The Birth of Fatherhood

Post image for The Birth of Fatherhood

by Featured Guest on May 24, 2011

By Max Stirner

Since my last article about Dr. Wilhelm Reich the psychiatrist, ex-communist and dedicated rainmaker, the Marxist dream of a matriachial society has been occupying my thoughts a lot lately. The dislike of patriarchy represents a common part of a liberal world view. Although Reich distanced himself from Marxist doctrine in his later years after emigrating to the US, he always had a soft spot for women. After resigning from revolutionary politics, he writes about the human notion to look out for a scapegoat in other social groups and calls the communist movement a red version of fascism.

Still the tendency to associate men or patriarchy with the existence of evil on earth and to believe in a ancient golden age of matriarchy prevails in Neo-Reichian circles. In his book “Sarahasia” James deMeo, another orgone scientist, blames desertification of planet earth for turning a peaceful matrist humanity into a bunch of violent patrist tribes 6000 years ago.

But let us take a short look at the beginnings of the communist movement in the 19th century. Here we find an important work of Karl Marx’s closest friend Friedrich Engels, published in 1884, called “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” . Here, Engels tries to show that humanity developed out of communist matrilinear tribes into an evil capitalist patriarchy. Engels wanted to find an alternative to a a society where people could become enslaved and impoverished, but while attacking division of labor, money as a medium of exchange and private property, he is practically criticizing every development that led humanity from barbarism into civilization. Should it be a mere coincidence that “tribal communism” ended after the iron age? Is it a coincidence that the monogamous family and the state came into existence at the same time, as humanity was making its biggest cultural, technical and economical progress?

In this book Engels, at least between the lines, provides us with a sexual perspective for a future communist society, in which the compulsory monogamous chains of our capitalist society will be broken. Or at least, he gives us the impression that the social development from a matrilinear communist society into patriarchal monogamy was a big mistake. Or, to put it in another way: Engels thought that civilization was a bad idea from the start, a sentiment we can nowadays find in feminist literature. Engels himself sounds pretty much like a contemporary feminist author, seeing women and men as enemies in a historical class struggle. Still the weakest point of the Marxist/feminist critique of the so called “patriarchy” is its economic naivety and blindness towards female sexual preferences that provide the groundwork for a hierarchical society. It comes to my mind that Roissy the infamous pick up artist used to subsume the connection between matriarchy and poverty with the picture of a primitive mud hut with a roof of palm leaves.

Speaking of palm leaves, I would like to take a closer look now at a primitive society that, until the beginnings of the 20th century, was organized in matrilinear tribes, the people of the Trobriand Islands east of Papua New Guinea. Renowned ethnologist Bronislav Malinovski got stranded for several years on the Trobriand Islands during the first world war. He gained extensive knowledge of the social structures of these savage tribes. One of his books “The Sexual Life of Savages in North Western Melanesia” made a big impression on Dr. Reich who saw two of his main theses explained: that sexual suppression of children and sexual starvation was the cause of most mental disorders in patriarchal societies and that compulsive monogamy was the result of cross cousin marriage, and indirectly of male greed. As I am getting bored by simplistic answers for complex problems, I have read Malinovskis book about the sex life of the Trobriand tribes. For the the readers of The Spearhead I will shed a light on the life of men and women in matrilinear tribes. I hope that in doing so we will come to the conclusion matriliniarity does not have to go along with an egalitarian society. Second, I want to point out that it was to a great part the fact of biological fatherhood and its economic interference with matrilineage that put an end to the matrilinear societies.

That humanity in ancient times was partially organized in matrilinear clans has been documented by Lewis Morgan, who already thought in terms of a historical class struggle between men and women. It is a bold assumption that mankind before reaching a certain intellectual level and understanding of nature had no idea of female conception. At least, for the tribes of the Trobriand Islands, the idea that sex led to pregnancy was a very alien concept. In their world view women just gave birth to babies. Keeping that in mind, it is easily understood how matrilinear clans could have evolved on earth on the first place.

If sex and pregnancy are not connected, men cannot contribute to the birth of a child, and therefore the only “biological” connection in a clan is the female blood line. This blood concept has dramatic consequences for society as whole, economics, sexual taboos and marriage restrictions. It comes as a surprise that marriage on the Trobriand Islands is a well established institution, though the idea of the biological fatherhood is nonexistent. The word “father” has therefore only a social meaning. It is the man married to the mother. The man who builds the house, in which the family lives. Sometimes he is called “tomakawa” – a stranger – because he comes from an alien clan. For a better understanding, we should not speak of “fathers” in matrilinear tribes, and only call them husbands or “social dads”. On the Trobriand islands, marriage is patrilocal. That means that a wife moves into the village and the house of her husband. For the kids another male figure plays an important role: the mother-brother. “Mother-brother” is not just another word for uncle, but in a matrilinear clan, the uncle(s) are responsible for the economic well-being of their sister(s), because they share the same matrilinear blood line. Only the “mother-brother”, as a caretaker of the clan’s wealth and can inherit wealth and status, therefore kids grow up with two male figures – the social dad and the mother-brother. And on the other hand a man has two roles, he is a “social dad” for the “kids of his wife” and a male authority for his matrilinear clan – his sisters and the kids of his sisters. The problems that arise from this split role for males in matrilinear clans will be discussed later on. The assumption that in matrilinear societies, men play a more feminine role than in a “patriarchy”, must be refuted, at least what we know from Malinowki’s studies. The social dad is in theory the authority at home, but male and female responsibilities are more or less evenly distributed. Trobriand men for example hate to cook, and only do so when making a trip to other islands or while going out hunting. Calling someone “a cook” is considered an insult. There are serveral rituals that are reserved for one sex only. Getting water is a typical female dominion. On the other side taking care of babies is a typical male duty, which may function as a replacement for the lack of biological fatherhood. Second, this male duty is the reason why the children of his wife are obliged to take care of him, when he is old. Children of single mothers without a social dad are regarded as “unhappy”. Single-motherhood is generally regarded as a bad thing. In the household, wife and husband have their own belongings. Women usually have 12-20 bask skirts for different occasions, make-up, and the ritual water bottles. Men own weapons, tools, and jewelery and drums for dancing. Immobile goods like farming land, trees, houses, boats and life stock belong to men, or generally speaking it belongs to the clan. Sexual activity starts at an early age, but is not tolerated in the family hut. The sexual activity evolves from a chaotic intercourse during infancy into stable relationships during puberty.

An important institution for stabilizing relationships in the Trobriand village is the “bukumatula” the Bachelors’ house, a place where teenage couples move in before getting married. The bukumatula belongs to a group of boys and has a scarce interior which in Malinowskis opinion obviously “lacks the female touch”. A Bachelors’ house is usually inhabited by 3-4 couples and in a typical Trobriand village about 15 to 20 of these huts can be found. If one of these unmarried couples separate, it is always the woman who moves out – into another bachelor hut to her new lover.

Though sexuality before marriage is not regulated, it comes as a surprise that adultery after marriage is not socially tolerated at all. While the institution of marriage itself is not a necessity to legalize a sexual relationship, it is socially required in order to get accepted as a full member of society. Beside of the handicapped, mentally retarded, albinos and old widowers all adult men are married. Malinowski points out that another important motivational factor for marriage comes from economic reasons. It is the clan of the woman who has to support the new husband. Especially for the chief of a village taking a wife from a rich clan with many brothers is a must. By the way – on the Trobriand Islands every village has a chief, who is always male and lives – as you might have already guessed- in polygamy, a privilege that is reserved for chiefs only. For women the financial gain of a marriage is not that important as for men because they are already being supported by the men of her matrilinear bloodline. Only a man not being afraid of poverty will woo for a girl with several sisters and only one brother. A social-dad is supported by the clan of his wife in several ways. They help him with the construction of his house, or his boats, join him on the hunt, or help him against magical attacks or real enemies.

If a man wants to marry a woman he has to seek the allowance from the bride’s social dad and also her mother-brother as a representative of her clan. As in every other society envy and adultery are the most severe burdens for a marriage. Adultery is met with the same social disrespect as in prewar Europe, but when it comes down to fidelity the Trobrianders are no better than any other society. If a woman commits adultery with another man, it is not rare that she will get a beating by her husband, or that in a dispute the husband will smash her water pots. Likewise, women often destroy the belongings of their husbands as revenge for infidelity.

Divorce is not a rare thing on the Trobriand islands and it is more likely that women vote for divorce than men, because they have less to lose. The formalities concerning divorce are simple. The wife leaves her husband’s house, takes her belongings with her and moves into her mother’s or her sister’s hut. She will take the kids with her — they don’t have a biological father anyway. If she is young enough she will start a love affair or two and move into one of the Bachelors’ houses.

There are several rituals that can be considered a replacement for the lack of biological fatherhood. If a man dies, his widow is obliged to follow a very strict mourning ceremony for several months, including cannibalism of parts of the corpse. Real responsibility for the well-being of a man can only be expected form his own matrilinear tribe. This might explain why the strict mourning ceremonies are supervised by the husband’s clan. Another fatherhood ersatz can be found in the idea that the love a social-dad gives to “his” children will make these children look like him.

Malinowski couldn’t answer the question why few children were born out of wedlock, while sexual intercourse normally started long before marriage. Either frequent sexual activity with changing partners prevents conception – an unlikely phenomenon – or the herbal “magic” of the natives was better than Malinowski expected. Sex was not permitted before marriage for all young Trobrianderss. Children designated for a cross-cousin marriage were kept under strict supervision and excluded from going on love trips to other villages or moving to the Bachelors’ houses. A married man with a niece at the age of his own son, by enforcing the marriage of both children, had the chance to pass his wealth (the wealth of his matrilinear clan) on to his own biological son. He could accomplish this, because as a mother-brother he had the authority over his niece. This is the meaning of the cross-cousin marriage.

Dr. Reich dedicated a whole book to the cross-cousin marriage and its significance for the sexual suppression in patriarchal societies. In his opinion the sexual suppression of these children served to stabilize the arranged marriage and glue the young couple together. He points out that it was the cross-cousin marriage that made the transformation of matrilinear clans to monogamous patriarchy possible. Between the lines we can read two smears on men here: first, men were responsible for sexual suppression, and second the motive was – greed. (Keep in mind that Marxism knows at least two deadly sins: greed and egoism). Friedrich Engels plays a similar tune “In family, private property and the state” though he puts more emphasis on the clash of clan and state organization. It comes as a surprise to me that both authors ignore the most significant trigger for the end of the matrilinear clans: the fact of biological fatherhood and its interference with matrilinearity. Second, another issue that is consequently ignored by Reich, Engels et al.: the influence of female sexual preferences on the genetic structure of these clans.

The establishment of matrilineage and patrilineage came at the price of man’s economic responsibility not only for a wife and his real biological children but also for children that were not his “own”. Let us quote stone-age loving Engels himself:

“With monogamous marriage, two constant social types, unknown hitherto, make their appearance on the scene – the wife’s attendant lover and the cuckold husband. The husbands had won the victory over the wives, but the vanquished magnanimously provided the crown. Together with monogamous marriage and hetaerism, adultery became an unavoidable social institution – denounced, severely penalized, but impossible to suppress. At best, the certain paternity of the children rested on moral conviction as before, and to solve the insoluble contradiction the Code Napoleon, Art- 312, decreed: “L’enfant confu pendant le marriage a pour pere le mari,” (the father of a child conceived during marriage is the husband). Such is the final result of three thousand years of monogamous marriage.”

Though we have to agree with Engels that the cuckold husband was nonexistent in former matrilinear clans – the children became the economic problem of the matrilinear clan, we can assume from Malinowskis studies: the attendant lover is always around the corner and – adultery is a phenomenon not at all limited to the so called “patriarchy”. Ignoring the fact of biological fatherhood does come with emotional advantages for men. Malinovsky cites the story of a Trobriand man who went on an expedition for one year and after returning home found his woman with a newborn baby. He was overwhelmed with joy.

I have never mentioned the term “matriarchy” and only talked about matrilinearity, because in my opinion feminist historians confuse female status with female power. Who cares if a clan has a female chief? Do female priests really matter? Did Queen Victoria stop the expansion of the British Empire?

The society of the Trobriand natives does not live outside of history. And it cannot be taken for granted that societies in ancient times resembled the matrilinear society structure of the Trobriand Islands. But still the ethnographic studies of Malinowski give us an insight into the problems that arise from matrilinearity. Given the paucity of historical evidence of ancient social structures, ethnographic studies leave less room for speculation than anthropology itself. What more is still left from the ancient past of humanity, than some rocks, cave paintings, smashed water pots and spearheads?

There is still no proof that an advanced civilization can exist without patriarchy.

{ 79 comments… read them below or add one }

AntZ May 24, 2011 at 06:38

“There is still no proof that an advanced civilization can exist without patriarchy. ”

The academic definition of the word “patriarchy” is no longer revelation. Feminist influence has made it into an insult, a by-word for oppression of women by men for the benefit of men. We must stop using the word and we must reject its legitimacy. To create a word that means one thing academically while simultaneously poisoning its meaning socially is a clever feminist weapon in the war on men and boys.

Reject the weapon, reject the word.

None of this matters anyway. An effective, advanced, stable non-patriarchal society is in the makings — and the MRM is at its centre. It will be a society made of men only, with no women at all. Men who reproduce using artificial wombs and who form intimate relationships using computer assisted dream state interactions with virtual women.

Men will embrace machine-human interfaces to acquire either enhanced computational capabilities or electro-mechanical capabilities. Women will reject these enhancements, because women will be concerned with the impact on their physical beauty.

The technologies are coming. The consequences are inevitable.

1) When the artificial womb is available, what man would even consider involving a woman in the process of reproduction? It would be safer for two men, perhaps both married to women, to agree to share responsibility and raise the children together.

2) When “as real as life” interaction of men with virtual women becomes available, what man would risk a relationship with a women, with all the horrifying legal and financial consequences?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 14
AntZ May 24, 2011 at 06:42

“The academic definition of the word “patriarchy” is no longer RELEVANT. ”

Sorry, I hate automatic spell checker correction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Chris May 24, 2011 at 07:24

Not related to article, but this I had to share…Insane liberalism alert!!

Parents keep child’s gender secret
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112–parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret

“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.

When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Newfoundman May 24, 2011 at 07:30

You say you have never used teh term “Matriarchy” because who cares if they have a female tribal chief? It’s a good point, but I think you should extend that to patriarchy as well, at least within the context of today’s supposedly equal society. An “enlightened”, post-feminist individual shouldn’t care whether our politicians are male or female, right?

Therefore, I’d agree with AntZ – there’s an equal lack of need to use the word “patriarch”. Indeed, I’d like to see some proof that it actually exists, in this day and age. Personal misogyny doesn’t count – I’m looking for state-supported oppression here. Where is it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
epoche* May 24, 2011 at 07:42

I dont understand the fascination with artificial wombs

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 08:01

AntZ

“The technologies are coming. The consequences are inevitable.”

Already ahead of the curve mate. I have developed a strong bond with “Angry Izzy” me latest Orange inflatable sheep. But that could just be down to the tube of super glue I lost?

Amazing how much it looked like a tube of KY Jelly

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Keyster May 24, 2011 at 08:14

You must organize and co-opt the weak and impressionable into helping you neutralize your biggest threat; the individual man with a natural penchant for freedom. He must be controlled or government can never realize it’s ultimate goal, tyranny over the working class.

And who best to help accomplish this? Women; high functioning children who don’t concern themselves with unintended consequences of any action, as long as they get what they want, when they want it.

This is what the Rockefeller’s funded in the 1920′s and what George Soros and liberal Democrat politicians fight for inch by inch, every day. If only those pesky conservatives would let them do what they want…

First you make marriage an untenenable proposition or take away his right to rule over his domain and family, then you take away his work, then you take his property, then he will have no choice but to relinquish his soul to the state. That’s the end game.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Max Stirner May 24, 2011 at 08:29

“The academic definition of the word “patriarchy” is no longer revelation. Feminist influence has made it into an insult, a by-word for oppression of women by men for the benefit of men. We must stop using the word and we must reject its legitimacy. ”

I agree. In my opinion it would be better to stop using the terms “patriarchy” and “matriarchy” alltogether. Because however a society is constructed, it can only be held up by women and men.
And these expressions have indeed been hijacked by politics.
The idea that “patriarchy” was a system that was forced upon women is nonsense. Feminists make the big mistake to stick to that marxist way of thinking. They can beta-ify and brainwash males as long as they want. They will not succeed. As long as women are masturbating to “American Psycho”, the hierarchical society will reestablish itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Max Stirner May 24, 2011 at 08:36

@Keyster

“This is what the Rockefeller’s funded in the 1920?s and what George Soros and liberal Democrat politicians fight for inch by inch, every day. If only those pesky conservatives would let them do what they want…”

yeah, I would love to discuss conspiracy theories about feminism!
Will be my next article – hahaha!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Gendeau May 24, 2011 at 08:38

“I have developed a strong bond with “Angry Izzy” me latest Orange inflatable sheep. But that could just be down to the tube of super glue I lost? ”

Even by your (high) standards, that’s a cracker. Nice one

BTW
I’m one of those traditionalists who believe that inflatable sheep should be white or black. Orange is a perversion that will send you to hell…thought that you should know

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Common Monster May 24, 2011 at 08:47

> Sexual activity starts at an early age, but is not tolerated in the family hut.

The Angami Nagas put this another way: “Chastity begins with marriage.”

The more things don’t change…

On a more serious note, the knowledge that mom and bio-dad contribute equally at some level to the production of human offspring only dates to the 18th century, to the great Spallanzani‘s discovery in 1785 of the male gamete (sperm), which first required the invention and development of a decent enough microscope. This discovery was greeted with fierce opposition and controversy at the time, as many ancient and primitive beliefs about where babies came from survived up til that time. For example, Aristotle thought a child was formed entirely from menstrual blood.

I just wanted to emphasize that the invention of patriarchy long pre-dated the recognition of the truth about the male biological role in reproduction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 08:49

Gendeau

BTW
I’m one of those traditionalists who believe that inflatable sheep should be white or black. Orange is a perversion that will send you to hell…thought that you should know

Get with it dude, Orange is very fashionable just now. I can tell just by the looks I get when I walk down the street with “Angry Izzy ” under my arm !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Keyster May 24, 2011 at 08:50

Feminists argue that matriarchal societies peacefully existed throughout the history of “humankind”, but they were never permitted to last long as some heatheness patriarchal society would come along and conquer them.

So as long as patriarchy exists at all, there will tend to be war mongering for land, resources and power. If women ruled the world their would exist a peaceful, harmonious utopia where everyone would sacrifice for the greater good and always share with others. A “collectivist” society where men would work and women would distribute the harvest equally, regardless of individual contribution. “Goddess Culture” would be the religion of choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Traveller May 24, 2011 at 08:55

“Dr. Reich dedicated a whole book ”
Notice to author: after this point, with the visible tag, there is no closing tag and the rest of the post is clickable like a link.

So, if Sahara is become a desert for the patriarchy, how comes it is still desert despite women move 70% of money and have more than 50% of degrees? They do not eat pray and love enough?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel May 24, 2011 at 08:57

@Oddsock:
“But that could just be down to the tube of super glue I lost? ”

So, THAT’s what it was!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Max Stirner May 24, 2011 at 08:58

@Common Monster

You don’t need a microscope to find out about the male
biological role. But still, our farmers succeeded in breading live
stock and cultivating plants. The Trobrianders had no clue about
breeding animals – Malinovski joked about that.
But I agree , the simple uneducated people of former centuries had
propably a very magical or fantastic concept of biology .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 08:58

Max Stirner

“yeah, I would love to discuss conspiracy theories about feminism!
Will be my next article – hahaha! ”

Maybe this will help you with your article ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN05DHO9bJw

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
dragnet May 24, 2011 at 08:59

OT–

Feminist hypocrisy: Abortion is fine…unless it’s girls you’re aborting…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_india_abortions_girls

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
greyghost May 24, 2011 at 09:02

Antz
First things first. A male birth control pill will need to be developed first and foremost. Solipsism keep that in mind. With “game” think of all of the carousel riders getting to their 30′s and looking for a beta to divorce childless and not entitled to any mans income. All off those men on birth control not getting trapped will get into their thirties knowing women are not a good bet from personal experience. Those women will get into their fourties childless. Next step in the feminist monsters quest to serve women will be an artificial womb and surrogacy for these old broads to get motherhood. The government will pay for the technology. MGTOW when they age out game can use the same thing to have their own child. Female eggs will be readily available from all of those student loans the college girls need to pay down with no men available (no child support coming in folloed by older MGTOW) to pay that debt. All will happen to empower women.
Just an Idea I had on the subject.

epoche*
The artificial womb solves the last problem of dealy with solipsism.
Take a look at these guys. Don’t you think they look happy? They look happy to me. http://maydaily.com/2010/12/03/hk-tycoon-flouts-law-to-secure-dynasty/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Keyster May 24, 2011 at 09:05

“yeah, I would love to discuss conspiracy theories about feminism!
Will be my next article – hahaha!”

Terry O’Neill current president of NOW has been invited and visited the Whitehouse 6 times in the last 2 years. She nor her predecessor never once set foot in a Republican Whitehouse.

Conspiracy? No, there doesn’t need to be any conspiracy, as the special treament of women at the expense of men is all discussed quite openly.

The liberal agenda will NEVER move forward without the support of women, because the liberal agenda indentifies them as an entitled victim group; their single largest base of voters are unmarried women that have lobbied for VAWA, IMBRA, Title IX and now equal pay legislation.

When you hold up the feminist scales between conservative and liberal, there’s
a decided tilt toward liberal that some refuse to see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 09:06

Rebel

@Oddsock:

“But that could just be down to the tube of super glue I lost? ”

So, THAT’s what it was!”

Sorry about that mate. I know you had a similar mishap. At least you only thought the tube of super glue was a supositry ! I need to contact the manufacturers urgently. There appears to be a major failing in the Quality Control ? Just as soon as I er,,, free myself ! I can’t even type correctly with it stuck in front of me monitor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rebel May 24, 2011 at 09:09

Wether we like it or not, there will be a return to matriarchy. Not through the will on humans… at least not directly.

Take a quick look at those short videos. Then try to figure out how on earth humans will be able to reproduce at all…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVVxoGnvUN8&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXSaxcJJ6eU&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKXiYQC9Wvo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvuhC0h0UFk&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Fabron May 24, 2011 at 09:11

This essay reminds me of an article I read recently on the BBC website:

“Business booms for Danish sperm: Brits opting for IVF ‘Viking’ babies”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13460455

Women are shopping online to find the anonymous father for their children. This is wrong on so many levels that I won’t even start my rant. Instead, maybe I could offer my services wholesale rather than having a clinical middle man (or middle woman).

I can meet most of the desired characteristics that the British women want in a sperm donor. I look Danish. However, my only claim to Danish genes would go back many generations when the Vikings invaded England.

I’m 6-feet-two (185cm) and have blue eyes. I lived in Denmark for a couple of years and the Danes would assume that I was Danish — until I spoke with my horrible accent.

But, I would not be selected. I am 70 years old and 20 pounds (9 kg) overweight. I could argue that despite the feminist claim to the contrary, sperm does not age and babies from a 70-year-old are just as bright and healthy as those produced by a teen-aged boy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Common Monster May 24, 2011 at 09:27

Max, you’re right, in retrospect one doesn’t need a microscope because you already know the right answer, but I’m not sure how much of whatever fuzzy concepts people had developed empirically from cultivating plants and animals for centuries was thought by the people back then to even be applicable to humans, because we were believed to be fundamentally different (a concept which is still with us). That’s why Spallanzani, Pasteur, et al were struggling with the concept of spontaneous generation — biology wasn’t even a unified science then. It was still humans and then everything else.

People can behave as if they know the biological reality without them being consciously aware of what we now recognize to be the facts and rules. IME lots of these interesting historical questions about who knew what and when will only be answered definitively when time machines are invented.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rebel May 24, 2011 at 09:29

““Business booms for Danish sperm: Brits opting for IVF ‘Viking’ babies”

According to Philip Jones, there is not an ounce of Viking inside Danish males.

He says that those males have become perfect doormats: therefore, their offsprings are believed to be just as perfect.

If you really think about it, it’s a perfect match: British “women” who are not women by any definition and Danish “males” who have nothing in common with maleness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Gendeau May 24, 2011 at 09:54

Oddsock,

“Get with it dude, Orange is very fashionable just now. I can tell just by the looks I get when I walk down the street with “Angry Izzy ” under my arm !”

You know? I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you get looks…

And is ‘she’ is stuck under your arm currently?

That’s lucky, as other scenarios occurred to me…in which your dignity would be under threat (I’ll say no more)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gendeau May 24, 2011 at 09:59

Keyster

“Feminists argue that matriarchal societies peacefully existed throughout the history of “humankind”, but they were never permitted to last long as some heatheness patriarchal society would come along and conquer them.”

I’ve looked into this in the depth that the theory deserved and I’ve formed some considered opinions. I am now prepared to release my two millisecond long deep contemplation (no charge): The thing about this is, the thing that you have to understand, is that it’s a load of old crap.

My academnic paper on the subject is being prepared for publication.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Peter May 24, 2011 at 10:04

the attendant lover is always around the corner and – adultery is a phenomenon not at all limited to the so called “patriarchy”. Ignoring the fact of biological fatherhood does come with emotional advantages for men. Malinovsky cites the story of a Trobriand man who went on an expedition for one year and after returning home found his woman with a newborn baby. He was overwhelmed with joy.

I think this is a very important observation, that adultery persists in these matrilineal societies. It may then be worth considering whether cuckoldry is more common in matrilineal or patriarchal societies. And I think we have an answer: the rate of cuckoldry in stable marriages in the U.S. is 2-3%, but the rate in more casual “common law” type relationships is much much higher, perhaps reaching 1/3 of children.

In a society where men are disconnected from the concept of fatherhood, betas get taken advantage of much more easily.

Since they also have no concept of patrilineal property or fatherhood, they have no particular reason to invest in their own or their children’s future. Or, even though this gets into chicken-and-egg territory, perhaps it’s the permanence of settlements and the creation of tradeable crop surpluses that creates the incentive to assure patrilineality and investment in the male family lines’ future.

The original poster mentions that “until the early 20th century” these families were organized matrilineally. Perhaps with the arrival of more modern farming and fishing technology, men finally have surpluses and thus have an incentive to develop and protect their private properly. Then they consider that they want to ensure that it’s their children, and not some other man’s, who get the benefit of the inheritance.

This may be inevitable; if you look at the wikipedia article on the matrilineal “Mosuo” or “Na” people, it’s stated that the arrival of modern technology has created a shift towards traditional marriages.

No society can exist in a vacuum forever. It’s probably the reason we see so few matrilineal societies alive today, and those are mostly isolated. And the modern matrilineal welfare societies are inevitably doomed, as the host societies are drained dry of money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Reader May 24, 2011 at 10:13

Oddsock,

“Get with it dude, Orange is very fashionable just now. I can tell just by the looks I get when I walk down the street with “Angry Izzy ” under my arm !”

If you bought her some shoes, then you wouldn’t have to carry her everywhere! But I understand that designer shoes are expensive.

Why don’t you start a shoe line called “Stilettos for Sheep” ? And then you could branch out to garter belts, and who knows what else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 10:20

Reader

“Why don’t you start a shoe line called “Stilettos for Sheep” ? And then you could branch out to garter belts, and who knows what else.”

Meh, That sounds a bit kinky to me mate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
SingleDad May 24, 2011 at 10:42

@ oddsock

Your little “lady” can wear stiletto’s at next “slut and sheep walk”, with her phosphrecent hue, I’m sure the two of you will be a smash!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
DevilDog May 24, 2011 at 10:47

Do Feminists have actual concrete proof that matriarchal societies existed and were successful civilizations?

And don’t give me some shitty reference to a tribe in butt fuck Africa that’s primitive as shit who live in mud huts and who are essentially the losers of the Human species.

By successful civilization I mean SUCCESSFUL, not just existing. A society isn’t successful just because it exists.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
DevilDog May 24, 2011 at 10:50

Also what’s with the peaceful harmonious utopia crap? Such a far fetched delusion, the closest thing to a matriarchy we have in America is the ghetto.

Those places sure are peaceful, harmonious, advanced utopias, huh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
SingleDad May 24, 2011 at 10:51

With regard to the article, based on British common law, and I’m sure Opus and Peter can inform us here, it seems that “fatherhood” was invented the first at the time of the first hunger pang a new mother felt upon expelling her offspring.

I don’t believe any of the bullshit taught in our colleges or churches regarding these matters. It’s patently absurd to think that our forefathers and mothers where unaware that it took two to tango and that pre-historic men and women were unaware that sex lead to children.

I have a much easier time imagining Cro-Magnon girl teen dad putting spear to teen boy found lurking at the edge of the cave and demanding he take the little Cro-girl and feed her because her stomach has that bump that says it all.

Much like issues regarding the origin of our world, an area where trad cons still assert that the world was created by god 7K years ago, it is far to political a subject to allow true scholarship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 10:59

SingleDad

@ oddsock

Your little “lady” can wear stiletto’s at next “slut and sheep walk”, with her phosphrecent hue, I’m sure the two of you will be a smash!

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I dont have any clothes that will not clash with the bright Orange. Don’t get me wrong, I think I have got a keeper with “Angry Izzy”. She never complains, she doesn’t pretend to be anything other than an Orange inflatable sheep. No shit stirring, no lies and certainly no manipulation. She just seems to understand me, she will actually listen to what I have to say. A very rare female what ? I think I might be falling for her ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Max Stirner May 24, 2011 at 11:00

@Keyster

“Feminists argue that matriarchal societies peacefully existed throughout the history of “humankind”, but they were never permitted to last long as some heatheness patriarchal society would come along and conquer them.”

That is history for simple minded people, that like to paint the world black and white.
matriachy=good=peaceful vs. patriarchy=violent=evil
But that’s a pill that not only women eagerly swallow, because they don’t want to admit that also their hearts are full evil, but also males
like this concept, because they LIKE to see themselves depicted as violent and evil.
I would rather put an emphasis on structure than on “matriarchy” or “patriarchy” though. We could also claim that humanity was once organized in peaceful clans that were destroyed by violent states. What is probably also a half baked analysis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
scot May 24, 2011 at 11:03

Sir, u suggest neo gender-feminism is a sign of communism and marxism. Are the countries like china, Russia, and Cuba, also purging hetero-males from universities??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Keyster May 24, 2011 at 11:05

“The thing about this is, the thing that you have to understand, is that it’s a load of old crap.”

It’s not, because it can’t be proven.
There were periods of matriarchal rule among ancient civilizations and small tribes of people, but they never lasted long enough to have a historical impact. And even if there were some record of these societies any trace that they existed were redacted by patriarchal historians and anthropologists.

This shit is as common in women’s studies curriculum as math is to science.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Legion May 24, 2011 at 11:23

epoche* May 24, 2011 at 07:42
“I dont understand the fascination with artificial wombs”

The only reason women are valuable is because only they can have babies. Take that from them and their need disappears. From us MGTOW types, this is necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Opus May 24, 2011 at 11:34

@Single Dad

I’ve been reading the OP and comments with interest, having only a passing understanding of Anthropology and Ethnography, so was surprised that I might be called on by you to explain Fatherhood in terms of the common law. I can’t, but clearly (one only has to read the Greeks and Romans) it predates the common law of England.

My own feeling about this matter is that men and women need each other, as a pair of scissors needs two parts. In return for hunting for food and protecting the females and the young the women kept house: to get to that position they first had to demonstrate to the men their attractiveness and other abilities otherwise the men would just MGTOW. In that sense talking of a Patriarchy is as absurd as talking of a Matriarchy. As Montaigne pointed out just because we do things one way does not mean that other ways of doing things are daft, and reading of The Trobirand Islanders (whom I knew something of through reading Marcel Mauss) I am struck more by their similarities than their apparent differences – one just has to stand back a bit, I think.

As for Engels (whom I have not read) I am reminded of another Nineteenth Century writer who wished to tear down society and start again – Tolstoy. Reich wrote The Mystery of The Organism, did he not? Can’t remember much about it, though the copy I read, borrowed from the public library was full of pencilled scurillous marginalia (from a friend of mine) who in guilt re-borrowed the book to erase his comments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Legion May 24, 2011 at 11:53

scot May 24, 2011 at 11:03

Same scot, different day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
SingleDad May 24, 2011 at 12:12

@ Opus

I agree. The only people using the word “Patriarchy” appear to be trying to build a “Matriarchy”. I don’t believe either ever existed. We had societies and men and women worked together.

I will not use either word, to use one is to invoke the other and this plays into the hands of those that hate men, members of the Feminist Imperial Army of the USSA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Max Stirner May 24, 2011 at 12:21

Simple question:
Will these women succeed in building a better world (matriarchy)?

http://www.hagia.de/de/program.html

I don’t think so.
Why?
Whithout men they can’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Hedgewolf May 24, 2011 at 12:25

“Who cares if a clan has a female chief? Do female priests really matter? Did Queen Victoria stop the expansion of the British Empire?”

Non sequitur x3

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Seamus the Classicist May 24, 2011 at 12:31

“Reject the weapon, reject the word.”

No, that is a semantic game developed and best suited for the feminine mind. Sure Patriarchy is evil, the base and effeminate fear real power, which why in our society today justice is demoniacal. At least real justice has a hint of darkness about it, as it probably always had, but whatever the deviation it is the monster in the Id.

Patriarchy is evil like the Masculine God of the Old Testament is evil, because with innate power comes innate responsibilities and innate rights. Why does the God of the Old Testament have the right to punish all of mankind for the sins of Adam and Eve? Or drown the whole world? Because only God has absolute rights.

It was the same thing under Patriarchy with the Pater Familias, man, head household, was god to those under him with the right of life and death over them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 12:46

SingleDad

@ Opus

“I agree. The only people using the word “Patriarchy” appear to be trying to build a “Matriarchy”. I don’t believe either ever existed. We had societies and men and women worked together.

I will not use either word, to use one is to invoke the other and this plays into the hands of those that hate men, members of the Feminist Imperial Army of the USSA.”

Well said chaps. Patriarchy and Matriarchy are just convenient labels.
If we must use them, I suspect things are arse about face. I can’t remember which book this comes from? If men have all the power how come women make all the rules ? Sums it up nicely for me.

Seamus the Classicist

I enjoy reading most of your posts and can agree with a lot of what I read. I mean the stuff I can actually understand. Your last post would be ok I suppose, if you are a Christian, but seeing as I try to follow the Buddhist teachings I don’t agree with it. It does not make sense, at least to me. If you get my drift ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Max Stirner May 24, 2011 at 14:34

@ Newfoundman
“You say you have never used teh term “Matriarchy” because who cares if they have a female tribal chief? It’s a good point, but I think you should extend that to patriarchy as well, at least within the context of today’s supposedly equal society. An “enlightened”, post-feminist individual shouldn’t care whether our politicians are male or female, right”

Well I have a clear concept now how a matrilinear clan is organized.
So matrilinearity is easy to understand.
But “matriarchy” is a fuzzy idea, I just can’t put my finger on it. The idea
of power is fuzzy, too. I already regret the last sentence of the article, yeah postfeminism as a anti-marxist movement should reject the idea of a historical class struggle between men and women. Therefore we should abandon the idea of patriarchy and matriarchy.

And a last comment: I think there is male power and female power. It is a zero sum game, but they ways man and women exert their powers are different. Feminism is about gloryfying male power (politics, executive power, state, army, police) and ignoring and rejecting female power (sex, fertility, caretaking) . What feminism wants is handing over male power to women, via a state apparatus. But still, the idea of power is a bit esoteric, or at least for me, I can’t describe what “power” is. So who rules? What is justice?
I can imagine that there are times of imbalance. For example right now in western democracies women can use the state to access male power in addition to their female power. But these imbalances can’t last for long.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Gendeau May 24, 2011 at 15:08

“Keyster May 24, 2011 at 11:05
“The thing about this is, the thing that you have to understand, is that it’s a load of old crap.”

It’s not, because it can’t be proven.”

Fair point

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Shawn May 24, 2011 at 15:21

Women have messed up the family unit so badly that I do not know if it can be repaired. I look at the men of my generation and the boys that are coming after my generation and I see a lot of men/boys who are lost in their lives. With no father in the home and a mother who works all the time, a lot of these kids are left to raise themselves. Girls fare better because they receive the attention at school that they do not receive in the home. Boys get psychiatric drugs shoved done their throats and are treated like dirt. I pity the boys/men who had the card stacked against them for something they did not do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 24, 2011 at 16:03

Shawn

“Women have messed up the family unit so badly that I do not know if it can be repaired. I look at the men of my generation and the boys that are coming after my generation and I see a lot of men/boys who are lost in their lives. With no father in the home and a mother who works all the time, a lot of these kids are left to raise themselves. Girls fare better because they receive the attention at school that they do not receive in the home. Boys get psychiatric drugs shoved done their throats and are treated like dirt. I pity the boys/men who had the card stacked against them for something they did not do.”

Painfully true Shawn but well said mate. We need more of the younger guys to point this out and spread the message. At the very least we can maybe help them to protect themselves. We need them on sites like this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Common Monster May 24, 2011 at 17:34

I’m beginning to think we need a big protest march to take back the words ‘patriarchy’ and ‘patriarch’…

There is most definitely a sense in which all cultures that have lasted for very long have been fundamentally feminacentric in certain crucial ways. This perspective suggests “patriarchy” was just the best way yet found to be this way.

Now that there’s no functional reason for us to be (so) feminacentric any more, we’re treading in uncharted territory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Seamus the Classicist May 24, 2011 at 17:38

Well oddsock, what you must consider is that Buddhism is a philosophy, and philosophy is different from religion. In the strictest sense religion means “ties that bind” from man to the divine. All religions derived from the Indo-European and Semitic cultures are heavily paternalistic.

Walter Berkett’s Homo Necans outlines one belief in religion as coming from the masculine ethos by way of the act of shedding blood. These gods/God all demanded one thing first and foremost, blood. This is a very masculine thing, note how for crimes to appease justice masculine societies demand the blood of the transgressor to appease divine justice. The idea of being bound and owing something because we are lower than the divine reinforces the masculines sense of hierarchy. Note how women are adverse to the direct shedding of blood in recompense or acknowledgement of hierarchy because at their base nature women are anarchical and anti-social.

In Homo Necans it is postulated that man arose from the stone age through the act of hunting and killing because both are acts that require immersion of the self to the hunting group or Mannerbund, thus society could develop with it’s layers of authority. In those Mannerbund’s the Alpha male was determined by how he lead the rest of the males, he had to be intelligent, full of spirit, have physical strength, and have a compassion towards his weaker fellows. It was these abilities that made a “Big Man.”

Later when humans settled into agrarian societies where hunting became sedentary those abilities were still needed to ensure a smoothly functioning society, the Alpha Male/Big Man became the Man in his trifecta nature are Priest, King, and Judge. Aspects that all men exercised within their household over the women and children. These were also needed because they still had to protect their grain and way of life from uncivilised interlopers, and the uncivilised interlopers needs the Big Man also to get what the civilised people. Think Caesar versus Vercingetorix, both Big Men in their respective societies.

So then God was seen as the Ultimate Big Man/Alpha Male, in Christianity He is perfection: all-just in His dealing with Mankind, and all-merciful in His meeting out of punishment. In the Indo-European Pantheons the main god is, despite feminist revisits historians, a masculine Sky God (isn’t the weather also all just and merciful in that the same source that can level whole cities is also merciful in giving us rain and sunshine to grow food?) know by various names like Zeus Pater, Ju-piter, Dewios Pater, Dyas Pater, Odin, Daghda, which all have the meaning of “The Divine Father.”

No it is the masculine which creates civilisation, modern philosophers like Hobbs and such who stated that man is anti-social and only understands violence are really reflecting the rise of the Effeminate in the last 500 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
SF May 24, 2011 at 18:09

If the dumb white anthropologist doesn’t know where babies come from, he might be unable to handle it, so we will tell him the same thing we tell little children. (In white culture, it is the stork.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Seamus the Classicist May 24, 2011 at 18:16

Speaking out the side of your mouth is a very effeminate thing. To quote St. Paul, “Nai, nai, nai, ou, ou, ou.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Timothy May 24, 2011 at 21:04

“yeah, I would love to discuss conspiracy theories about feminism!
Will be my next article – hahaha!”

It amazes me how most men here still deny that feminism was part of a socially constructed plan to take over the country and turn us into slaves. We have TSA agents groping our children, Ben Bernanke devaluing our dollar to the point it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, how our constitution and bill of rights meaning less with each passing day, a school system that’s set up to destroy our ability to critically think… the list goes on. But instead of coming to terms that feminism is not our biggest concern, we continue to get “conspiracy theorist!” as a response, even after proof is given.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Seamus the Classicist May 24, 2011 at 22:14

History is nothing but conspiracies. Going back to Genesis, Eve conspired with the Serpent to draw in the Man, Adam, against the ultimate Man, God.

Aristotle pointed out in the Politics how one of the methods of a Tyrant is to draw in the women, children, and slaves into conspiring against and informing on the Man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 25, 2011 at 01:48

Seamus the Classicist

Thanks for describing the paternalistic side of Christian type religions, enjoyable read. I understand and agree with your overview. I was looking at it from more of a spiritual angle, ie Budhism. You see. IMHO and not wishing to start a debate on religion. When people became too focussed on the power of religion and its rituals they quickly forgot that it’s main purpose is to guide the follower towards spirituality.

Anyway. Your latest post caught my eye. ( Below)
Can you expand a little more on those views of Aristotle ? That would be very interesting ?

“Aristotle pointed out in the Politics how one of the methods of a Tyrant is to draw in the women, children, and slaves into conspiring against and” informing on the Man.”

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Seamus the Classicist May 25, 2011 at 02:35

I don’t remember the exact context because it was in a passage that was more than a few thousand words long. Aristotle is dense reading and difficult. But he did write a lot about the “fairer” sex, in a systematic scientific way. In speaking on the freedom of Spartan women (who were the first recorded liberated females because the men lived the military,) he says:

“The license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the good order of the state. …

And that is what happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of men, but he has neglected the woman, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizens fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of all war-like races, except the Celts and few other who openly approve of male lovers.”

At the time Aristotle wrote Sparta had been a defunct war machine for a couple of generations because the Spartan citizens died out. In fact after the invasion of Xerxes Sparta had several embarrassing defeats but armies that were able to out manoeuvre the tough Spartans. In one case in Sicily a Greek contingent of Peltasts destroyed a Spartan column.

But his observations about women loving material goods and this leading to their intemperate ways and violence and bloodshed is reflected in the modern world. Woman loves luxury, woman has a base nature, woman will approve obscene levels of violence to get what she wants.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 25, 2011 at 03:17

Seamus the Classicist

Thanks for that.

I think the last paragraph speaks volumes.

“But his observations about women loving material goods and this leading to their intemperate ways and violence and bloodshed is reflected in the modern world. Woman loves luxury, woman has a base nature, woman will approve obscene levels of violence to get what she wants.”

Even if we stick with the patriachy/matriarchy labels. I still say it is a matriarchy we live in. Men just simply serve women.

I often wonder what would happen if by some miracle women around the globe suddenly decided that they were no longer attracted to men with money and power ? Perhaps only being attracted to the wandering homeless moneyless type of guy. How long would it be before there was a mass exodus of men leaving jobs ? Months ? Weeks ? Same question would arise about wars, which after all, are usualy about territory and resources ? I am not saying they would stop, just greatly reduced.

Can you see why I say it is a matriarchy we live in ? Yes a very simplistic explanation but it makes one wonder just who is controlling who ?

Can’t remember who said this but I think its very apt for this topic.

” There is no such thing as a dangerous woman, only gullible men”
Or ” If men have all the power ? How come women make all the rules ? “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Seamus the Classicist May 25, 2011 at 03:47

That why I like the ancient ethos of the male as the active creating, divine, and ruling.

The conspiracy theorists are right, it is tyrannical men behind feminism relying on the old knowledge of woman’s base nature, the took Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics and played them to bring about the contrary result. Like engineering a benign pathogen into a virulent one.

If you think about in a metaphysical spiritual sense, matriarchy (rule of the mother literally) is a contradiction. It is the father and his seed that in the very act of procreation is the ruling creative part (the woman is the passive partner, receptive but her generative powers involve no direct action on her part): his vigour and action determines when it is release, his genetic code determines the sex of the child. This can be seen in the term “husband” which is also used in the context of agriculture, a husband is farmer. So by putting procreation into the hands of women, it creates anarchy.

And women is by nature passive and receptive. Though they don’t demonstrate the rational ability to select good men, they select men based on good traits: aggressiveness, dominance, confidence, etc. Which can also be traits of beta-providers, but men have what is called virtue (the very word is Latin and is a cognate with ‘vir’ for man for a reason) because we can seek balance. The Roman list of virtues balanced each other, made a gentleman (lit. man of the people) and made society liveable, have gravitas but also comitas, have disciplina but also have clementia. Woman in her simple logic selects out traits that are overtly masculine, but fail to seek those in a male that makes him a man among men.

A man is like the Sky father, and the sky if it too much one thing (i.e. stormy or dry) will lead to desolation.

Sorry if I seem to be getting heavily into etymology and semantics, but these were one of the trademarks of the Stoic school of philosophy.

The quotes you mention are very old. The first reminds me of a passage in the Iron age Irish Epic, The Tain, in which after much bloodshed and violence caused by Queen Medb (for no real good reason) Fergus turns to the hero Cuchullian and says, “this is not the first time a herd has been lead astray by a wild mare.”

We do not live under the rule of women, anymore than Queen Medb was a ruler. I mean really read up on Queen Medb, she was a legendary warning against female hypergamy and equality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medb

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 25, 2011 at 04:06

Gendeau
“I’ve looked into this in the depth that the theory deserved and I’ve formed some considered opinions. I am now prepared to release my two millisecond long deep contemplation (no charge): The thing about this is, the thing that you have to understand, is that it’s a load of old crap.”

You’re not the only one.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2010/10/matriarchy-of-past-canard.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 25, 2011 at 04:23

This whole matriarchy of the past thing was invented by liberals to demonize male rule and ‘naturalize’ female rule. It was a fabrication intended to counter arguments that male rule/leadership was the natural order of things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
oddsock May 25, 2011 at 04:24

Seamus the Classicist

Thanks again. Enjoyable read.

Yes I agree, we do not live under the rule of women. Perhaps by saying we live in a matriarchy I gave you that impression ? I mean it is a matriarchy in the sense that society is heavily geared towards the majority of the unsuspecting males serving the female. E.g. What better way to keep the economy flowing ? Without female greed and demand for “things” the world economy would stagnate. I also believe that as the global financial “Ponzi” scheme ( because that’s what it is ) approached its peak,via debt saturation. The best way to keep the bubble inflated for a while longer was to remove as many shackles as possible from women. Feminism not only achieved this it also created it’s own financial market. E.g. Divorce lawyers police courts industry extra housing transport and many other supporting industries. The list is almost endless. You see, all is connected. Follow the money. It will be very interesting to see what happens when the pending financial collapse actually happens. What new scam will the PTB come up with? Some say war. Sadly I fear that will be the case. We always repeat history and looking at the Middle East, especially Pakistan. I fear we are much closer than many realize.

Again, I agree with you. There is just a few tyranical men that have used the true nature of women to mould and shape society and right across the ages. Feminism has just been yet another example of the same, a cunning foil.

There are also, as I am sure you know, quite a few “Queen Medb” female characters throughout history. I will have a read of the link you posted later.

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 04:39

“There is still no proof that an advanced civilization can exist without patriarchy. ”

And you will never find any either. Civilization can only exist where the man is given an incentive to labour FAR above his own needs. That is, he labours to ‘provide and protect the women, children and old men’.

Unless a man can be incented to do this? Civilization ends or does not come into existence. And the ONLY incentive that counts is to know that the children you labour for are yours and yours alone. (Or the illusion of it).

Is there any man reading this who is NOT aware that virtually ALL WESTERN WOMEN SUPPORT PATERNITY FRAUD.

All the Illuminati has done is ‘let women talk openly’ on a medium like the internet. The women than said what was on their minds. Mostly it is very, very repulsive to men.

Civilization, as we know it, is about to end. See you on the other side!! LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Ken May 25, 2011 at 06:42

“I dont understand the fascination with artificial wombs” >>>>>>>>>>

Same here, and what I have read about the concept is rather dystopian because it would be government-controlled (i.e. FDA) and it is also a huge boon to the homosexual agenda so I am leary of such a thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
SMC May 25, 2011 at 09:17

At any rate mankind does not come from matriarchy.

Male jealousy and its violence assures that.

Man certainly does NOT come from a “golden age” free from war and greed and have and have not etc. Absurd. No creature does; and humans ARE creature despite your protests. Golden Age is crackpot-ism.

“Matriarchy” and “Patriarchy” are just made up terms. Like bird chirps –they denote nothing defined in actuality: it is all “what one makes of it” science. …How much stuff a culture makes and whether it knows who its great grandmothers are is absolutely irrelevant. The only relevant measure is… is the male successfully acting on his jealously impulse regarding the female instinct towards flighty dalliance; is he successfully pulling her pirouetting under a threshold of his perception? (And if he is, that is cramping her style / snuffing her leverage/power.)

The fact no one talks about that male jealousy impulse of the past –or tries to dismiss it as ,modern symptom of unique white civilization(in last few centuries)– screams volumes about just what kind of crackpots and liars we’re dealing with.

Engels and Marx are jewish politically motivated liars trying to trick the goy into pulling their leaders down –through using economic protectionism–so that the jew will be unchallenged (and un expelled) as he becomes the leader class.

Because of the infantile, underling sibling, delusional fetish in anglo world politics for “freedom from authority”, the west was not able to prevent the marxist utopian demagogues (liars) from taking over. Indeed, because of that fetish, the west actively fought the only movements that even tried to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Legion May 25, 2011 at 09:26

Ken May 25, 2011 at 06:42

Stop being homophobic and start giving a rat’s ass about men who don’t give a rat’s ass about women.

I don’t mean to be rude, but you appeared to need to be shocked into thinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
SMC May 25, 2011 at 10:08

“evilwhitemalempire May 25, 2011 at 04:23

This whole matriarchy of the past thing was invented by liberals to demonize male rule and ‘naturalize’ female rule. It was a fabrication intended to counter arguments that male rule/leadership was the natural order of things.”

Well said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Ken May 25, 2011 at 10:56

“Stop being homophobic and start giving a rat’s ass about men who don’t give a rat’s ass about women” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I do, which is why I am against the “lavender lobby” which is a hand-in-hand ALLY of the Feminist Movement from day one :) Personally, I do not worry about other men’s gay lifestyle just the leftist-gay push into American life, yet another stalwart of the CONTROL side instead of LIBERTY.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
E May 25, 2011 at 15:45

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)
“Civilization, as we know it, is about to end. See you on the other side!! LOL!!”

If I had a magic wand I’d give all these pointy headed self proclaimed intellectuals exactly what they ask, “The great matriarchal socialist society” so long as I can stand by from a safe viewing distance and not get hurt by the hell that would be unleashed.

Of course I could instead just go disappear and never look back. But I think it’s much more fun to be *within viewing distance* close enough to see the action but not so close that I actually get hurt.
Now pass me some of that popcorn I’m going to enjoy this show. *grin*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SMC May 25, 2011 at 21:54

“[the CONTROL side vs the LIBERTY side]”

False dichotomy.

A _fatal_ misreading of how our human social sexual dynamic works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 25, 2011 at 22:25

I’m beginning to wonder if the stereotype of liberals being dudes that don’t want any responsibilites, answer to nobody, etc. is just conservatives projecting the anarchist extreme end of their own small government philosophy.
And that likewise the stereotype of conservatives as big domineering assholes is just liberals projecting their protyranny extreme of their own big government philosophy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
john thames May 26, 2011 at 10:49

In re feminism in the ancient world:

FEMINISM IN ANCIENT SPARTA

Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world – and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta. It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women (relatively speaking) but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women – and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35%-40% of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being “liberated” to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90% drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
john thames May 26, 2011 at 10:51

FEMINISM AND THE FALL OF ROME

Feminism is not a new thing. Neither is it a sign of progress, as some imagine. It has flourished in the past with results as disastrous as presently. Many parallels exist between the feminist movement in the Roman Empire and the feminist movement of today. In the early days of the Republic, Rome was extremely patriarchal. The father, the paterfamilias, held the power of life and death over his wife and children. This system lasted until roughly the end of the Second Punic war against Carthage. Then began a vast movement for the “liberation” of women. The war had, in a sense, been won by women. The Romans had lost the entirety of their manpower in three consecutive defeats at the hands of Hannibal Barcas. The final disaster came at Cannae where 60,000 Romans were surrounded and stabbed in the back.

When women had grown back the dead soldiers and the final defeat of Hannibal was achieved at Zama, Roman women demanded freedom. One of the first concessions granted to them was the repeal of the law against luxury. The repeal of this law allowed Roman women to flaunt their wealth in public. No longer did they have to practice frugality as matron of the household. Next they acquired the right to participate as gladiators in the Forum, the right to enter minor political office and the right to practice infanticide and abortion. The Roman birth rate plummeted and vice and corruption spread among Roman men. A general strike against marriage ensued and the Emperor Augustus tried to revive reproduction with a bachelor tax. It was all to no avail. The situation became so outrageous that a famous Roman remarked that “We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” The poet Juvenal remarked that the Roman aristocracy “divorced to marry and married to divorce”.

At the same time that this female liberation was taking place the Empire was overrun by swarms of slaves and racial aliens. Like many European cities today, it became difficult to find a genuinely Roman face in Rome. Diversity, like feminism, greatly contributed to the fall of the Empire. By Empire’s end, the legions which had conquered the world were half Roman and half barbarian (rather like the American army today, where increasing numbers of Third Worlders proliferate). When Rome fell, the female irresponsibility which had so greatly contributed to the Empire’s downfall made a severe impression on the fathers of the Christian Church. They made a point to yoke females and to impose the virtue of chastity. Given what they had witnessed during the fall of Rome the misogynist viewpoint of the early Christian elders can hardly be criticized.

The parallels of all this to modern day America can hardly be disputed. Although America is not Rome the same trends, particularly that of the female unleashed, are evident. Women, throughout history, are either the bedrock of a social structure or the dissolvers of the social structure. In early America, as in early Rome, women were baby makers and home makers. In latter day America, as in latter day Rome, women are imitation men and unborn baby killers. The consequences are the same, then as now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
john thames May 26, 2011 at 11:06

The author of this article is very perceptive.

Economic equality for women in the job market has always been a fundamental principle of Communism from earliest days. The Communists (read: the Jews) always portrayed marriage as female oppression and demanded that both the wife and the husband be driven into the labor market while children were raised communally (read: day care centers). Thus, the Communists demanded maternity leave so that women would not have to choose between career and motherhood.The Ozzie and Harriet single income family based on “family wage” was set up by women themselves in the 19th century when the industrial system was in its infancy. Women demanded that employers pay their husbands a wage sufficient to enable women to stay home with the kids.

The founding mother of modern feminism, Betty Goldstein/Friedan, was a life long Jewish Communist. Those who want the documented facts may read “Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique” by Daniel Horowitz, University of Massachusetts Press. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Jewess Bolshevik posing as a Supreme Court justice, used to write many words on this subject, stating explicitly that the idea that a man should be paid higher wages than a woman because men were the providers for the family should be torn down as a legal concept.

Matriarchy is useful to the Jew World Order elite because eliminating determined white male resistance to the emerging totalitarianism is an essential part of the scheme.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Seamus the Classicist May 27, 2011 at 15:08

Oh the Spartans were conquered long before the Roman era, their population started to decline around the time of the Peloponessian War along with their military might. By the time of Phillip of Macedon the Spartans were a moot force, Alexander directly mocked and chided them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kevin May 30, 2011 at 09:28

@Max Stirner:

You wrote, “But still, the idea of power is a bit esoteric, or at least for me, I can’t describe what “power” is.”

To me, power is the ability to either manifest change or maintain the status quo (repel change) according to the will. If you don’t like the way things are and so you change them, you have power. If your enemies wish to visit a bit of no good upon you and you thwart their efforts, you have power.

To change or to not change requires power.

That’s how I look at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Max Stirner June 1, 2011 at 15:37

@Kevin

The concept of patriarchy or matriarchy suggests that one sex rules over the other, or has more “power” than the other sex.
I do not accept these concepts. On a private level, I can define
“power” but considering men and women as social groups I find it
very hard to define “power”. So for me, power is just another word for “being alive”.

So, are men more alive than women, or vice versa?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Max Stirner June 2, 2011 at 07:02

Considering the concept of a feminist conspiracy… Just some crazy ideas that came to my mind:
A “matriarchy” could be installed as a replacement for “patriarchy”. It could be sold to us a s a form of
“liberation”, but in reality it is just a modification of the old
authoritarian society. In this new dictatorship the ruling elite is given alpha status via the media and via high posts in useless hierarchial organisations, be it the state apparatus itself or big companies. They will be allowed to live in polygamy, and the mass of the men is beta-ified. This plan is so neat, it could be mine, hahaha!
If this is the “plan” then we have already seen it. But the new “matriarchy” will be a very unstable form of organization. First, contrary to the authoritarian patriarchy it relies heavily on deception.
Remember that patriarchy never depicted itself als “liberating” and always was honest with its suppresive and authoritarian character.
The authoritarian family was an economically independent unit under patriarchy, providing a stable fundament for the state. The new matriarchy must live without families, and the new society therefore relies heavily on the state superstructure, financed by betas.
There we see the problem of the authoritarian matriarchy: the useless beta. As long as the betas still believe that they can profit from the new organisation, everything will work out fine. That is why differnent techniques of brainwashing are needed to keep the betas supporting the matriarchy. Feminism is one of them – installing a feeling of guilt in males – for 6000 years of cruel patriarchial suppression.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: