more and more matrifocal.
At least in my vision, they are like what we are in the age of final of XIX’s and begining of XX’s. :3
@TDOM
Although I agree with you in almost all points you made in your comments here, I have to disagree with you in the point of a egalitarian society.
Men and women are designed BY NATURE to different functions mutually aditional. Period. Normally, they don’t have to compete for resources, and an egalitarian society will force both to compete. It is, to say the least, anti-natural. And, because of the natural difference between de sexes, it’s faded to colapse.
Women prefer dominant, agressive and incisive men. “Democratic” men will have less women, and dominant men will have more. Men will learn from the success of the others, and will turn into more dominant and agressive men.
It will or generate a big giant ghetto from west to east in all the world, or the patriarchy will ascend again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
“Comments please.”
Your T-shirts are fucking awesome. And I’m not just saying that because you wanted feedback. Well, I am, but its still true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Men, we must not fall for the traps liberals set for us. One of the most insidious and pervasive is liberal misdiagnosis. For instance the liberals want amnesty for all illegals so they claim that our immigration system is “broken” and in need of “reform.” The only thing “wrong” with our immigration laws is that those in power will not enforce it.
The same rule applies to patriarchy. Patriarchy works. Patriarchy is perfect. Patriarchy is the wave of the future. But deranged feminists have convinced men that we can’t “go back” to patriarchy or should even want to. To which I say HOGWASH! God Almighty is the Ultimate Patriarch who established patriarchy and is going to reinstate it when Jesus returns. And screw any woman who has any objections because matriarchy is pure evil and doesn’t work. We don’t need a Matriarch/patriarchy hybrid. We need pure patriarchy. God made this a man’s world and it will always be such. We have this huge mess because women are in rebellion against authority and honor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
@Licorne
While I do agree that there are differences between men and women, there are more similarities than differences. Also the differences are not always that great and there tends to be a lot of overlap. This does not mean that the differences are unimportant. They are crucial and must be recognized.
In a more egalitarian society, each individual man and woman would be free to play to their own strengths and negotiate power in relationships according to their strengths and weaknesses instead of pigeon-holing everyone into one role or the other based on sex. While more men may end up in positions of power because of the differences, egalitarianism can continue to exist provided that the checks on that power are maintained and women can enter positions of power when they are capable. It is the checks on power that will allow the society to continue and prevent it from collapsing or devolving into either a matriarchy or a patriarchy.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@MacArthur Of The MRM:
I have a T-shirt with “Rapist” on the back.
My favourite by far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
@ MacArthur
Talk of supremacy of any group over another based on a demographic is where you lose me, especially when that supremacy is granted by some sort of devine authority. While I do believe in God, I detest religion, particularly where it attempts to “know” what God wants or the reasons God acts and most especially where religious authority claims devine authority. More human harm and atrocity has been committed in the name of religion than perhaps all other names combined, including greed.
We are “in this mess” as you put it, because both men and women seek power and authority without accepting the responsibility that goes with it.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Kudos to EW! This is very very well written article.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
TDOM, there are HUGE differences between men and women. Men give and women take. Men have have honor and women don’t. Men are strong and women are weak. Men respect authority and women don’t. Men have limits and women don’t. Men take responsibility for their actions and women don’t. Men are rational and women are not. The differences between men and women are far more than our similarities. You’re falling for the feminist lie that men and women are equals. Men earned their power and authority and everything went to hell when men handed that power over to women.
As far as religion is concerned, America was founded as a Judeo/Christian nation. Which translates into patriarchy and men in charge. Women have lusted after male power ever since the garden of Eden. They finally gained it and all hell has broken loose. America’s problem is its rebellious women and weak men.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Well, do you know of any societies that, given the choice between propagating males or females- chose females? I think in many societies, men were valued more for their higher productive capacities, military abilities, sense of duty to parents and society, etc. When talking about valuing women, it’s important to differentiate between fertile women and non-fertile women. Those fables about the old woman in the swamp with her potions of bugs and newts derived from societies basically kicking the cat-ladies-of-yore out of town. Newt soup was what they were reduced to eating. The fables about old women eating children were often an allegory about old women consuming scarce food resources that younger women wanted to see go to their children. Often, it was the younger women who insisted the older women leave. In the past several years (as the femicrones streak past menopause), I have seen a shift in their justifications for favoring women in a variety of circumstances from ~”women bear the children” to ~”women are the keepers of society” (e.g., Haiti relief = no food for men, just for women).
So, there’s been some talk lately of gender selection and of surrogate/artificial wombs. If you were a technologically advanced country under constant threat of annihilation and could rapidly increase your population using artificial techniques, would you choose an equal number of baby boys and girls, mostly girls, or mostly boys? I can come up with three countries pretty easily that might have a very strong incentive to figure out how to boost their population in a hurry using such techniques. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just sayin’. I’d guess that the resulting society would not conveniently fit into the patriarchy/matriarchy dichotomy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I think of all that feminism has done for our culture, I think it’s hard to top this:
Trigger Alert! Sexual references and gratuitous cheesecake. May cause depression in sexually irrelevant women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwE-SLnLkqY&feature=featured&videos=5rJDGZZQE48
Congratulations, Grrrrrls! I particularly liked what Katy does with the whipped cream cans at the end. Klassy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Paradoxotaur
“Well, do you know of any societies that, given the choice between propagating males or females- chose females? I think in many societies, men were valued more for their higher productive capacities, military abilities, sense of duty to parents and society, etc.”
Much of the reason individual parents wanted male children is because those children would be able to work to support them as they aged. They also could not become pregnant and did not require protection from men. Discrimination faced by women in patriarchal societies was the main culprit. this is now changing. Surveys are begining to show that young couples want girls as much as, if not slightly more than boys. Girls are now seen as having a greater chance of success in life and boys are seen as too much trouble.
On the other hand, society in general has always valued women over men. This is evidenced by “chivalry” and “women and children first” and the conscription of only men into military service. Men were valued for their disposability, women were valued for their reproductivity.
TDOM
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
First, excuse me for my poor english, I´m more used to read than write your language.
A long time ago i discuted with a friend of mine (a girl) about our society and she said to me, “that´s because we are in a pathriarchal society”, naturally I frowned and she naturally corrected herself, “a mathriarcal society”. Here we have the same situation, women in more than half of the low and mid government jobs, they are more than 61% in ours Universities. Now we have a new law on divorce (clearly more than rotten, imported from you), that state; Now all divorces are instantaneous, from the moment of the marriage celebration, just going to a estate registry office and you´re done. The first bad reflection come this week, when a young lady divorced from her soccer player husband, from a nine month marriage, and lesss than 30 days from the law passed, she already won a U$150.000, monthly pension, and she have no children. I am doing my monography in law school based in this case, and my family is puting me as machist. Well, here pratically nobody is awake. That´s why we´re the Butt country.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I forgot to say I´m from Brasil.
Here we have our own kind of spearhead, is called the doutrinator blog, which is funnier but no less awakening. It´s tranlated from portuguese but you might get the message.
http://translate.google.com.br/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://blogdodoutrina.blogspot.com/2010/03/como-meter-real-em-amigos-paspalhos.html&sl=pt&tl=en&act=url
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you see this??:
Wall Street’s death wish: Venus vs. Alpha-males
Commentary: Unless women take control of Wall Street and America, ‘The End’ is near
How very beta.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-armageddon-alpha-male-vs-venus-2010-07-27
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think at this point it’s time to realize that Patriarchy is simply dead, and it ain’t coming back. Think of it as a contract that’s been broken. You can pretend it’s not, you could wish it were not, or you could realize ”hey this wasn’t such a great deal anyway” and rejoice that it’s not, but it ain’t coming back! The thing for us to do is to:
Stop making payments on a car that’s been repossessed .
Find another mode of transportation.
It’s like an employee, good or bad, who comes up to you one day and says “ I quit I found another job” or “ I’m going into business for myself. You could try to persuade them to stay but if they insist on leaving you’re not going to be stupid enough to keep paying them. For whatever reasons women are not willing to provide for their end of the deal. Maybe they figure it was a bad deal to begin with , maybe they figure they don’t need us to provide our end of the deal anymore, or maybe they just figure they can “have it all” as long as we’re stupid enough to keep living up to our end of the deal while getting nothing in return. Whatever it is they broke the deal, they don’t want to work here anymore and it’s time to stop paying them and move on.
At this point defending Patriarchy just makes us look guilty or stupid; why would we be defending something if it didn’t need defending and why can’t we take a hint. I’ve already given my views on Patriarchy as a made up form of pair bonding in my comments to Paul’s article. It’s as if someone opened the door to the jail and we’re not smart enough to just walk out.
Time to find another way guys, and it’s time to make some demands as to what we want from that other way. I’ve made some suggestions in my comments to Paul’s article as to what this way might be and what those demands might be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter, Peter, Peter…
It is interesting that you paint a late 19th century male-dominated patriarchy as some sort of utopia. But it wasn’t
This is the entirely predictable straw man the feminists and mangina’s always trot out whenever anyone points out the differences between Matriarchy and Patriarchy.
Please show us where EW tried to paint Patriarchy as some kind of utopia. He was merely giving us a comparison and contrast between the two forms of familial power structure.
One lends itself towards investing males into building and maintaining what we call “civilization” while the other does not.
Who ever said “civilization” was “utopia?”
There’s plenty to not like about civilization.
The point is the feminists and their mangina lackeys are calling the problems of today’s society the results of “Patriarchy” when in fact it is merely the devolution of Patriarchal civilization into a Matriarchal survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog environment…like the inner city ghettos.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“So, there’s been some talk lately of gender selection and of surrogate/artificial wombs.”
In the “battle of the sexes” an artificial womb is the atomic bomb. Female redundancy is the ultimate weapon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Welmer et al – an unmarried editor of a magazine called “Carolina Bride” just wrote an article called ‘When Men Were Men’ which gratuitously bashed modern men – please discuss or use that article as a story here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/27/1585275/when-men-were-men-and-a-fond-farewell.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“So, there’s been some talk lately of gender selection and of surrogate/artificial wombs.”
In the “battle of the sexes” an artificial womb is the atomic bomb. Female redundancy is the ultimate weapon.
The X Y system of sex determination in mammals means that men can produce male or female offspring using only male cells, women cannot. Whatever they do we can alway reproduce ourselves. An artificial womb is the only thing missing to allow us to say “now we don’t need women” for real. Even if they do achieve to ability to reproduce without men as they are threatening to they can only reproduce themselves. That just means the daughters of men will have to deal with the daughters of women. Guess how that will play out!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll paraphrase Winston Churchill:
Patriarchy is the worst form of social organization, except all of the others that have been tried.
In the Garden, patriarchy didn’t exist. Because it didn’t have to. But because we are Fallen, and because the tendency of the feminine is to (a) dominate and (b) act self-destructively, patriarchy is necessary to keep us from a Hobbesian existence.
The next Savior. or the first if he’s coming back, will need to be born of an artifical womb. He can’t trust Mary anymore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly right — very well said.
It can all be boiled down to this – males are naturally ‘Apollonian’ in personality, whilst females are generally ‘Dionysian.’ However, this balance has become all messed up in the West in recent decades since the ascent of modernity and feminism, and thus Western gender relations are now extremely chaotic as a result.
Right now the Dionysian nature of many Western females is increasingly unchecked, wild, degenerate, destructive, etc – just go to any urban bar/club on the weekend and you can see this. At the same time, many Western men have steadily become less Apollonian (thus more Dionysian/feminized) in the last few decades – too many Western men are now tending toward the Dionysian and as a result Western society is suffering because they can no longer keep the increasingly wild/Dionysian behavior of females in check because many men are now engaging in the same behaviors (including the degenerate ‘Gamers’).
The ancients understood all this perfectly, and many cultures around the world still do. Dionysian-oriented women must always be kept in check by Apollonian men – if they aren’t women will ‘go primitive’ real quick as is now evident all around us: there must be balance between the two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” The ancients understood all this perfectly, and many cultures around the world still do. Dionysian-oriented women must always be kept in check by Apollonian men – if they aren’t women will ‘go primitive’ real quick as is now evident all around us: there must be balance between the two. ”
Are you suggesting that we become the Taliban? How do you propose we “keep them in check”?
Why not just make them obsolete with technology the way they’ve been threatening to make us obsolete? What do you think they’re more afraid of, your words or mine? If there are gender feminists why not gender masculists?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A main problem I’ve thought about recently is the often indiscriminate selection of mates by women throughout history.
Not sure of the exact percentage, but around 80-90% of women throughout history, give or take a few percentage points, have given birth to at least one child (often more). Meanwhile, only around 60% of men have reproduced: and that means that about 40% of men throughout history have been left out of the mating game, even more in certain cultures and societies. Most of those men who were left out of the mating game were often the smartest men: the geniuses, autistics, nerds, scientists, workaholics, artists, introverts, etc.
So the pattern we see throughout history is that nearly every women in history has managed to reproduce even if she was a complete loser, or a sociopath, moron, mentally ill, etc because it wasn’t at all difficult for women to get a male to impregnate her. Meanwhile many men fell by the wayside and were unable to mate because women held that power.
This fact that such a huge percentage of loser females have reproduced throughout history has obviously had a very dysgenic effect on the overall human gene pool over the millennia. What we have here is a case of some 25% of loser females dragging down the human average, of women mismanaging the inborn power they have over reproduction. Meanwhile, another major dysgenic trend is the 40% or so of men of varying quality – many who were highly talented as stated above – who never had a chance to reproduce.
Overall the dysgenic macro-trends look pretty bleak.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“ This fact that such a huge percentage of loser females have reproduced throughout history has obviously had a very dysgenic effect on the overall human gene pool over the millennia. What we have here is a case of some 25% of loser females dragging down the human average, of women mismanaging the inborn power they have over reproduction. Meanwhile, another major dysgenic trend is the 40% or so of men of varying quality – many who were highly talented as stated above – who never had a chance to reproduce.”
Manufacturing eggs would allow men to choose which of us would reproduce independent of female choice. We could choose which women to produce eggs from or even make our own eggs. We could start banks of eggs and pick “ideal” mates at will. This would work even without an artificial womb.
Realize that all the talk about the social benefits of Patriarchy really means the benefit to women. Men already raise children as single parents when they’re allowed to. We would simply be expanding our options.
Male competition in all it’s forms arises from reproductive competition. “Hate and Death and War” are the results. Even if eliminating reproductive competition does not eliminate the instinct to compete, it reduces it from the level of ghetto males killing each other for drug turf to suburban males competing in skateboard contests. Not having to conquer and kill to secure resources for princess to admire would truly lead to a better world for men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to attempt to free some men’s minds from the shackles of feminism. So bear with me.
Buzzwords such as egalitarian, equality, gender equity, male-dominated and male privilege are 100% CRAP! So spew them from your mind and vocabulary. These words are designed to denigrate men and redistribute wealth from men to women.
Equality will never work because men are superior to women.Women are the weaker sex and they lack “the right stuff” to be leaders. Feminist “equality” implies fairness when women take charge. Women don’t know the first thing about fairness. And if they ever gain total power over men you can be sure that they will starve us, cull us and dog us out of existence. When it comes to treachery women are the experts.
With “gender equity” women prove again what con artists and parasites they truly are. Women act like the world can never be fair until they’re in charge of at least 50% of everything. Well men designed, built and invented everything of value so women have no “rights” to male power. This is where the buzzword “male privilege” comes in. Imagine if I worked in a field all day and at the end of the day I went to the boss to get paid. Now imagine that the boss only pays me half because out of fairness she feels that a woman who did no work deserves half my pay in order to reach ‘gender equity.” Say I throw a hissy fit and demand all my money. That’s when the boss says that I’m just afraid of losing my “male privilege” and tells me to man-up.
We all know what a load of crap “male-dominated” is so I won’t go into the details. Another myth I want to debunk is that we need women in the MRM. NO WE DON’T! Women are a liability. You must remember that the destructive effects of feminism are the result of woman’s best thinking. Feminism is the Lexus of female thinking. Look how well that turned out. So now that men have to come in and clean up the mess why would we want help from women? What are they going to do, switch into logical/rational mode, roll up their sleeves and work alongside men? How absurd. Men have to fix this feminist mess all by ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As someone who has witnessed many households with large numbers of children (average minimum was 9 kids), and the governance and running of the households- oh and this is in the last decade – I can easily say that despite all of the ease that has come of technology, if women were doing what they were supposed to be doing, it would still be, and is, a full time job. It’s only with parents having the option to choose how many children they want, concomitant with women beginning to value themselves by the dollar (thanks to WWII) that bored and martyred housewife syndrome kicked in.
On a side note, patriarchy can have a comeback – I don’t understand why people think this is impossible. All faithful traditional Catholics I know (a growing movement) live patriarchy, as defined in E.W.’s article. Just like with anything else, if there are enough people to change society’s way of thinking, society will change. LOL At the very least, we’ll end up out-breeding everyone else except maybe the Mexicans and Muslims.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Agreed!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
At the very least, we’ll end up out-breeding everyone else except maybe the Mexicans and Muslims.
—————————
the black matriarchy has certainly prospered because of feminist privilege.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For as much as I admired most of everything else you wrote, I also just as much found this statement ridiculous.
???! Only a feminist or woman-hating male would think that woman’s best thinking produced feminism. Of course, I’m sure you are the latter, so for you that would make sense, but it certainly doesn’t make the statement true. “Woman’s best thinking” produced the autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila, which if you have ever read it makes no bones about woman’s place in the world. To even make a correlation between true logical intellectual pursuit and feminism is stupid.
Yes, uncategorically, all women have nothing more than air up there, kind of like… balloons…. Obviously women are generally emotionally led, that doesn’t mean across the board they can’t think logically, nor that every woman is inexorably tainted by feminism. If you have so little hope for women’s ability to think rationally at all, how do you ever expect to eradicate feminism without just killing all women? (hmmm, or is that the master plan….. well, I suppose one could try using brainwashing techniques, but considering women and pro-feminist queers are in control of the media, I guess that won’t work….)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
trent13, thank you for your comments. You truly “get it” for the most part. Allow me to explain the parts that you don’t get.
1. I don’t hate women. That would be a waste of time and energy. I take no prisoners and pull no punches because women are con artists. I’m totally immune to feminine wiles. When women know they can con you they go straight for the jugular. In order to win this war we have to know our enemy and women are the enemy. When you start trusting them and handing them power you’ve lost the war.
2.Woman’s best thinking of the St. Teresa variety was possible only under patriarchy. ,In other words such thinking went out with the patriarchy. Now that women have been “liberated” from honor, integrity, personal responsibility, sanity, duty, modesty, loyalty and various other patriarchal constructs, woman’s thinking has become warped and totally self-serving. Today’s “empowered” woman submits to no known authority and is beholden to no one, not even children. Under patriarchy women were forced to become adults. But under matriarchy women are perpetual children. Woman’s best thinking under patriarchy was St. Teresa. Woman’s best thinking under matriarchy are Gloria Steinem, Oprah Winfrey, Jayne Velez-Mitchell, Nancy Grace, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. Boy are we in big trouble.
3.Women simply don’t think rationally because they don’t have to. Cognitive dissonance is their bag. I have a daunting challenge for you. In 1 week find 5 women who think rationally. Good luck because you’re gonna need it.People like globalman and trollking know I’m telling the truth about women. They are not logical and rational creatures.
4.We are going to eradicate feminism by putting our collective foot down and putting women in their places. And we don’t need their help in any way.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I like the cut of yer jib MacArthur.
Shattering the myths so many of us have been brainwashed by low these last 50 years is a time that’s come. I mean really grrrls; three generations on of “liberation” and the only progress is Oprah? And a few well placed corporate/political tokens, that give nothing but the illusion of progress? No grand geniuses or leaders, that would have been supposedly oppressed by the patriarchy in years past. Nothing but a majority swath of entitlement princesses that yet, still to this day, blame men for imaginary “glass ceilings” and other victimhood fantasies.
The simple fact is that select women were incredibly adept and cunning at organizing, publicizing and controlling the dialog to their benefit as a group, against men. Men can’t and won’t EVER do this en masse against women. It will instead be a slow and steady war of attrition over generations to come. It seems to be starting right now with 20 something males. The outreach power of the internet got the ball rolling on OUR message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very well done article, and much I agree with.
I see this though, as the difference between history and modern times; between romanticizing our roots and dealing effectively with modern realities.
I am not sure that the stock response of “that is what a feminist says,” is much of a convincing strategy to make a point, though, at least in my opinion.
Nor do I summarily reject anything said, simply because a feminist says it. By coincidence, I do reject about 99% of it, but I do take the time to evaluate things before making a conclusion.
The PHMT is just a feminist soundbite. Clearly there are more interested in hurting men than in ameliorating whatever problems they imagine patriarchy caused to men.
But back to the main point, and if I was not clear about it in the OP, I certainly do think that the mandate for men to offer up blood, sweat and tears, in compulsory fashion, and largely without thinking, has in fact resulted in what we see today. I didn’t identify that as patriarchy, but as a part of the process of sexual selection that patriarchy also happens to be rooted in.
I just don’t see any denying that.
Men do now what they have always done- live their lives for the sake of improving life for women and their offspring, even to the point of sacrificing for their trivial whims. And they continue to do so, even in an age where women have most of the jobs, control most of the money, and have all the laws on their side (thanks to men).
Same as it ever was, only more. What we see in modern culture is just an accelleration of the same rules we had when Patriarchy was in order. Deference to women by men. That the features of patriarchy that constrained women have disappeared seems not to have even been noticed my the vast majority of men. At least not enough to have them stop their own rote behaviors, which largely enable whatever women want.
If that were not true, then please explain how the “tender years doctrine” was not quashed from the outset? How did we get “from there to here” except by male complicity and enabling? And is that complicity and enabling not rooted in the very same parts of male psychology that has protected women for ages?
If I sound like a feminist, then so does every MRA that eschews the role of a white knight.
We are simply moving on in an evolutionary continuum. And the more men make it “safe” for women to assume power, the more more power we give them. We do it past reason, we do it with no real rationale, we do it to our own destruction. And that can only because the factors that built patriarchy, which was needed when power for women would have been unsafe for them, are still in play.
It is still the power of sexual selection, but in an age where women are generally free and safe without male sacrifice, those hardwired behaviors have turned on us and our sons.
In a sense, we have always lived in a matriarchy. For once you strip away the romance, idealization and glorification of mens actions, what you have is disposability. Pure and simple.
And now we are disposable not as a needed sacrifice for the continuation of the species or for protection of our families, but for the convenience of a priviliged class, and one whose elevated status was indeed built on the often broken backs of men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quality post.
I agree. The “PHMT” meme is absurd coming from feminists and even more absurd as a rallying cry for men.
It’s a weird confusion of proximate and ultimate causes — women need resources and protection to bear and raise children, and men are technically biologically expendable in comparison to women (one man can impregnate harems of women in a week; a woman can only have a baby once every year or so), so men have always toiled, in an abstract sense, for women. You can make that sound like men were slaves to the interests of women, but that’s clearly not how it has really played out on the ground for most of history.
Patriarchies are hierarchical and they create winners and losers. It sucks to be one of the losers. But men, especially in packs, dominated women for very good reasons for most of human history. What we are experiencing now is a mutant child of the Enlightenment, for the most part, brought to you by extreme wealth and made possible by technology (invented primarily by men).
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
“Not sure of the exact percentage, but around 80-90% of women throughout history, give or take a few percentage points, have given birth to at least one child (often more). Meanwhile, only around 60% of men have reproduced: and that means that about 40% of men throughout history have been left out of the mating game, even more in certain cultures and societies. Most of those men who were left out of the mating game were often the smartest men: the geniuses, autistics, nerds, scientists, workaholics, artists, introverts, etc.”
I noticed the patter is coming to the western society. The problem is who is going to maintain it and feed it (single mothers, state employees = women, etc.). Even now we are running out of money – look at US and European debts and their tendencies. Kicking out 40% (or more) of men can create nothing but a disaster. Look at truly polygamous societies like some Arab countries – they are complete civilizations losers without oil. And even here 70% men (or more) have offspring. Another question here is how many women are infertile ( 10% ? ).
PS: Islam itself does not mean that a country is polygamous. It might be polygamous in theory but monogamous in practice. And vice versa the West should be monogamous by law but is polygamous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tom47:
“For whatever reasons women are not willing to provide for their end of the deal. Maybe they figure it was a bad deal to begin with , maybe they figure they don’t need us to provide our end of the deal anymore, or maybe they just figure they can “have it all” as long as we’re stupid enough to keep living up to our end of the deal while getting nothing in return. Whatever it is they broke the deal, they don’t want to work here anymore and it’s time to stop paying them and move on.”
Well put. I think it is a tug of war going on in women’s minds between the wish of having it all and the realization that there is no free lunch. For the moment the wish is winning over the realization, but the doubt is always there somewhere, even if it is repressed, actively or through distractions.
As more men realize that women are not going through with their part of the deal, more women will have the same realization that only a minority of women have today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And now we are disposable not as a needed sacrifice for the continuation of the species or for protection of our families, but for the convenience of a priviliged class, and one whose elevated status was indeed built on the often broken backs of men.”
Feminism exploited and continues to exploit men’s chivalrous nature. It’s no longer the individual woman, it’s women as a protected class group, we felt and feel compelled to tilt the playing field for.
What will the end result of this cultural imbalance be? Without the “work” of the beta male, we’ll eventually collapse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no Garden and there are no Fallen. There is no such thing as a Hobbesian existence, or a Lockean noble savage.
And since when is it the tendency of the feminine to dominate?
If the Patriarchy was so good, then why are we here?
You and Hawaiian Libertarian are attacking my “utopia” hyperbole, but that’s only a slight exageration of the way you paint a Patriarchal system. My point was that the only reason we even HAVE feminism today is because of the failures of the Patriarchal system. The first main driver of feminism was Prohibition and the Women’s Christian Temperance Unions, which were necessary because alcoholism was so ridiculously destructive. The second drivers were the World Wars, which killed hundreds of millions of people, mostly men, and in turn empowered women.
Why are we here? – because the Alphas used us and abandoned us. They decided to abandon men as their primary clients and instead turned to women as their primary client base. (Interestingly, this may be changing, as the Jon Stewart incident may give these Alphas pause.)
The exploitation of men by other men will never change. The moment the “Betas” rise up and take over, they simply become the new Alphas. That is why the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany, ostensibly created to improve conditions for working class men, ended up butchering more men in their War than the previous imperial regimes did in World War 1.
As I said, the old system is gone, and it’s not coming back. It’s time to think of strategies of improving the conditions of men within the world that we live in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter, any good thing can be destroyed. That’s how it works in an evil world. Patriarchy didn’t fail. The problem is that women won. Patriarchy is the best form of government that man has created. And for the most part it worked for all concerned. And then along comes women and all hell breaks loose as it always does. Women have never concerned themselves with law and order or fairness. She has only concerned herself with amassing power. Specifically power over men.
Women are like active volcanoes that man has managed to keep a lid on for thousands of years. In other words women have been kept on short leashes because their innate nature is destructive. People need to get it through their thick heads that women are materialistic usurpers who respect no authority! So women used their feminine wiles (feminism) to seduce men into handing over power to women. BIG MISTAKE! So women trashed a good thing (patriarchy) and replaced it with something far worse (feminism). They’ve taken a load of crap and called it ice cream. Now people have been conned to think that patriarchy is bad and feminism is the greatest thing since the microwave. Men, deprogram yourselves from all the feminist clap trap. It simply doesn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Peter, I failed to address an important part of your post. You stated that patriarchy will never come back. Au contraire. Patriarchy is the wave of the future so get on board. Feminism is what’s headed for the scrap heap of history. There is no way that such a horribly bad ideology can thrive any longer. Women have proven themselves incompetent to lead. The experiment failed, case closed. Women will finally be put in their place. Just as Europe is waking up to the failure of socialism America is waking up to the failure of feminism. The jig is up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Really? The hundreds of thousands dead in the Civil War? Did it work for them? How about the 19th century working class men who were worked to death in factories or drank to death after their shifts. Did the Patriarchy work for them too? What about the hundreds of millions dead in the two world wars?
Where are you getting this narrative from? “Along come women”? When in your imaginary history have women ever existed apart from men?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Exactly.
Women who join the men’s movement do so to subvert the movement to be more sympathetic to women. Women want to waterdown the movement. They are scared what men are saying and know that if men are left on their own to develop the movement the consequences for women will be severe. Women in the MRM are trojan horses. Never trust a woman, particulary one that claims to want to help you. We should know that by now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Really? The hundreds of thousands dead in the Civil War? Did it work for them? How about the 19th century working class men who were worked to death in factories or drank to death after their shifts. Did the Patriarchy work for them too?
Peter, you’re referring to political events…Patriarchy is merely the organizational structure and delegation of authority of the family system. You’re arguing apples and oranges.
But to address your point anyways: all the dead men in the Civil War? Those that were married and had legitimate children and were never divorced, had their children taken away from them and forced to pay child support while their ex-wives were banging the blacksmith’s apprentice…why yes, Patriarchy most certainly worked for them!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@ Peter
I don’t expect anyone to subscribe to my faith, so I don’t necessarily expect others to agree that humans do evil things by their very nature. Thus ‘fallen’.
But I have a hard time understanding how you do not see the clearly evinced tendency of the feminine to dominate the masculine. Faith isn’t needed here…one need only eyes and a willingness to observe reality.
Anyone needing clarification regarding the tendancy of women to dominate men might want to check out this trailer for When Women Rule The World:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk2C9uk662g
Now go take out the trash!!
I was at a pot-luck dinner and observed this conversation:
Hostess: Dave, would you like another piece of cheese cake?
Dave: Yes, thank you! It’s really good!
Dave’s wife: No Dave!!! You don’t like cheese cake, DON’T YOU REMEMBER?!
Dave (to Hostess): Uhhhhh, no thanks, I guess I won’t.
FWIW- Dave is a lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
99% of the women in my acquaintance, far more than five, are intelligent well-educated women who live E.W.’s patriarchy, and have been living it for years – to the point that they consider any discussion on what patriarchy is or its value to society a moot point and not even worth discussing. As in, if a person can’t see the value in it, they are foolish and the issue isn’t worth speaking about. I understand that you consider women in general as the problem; there are so few women who are not feminist. But for those women who are actually anti-feminist, I don’t understand how you can write them off with all the rest – even despite the fact that they are emotionally led. They do exist, how does it help your movement to alienate them?
As to women in general not thinking rationally, being influenced at the very least culturally, and at the most by going to Berkeley et al, I would agree; with regards to the women in my acquaintance, no, because they have a duty to classically educate their children, actively, not just pack them off to private school and let the school do everything. Also, the apologetics and understanding of our religion requires a person to at the very least try to be a thinking, rational, logical person – not a single one of them would undervalue Aquinas or intellectual thought, and if they weren’t intelligent enough to understand intellectual disciplines, they go to those who do – which in itself is a intelligent, rational act.
I’m sure there are women out there who do try to subvert the movement, etc. Personally I have concerns for society at large, and the downfall of feminism necessarily goes hand in hand with that. It’s not a matter of helping men so much as it is knowing that without men in charge (via E.W’s patriarchy) society will continue to get more and more screwed up. Considering that I live that patriarchy myself, I don’t have any fears of what patriarchy would result in. I do have fears, however, given the lack of cohesiveness within the MRM that the movement will trend not towards classical patriarchy but towards masculinism (as opposed to feminism). Considering that masculinism would subvert the first end of marriage just as much as feminism has and does, I don’t support it. It has nothing to do with fear for what women would be subjected to, but with establishing rightly ordered society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Spot on NURBS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because women inevitably hijack the dialog and eventually the entire agenda. Not to mention, the presence of women around men COMPLETELY changes the dynamics of the entire group.
Do women have to be involved in everything men do? Can’t we just have one little enclave to discuss important matters without meddling from females? They’re NOT equal. They’re not the same. Their agenda should ALWAYS be suspect. And they only belong in a man’s world to the extent they bear and nurture his children. And he in turn provides for their well being.
Anyone who honestly feels there’s a place for “good” women in the men’s rights movement has been successfully brainwashed by feminist propoganda. Men’s Rights is a male only matter that should not concern women, no matter how much they beg and plead to be included.
The “good” women had their chance to stand up and roar, but didn’t. Now they can watch from the sidelines as men go to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems to me that the most powerful intellectual apparatus justifying and explaining patriarchy comes from Aquinas and the Catholic tradition.
It is based on natural law, rather than specifically Catholic dogma, and it was at least implicitly accepted by Protestants and colonial Americans.
I hope trent11 will consider writing an article for The Spearhead on why patriarchy is not simply a matter of “who’s in charge,” but rather provides the means for both men and women to best fulfill their unique and equally necessary natures.
Alternate memes?
Patriarchy fulfills women too (PFWT)
Women flourish under patriarchy (WFUP)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I’ve written before about how the most “patriarchal” societies are those in which matriarchs (women who have raised families) have the most power in families, and perhaps society in general.
What we have today is not so much “matriarchy” as it is gynarchy. It is actually fertile women who have the most relative power, at everyone else’s expense. As soon as they hit the wall, women become irrelevant these days, whereas in the old days the matriarch usually had the final say in family matters (especially in traditional patriarchal societies such as Jewish, Italian, Chinese, etc.).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What we have today is not so much “matriarchy” as it is gynarchy. It is actually fertile women who have the most relative power, at everyone else’s expense. As soon as they hit the wall, women become irrelevant these days, whereas in the old days the matriarch usually had the final say in family matters (especially in traditional patriarchal societies such as Jewish, Italian, Chinese, etc.).
See the real estate tycoon’s ex-wife in Tom Wolfe’s A Man in Full.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Welmer
I agree with you. Those true matriarchs (I have known some older women who would qualify) commanded a willing respect, even reverence from men. One of the most striking qualities they possessed was a kind of aristocratic grace and reserved modesty.
Most women have no idea how poweful modesty and reserve is. It inspires respect in men. In a younger woman, it signals that this woman is a challenge to be worthy of, and when won, will not betray him sexually. Furthermore, a woman who can has authority over her sexual passions demonstrates her competence to wield authority in other spheres as well.
**
Using the word “patriarchy” at all is a consession to feminist argot. In the Catholic/Western tradition, patriarchy is simply part of the natural and best social order, based on a rational understanding of human nature and the unique natures of men and women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ the misogynist MacArthur MRM:
Idiots like yourself are why there are so many atheists and agnostics, and why feminism is still alive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I grew up hearing the word patriarchal and never even realized there were negative connotations to it, so I don’t know if I would agree that the word in itself is purely feminist vocab. I like it – “Patriarchy” – it just sounds like order, maybe because it reminds me of my father (as a priest once told me, if religion would not put the fear of God in me, my father would). Totally agree on all the rest though.
@Keyster: So if there are enough of you, maybe Welmer will change his rulings and ban women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@trent13
I’ve had second thoughts about that remark too. Many good words have been corrupted over the past half century or so (“marriage” is the latest). Patriarchy is a good word, and its real meaning needs to be restored. Failing to use it and promote the order it represents would really be the unacceptable concession.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) I would consider it entirely inappropriate for a woman to be writing articles on a men’s blog; commenting is one thing, writing articles is another – plus the fact I’ve never been invited!
2) I’m definitely not intelligent or educated enough to do so
3) I’m a full time mom and wouldn’t have the time for something so comprehensive
Nevertheless, good to know you agree with me!
P.S. Not to be anal retentive b/c I’m sure it’s a typo, but it’s trent13 for a (theological) reason
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
keyster, you explained the issue of women in the MRM superbly. You saved me the trouble. Women gum up the works. Imagine if women had worked alongside men to build the Empire State Building. The thing never would have been built and there would have been far more deaths. Women blew it when they stood by quietly, yet smugly while a nation-destroyer called feminism took hold.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
@trent13
I actually had no idea you were a woman! I must strongly disagree with you on point #2, but I understand #3. It’s delightful to think what a good education your kids must be receiving.
Simply a personal account of how patriarchy works in practice from a wife and mother’s perspective would be very worthwhile, though, although ideally it would be on a forum that is often read by women.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
The problem with that is that the majority ( I would say at least 99%) of women are feminist – if not actively, than passively. They don’t want to hear how the current mode of female treatment is crap. I had a blog – but I didn’t see that it was worth the effort or time. Really, in my experience the only ones that care about anti-feminism are men who are waking up to how bad feminism is, and women who already consider that patriarchy is a wonderful thing and a moot point. There are some converts, I know, but they are few. And even if somehow there was enough traffic to an anti-feminist pro-patriarchy women’s site, feminists, active or passive are not intellectually honest enough to admit when they are wrong – and most certainly not when the culture which tells them they control their sexuality, can have a career, etc. is being threatened.
The problem I have with this argument is the same one that I have with blacks saying whites today should pay for white’s parents, parents enslaving black’s parents, parents. It’s crazy. I, and so many other anti-feminist, pro-patriarchal young women my age weren’t even a blip on our parents’ radar when feminism exploded on the scene in this country.
If you are going to blame women for standing by and allowing feminism to take hold in this country (which of course you should), blame the right women, not younger women who are fully convinced that feminism is wrong and that change needs to take place.
On average my generation of young people don’t know their a-hole from a hole in the ground (men or women), in part due to feminism.Things changed dramatically in the baby-boomer generation; in my generation, it’s just how it is – they don’t know any other way unless they had anti-feminist, pro-patriarchal parents in the first place or unless they “convert.”
It is impossible that any change that comes to society’s cultural mindset will be done exclusively at the hands of men. Men won’t make or force women to change their minds on feminism (fathers can in the raising of their daughters, but beyond that, it’s not going to happen). Any political success through antagonistic action or war on women will only flip the power grid to masculinism , but it won’t eradicate feminism – it won’t change women’s minds on feminism. Further, it would only strengthen the feminist idea that there is and always has been a power struggle between the sexes and that women must do whatever it takes to win it. This would be even more polarizing to the sexes and cause even greater general disord and misery.
Society is composed of male and female. If you aren’t willing to get the females to convert (or at the very least not antagonize those females who honestly believe feminism is wrong), you might as well try to get rid of all females in some sort of sci-fi futuristic way (prob involving mechanized blow-up dolls and massive female egg banks.)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I would consider it entirely inappropriate for a woman to be writing articles on a men’s blog;
Someone forgot to tell Hestia…
commenting is one thing, writing articles is another – plus the fact I’ve never been invited!
Yes you have. http://www.the-spearhead.com/author/featured-guest/
Anyone can submit an article to Welmer to be published as a “featured guest.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
>They don’t want to hear how the current mode of female treatment is crap.
Females should be treated bet-ter? ‘_’
^0^lol
>not younger women who are fully convinced that feminism is wrong and that change needs to take place.
lie. Unless of course the change that needs to take place is for MORE female power and MORE female luxury and for MORE entitlements.
>women who already consider that patriarchy is a wonderful thing and a moot point.
Yes patriarchy is a wonderful thing . You get to go on one big life long holiday with progeny, comforts and amenities – food all provided for by your own personal male beast of burden. Wonderful indeed! ^^
>Any political success through antagonistic action or war on women will only flip the power grid to masculinism , but it won’t eradicate feminism – it won’t change women’s minds on feminism.
Woman can be of any mind she wants if and when the Masculine brings the whip and the fist and a good dose of the black eye and the busted lip. It wont matter.
[Thankfully the Masculine will never come around- even that's too good for the Feminine]
>there is and always has been a power struggle between the sexes and that women must do whatever it takes to win it.
So that’s whats going on.
Fuck Patriarchy . This is war.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I don’t think specifically banning women in a forum is appropriate, and difficult to do as well. What we DO need however is men that don’t over react to what women say or take them too seriously. Some men are prone to fall into the emotional traps women set for them, when it’s best they just be ignored.
What should be noted is that men today continue to produce and innovate DESPITE women being more involved than ever, even if it’s typically at a more administrative or management level. And even then they get very little done. The more astute and focused ones are the exception.
Problem is many men linger towards the lowest common denominator of performance that women set, so as not to stand-out too much from the culture and be ostracized or undermined by the group. Mediocrity flies beneath management radar. That’s today’s working world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In other words, you need the men’s movement more than the men’s movement needs you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s “I”, in so far as I am a member of society, and so far as society needs the men’s movement in order to eradicate feminism.
I can only assume that you mean “me” being (categorically) female. But men’s movement needs would be based off of what the men’s movement is trying to achieve and given that the positive primary end of the men’s rights movement is still unclear, I don’t see how you can categorically lay the claim that the men’s movement does not need anti-feminist women. If a declaratory statement were made (but can that happen for the men’s movement having a lack of political body?) to the effect that the goal of the men’s movement is purely to flip the power grid to masculinism and not to eradicate feminism (since the institution of the one disallows the other), than every patriarchist who desires to see patriarchy and not the ego-centric sexual construct as the foundation of society, would be obliged to detach themselves from the MRM, including anti-feminist women like myself.
Until such time that a declaratory statement can be made, I will still have hope that the focus of the men’s movement will move more in the direction of eradicating feminism. I consider that the eradication of feminism, the true success of the men’s rights movement, will not come about without the support of anti-feminist women. In general people are sheep and if there are a sufficient number of women who are either raised or become anti-feminist, eventually it will not be seen as so abnormal by the rest of female society, which will in turn allow for the eventual return to patriarchy. Categorically antagonizing women, regardless of whatever degree of their leanings towards anti-feminism will only further justify or empower feminist reasoning in the eyes of other women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ultimately the Men’s Right’s movement needs a benefactor, much like early feminism had with the Rockefellers and The Ford Foundation, et al. They fund women’s groups that in turn allows them to hire lawyers, publicists and lobbyists.
I doubt this will ever happen, so until then Men’s Right’s has bloggers on the internet and agitators posting on news site coments sections.
Men’s Rights doesn’t catagorically “need” or “want” anti-feminist women. If they’re not actively and openly working to educate women en masse about the myths and evil feminism perpetrates, they’re of no use to anyone. THIS is what they should be doing, but they don’t.
Talk to other women, tell them. Men don’t need your consultative services “from a woman’s perspective”. We know what we’re doing. We need your boots on the ground in direct combat situations OR massive funding from political activist groups and corporations…like feminists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll settle for a society where women don’t constantly give self-righteous, self-serving lectures to men on what men should say/think/believe about women.
What kind of ‘archy is that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
trent13, what people seem to forget is that men are remarkably resourceful creatures. If we can win WWII and put a man on the moon, then eradicating feminism is a piece of cake. If men ever put their foot down with women they would have to take it and like it. After all, men are still the much stronger sex. Feminists were foolish enough to challenge men who were created for battle and who have brought down tyrants such as Hitler and Saddam while building up the Empire State Building and the Hoover Dam. In other words women are no match for men.
That’s why I state emphatically that the MRM doesn’t need women to succeed. Women are the ones who stole all our rights. So why would men be foolish enough to enlist woman’s assistance in regaining them?
This is in reference to a statement I made earlier.
I hold all women responsible for the current feminist state of affairs because they never objected to the onslaught. They were too busy garnering feminist privileges while paying lip-service to “equality.” When women were confronted with false rape and DV accusations against men they looked the other way. When gold digging home wreckers are brought to their attention they pour salt into men’s wounds with the classic cop out, “not all women are like that.” When we give women proof that women do just as much battering as men we’re told to man up. Why is it so difficult for women to criticize one of their own? Especially when they’re as guilty as sin.
The problem is that women will never lift a finger to eradicate feminism but they’ll go to their graves touting all the “good women” out there. I’m not buying it anymore. It’s time for women to put their money where their mouth is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I’ve always liked the idea of “pater familias”, where fathers head the family..
This is the sort of system that naturally develops and works well, and it only starts to break down when more powerful entities, the state primarily, try and change that natural order..
Why would the state want to do this?
Well, being a patriarchal type of chap myself, I like the idea of my women working for me, doing what I want, which is a big problem for the state, because the state would rather have everyone serving the state.. Either directly as a state-employed slave, or as a tax payer to support the slave master state in such work..
By “empowering” women, it becomes more difficult for a gent to keep his womanfolk under control, he has to decide if it is worth the hassle, and expense..
“Do not obey your husband, he does not have the RIGHT to tell you what to do”.. Seems to be the basic first rule of the femistate..
Then there is the order given to children too “Your father does not have the right to tell you what to do, he does not know best..”
Under such circumstances, we are left with a bewildering range of other possibilities, all, of course, validated by the fact that they are NOT what “pater” would suggest..
The state has become a substitute father, a meta-parent, “big brother”, or “nanny”, all those things in one, large, social entity of theorectically unlimited resources and wisdom. Funded, of course, by theft. I have yet to meet anyone who pays taxes out of choice!
There is much talk in the mens movement, much analysis of ideas, much smoking of pipes and attempting to understand how we got in this mess, who to blame..
Yet, we sit behind our PC’s and fail to note, it seems, that technology has advanced our societies vastly over the last century, few folk in feminist dominated societies are TRULY poverty stricken, malnourished, or living the harsh lives being lived in less feminist dominated countries..
There seems to be a connection between feminism and improved living standards for everyone, if you go off material measures at least..
And I think that largely explains why while MRA’s may TALK about how they want to eradicate the scourge of feminism..
They don’t do much to hit it where it could be weakened..
They dont want to give up the comforts they have gained under feminism..
One aspect of the MRM that always interests me is the concept of “game”..
Recreational sex, basically.. The old tool of feminism, being played “to benefit men”.. But, its illusory, because its still just the same old destraction, and its still something that is deeply founded on the same old feminist principle that men have to play silly buggers to impress the axewound..
Consider this rarely discussed aspect of how feminism underscores the rules of “game” and puts them out of the true “male orientated” picture..
I am a bit of a knobhound, it has been alleged that I shag more women in a week than most men ever do in a lifetime, thats probably very true..
Id have a hard time doing that in a “patriarchal” society.. Which, I would, I think, prefer..
The main reason being, there would not be so many loose women around that blokes dont give enough of a damn about to save their “honour”..
No man has the right anymore to “own” a woman..
If someones husband was to find out his wife was shagging some fucker, he would perhaps feel he aught to do something about it..
Like, divorce the adultress.. Or, perhaps (preferably before the act had occured for maximum effectiveness) make it known to the fucker that he is at risk of getting some “summary justice” administered if he doesnt keep waving his wanger at the missus..
Patriarchal societies accept this as a natural, and quite fair, thing to do..
At the moment, its just a route to jail for any man who tries it..
And, divorcing an adultress, simply gives her more opportunities to profit from her actions.. While leaving sir standing there like a lemon wondering where his assets and family have suddenly gone..
Patriarchy is about men taking on responsibilities..
The common anti-patriarchal theme in the MRM seems to be about men not wanting these responsibilities..
Perhaps they think the state can somehow take them on.leaving them free to do as they feel, and not having to either care for women, or worry that anyone else would care if they just slipped them a foot of joy and fucked them off..
As for the children spawned under such circumstances..
Who cares for them?
Women CANT, (they need male resources to help them)..
Men, don t want to.. (They dont want to have the responsibility of the family)..
The way I see it, we either accept that patriarchy SHOULD be the goal of the MRM, because it works..
Or, we accept that the MRM is just “feminism for men”..
And under that system, its not really any different to what we have..
But, the state will have MUCH MORE control of every aspect of our lives..
And that, is, really, fucking, scarey!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Drex, I’m 100% for patriarchy. It’s the natural order of things and there are no alternatives. Like you, I am highly disappointed in the feminized MRAs who come here to tell me I need to get with the program and realize that patriarchy can never come back and why would anyone want it to? My #1 goal is to reinstate patriarchy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Drex:
I had a chuckle reading your comment – you remind me of a slow talking British character in a book. And I swear, reading over what you wrote, “The way I see it, we either accept that patriarchy SHOULD be the goal of the MRM, because it works..
Or, we accept that the MRM is just “feminism for men”..
And under that system, its not really any different to what we have..” I couldn’t agree more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aye. I like the idea of pater familias. Works well, but there are a few features of it that many folk dont like, Ill not bother going into them now, (they are easily refuted) other than the main one, and that is, fathers having to shoulder a lot of responsibility, men having to “prove themselves” worthy of the status..
I think it is a fair deal, and it should be allowed to exist, and could, even today..
Quite a lot of marraiges and relationships work under this principle, as much as they can when the state outlaws it.. Even in the midst of the femistate reality where it can be shattered on the whim of a woman..
Men dont want this responsibility?
No problem, dont step up to the plate, carry on taking pot luck and living hand to mouth, carry on moaning about “why dont women..?”..
Blah…
What annoys me most about the MRM, is the way it sucks up to females who venture in (mainly to feminise the men, promote a feminist agenda (that they say is anti-feminist!!!))..
These white knights are usually old fools or silly young boys..
One of the most universally recognised feature of them is that they are popular with the “female mras”.. Yet, they have a distinct monastic lifestyle, they are effectively celibate..
I dont want to be part of a movement led by men who have so little ability to manage ANYTHING they talk about that they cant even get a regular shag, or are TOO SCARED to get one!!
Most patriarchs, seem to have a good sex life, if not, a good happy marraige or relationship…
I think, that says a lot about their abilities to “walk the talk”..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of the benefits of patriarchy is that your sexuality “belongs” to your spouse. In other words you owe your spouse sex. It’s part of the contract. I’m willing to bet that this is the #1 reason feminism was invented. It allowed women to take everything and give nothing. I just coined another t-shirt slogan:
WOMEN TAKE EVERYTHING AND GIVE NOTHING!
I’ll have it printed up this week!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
“whereas in the old days the matriarch usually had the final say in family matters (especially in traditional patriarchal societies such as Jewish, Italian, Chinese, etc.).”
The Jews and Chinese were hated by other europeans for the power women held in their societies domestically. They were not ruled by men, stop confusing terms. In a true patriarchy women and girls are servants. It is in a WOMAN’s society that men sacrifice for women. Most societies are woman oriented because men are idiots who hate each-other and love women. The only way around this is to genetically engineer girls to be non-dominant non-cunning etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“In a younger woman, it signals that this woman is a challenge to be worthy of, and when won, will not betray him sexually. Furthermore, a woman who can has authority over her sexual passions demonstrates her competence to wield authority in other spheres as well.”
Why would you want that? Why would you want a woman or a girl to weild athority. You americans are SICK. You love women dominating you and other men. You are obsessed with protecting woman’s “Choice” be it from being raped (even by her husband or boyfriend) or protecting her right to kill her children. Oh and you might think her being hard to get means that she won’t cheat on you… but that’s just what you think because you are dumb and … well you’re a good man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Any political success through antagonistic action or war on women will only flip the power grid to masculinism , but it won’t eradicate feminism – it won’t change women’s minds on feminism. Further, it would only strengthen the feminist idea that there is and always has been a power struggle between the sexes and that women must do whatever it takes to win it. This would be even more polarizing to the sexes and cause even greater general disord and misery.”
So? Men allready suffer under discord, why not hurt the other half of society? One way to eradicate the idea of feminism is to remove the idea from the skulls of those who believe it, if that costs millions then that’s what would need to be done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s exactly my point, you won’t be able to remove the idea by introducing masculinism, it’ll only reinforce it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What many people fail to realize is that feminism is as flimsy as crepe paper and as unstable as dynamite. The feminist witch always trembles at the sight of the water of truth. If feminism was so good for us why would they have to indoctrinate us from cradle to grave using all forms of media, government, societal and cultural mandates.
I’ve always stated that feminism can only thrive during prosperous times. Just let this recession get any worse and I guarantee you’re going to see women with signs and placard with slogans such as:
1.Proud Anti-Feminist.
2.Choose Me. I’m Traditional.
3.Protect Me. I’m Submissive.
4.I Put Out.
5.Will Be Submissive And Faithful For Food And Shelter.
6.I’d Support My Man (If I Had One).
7.Will Be Good Wife And Mother.
8.I’m A Stay At Home Mom.
9.Who Needs A Career When You Can Have A Man?
10.Well What Do You Know. Fish Really Do Need Bicycles.
11.I Seek A Good Old Fashioned Cave Man.
12.Will Not Make Any Demands.
13.A Woman’s Place Is In The Home!
14.Will Cook, Clean, Raise Kids And Put Out.
15.I Don’t Even Know Any Feminists.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“What we have today is not so much “matriarchy” as it is gynarchy.”
Read “Do We Live in a Gynaecocratic Society?” by Julius Evola – http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id8.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MacArthur of the MRM states: “Women will finally be put in their place.”
And what “place” is that, total slaves to men? NO WAY!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MacAurthur of theMRM states:
2. Feminists Are Going to Hell!
The Good Book States:
Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. (Matthew 7:1-2)
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Romans 2:1)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Paul Elam
In a sense, we have always lived in a matriarchy. For once you strip away the romance, idealization and glorification of mens actions, what you have is disposability. Pure and simple.
Exactly. The so-called patriarchy was only a matriarchy in disguise (see Chinweizu’s book that you can download at http://therawness.com/anatomy-of-female-power-download-and-discussion-page/).
Traditional matriarchy benefit women by way of making any man to sacrifice for HIS woman (some of this still lingers in traditional families and in divorce laws). Modern matriarchy benefits women by way of making all men as a whole to sacrifice for all women as a whole (through taxes -who pay men- and welfare – who receive women).
Feminism is only socialized chivalry. Don’t shed a tear for the good old days of the patriarchy: I have lived them (in my country they are relatively recent) and were not as golden as you think
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }