The Kyrios Principle, and the Road Back from Feminism

by Featured Guest on November 20, 2012

By Spanier

Feminism is petty, vain, and rife with internal contradictions. As an obvious example of the latter, the feminists complain about ridiculous things like how women are under-represented as fire fighters, yet when it comes to societies where women are indeed severely oppressed, as in Saudi Arabia, they utter not a word in protest. Clearly, feminism is nothing but a massive s— test directed at Western men, and one at which we have failed miserably.

It is critical for the men’s movement to understand this point and its implications. For it means that it is our failure that is culpable for the rise of feminism and its many attendant ills. And it also means that ONLY WE can fix those problems.

In perusing men’s rights blogs, one finds countless men who are practically blind with rage at women for various reasons– promiscuity, abortion, bogus rape accusations, confiscating assets in divorce. But this anger is all based on a false premise– namely, the idea of gender equality.

It is taken for granted in our society, and so ingrained in our culture as to be almost beyond question, that women are the equals of men in their sense of justice, their self-control, maturity and farsightedness, and their abilities to manage their own resources and act in their own best interests. This idea is modern, slick, simple, and completely wrong. It also runs contrary to millennia of experience and traditions, throughout all major civilizations, that do recognize qualitative differences between men and women, and assign them differing roles accordingly.

Once we see, and we certainly should by now, the many fallacies embedded in the idea of gender equality, we can begin to solve the problems caused by feminism. For if women do not, in general, have the same sense of justice and fairness that men have, then NEITHER CAN THEY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE for offenses in the same way men are. Fundamentally, it makes no more sense to be angry at a woman for being promiscuous than it does to be angry at a 2-year-old for pouring sugar in one’s gas tank. The kid wasn’t supervised properly; he didn’t know what he was doing; it’s really the parents’ fault.

So how do we atone for our failure of will, and put the feminist genie back in the bottle? The answer is to restore the patriarchy and re-adopt some of the older rules of conduct in male-female relations. A bit of study will show that the civilizations of the past– the societies that moved the human condition forward, that created progress and improved comfort for both men and women– had customs and assumptions that differ markedly from the mechanical views of gender equality that we hold today.

In making these corrections, of course, we will not revert to such extremes of repression as are seen in some savage cultures. No woman will be forced to marry, nor will cruel treatment of wives by their husbands be condoned. However, a few new, but also radical– i.e., traditional– ground rules are in order.

First of all, as in classical Greece, every unmarried woman needs a kyrios. This is a male guardian with whom she has a positive, long-term, but non-sexual relationship. Typically, this will be her father, but could also be a brother, a priest, or possibly even an ex-boyfriend or -husband. The kyrios must protect her, look out for her best interests and help her to select an appropriate mate. If a man sees a woman he is interested in romantically, his first priority should be to find out who her kyrios is, and negotiate with him for her companionship. The kyrios should also be available during the relationship to help smooth out any problems that may arise.

When it comes to selection of a mate, it is best if the woman and her kyrios agree on the choice of a suitor. If they cannot reach an agreement, then the woman can marry whomever she wishes (or remain single). Doing so, however, would jeopardize whatever other benefits she derives from her relationship with the kyrios. Furthermore, a suitor should have fair warning of the situation, and should ask himself: if she won’t obey her kyrios, what reason do I have to think that she’ll obey me?

The kyrios system is simply an expression of the idea that a woman’s sexuality is too important and valuable for her to manage on her own. We have seen the frightful results of allowing women free rein over their own choice in partners– put bluntly, there are very few long-term conjugal relationships in the absence of a surrounding patriarchical social network.

The kyrios system requires no legal changes, and in theory, is actually not much different from our current one. After all, two people cannot just get married on their own– at least one other person must be involved to officiate and legalize the arrangement. In principle, the officiating party ought to take some responsibility for becoming acquainted with the couple, and mentoring them, and should also have some share of personal accountability for the success or failure of the marriage.

The main task in implementing the kyrios system is in educating fathers about the need to take an active and protective role in their daughters’ lives at least up until their marriages, and to plan for their long term interests in ways that they cannot do on their own. While we do not propose instituting forced or arranged marriages, the current system goes to the other extreme by providing no guidance whatsoever on the choice of partners. The practice of throwing young people out into a figurative goldfish bowl, and hoping for the best, is clearly not working.

The second change is also cultural, and involves educating girls and young women on the responsibilities of marriage. Early feminists complained of the stifling strictures of marriage, which they claimed prevented women from reaching their potential as literary and artistic figures. Be that as it may, most women are going to be happier and more fulfilled in stable marriages than as spinsters, and once they have chosen marriage they need to meet the requirements of the role. These include faithfulness and obedience to their husbands, as well as consistency in doing domestic tasks such as cooking and cleaning. Important steps in this direction would be restoring the study of home economics for girls in primary and secondary schools, and reviving the institution of finishing schools for college-age women.

The third change should be an overhaul of the divorce laws, to restore ownership of property and children to the party– usually the man– who has paid for the acquisition and maintenance thereof. A society obviously cannot survive long when it allows women to divorce their husbands while also laying claim to his assets and children. And a woman certainly cannot be permitted to have an abortion against her husband’s wishes.

A question may arise as to a woman’s rights when the husband initiates a divorce. Biblical passages (see Exodus 21:10) as well as basic concepts of justice would indicate that she should not be left without support. It remains to investigate how extensive a problem this was, from a practical standpoint, prior to the introduction of modern divorce laws.

In short, we propose here changes in culture and attitudes that correspond to natural differences among the sexes– not to make women “second class citizens” or “chattel property” or any such figments of feminist hyperbole, but to restore a civilization where both men and women can be reasonably content in their relationships and productive in their lives.

{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }

migu November 20, 2012 at 03:10

We we we we weeeeeee. Just not me. Ditch the collective already. How many more failures do “we” need to figure that out?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Christian - Alles Evolution November 20, 2012 at 03:24

I have a (german) Blog that highlights a lot of Sex differences and critic of feminist theory, so i realize that the differences are there.

But this is too much essentialism. The differences occur in the average.

I think you are too near to the natural fallacy. Just because there are differences does not mean you should structure the whole society after them. You should take them in account, but to treat women like children isn´t fair to clever and ambitous women all around the world

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian November 20, 2012 at 03:52


For if women do not, in general, have the same sense of justice and fairness that men have, then NEITHER CAN THEY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE for offenses in the same way men are.

I cant disagree more with this opinion, as I see it basically the same as white knighting. This also seems to be the operating principle of the pussy pass in the legal system. Women get off free or have severely reduced punishments because they are like children who just aren’t responsible.

If you truly believe that, then your only coarse of action is to strip them of all rights so that they are the legal equivalent of your pet dog. Carrying out your philosophy to its logical conclusion, means that giving them any rights or privileges above livestock is an untenable position.

You must also strip the rights first before you start pushing for no responsibility, because they’ll gladly accept the no responsibility part as soon as you start advocating it while clinging tenaciously to all their rights. Then men will be in an even worse situation than we are now.

Furthermore more, your position runs contrary to nearly all religions of the world in that women will be judged in the afterlife just as men will be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
dhanu November 20, 2012 at 04:15

This is the natural condition. What we actually have today is artificially made up and enforced by the state. You proposed social changes to reclaim the more natural condition and gradually remove the govt’s strangehold on the social arrangement (the marriage). However, if that were possible at large (that is, if the society had been so thoughtful), the original arrangement wouldn’t have reversed in the first place. And it’s hard for people to think of this idea now, at least by any significant portion of them anyway. Therefore, the change needs to follow the same path back that it originally took, that is, top to downward. I think the laws first need to change. Then the govt support for distributing the taxpayers’ money to the incompetent bums needs to go. When this and similar changes happen, that would automatically force the society to adopt its natural status.

In other words, feminism is unnatural, like making water flow upward. This is possible but a constant pumping is needed so that the water keeps traveling upward. This requires energy and that requires money to buy that energy. Expensive undertaking. The ideal solution is not to channel the water downward through a different piping arrangement or something; it is to stop the energy supply to the pump. Once there’s no pressure from the pump, the water would merrily choose its path of flow and will be on its way without external effort.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous November 20, 2012 at 04:34

Hypergamy is natural, but many of feminism’s ‘achievements’ (skewing the workplace, welfare to single moms, CS to mothers, no-fault divorce) combine with hpergamy to thoroughly screw the mating game and family life.
–> disincentivizes males + children grow up in single-parent / broken families
–> low achievement and crime
–> societal collapse

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ambiorix November 20, 2012 at 04:36

Hypergamy may be natural, but many of feminism’s ‘achievements’ (skewing the workplace, welfare to single moms, CS to mothers, no-fault divorce) combine with hypergamy to thoroughly screw the mating game and family life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fidel November 20, 2012 at 04:39

Marriage is dead.
No need to revive it. Men have had their time being slaves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam November 20, 2012 at 05:01

I don’t think the “kyrios” thing would work too well round here, where until comparatively recently (among the non-peasant classes) often the first intimation the intended’s male guardians got about the upcoming nuptials was the thatch being fired above their sleeping heads. The woman was then “abducted”, generally with her enthusiastic co-operation, and the horseback raiding and pursuit parties would trade spear and sword until the groom’s territory was reached.

The idea of asking permission of some other man in regard to women is still not fully comprehended, and somewhat looked down on if and when it occurs. Not something a proper man would ever consider. Strictly for serfs, begging the landlord and the priest.

Although again, back then, the wife would not lightly opt for misbehaviour, estranged and technically at feud with her own people, in a harsh and barren land, married into another mob of equally hard-hearted and godless cattle-thieves and murderers. They knew they would have to own their sh*t long before they made eyes at any guy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon November 20, 2012 at 06:06

actually the Kyrios thing is pretty close to how I have observed, with one minor, but hugely qualitative difference.

Every ‘natural’ role culture that has survived has done so because there is a relief valve, and a method to measure whether or not someone was ready and able to enter ‘manhood’. Usually through a test for responsibility of some sort.

There have always been, and always will be, ‘Man-hearted women’ and ‘woman-hearted men’ Those who choose and can prove their ability have had the option of proving their responsibility and walking the path of leadership, INSTEAD of the role reserved for women, and therefore give up the motherhood track for a more manlike existence. And the men who chose not, or could not measure up to the standards of manhood could be kept as virtual children in the women’s tents.

Or they could escape, go someplace without anyone. and live as they wish without culture or society.

Our culture is sick precisely because there are no relief valves left anymore. That means that the ‘batshit’ that goes along with humans like lice on birds has no way of escaping from the ‘melting pot’, and eventually turns inwards. And it WILL eventually destroy us, just like an infection left unlanced. A society without a relief valve for either the best and brightest or the trouble elements dies.

For the WN’s out there who do their ‘studies’ in comparative racial intelligence, let me explain why America was so great.
It was not our government. It was not ‘the whites’ except only indirectly.

It was because America, was the last relief valve for the best and the brightest. The troublemakers. The geniuses. We could have had a despotic tyranny and we still would have led the world in technology, sociology, standards of living and basic hard-workingness.
We took the greatest and most successful people europe had to offer and landed them on this shore. We left the cowards, the useless, the incapable, and the unrealistic back in europe. The American Average IQ was far greater than what we left behind, because our forebears were the BEST of various nations.

Since then, we have gradually been returning ourselves to ‘rule by retards’. The useless and indigent have been crowding our shores for nearly a century, looking for the ‘easy life’ paid for by our forebears.

Unless we can find a new relief valve, preferably one that kills off the incompetent, our society, all around the world, is doomed to explosion by internal pressures. Looking at the symptoms of this problem and trying to address them merely staves off the destruction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pirran November 20, 2012 at 07:40

This looks like a wish-list from over 50 years ago. About the only one that looks remotely resolvable is the reform of divorce laws and the family courts (and even that won’t be considered until the economy goes over the cliff and the inability to play Alpha Male Big Daddy Government goes with it).

As others have noted, the idea of giving women a pussy pass to evade responsibility for their actions without a commensurate curtailing of rights is one of the reasons we’re in this mess in the first place. Besides, I’m not too keen on curtailing rights; I’d rather have adults treated as adults with all that entails.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ron November 20, 2012 at 08:12

Here’s something much simpler that would also work but has an equivalent chance of getting enacted (zero):

1. repeal suffrage.
2. repeal the safety net
3. get government out of marriage – civil contract only

Viola! Problem solved!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel November 20, 2012 at 08:31

“For it means that it is our failure that is culpable for the rise of feminism and its many attendant ills. And it also means that ONLY WE can fix those problems.”

I am intotal disagreement with this statement. Feminism was imposed upon us, whether we like it or not.

There as no alternative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Laguna Beach Fogey November 20, 2012 at 08:36

“The answer is to restore the patriarchy and re-adopt some of the older rules of conduct in male-female relations.”

To accomplish this aim and others, men such as the regular readers of The Spearhead and other MRA websites are going to have to step away from the computer and video game console and maybe walk outside and meet with real people. You know, *act*.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
driversuz November 20, 2012 at 09:01

I agree with Justinian. Women are not children; women BEHAVE like children because we are protected from the consequences of that behavior – by White Knights, usually at the behest of feminism. If women were incapable of responsibility, our species would be extinct. There was quite a long stretch in human history, when men were simply too busy surviving and providing, to micro-manage women and protect us 24/7 from our stupidity.

To give men sole credit for having properly managed women in the past, is to give them the obligation to continue to do so. It’s also an ego trip. Men don’t need to manipulate women into being sensible, men need to let women fail when we refuse to be sensible. At this point in history, that alone will be an uphill battle which might not ever be won – but it will certainly be lost if White Knights continue to insist that women are incapable of common sense and morality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster November 20, 2012 at 09:04

You realize of course that there’ll need to be some sort of cataclysmic sea change before western society can ever revert back to a more traditional gender balance (which is what you’re proposing).

IOW, the shift to secular-progressivism is almost complete; Europe/Canada and now the USA not far behind. (Feminism is a key tenet of secular-progressivism).

A collapse from either natural and/or economic events is forthcoming. It’s then that urban centers and the “soft” populations that inhabit them, will diminish and the stronger/sturdier rural populations will thrive, adapt and recalibrate the man woman relationship.

Texas has a very strong secession movement. There’s now a small group in Austin (the little liberal oasis-college town + govt workers), that is organizing to secede from Texas, if Texas secedes from the Union. So you can see how things are going to turn out. All the little signals are quite prophetic. Watch California closely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric November 20, 2012 at 10:17

“First of all, as in classical Greece, every unmarried woman needs a kyrios. This is a male guardian with whom she has a positive, long-term, but non-sexual relationship.
>>>>>Typically, this will be her father, but could also be a brother, a priest, or possibly even an ex-boyfriend or -husband.<<<<<<<< The kyrios must protect her, look out for her best interests and help her to select an appropriate mate."
So an ex-boyfriend or husband would look out for her best interests and help her select an appropriate mate? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Bring out the hook (or ring the gong) on this one. Next contestant!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaego November 20, 2012 at 10:39

St Augustine agonized over how as a boy he and his friends threw all the peaches of a neighbor’s tree on the ground. They weren’t hungry and didn’t take the peaches – they just wanted to destroy. Likewise, a kid who pours sugar in a gas tank knows he’s causing trouble – why would he do it otherwise? What would be the “fun”?

Just taking you thesis one more step to its logical conclusion: we’re a fallen race, and women are more fallen and prone to evil than men. Children aren’t necessarily innocent and neither are women. I grant that innocent mistakes are possible – like a young girl decades ago flirting without knowing what she was doing. Such a mistake is rarer now since innocence is rarer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo November 20, 2012 at 11:09

@the author

I like where you are going. However, from the looks of the comments which don’t surprise me; you have forgotten several very important details.

1. Whether Kyrios(which is loosely translated sir), or husband, or LTB; men are increasingly disinterested. Once men get their version of birth control; it is all over. Societies lack of control financially and sexually around the world’s nations will cause a financial collapse. I’m assuming pretty soon here.

2. Also, couple that with how deep feminism has been rooted in the collective world sub-conscious and your thory is dead before it even formulated in your head.

3. On my blog a couple months ago I got an comment from the guys at Cohabmonkey.com in the UK. They are proposing a more post-modern approach where two people sign a sort of pre-relational/nuptial agreement that I seriously doubt the state’s financial interests in divorce and male/female dynamics would honor.

In other words, common law and family courts. We need to face the fact that the societies around the world are corrupt by Biblical proportions. It may take a unique, and catastrophic event for us all to change? There are other points to be made, but I think you get the idea. I want to believe you; I just can’t. I view it like God to Isaiah; the people are not going to listen, seek the Remnant who will. The rest; well, they are going to reap what they sow.

I have to understand that I too have to leave the current ways around me. I largely have, and am working on leaving it the rest of the way. Yet I suspect thngs are going to get much worse soon. I don’t mean a stupid 2012 movie event. Just a financial storm that the world will have to overcome. If it is something worse than just another Great Depression; then so be it. We can’t maintain our current course forever. Your idea, or something like it won’t happen until the current regimes in charge are ousted. We can’t do it peacefully, we will all die if we try it physically; we have to wait for Nature to run it’s course.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn November 20, 2012 at 11:17

In societies like Saudi Arabia, men do all the hard work. The whole idea behind limiting the mobility of women is to “protect them like diamonds.” Those women aren’t closet progressives. They’re living the life, compared to their hard labor men. Whenever a society becomes wealthy, suddenly the women turn feminist. Just like in ancient Rome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Franklin November 20, 2012 at 11:59

I completely agree with this article, which means it isn’t going to be popular with the readership of this website. So Spanier, where is your blog? We need to connect those few men who understand what the real problem is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ed November 20, 2012 at 12:11

Is there a road back from feminism? Great question with no easy answer. I see it this way.

Men have a hard time accepting that, for an given job, there are some women who are capable of fully carrying out that job. It’s an injustice if these women aren’t allowed to fulfill their potential.

Women have a hard time accepting that the percentage of women who are this capable is small – sometimes very small.

The question, as far as I’m concerned, is how long America will be wealthy enough to afford all of the women who insist on playing dress-up as doctors and engineers and managers and so forth, but who take resources away from men who would actually carry out that role for a lifetime. These women also lower standards in professions once rigorously policed by men, for the betterment of everyone.

It’s an expensive indulgence.

I also wonder if, after several generations in which men are forced to use the “women’s tee” for the sake of equality, men will even realize that they used to hit the long balls. So to speak.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Riccardo November 20, 2012 at 12:18

“yet when it comes to societies where women are indeed severely oppressed, as in Saudi Arabia, they utter not a word in protest. ”

Not true. It would’ve took you just 3 seconds to go to the NOW website (National Organization of Women, now.org), type in “saudi arabia” in their search engine, and see a bunch of articles protesting the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. Every feminist blog is costantly harping about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. Heck, I was at the mall yesterday, and the mall sound speaker started playing back an Amnesty International spot against “violence on women in the Middle East”…

I really don’t get this blatant lie that some MRAs says about feminists not talking about women in the Middle East. Is this some sort of wretched tactic aimed at deflecting feminists target on someone else ? If so, not gonna work: in human society our primary target are the people around us. Just like I’m not going to travel to Sweden to help Swedish men, who are in a much worse situation than the men in my country, most western feminists are not going to travel to some third world country to help their “fellow women”. Even though even in countries like Pakistan the western/feminist ONG are very much active. This is not even slightly “lessening” the intensity of feminist activity in the West though…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel November 20, 2012 at 12:31

First of all, as in classical Greece, every unmarried woman needs a kyrios. This is a male guardian with whom she has a positive, long-term, but non-sexual relationship. Typically, this will be her father, but could also be a brother, a priest, or possibly even an ex-boyfriend or -husband. The kyrios must protect her, look out for her best interests and help her to select an appropriate mate. If a man sees a woman he is interested in romantically, his first priority should be to find out who her kyrios is, and negotiate with him for her companionship. The kyrios should also be available during the relationship to help smooth out any problems that may arise.

Interesting. Never heard of the kyrios before.

I gotta be honest, I believe women should be free to do whatever they want. They should have the power of self-determination, just as we do. And the right and obligation to live with the consequences.

The problem we have is that Western governments force Western men at gunpoint to pick up the pieces when the wimminz’ choices go bad.

The enemy is big government. There’s just no way around that.

The Greeks are about to discover what happens when Uncle Savvas’ checks start to bounce. We are going to have the same experience sooner or later. ‘Twill be interesting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader November 20, 2012 at 12:35

Wishing does not make reality change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
RMM November 20, 2012 at 12:57

Forest and trees, the whole kyrios thing is. Without all the safety nets, government thugs, and general white knightery, the whole feminist charade crashes down. If there’s something women hate it’s having to shovel the fucking gravel.

@Keyster, you can look forward to said sea change in the near future. The economic collapse is going to be something to behold.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gunner451 November 20, 2012 at 13:45

There are too many vested interests in the current status for this to have even a remote chance of being implemented. I really hate to say it but all these proposals to change society or to change government coming from various blogs are a waste of time and energy. No one in a position of power cares what hair brain ideas we come up with because politically they are all dead in the water. Hell even meager changes to things like paternity laws, now that genetic testing can absolutely determine the father of a child, can’t even get past the first hurdle in most state legislatures. And you think that you can implement changes that touch on the very foundation of feminism?

We are in a death spiral culturally that is self re-enforcing, and even when it causes society to crash into the ground feminism will still be around to make sure that what tries to rise up from the ashes is still shackled with the parasite called feminism. Why? Because it is ingrained into society, over 95% of the population agrees with the feminists. Our only hope is invasion and take over by a strong patriarchal society and those are disappearing fast as the disease that is feminism spreads throughout the world.

The only useful thing that we can do is try to work change around the edges and at least soften the blows suffered by men. Paternity laws are one, divorce/family laws another. And we are not talking big grand changes but little things like requiring a paternity test before assigning child support to an unmarried mothers bastard spawn, or eliminating lifetime alimony awards to ex-wives. And even those are fought tooth and nail by the feminists and their blue pill male supporters.

Enough with the mental masturbation of inventing grand schemes that have no hope of even seeing the light of day. Posting this kind of stuff just makes us look like wack jobs that need a padded room or dangerous nuts that should be put in prison.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Opus November 20, 2012 at 14:31

The trouble my dear Charles Martel is that in allowing women to do whatever they want the government and men generally will always pick up the pieces. Women will always blame men, when things go wrong – and they always do – even when men have caved in to female demands to allow them to do whatever they want.

newsflash – The Anglicans [I think that is Episcopalians in America] have voted against Women being electable as Bishops of their communion. The squealing on Twitter is delightful – and the Manginas are out in force too, white-knighting. Far from leading to the break up of the CofE, as is now predicted, a vote in favour would have led to men drifting away in droves. I for one am no more prepared to tolerate a female Pastor than I am a female Barber. Wherever women are allowed in they end up making ever greater demands and behaving with ever greater entitlement. Then when one speaks up to them they burst into tears – and with endless false allegations – consider some of the choice behaviour from various females who have come to strut their stuff at The Spearhead. Nice to see the Vaginocracy being stopped in their tracks for once. Hope they have a large supply of paper-hankies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price November 20, 2012 at 14:40

I gotta be honest, I believe women should be free to do whatever they want. They should have the power of self-determination, just as we do. And the right and obligation to live with the consequences.

-Charles Martel

I think the kyrios system is pretty much exactly what prevailed in Victorian England, and it was ultimately incorporated into modern law, with the state becoming the woman’s guardian. Personally, I think this is the inevitable outcome of any guardianship today — the state will take it over. Therefore, I’d have to agree that women’s full legal emancipation, which, BTW, does not exist, is probably safer for men in the long run.

Laws such as those compelling women to testify against their husbands in DV cases (e.g. San Francisco Ross Mirkarimi scandal) clearly demonstrate that women are not in fact emancipated, but are actually state-owned chattel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel November 20, 2012 at 15:08

Opus
The trouble my dear Charles Martel is that in allowing women to do whatever they want the government and men generally will always pick up the pieces. Women will always blame men, when things go wrong – and they always do – even when men have caved in to female demands to allow them to do whatever they want.

So true. I remember with fondness my naivete as a young man believing it to be a man’s world with women as supporting players.

And now? The bitterness of the red pill and the realization that we are dancing monkeys performing at the pleasure of our masters (mistresses. LOL).

Biologocal bedrock is no women, no reproduction, no human race. There it is. We live to serve. God has a twisted sense of humor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader November 20, 2012 at 15:11

Opus
newsflash – The Anglicans [I think that is Episcopalians in America] have voted against Women being electable as Bishops of their communion.

Meh. They will come back with that proposal again and again until they get what they want. That’s what happened in the US Episcopal church, and it’s how lesbian priestesses came to be. Then, once that change is in place, changes will be put in place to ensure that no reversal is possible.

Any church that allows women into leadership will inevitably become feminized, slowly or quickly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster November 20, 2012 at 15:52

…clearly demonstrate that women are not in fact emancipated, but are actually state-owned chattel.

Yes but just like before, when they were domestic slaves to their husbands, but just didn’t know it yet…they’re citizen slaves of the government, but don’t know it yet. Do you know why? Because they’re just not collectively bright enough (at least liberal women aren’t), to be able to recognize what big nanny state/re-distributionist government eventually leads to.

My friends wife, a rabid Obama supporter, is so happy she’ll have free health care now that Obama is president again and the evil Republicans can’t do anything to it. I had to remind her that she is 65 years old and has Medicare anyway. And that ObamaCare completely restructures the health INSURANCE industry and people under 65 (her adult children) MUST buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty. She had no idea what I was talking about. “Low information voter” my friend says.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jay November 20, 2012 at 16:32

@Gunner451

I am sad to say that with the pace of feminism infecting the entire globe there will be no strong patriarchal society to reinplement patriarchy except from outer space if they exist.

But we do need to find ideas to how to overcome this insurmountable obstacle and enemy of mankind. Just as we have overcome the elements and built civilisation we hope also to overcome our current greatest enemy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 20, 2012 at 17:49

First, we don’t need more ‘patriarchy’ – most of us are only too well aware that the courts do not recognize women as equally responsible for their actions as are men. There is a world of difference between the cold hard laws of the land, and how the media likes to present them. The courts have never progressed beyond treating women as children, and never will – because women will never insist upon it.

Secondly, we pay ‘feminism’ far too much homage by suffixing ‘-ism’ to it. This implies it is a body of thought, or a philosophy, or something that involves the conscious and rational mind. It is no such thing. It is a catch-all term for a screed of behaviors that all emanate from the feminine disposition. Less confused men call it ‘nagging’. There is no need for more contemporary terms like ‘shit test’ (if one can bring oneself to say such a thing) – it only expands the space for implied meanings behind feminine nuance – where there simply isn’t any. Women are not men. There is no secret, subtle and intelligent point to their witterings – only in-your-face and tedious self-interest.

Last, recognize that men have always referred to women as a burden – the smart ones have anyway. They are are also a rather large source of labour. Most of them can be trained to perform the same jobs as men – rather like chimps were trained as astronauts. So long as you don’t insist on boldness and creativity, and make a great song and dance of their ‘superiority’, you can get them to do all sorts of things at low cost. Appealing to their vanity appears to be universally accepted as currency – whereas you as a man might need a pay increase, or stock options…

The wiser men of our predecessors all wanted rid of women. Their writings are rife with the sentiment. The ideal was to live apart from them, but that could only be possible if they could be made to live without us. As usual, a very masculine compromise was made – it is subtle, intelligent and slightly secret. Choose singleness and sweet freedom, or insist on having women in your life and suffer the consequences. The law is clear. So is nature.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh November 20, 2012 at 20:20

I’ve heard this argument before but as long as women won’t give up their privileges (I hate to use that word but I’m not sure what else to call them) they should have to deal with everything that goes with it. If they don’t like it then and only then they can go back to being children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh November 20, 2012 at 20:22

Also. the kyrios system would require legal changes because the man would have to be lawfully recognized as the head of the woman, without that who is going to want the responsibility?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MKP November 20, 2012 at 21:01

I think there are some good points made in the article, and some good counter-points made in the comments. What draws me into response, though, is the number of comments that basically say “doesn’t matter what we say, all of this is impossible to reverse, there’s no going back.”

The situation can certainly be frustrating, but I see signs all the time that give me hope. And, interestingly, many of these hopeful signs are in the best possible place: young people. Talk to young men (meaning teenagers, college students, early 20-somethings). You’d be amazed at how perceptive they are. Believe it or not, there are also some teenage and college-age women who are learning from the mistakes of their older sisters.

That’s the important part: women themselves aren’t really happy with the way things have turned out. It’s easy to lose sight of that, because certainly men have gotten the worst of the bargain (increased obligations, decreased options, and the possibility of going to prison if a girl retroactively decides that she didn’t “consent”). But many 30- and 40-something women are quietly furious about the way their lives have turned out. And the younger generation picks up on that. The formula for changing a society’s ethos is very simple, as someone else said a while ago on this site:

Teach the young. Wait for the old to die.

I’m not at all convinced that the terrible effects of feminism and female supremacy are irreversible. Who would have thought, 10 or 15 years ago, that the Daily Mail would be running feature after feature of dried-up, hagged-out “career women” who are angry at the fact that they’ll spend the rest of their lives alone? Who would have thought, 10 or 15 years ago, that a drunk skank would publicly claim she was raped and the comment section of the local paper would be full of people – men and women – saying “I’m not going to judge anyone until I see what the medical tests say.”

And who would have thought, 10 or 15 years ago, that a web-site like this one would bring so many perceptive, determined men together with a common purpose? Take heart, gentlemen. No one knows what the future will bring. Because it hasn’t happened yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 20, 2012 at 21:55

When a guy goes to court to answer to false rape or false domestic violence accusations, are American lawyers really doing their sworn oath to protect the man???
I believe it could be argued that they are neglecting their sworn duty to protect their clients when they never mention to Juries that American law enforcement’s statistics are now faulty / manufactured/ and prejudice and Inflame the public against the innocent.
How did our legal system get so F@cked up and what do we do about it??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Scapcod Gaggler November 20, 2012 at 22:19

I disagree that Feminism is conquering the world nor do I believe this will happen in the future.

Think about it. Feminism *needs* wealth and the welfare state, that is massive transfers from men to women, to function properly. Take away the wealth, take away the social safety net and suddenly womens’ “emancipation” and “grrrrrl power moxie” collapses.

I live in an Asian country. Every day I compare the women I meet here with western women. Asian women might still be women, but their socio-economic reality forces them to adopt a different behaviour.
Additionally, society exerts constant pressure on women and molds them, civilises them. There are no statehandouts for single moms. Sluts are despises and shamed, ostracized and shunned. The old instruments are still in use and lo and behold….they still work.

That is not to say these women are angels. Their fallen nature is of course as present as it is in western women. Only it is kept under control. I can sense the underlying female nature, the latent force of the feminine, that *could* be unleashed and transform them into the same fiends that have poisoned the West.

But so long as a certain minimum threshhold of wealth is not surpassed I don’t see feminism happening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
VitaminD November 21, 2012 at 02:25

Could lower testosterone be the reason that men are willing to give in to the ridiculous demands that feminists keep demanding? Studies have been done in which they determined testosterone has been falling 1% since 1980. Someone pointed out to me they also saw a study in which testosterone has fallen 400% in the past 100 years. Never saw this study and it may very well not exist. I sometimes simply wonder if our higher T/manlier ancestors would have ever let feminism get off the ground whether they had the prosperity for it or not. Probably not, as it appears feminism rides on the back of emasculated men. The few manly men simply game the system and take advantage of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
VitaminD November 21, 2012 at 02:39

If no fault divorce and all the incentives for a woman to abuse and divorce her husband are eradicated, throwing young people out into the fishbowl is for the best. Why? This current system has shown how women truly are deep down. The myth that they are little angels that can do no wrong and are 100% always deserving of mercy and compassion has been squashed.

Once all the incentives for women are gone, once a man marries he still understands how women are because he’ll have still seen what women act like with their boyfriends in high school and college where there are no strings attached and no real consequences to speak. He will know women only behave when their are consequences and something to lose for their actions. If we swing too far from feminism women will once again be put on pedestals and each year men will slowly forget how women truly are on the inside.

After all, if a woman behaves just because she has her male guardian always watching her, her parents shaming her, and society telling her to behave or else, its going to be difficult for men to remember how women act when they have free reign. That’s the only positive thing about feminism, unrestrained female nature for the world to see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jay November 21, 2012 at 03:32

Once positive change has been achieved. The task is to then keep the young out of the hands of the indoctrination centers of the state as well as strengthening their intellect through the development of critical thinking hereby giving them the tools to climb out of ideology even if indoctrination occurs through media and the public school system. Ensure the passing down of the wisdom of ages is uninterrupted and let not those people lay their hands on our children.

Our underestimation of its power as well as its use by vested interests who through the outlets of the controlled media as well as public education is why feminism got mainstream in the first place.

Therefore if another ideology that, like feminism springs up. We must be on guard lest their attempt to indoctrinate the young through the media outlets and schools succeed. And they manage to wield the collective masculine power of the state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Manatee7474 November 21, 2012 at 06:32

I am an avid reader of this site and felt compelled to post my total agreement of all that you wrote Spanier.

Never-the-less as has already been pointed out, without a catastrophic change in Western civilisation all you suggest will never come to pass, feminism together with democracy are THE fundamental structures of our society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster November 21, 2012 at 08:05

And, interestingly, many of these hopeful signs are in the best possible place: young people. Talk to young men (meaning teenagers, college students, early 20-somethings). You’d be amazed at how perceptive they are. Believe it or not, there are also some teenage and college-age women who are learning from the mistakes of their older sisters.

Ironic, isn’t it?
The Anti-Establishment movement of the 60′s is the new Establishment, the “counter-culture” the new culture. Indocrinating the young people on college campuses into the secular-progressive religion, social structure and economic theories – created a whole new political class which now dominates the country’s direction. You’d think the scales would eventually tip back – – but it’ll have to get much worse until there is any reform.

You see, the anti-establishment/counter culture controls our education system and our mass media…and until our youth lift their heads up long enough out of texting on their smart phones to notice, they won’t realize how they’ve been manipulated by a very whily and entrenched propaganda/PR machine.

We’ve lost the culture war, and with it Feminism has won. The slow shift to an unsustainable quasi-socialist republic can now begin in earnest…starting with ObamaCare…next Carbon Taxes. The Marxist intellectuals from the Frankfurt School, driven here to escape the Nazis in the 1930′s, would be so proud to see their work come to fruition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus November 21, 2012 at 09:28

@Anonymous Reader

The picture on the front of todays’s Times shows two Priestess hugging each other for comfort – imagine the vote going the other way, would one have seen two Priests (male) sobbing together? I think not, and thus as you say the Church becomes feminised, such that the metaphorical net curtains are being erected. I don’t want to argue the theological points, for I am sure the supporters will either say that my undertsanding of Church history is wrong or that a lack of women Bishops is merely accidental, but I predict that the more the Church is taken over by women the more men will drift away and form something new and different. One only has to remind oneself of the New Atheists, which is now also being invaded by women and in the case of plain thirty-something divorcee elevator-skepchick succeeds in getting two biologists to fight over her on a spurious false harrassement allegation. This is the fate of all organisations which receive a large Oestrogen input. Christianism beat off its male-only rival Mithraism, by inviting women in, but wisely kept the women out of positions of real power. If you could purchase shares in churches I would buy a holding of Catholics (or Islams).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 21, 2012 at 09:55

It seems like every once in a while we get a comment or three on a mens fathers rights site, that seem planted by Gender-raunch, so gender-raunch can “Inflame” the public with the comment they posted on the site.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel November 21, 2012 at 10:18

MKP
…..I see signs all the time that give me hope. And, interestingly, many of these hopeful signs are in the best possible place: young people. Talk to young men (meaning teenagers, college students, early 20-somethings). You’d be amazed at how perceptive they are. Believe it or not, there are also some teenage and college-age women who are learning from the mistakes of their older sisters.

Totally besides the point. These “teenage and college-age women” still have the huge arsenal of misandric legal and cultural weapons available to them if (when) they decide to use them. His-fault divorce, VAWA, Bradley Amendment, etc., etc., etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
RMM November 21, 2012 at 13:02

@MKP

“women themselves aren’t really happy with the way things have turned out.”

Women are _never_ happy. Because they want fried ice and cold steam, and they want it NOW, and it’s your fault they don’t have it because you’re holding them back and oppressing them.

If you think the unhappy women will change their ways you’re dreaming. They’ll still blame men, and demand men fix the universe to fit their mutually exclusive and incessant demands. Stop looking at things as a cause-effect correlation and thinking women will see it too, that’s masculine thinking and the dearies are quite incapable of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sam November 21, 2012 at 17:07

At this point, women are no longer worth the effort. Feminist scream daily, demanding they be appointed heads of state, CEO’s and every other thing that men must work for. Problem is, their demands are being met! I’m not giving up the fight for men, but I’m not interested in women that hate and blame an entire gender for their own lack of achievement.
To hell with them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jay November 21, 2012 at 17:14

@The Scapcod Gaggler

These are the measures feminism is seeking to conquer the globe:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/07/02/newsflash-un-makes-push-for-women/

http://theantifeminist.com/feminists-un-global-ban-prostitution/

http://pop.org/content/obama-pushing-for-new-united-nations-agency-dedicated-to-radical-feminism-1191

Through the indoctrination of the global populace via the media and various other methods. Just as they took control the government of brazil funded by the money of powerful interests. And they conquered America through its promotion by powerful interest so will they do the same all over the world

http://www.savethemales.ca/bulgarian_marxist_terrorist_ti.html

http://www.henrymakow.com/the-globalist-strategy-in-the-us.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon November 21, 2012 at 19:50

my strategy is to keep my gun handy and buy lots of popcorn. Feminism destroys the world. I pick up the pieces and form my harem of hot female sex slaves. And let the ugly, stupid, and arrogant ones starve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader November 22, 2012 at 09:42

Opus
I don’t want to argue the theological points, for I am sure the supporters will either say that my undertsanding of Church history is wrong or that a lack of women Bishops is merely accidental, but I predict that the more the Church is taken over by women the more men will drift away and form something new and different.

Absolutely, it can be seen in the mainstream Prot churches in the US. In every case, as women become leaders, men leave. People can’t figure out why – after all, men are around women leaders in the workplace, so duh? This facile non-thought ignores the simple fact that a man has to work, so he has to be at work, but he doesn’t have to go to a hen-party church no matter how religious.

Dunno when the C of E will accept lady-bishops, but when they do that will be one of the last nails in the coffin of that church, and may be the motivation for the African bishops to deny the Archbishop of Canturbury’s authority. Whether that leads the Africans to form their own version of the C of E / Episcopal church, or to join the Catholics I can’t say. But in the US there are already Episcopal churches that have placed themselves under an African bishop rather than submit to the lesbian-priestesses US Episcopate.

I need to go check on some research regarding women’s in-group preferences. It surely seems now that all the feminist mooing about the “good old boy network” was little more than projection – the “old bag network” that I can see at work in various places pretty clearly is an example of the Queen Bee effect at work.

I wonder, do lady-bishops wear red robes all the time? Or just a few days out of each month?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
john thames November 25, 2012 at 15:40

A good article surely but one which does not get to the root of the problem. Here is the historical parallel that explains all.

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION OF FEMINISM

SEX EQUALITY OFFICE
November 2, 1963

Her Majesty’s Government favor the establishment of sex equality provided that nothing be done which would endanger the pre-existing privleges and immunities of God’s Chosen Sex or which would endanger the God given right of women to have it both ways. Sex equality aims at reasonable biological distinctions in which women always come first and men always come last. The right of men to be sacrificed on the altar of women and children first shall not be prejudiced in the national home of gender equity. I shall be grateful if you will bring this declaration to the attention of the Arlington National Cemetery and its rows of male crosses.

Lady Balfour Goldstein/Friedan, Secretary, Sex Equality

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner November 27, 2012 at 08:18

Easy credit, easy money, society can afford to make experiments in things like feminism. When reality hits, and it is right now, and we re-price our debt and money in accordance with supply and demand, plus the true recognition for risk, feminism will go bye bye. Its just that simple. Gents, musing over this any other way will drive you insane.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: