Celebrating Patriarchy

by W.F. Price on December 5, 2013

Given my current dilemma, which is pretty run-of-the-mill for a lot of fathers today, I thought a bit about how it relates to The Spearhead and its existence. On some reflection, it’s pretty clear to me that I never would have thought to start a site like this if I hadn’t been a father. It’s a direct result of a deep need and desire to be a father to my children.

But in addition, it’s also a result of the circumstances that were created when I did my best to create a life that would allow me to be a father to my children, despite all the roadblocks put up by the state, individual feminists, groups of feminists (they operate in packs, like hyenas), and the anti-family elite class. If I’d acted in my own and the system’s best interests, I would have forgotten about my children, and probably would be in a much more comfortable situation today. There is no blame whatsoever attached to men who totally ignore their children, so long as they pay the minimum fees. “Good men,” according to the system, are those who substitute a check for fatherhood.

Throwing a ball with your son, keeping an eye on the boys chasing your daughter and teaching your children are all meaningless to the state. What you are is a human resource — not a father. This is what I’ve rebelled against. It’s what has given me the psychological motivation to keep the site running.

A lot of this is no doubt personal. My father wasn’t there for me when I needed him, and that had pretty dire consequences for me. I don’t want that to happen to my children, so I struggle on, despite all the hatred from feminists, who, when it comes down to it, just want to fuck and get paid for it. That’s really all feminism comes down to: provision and protection for sex. It’s so deeply ingrained in primate psychology that it won’t change in a million generations. Children’s interests have nothing to do with it. Feminists are only the prostitute lobby writ large.

If I am to attach an honest epithet to this site and my efforts, I would have to call it a patriarchal site. I believe patriarchy is the one family system that works best in sum for all involved. It’s best for almost all children, for most women, and most men. For certain elite and standout specimens of both sexes it involves some sacrifices. It is not the best deal for extraordinarily attractive men or women, who can live a charmed life without taking on the responsibility of patriarchy. But why should they have priority over the rest of humanity? Does their pleasure and privilege raise the mean?

It does not, and this is the moral basis for patriarchy as a system for organizing families. If a few extremely attractive or powerful people can benefit, while the vast middle is dismantled, then a chasm develops between classes, and ultimately this is unsustainable for cohesive society. Sure, we want people to be more attractive on average, but giving all the power to the few extraordinarily attractive works in the opposite direction due to constraints on human female fertility and the non-selective nature of elite male sexuality (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger). What it does is limit reproduction in the middle and encourage low-investment r-selection in the hopeless lower class, which always outnumbers elites. We then become a disorderly society of a few aristocrats atop a vast mass of proles.

So, I think it’s time to come right out and say that The Spearhead is not equalist, nor does it support “reinvention” of traditional sex roles, but rather is committed to restoring patriarchy as a just, family-centered principle of social organization. And not the despotic form of patriarchy that prevails in slave societies, but rather a more democratic form in which men are held accountable to one another, and the law. It is the ancestral Western model, and it’s what made Western peoples strong, not to mention East Asians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims, who organized their societies on a similar basis, with varying degrees of success. The West prevailed in the 19th and 20th centuries not because of its racial, but rather its social superiority, which was closer at the time to the democratic patriarchal ideal than any other part of the world. Sadly, that has been lost, hence our Western decline.

The restoration of patriarchy should be the long-term goal of all righteous men who care about their families and people. It is the most just, humane and progressive form of social organization known to man. It’s the only system worth fighting and dying for, and that’s why it will ultimately prevail.

{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }

patriarch December 5, 2013 at 21:55

There are too many ways to point out why patriarchy is necessary to count them. The briefest synopsis I can think of? Without patriarchy, women as a group go to hell and they drag men and their whole group down with them. Afterward, there is a purifying fire and a then a rebirth that is patriarchal…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
gilgamesh December 5, 2013 at 23:44

No point in counting the reasons when the fembots just stick their fingers in their ears (and their househusband’s ears)

Just write a memorable slogan and post it all over social media

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt December 6, 2013 at 00:15

This article piece Welmer brings us full circle to the gravamen of feminist institutions, socialism and genderism:

What is wrong in the head of the men whom willingly staff and man genderisms institutions that only injure other men, other women, other children and the whole of society as a result ?

Can these men staffing feminist institution not see or feel from their personal experiences that their noble efforts and endeavors are counterproductive to their professed ideals ?

It’s abundantly clear that the best features of this universe revolve around patriarchal ideals, be it gods, allahs, yahwehs, jehovahs, harri krishna’s, kali’s, buddhas or any other deities impersonification.

Something bed wetting manginas and liberal mummies boys simply fail to understand being raised in this damned dystopia of lies and hallucinations is this: Women cannot be placed in control or in dominion of any decisions beyond their natural abilities or innate proclivities … because at the end of the day and at the end of the universe, THE BUCK ALWAYS STOPS WITH MEN BECAUSE ONLY AROUND MEN DOES THE ORDERLY UNIVERSES REVOLVE !

Women can only beget chaos, impoverishment, desolation, violence, and squalor wherever they attempt, are encouraged or are flattered by charlatans into going beyond their true station into mens territory.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
cxj December 6, 2013 at 00:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 43
W.F. Price December 6, 2013 at 01:20

@cxj

I went through the same process of rejecting it, but sometimes you just have to accept the world as it is. As for the 50s, keep in mind that Americans had it better than anyone else on earth at that time. White Americans may have had it better, but they were 90% of the population. Does the unfortunate situation of 10%, which despite it all had it far, far better than the majority of the world – including ancestral populations in Africa, Latin America and Asia – really cancel out the enormous benefits to most Americans and the great contributions to humanity?

I’d also like to point out that rejecting patriarchy is not a move forward, but rather a move in the opposite direction. Humanity has only ever moved forward under patriarchal systems, and when it gives them up, as it does fairly frequently, there’s inevitably some regression toward savagery. What we call “progress” today is merely dissolution, which is an eternal problem, older than the written word.

daxamite December 6, 2013 at 01:25

Well said Mr. Price.

@cxj
If you think society advances with time as an indisputable fact please take some history classes. No sir, it is not a given. You have had too soft a life to simply assume so. The ‘ideal’ as proposed by Mr. Price here is a far better alternative than anything else presently on the globe and I have travelled some and seen what will become of it if people like him and others here at the Spearhead don’t pledge to give it all they’ve got to see it enacted. I too am a millennial.

Stay. Listen. Learn.
The men here can teach you about their lives.
If you are smart you can make yours better. That is why they are here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 6, 2013 at 01:39

I do not foresee the patriarchy returning anytime in the foreseeable future, unfortunately. I am thirty-two years old, and I do not think a man should father a child or children who, when born nine months later, will be born when the man is older than fifty-one years old. If I am still alive at the age of fifty-one, I do not think the patriarchy will have returned by then. Not even close. I am well aware that my cutoff of fifty-one years old as the upper limit after which a man should not father a child is extremely explosive with both of Tony Randall’s children (the elder of whom was born when Randall was seventy-seven) and that if either or both of them is reading this comment the reader’s blood is now boiling.

I choose fifty-one because if that is the average age in which a woman goes through menopause, and men continue to have a noticeably shorter average life expectancy than women, then it is probably not advisable for the father to be older than the average age a woman goes through menopause when the kid(s) is/are born as it seems difficult these days for a man’s children to hit the ground running in a career no more than twenty-two years after their birth when the man would be seventy-three years old if he is still alive when the kid is starting his or her career.

While not directly related to a father’s kids’ being able to catch fire in a career immediately after obtaining a four-year degree, it would not be as much fun for a boy not to be able to do a particular (sport or other) pastime with his father (I like my father much better than my mother, but even so I have not had the desire to do any of the same pastimes as him, unlike my younger brother) whether because his father is deceased or because his father is in his seventies and too old to do it, and while I do not know what girls like to do with their fathers that they do not like to do with their mothers instead (I have an older sister, but I never asked her what she would have preferred to do with our father instead of our mother) it would not be fun for a girl not to be able to do likewise with her father.

Even if the patriarchy does return, what is the point of starting a family when there is no guarantee that the patriarchy will be back for good? I also do not see how this generation of women is begging for the patriarchy to return anyway. Most of them seem to want to inject breast milk into the chests of their children’s fathers and force the fathers to do the breastfeeding. I am unable to imagine a future where women actually are willing to carry most fetuses to term, where most women don’t expect their husbands and children’s fathers to do 100% of the household chores, child care, and everything else that goes into a married couple with children on top of the husband’s full-time job. I really do figure that this generation’s women expect the husband to pull the majority of the weight in providing financial resources and all of the weight in the non-financial arena. Call me cynical all you want, but why would you expect anything else?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
jay December 6, 2013 at 02:05

@W.F Price

Patriarchy also seems pretty fragile and the fact that it has fallen to feminism highlights that fact.

I also recommend this website on why and how Patriarchy manages to fall so quickly to feminism since the 1960′s or so.
gynocentrism.com

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Eincrou December 6, 2013 at 03:43

Cxj: “…we can both be certain that time moves FORWARD, not backward. For better or worse, the Patriarchy will not return.”

Cxj repeats a logically fallacious analogy that has been common among anti-feminists criticizing patriarchy.

Time does indeed move forward, and not backwards. But the direction time moves in is not the topic of the discussion, nor is it even analogous to the topic. It’s a irrelevant red herring.

There are no reasons to expect that a new, untried system for societal organization is more likely to emerge in the future than a previous system. I still haven’t seen people like Cxj present a blueprint for a system that they claim is better than the patriarchies of the past or the feminist order of today.

The simple, observable fact is that when sexual egalitarianism is attempted, it results in what we have now. Women use their political power to force men to provide for them in all manner of unjust scenarios, such as Mr. Price’s.

And I don’t think there’s much need to go out of our way to question the accuracy and provenance of a self-described millenial’s knowledge of the past. His irrational equivalences of the temporal future with social progress and the temporal past with social regression indicate that leftist brainwashing has been his education in social dynamics.

Mr. Price, I would like to see a follow up article giving specific details on what the system you advocate entails.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Rod December 6, 2013 at 04:56

As always, you put things in a good perspective, Mr. Price. In the academic environment in which I am employed (imprisoned?), “patriarchy” ranks high on the list of societal evils which allegedly remain in spite of the best efforts of bien pensants to eradicate them. The word is pronounced with wrinkled noses, as if sinister music were supposed to be playing in the background at its mere mention. What they fail to realize, however, is that patriarchy has always been more a code of responsibility than a code of privilege, and that feminists would destroy it to the ultimate detriment of women. (Actually, outside the walls of certain homes, it’s hard to see that there is much of it left. Etymologically, patriarchy means “rule by fathers.” In a society in which a woman can have a man arrested and put in a cage pretty much just on her own word, in which men are and remain fathers at the good will and pleasure of women, in which the state can easily turn what was once a father into a mere wallet, again pretty much at the word of a woman, how can anyone still claim that we have anything like “rule by fathers”?)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 6, 2013 at 05:01

“Equality” is just a feminist lie for female advantage/female rights/female no responsibilities/male responsibilities/male no rights. Its goal and achievement is the inferiorization of everything under the sun morally, economically, socially, economically….

Patriarchy is THE way to go. As soon as the women’s state goes bankrupt, the necessity of patriarchy as THE way to recovery as measured by ALL things will become evident and men will have bargaining power as women reluctantly recognize their inferiority as measured by everything.

And then, once recovered, the womens will, once again, begin to inferiorize ALL things, being cushioned by the civility founded entirely on male rule….

God the Father is patriarchal. As a hand fits a glove, so does a father relate to children. The very essence of God is: Children are men’s work.

Jesus Christ lamented and reflected on Israel in that he wanted to gather it as a gender-designated hen gathers its chicks under its wings, but it would have him not. Also, when he was welcoming children, tapping them on the head, etc., his disciples began to shoe them away to which Christ responded objecting, “Suffer the little ones come unto me and turn them away not for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Matriarchy has been a problem every since Adam disobeyed God and looked down and obeyed Eve. Men must look up for someone to obey, and not down. Adam was not made in the image of Eve but rather in the image of God.

Raw, raw, patriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
epoche* December 6, 2013 at 05:20

despite all the hatred from feminists, who, when it comes down to it, just want to fuck and get paid for it.
—————————————————
Betty Friedan (a communist) on personal responsibility:
At that time, ]we were so concerned with principle–that equality of right and opportunity had to mean equality of responsibility, and therefore alimony was out–that we did not realize the trap we were falling into. It is a trap for thousands, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of women, when they face a no-fault divorce law–in which a separation begun before the law was even envisaged becomes de facto divorce–with no provision for economic support.

Listen to another feminist. “[86 (What sends the men is the desire to have families–which is not secondary, but never mind that.) What Ms. Hahn is acknowledging is that with women the economic motive is primary. Feminist Barbara Ehrenreich agrees:

Women were, and to a large extent still are, economically dependent on men….So what was at stake for women in the battle of the sexes was, crudely put, a claim on some man’s wage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Sparks December 6, 2013 at 06:50

I Shall not LEAN FORWARD.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Manatee7474 December 6, 2013 at 06:51

My utter respect Mr Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Henry Hazlitt December 6, 2013 at 06:52

“Mr. Price, I would like to see a follow up article giving specific details on what the system you advocate entails.”

I second this, but for different reasons.

Price, in a past article (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/04/the-economics-of-male-preference/), despite generally opposing equalism, you said this:
“Sure, there will always be exceptional girls who can match boys in primarily male professions, and they shouldn’t be held back”

While it stated that females in these professions were a rarity, it ultimately came down in favor of equal opportunity (unequal opportunity would necessarily be holding them back). It should be clear by now that this is what I support: women may be lesser in average at certain male-dominated professions, but those who can do it should not be restrained simply because they are female. No “family wage” protectionism, just let those who can produce do so.

While the crux of what you’re currently advocating seems to be monogamy, which is all well and good, I have the inevitable question of what this means outside of such family matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Andrew December 6, 2013 at 07:16

The patriarchy as I see it: The patriarchy tells me that I, as a man, must man-up and financially support my wife because I am a man and she is a woman. Naturally, feminists have never really fought that aspect of the patriarchy, and almost certainly they never will. We need to take the patriarchy and throw it onto the garbage dump of history.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
Uncle Elmer December 6, 2013 at 07:54

Speaking of Patriarchal cultures, it snowed here last night. Cars covered with ice. I called in and said I would not be at work today.

Then I watched as three Arab dudes tried to clean the snow and ice off their car. What a scream. They were pouring anti-freeze on their windshield and vainly trying to scrape away the ice, only succeeding in making a big pink mess.

After I laughed at their antics I went out and asked them where they were from. Saudi Arabia. They had never seen snow before. I instructed them on how to turn on the defroster and clean the ice off their car. A few minutes later it was melting away and they were impressed. I told them it was nothing, wait until January.

Elmer knows how to make friends.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
bruno December 6, 2013 at 07:58

Traditional male/female roles are exactly what got us into this misery:

The woman creates problems, the man fixes problems.
The man is active, takes initiative and risk, the woman is passive and opportunistic.
The woman is neutral towards other people, she just cares about herself, while the man is either competitive and hostile to other men, or he is very loyal to his “clan”, and in any case he’s very supportive towards women.

All these things are very much to the advantage of women, and to the disadvantage of men.

We are already lost before we started.

This is the hole that we dig for ourselves, and it is the reason that men live like slaves, and women live like princesses.

So no, I don’t think that “patriarchy” is a good thing, for men.
We can never improve our situation, if we don’t drop our traditional role.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Vektor December 6, 2013 at 08:08

Patriarchy never ended. Men build and maintain civilization. Women and children depend on protection and provision from men, either directly or via tax/divorce theft.

I think back to my grandparents, the WW2 generation. When people were married most of their lives. How good it was to have that growing up. The enduring union of the grandparents was the glue that held the larger family together (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.). I see this going away, not everywhere, but not the majority anymore. It’s sad.

Did the grandparents have perfect marriages? No. Did they have serious issues sometimes? Almost certainly, but they worked it out. Marriage was an actual contract back then.

Plus they had lots of ‘help’ in the form of pressure from religion and society. Shame and reputation were very real and very potent. There was no no-fault divorce. Women didn’t have the career opportunities they have now. The sexual revolution and the pill had not happened yet. Gynocentrism was always there, but Feminism was not so pervasive in society yet. Bad behavior by either party, but especially women, had real consequences.

All that ‘help’ is gone. Modern marriage needs ‘help’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Nemo December 6, 2013 at 08:09

I think that cxj is confusing patriarchy with racism.

There is NOTHING more racist than a system that encourages poor minority women to have kids out of wedlock and to remove the father from the lives of their own children. That perpetuates poverty and makes the State the real husband of those women.

Illegitimacy rates were 25% among black women in 1965 when the famous Moynihan report was issued. That was considered a major social problem. Now they are around 70% for blacks and there are more births out of wedlock than in wedlock for all women under age 30.

It is more “normal”, statistically, for a young American mother to be unmarried than married today. The ones with husbands are the newest “minority” members.

The “Great Society” turned out to be not so great after all.

That’s what we have now and what Obama is trying to expand. Obamacare is a huge transfer program to force men to pay more for health care – why else would single males be forced to buy plans that cover gynecology and obstetrics?

It’s been “normal” for the entire lifespan of Millennials for fathers to be ejected from families, so perhaps they just have no frame of reference for a society where men are in charge and their rights are respected.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
ramram December 6, 2013 at 08:10

MGTOW Manifesto (the original MGTOW not a bastard “StarBar” version):

“The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!

By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.

Women having “other qualities” is not interesting to men because we don’t need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!

This is the aim of “Men Going Their Own Way”.

By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

This goal is to take away everyone’s “right” to vote on other people’s affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their personal will on everyone else. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect – but not directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Anon66 December 6, 2013 at 08:25

A quality piece as usual. However I disagree with the following:

” The West prevailed in the 19th and 20th centuries not because of its racial, but rather its social superiority”

There is more and more evidence that culture has a large genetic (and therefore racial) component to it. For instance marriage is clearly not a sub-Saharan institution and blacks, unless forced by a dominant non-black culture, will not marry in large numbers. This leads to the unfortunate conclusion that blacks are not genetically compatible with an advanced Western style patriarchal society.

All the races have genetic differences that reflect in the societies they create. By definition only whites could have created Western civilization and it remains very unclear how all the different genetic groups will integrate into Western societies or if it simply means the end of the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9
Charles Martel December 6, 2013 at 09:10

cxj
Yes, men had control of their families, but they also had the massive burden of being sole providers, something I have always resented feminists for understating.

I think you’ll eventually come to realize men still carry all the responsibility. The only thing that’s changed for men since the 1950s is you can opt out without people calling you gay behind your back. Well, there is one other thing. Thanks to the manosphere men are now operating with full information, unlike my generation. I look back on what I believed about women at your age and I shake my head at my rank stupidity.

Just look at this travesty: Girl who died in crash this summer had blood alcohol level 13 times the legal limit – and boys who let her drive knowing she was drunk have now been charged.

Yes, that’s right, a 17 year old girl killed herself in a single vehicle accident and the people responsible are…..wait for it….three teenage boys.

To see how absurd this is, do a gender flip. If a 17 year old boy had killed himself would the DA be charging three teenage girls? The question answers itself.

Women have agency only when it’s convenient for them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 1
Towgunner December 6, 2013 at 09:53

Price:

You are F*7king awesome! I’m right there with you. However, I don’t think it will take that long. Indeed this “system” hates family, Dads and men, but know this, it’s faltering and has proved to be extremely dysfunctional. What gives me optimism is that for every awful headline or development, the simple fact that this same system producing all this crap is, right now, grossly bankrupt, including many other notable fissures, which therefore means its effectively a failed system. Its a system sustained but easy credit, which can and will not last into perpetuity. Patriarchy, on the other hand, is a model that has already firmly established without question that it can sustain itself into perpetuity. Intellectually we’ve already won, trouble is the narrative/culture is still controlled by feminists etc. That too is waning with the internet. Apparently social movements need to gain a ~ 10% penetration of a specified demographic in order for it to go parabolic. In our case our target demographic is men and, thanks to feminism’s increasing hatred towards men, more men will seek us out. That plus some organized outreach will make for real change.

God’s Speed Bill!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
shmiggen December 6, 2013 at 11:14

This is something that I believe all men in this part of the ‘net sometimes thinks about. In all honesty, if we men are to be truthful with ourselves we must admit that Patriarchy is never coming back. It’s why I also believe that we are at the same place (as a movement) that women’s rights were some 200 years ago, around 1813. We just started, and the National Coalition for Men was only founded in 1977.

Patriarchy is finished, and the birth control pill killed it. Even though I agree that there is no better form of social organization, patriarchy cannot be brought back. It could be brought back but only if we descended into barbarism and the United States began to resemble sub-Saharan Africa. I fully realize that there are some who believe we are already there, so I guess what I mean is something more palpable, like carrying a gun with you and randomly shooting someone on the street as you go to buy a quart of milk. If we were to ever reach that level of social dysfunction, where we truly looked like Liberia or Chad, then I would say yes, women will indeed request a return to Patriarchy. But the reality on the ground where I live in Seattle is not like that. A single woman on the birth control pill in Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard, Fremont, University District, or Capitol Hill will never accept patriarchy, or restrictions to her personal autonomy of any kind. She could care less about what is good for “everyone”. And as I have already said, as long as the USA is comfortable, clean, progressive and safe and there are Starbucks, Netflix, iphones and so on, then patriarchy is well and truly dead.

What I would say is a more realistic goal is to have men’s centers like the one that CAFE has just started in Toronto, where men can go and at least find reading material about the effects of divorce, what happens when you cannot keep up with payments, how much are the payments and who enforces them. If men could know this stuff before they get married, then at least they will know what’s coming down the pike. Presently, women do know what is coming down the pike in the event of a divorce, but that is because there are women’s centers everywhere, almost on every block.

Just my .02

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
a_peraspera December 6, 2013 at 11:33

If America is such a hell for nonwhites, why do so many millions of nonwhite immigrants come here?

First of all the America we have today could never have existed without those “real men” of the 1950s and before. Do you think a bunch of drunken tatted-up single mothers and “players gonna play” babydaddies could have built this country?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
a_peraspera December 6, 2013 at 11:47

“A single woman on the birth control pill in Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard, Fremont, University District, or Capitol Hill will never accept patriarchy, or restrictions to her personal autonomy of any kind. She could care less about what is good for everyone. ”

Yes, and she votes. This is definitely a cold hard truth. Women don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves, and they will vote to take everything from us until there is simply nothing more to be taken. She will gladly vote to take your last dime and transfer it to her pocket. If you aren’t willing to cooperate, she will vote for someone who will send men with guns to kill you, to get that dime into her pocket.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Jaego December 6, 2013 at 12:10

Culture is upstream from Politics. And Religion is upstream from Culture. When we lost Religion, we began to lose Culture. And when we lost Culture, we rapidly lost in the political realm. And of course Race is upstream from Culture as well. When we lost in the political realm, the enemy began to swamp us with 3rd Worlders and punish us with affirmative action. That accelerated the Cultural loss which accelerates the political loss.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8
Towgunner December 6, 2013 at 12:11

@shmiggen:

Baloney. This strain of defeatism in the men’s movement, I predict, will become increasingly irrelevant and silenced. The pill is not the reason why Patriarchy is over. If we took away all the tyrannical progressive indoctrination and cultural marxism (that you have apparently immersed yourself in) Patriarchy and men would be doing just fine, period. 20 years after “the pill” feminists still had to insist on proportionality in higher education and sports, so if the pill was truly that effective why the need for such radical intervention? Methinks the cause of feminism is the immense and illegal (per the Constitution) welfare state, which is, oh by the way, utterly bankrupt. Face it, the pill is a form of contraception that’s it. A more effective one? So is pulling out and that’s been going on for eons and yet the anomaly of feminism is only a recent occurrence?

Patriarchy and being a man might be over for you but not for me and others. Do what you want, but, if you really want to help men then I encourage you to focus on constructive comments that include ways to defeat feminism going forward. Again, feel free to comment, but if all you’re going to do is cry, then I’d prefer you keep it to yourself.

With some cheese to go with your wine, Thanks

TG

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
W.F. Price December 6, 2013 at 13:09

All the races have genetic differences that reflect in the societies they create. By definition only whites could have created Western civilization and it remains very unclear how all the different genetic groups will integrate into Western societies or if it simply means the end of the West.

-Anon66

Of course race has an influence on results. However, the point I’m trying to make is that whether or not Europeans have some advantage in that regard, they have no advantage under a matriarchal/disorderly form of social organization. Additionally, I have no doubt that patriarchy itself influences outcomes down the line. I doubt the Chinese, for example, were more intelligent than Amerindians 3,000 years ago, when their society was more or less comparable to Inca or Aztec society. However, that long period of patriarchal civilization, largely cemented by philosophical guidelines around 2,500 years ago, contributed to a steady increase in native intelligence and social aptitude.

There’s no reason the same process couldn’t work in Africa, and quite frankly paternalistic colonialism has only caused the opposite by replacing incipient patriarchy with colonial authorities, so the Africans do have a reason to be bitter about it.

ahamkara December 6, 2013 at 13:16

You have a gift for putting into words what is so painfully evident in our lives. Thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 6, 2013 at 13:20

While it stated that females in these professions were a rarity, it ultimately came down in favor of equal opportunity (unequal opportunity would necessarily be holding them back). It should be clear by now that this is what I support: women may be lesser in average at certain male-dominated professions, but those who can do it should not be restrained simply because they are female. No “family wage” protectionism, just let those who can produce do so.

-HH

Maybe women should be given a choice, similar to the ancient Greek custom of Hetaera. If they wish it, women can opt out of being supported by men and be treated as men’s equals, pay taxes, compete on the same level, etc. What we have now is a system where women are supposedly both equal and special. This is unsustainable and fast becoming a social disaster. What we need is an either this or that situation.

Dan the man December 6, 2013 at 13:34

@CXJ I dont know how old you are, but I am guessing not old enough to remember the fifties. I have not meet a man that was an adult family man, in the fifties of any race complain of the burden. To the contrary, the wonder how men of this generation live in a society where both parents have to work. Patriarchy is exactly what needs to be returned to. Starting with the stripping of the voting rights of women. The wheel doesnt need to be reinvented, time has shown patriarchy is the best and only way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
ramram December 6, 2013 at 14:29

@Price,
The problem is it seems almost everyone in the manosphere has bought into the “we are for equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes” lie.
As this would make any difference. Few days ago I had an opportunity to explain why they are both equally evil. The quote below is part of my explanation to “Tarnished” on the following post comments:
http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/products-with-made-in-japan-will-become-collectors-items/

“And most importantly equality both of outcome and opportunity is the enemy of freedom. The only type of equality that is compatible with freedom is the original definition by John Locke. This so called “equality of authority” says exactly that you are equal in authority which means no one can force you to do anything against your will/benefit. The other “equalities” are just progressive bastardisation of the term that brought us French Revolution, Communism, National Socialism and Feminism with their hundreds of millions of dead bodies.”

It would be too lengthy to copy the full conversation here so feel free to navigate to whois3m blog.

As for the practical solution: abandon the income tax, introduce fixed head tax payable by all men plus all women who decide to work instead of becoming housewife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 6, 2013 at 14:47

Towgunner
Again, feel free to comment, but if all you’re going to do is cry, then I’d prefer you keep it to yourself.

Have some empathy. Remember what your wife was up to while you were making the worl’ safe for dermockasee. There’s more to this than just manning up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 6, 2013 at 14:49

@shmiggen

I agree with every word you wrote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
theocraticus December 6, 2013 at 15:50

keep resisting … the longer you wait, the sweeter your return to Hashem/god/Allah will taste.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
W.F. Price December 6, 2013 at 15:58

But the reality on the ground where I live in Seattle is not like that. A single woman on the birth control pill in Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard, Fremont, University District, or Capitol Hill will never accept patriarchy, or restrictions to her personal autonomy of any kind.

shmiggen

Yep, that’s true. But Seattle is a public sector playground for adults. People here don’t even have children — especially not white ones.

epoche* December 6, 2013 at 17:54

Maybe women should be given a choice, similar to the ancient Greek custom of Hetaera. If they wish it, women can opt out of being supported by men and be treated as men’s equals, pay taxes, compete on the same level, etc. What we have now is a system where women are supposedly both equal and special. This is unsustainable and fast becoming a social disaster. What we need is an either this or that situation.
————————————————————–
I would like some responses to my claim but I think that feminism might never have been as successful as it has been if prostitution had never been prohibited. Some women are just not cut out for motherhood and middle class family life. However, they are not worthy of our respect and spinsters dont deserve 30 plus years of social security.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Anon66 December 6, 2013 at 18:16

“the point I’m trying to make is that whether or not Europeans have some advantage in that regard, they have no advantage under a matriarchal/disorderly form of social organization”

Agreed. However the question is what will come after the currently unsustainable path we are on ends.

Feminism rose because of wealth and technology. When past accumulated wealth is spent the system will collapse. What replaces it. If the US were to stay a white country from mainly western European stock then it is much more likely patriarchy would rise again. If we have too many Africans and Amerindians then society will resemble Latin America or Africa. While patriarchy might eventually build intelligence in those populations the process would be an evolutionary one and therefore take a long time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
etype December 6, 2013 at 18:25

@W.F. Price: I second much of what cxj says – the non foolish parts – you are fooling yourself if you think we can return to the 50’s (for the record, I am not a millenial, but older than you). You should also realize, to grasp
the complexity of the problem – the gender war is only a symptom, that present-day social pathologies are a direct and logical progression of the 50’s, 40’s, 30’s, etc. You mention the ideal nature and bounty of the 50’s, but would probably resent the statement this was not achieved honestly or honourably. This is the chickens coming home to roost, it will get worse, any intelligent person can see that. The culture you wish to return to, has always been a matriarchy – woman ruling men, and men acting like tough, ambitious women, with the same moral values.
There is no way forward but ahead Price. You should drop your melancholy nostalgic tone – it’s not manly.
You are doing this for yourself, for your children, for others children, for their children… what better thing is there for you to do? You’ve obviously been thinking a lot about shutting down this site – do it or not, monetize it or not, but why complain? You are doing good for a lot of people at a miniscule cost and effort thanks to technology – perhaps too little. Generosity is good for you also.

Anyway, the Anglo-American Patriarchy is a bloody farce, men killing men by the millions, thieving and lying for wealth on behalf of women. What we need is a brotherhood of man. It is completely clear we can build artificial wombs and exile all females to Siberia, or keep them for only those jobs that suit them, or bring back a simulated, improved idea of Patriarchy based on brotherhood. Women are replaceable, men are not. Shut down this site if you want, you will be replaced, or stay for you are indispensable and needed… you choose.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10
cxj December 6, 2013 at 18:34

@Eincrou: You are right, my statement regarding the 1950′s does look like a red herring. The fact that time travel is impossible does not in and of itself prevent the revival of a Patriarchy.

You are also right that I did not present a blueprint of another social order as an alternative patriarchy, and that is because I admittedly do not have one. However, the fact that a truly egalitarian alternative has not been discovered yet does not mean one does not exist. I refuse to accept the false dichotomy of “the Patriarchy” vs the current broken system. For that matter, while we’re on the subject of fallacies, would you lay off the character attacks? The fact that I am a millennial does not mean I am “brainwashed,” if I was would I really be here? I knew beforehand that my comment might rustle some jimmies, and judging by the downvotes I was right, but I don’t think hostility adds to the discussion.

I honestly think removing certain corrupt legislation would improve men’s situation in America by leaps and bounds. For example, restoring due process to rape/DV accusations, enacting legal parental surrender, abolishing alimony, and marriage/child custody reform. Think about it: if feminists could get as much done as they have the past 40 years, surely a men’s movement can accomplish at least those things, especially in the internet age, in much shorter time. I’m not saying this would solve EVERYTHING, but it would help a lot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
cxj December 6, 2013 at 18:36

Also, thanks for your reply, Price. Might I suggest a post where you outline the process you went through of rejecting Patriarchy, and how you came to believe it is the only viable method? Or possibly combine this with another commenters request for a “the way things oughtta be” post, where you outline how a modern patriarchy would work?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6
patriarch December 6, 2013 at 19:19

@Andrew.
Patriarchy isn’t about men being slaves for women. Patriarchy isn’t about men making every single decision in life either. Patriarchy is about men generally being the leaders in their marriages. Not dictators, but leaders. Some men lead and maintain final authority while allowing their wives to make most of the decisions because that is the way they like it or that is what they believe works best for them. Patriarchy isn’t about men allowing to women to take authority from them and then have authority over them…. Regarding society. Patriarchy is about men leading. It is not about men being slaves to women. Hopefully the men in a patriarchy are wise/capable enough to realize what men and women must accomplish and and sacrifice for the group and its individuals to survive. This includes each sex meeting the needs of the other as well as the needs of the children. Almost all evidence points to women not having what it takes to lead a clan, tribe or civilization. They can destroy a group, but they can’t keep one together.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Dan the man December 6, 2013 at 20:24

@CXJ A movement for social change that will change the way men and women relate to each other different than the past. One that shows nothing but contempt for pre 1960 society. WE already have that it is called feminism. This is no model for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
gilgamesh December 6, 2013 at 22:08

@Annon66
Black people are about 13% of the population and mostly concentrated in cities. They won’t be much of an obstacle to patriarchy.

Latinos I’m not so sure about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Andrew December 7, 2013 at 02:26

@ patriarch
1. Go share your thoughts with a family court judge and see how far it gets you.
2. You are talking about life as you want it to be. I am talking about life as it is. In the patriarchy today, the husband/father is not a real leader in the family. He is just a figure head in the family. That is the sad reality of life in our society today. And that sad reality is probably not going to change anytime soon.
3. Give up any absurd notion of “leading” a woman. It just can not be done. Herding cats is easier than leading a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 7, 2013 at 03:30

“cxj December 6, 2013 at 00:28
……………..
The 1950′s and before had their advantages, but were overall genuinely a bad time for most people, especially non whites.
………….”

The key. Unless the topic is racism only liberals will mention it. To them it’s the universal smear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 7, 2013 at 03:40

“cxj December 6, 2013 at 00:287
………
The 1950′s and before had their advantages, but were overall genuinely a bad time for most people, especially non whites.
………”

Outed. Whenever someone mentions racism, unless by analogy (and even then….) or because it’s the subject, they are almost certain to be liberals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ethical December 7, 2013 at 05:50

Articles like this are why I enjoy visiting this site. Over the past two years I’ve seen a huge up-welling of support for red pill ideas and philosophy. The numbers of men of like mind are growing. But having left the west to live in a patriarchy I watch it all with a detached interest. Sometimes when I hear women complain about men here I tell them about the misandry of the west: child support and alimony slavery, paternity fraud, false rape accusations, and the rest. Women here are amazed and in complete disbelief at exactly how enslaved western men are. They always ask “but the men make the laws. Why do they allow that? Men would never allow that here”. As much as I try to explain they simply cannot understand how it is possible. But every one of them laughs and says they want to come to the west so they can find a man and do the same.

I sympathize with the plight of our young men … so many brain washed into becoming blue pill serfs of the feminist state. After years of forced indoctrination in the school system one couldn’t expect any different. But do so many have to be such eager and willing slaves? Not only do they refuse to look honestly at the rot in this gynocentric system, but they boast of it despite what they’ve been told, and would force this same rotten system on the rest of the world. Having heard so much of their white knight mangina fuckery over the years, I can’t say the western man’s situation is completely ill deserved. If social and economic collapse level the west it will be in part due to men being so disenfranchised by their own actions. A collapse would heap unprecedented misery on millions. I don’t wish ill on anyone. But if and when the west burns to the ground, I will still be detached. What was lost was not worth saving.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Dan the man December 7, 2013 at 07:53

@Andrew What are you trying to say! We all know what things are like now. The problem is feminism, not patriarchy. Patriarchy doesnt need to be put in the scrapheap of history. Crazy Marxist ideas such your Post History, New Man, Social Darwinist does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
The Truth December 7, 2013 at 08:26

Terrrible judges allowed IMO a lot of this to happen. Judges with balls would have shut this mess down in the 80′s. Plus a lot of male Judges are manginas anyways, so there you go. Also, the 50′s were not the great time everyone like to look back and claim they were. Blacks like me, definitely had it crappy. But thats not my only complaint, men were defacto mules, and were proud of it. “My wife does not/will not work,” was stated proudly by many men. Also many people seem to forget, that divorce did not start in the 80′s. In the 50′s, women had no problem whatsoever divorcing a man who did not meet the level of income they felt they deserved. There are links, but I lost them, about the reality of divorce and the supposed golden age…the 50′s.
In my opinion, decent Judges would have never allowed this mess to happen. The future of men in america, is work camp, with women and childeren chillin at home.
If women truly loved, or even liked men, then they would not push their brothers, or sons, into marrige. They would keep them from engaging in this institution. And this has not happened yet, or I have never seen it.

Chris

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
The Dude December 7, 2013 at 12:10

American society of the 1950′s and 60′s was a happy accident (at least for America.) A prosperous middle class came about because the rest of the “Western World” had been bombed to rubble. America had a vast production capability due to our war effort and the rest of the West payed us handsomely to help rebuild them (we even lent them money to afford this service ((China must have been watching.)) We had a couple of generations of well off middle class citizens but now the that time has passed. America had never really had a class of citizens like that and won’t again. We don’t build the world’s cars and toasters anymore and only so many people can be payed for Twitter. It was awesome if you happened to be a member of those couple of generations. It wasn’t our birthright but it rocked while it lasted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Feminist_Nullificationist December 7, 2013 at 12:28

The Nanny $tate is a ba$tard parent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Feminist_Nullificationist December 7, 2013 at 12:29

The Nanny $tate is a ba$stard parent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Dan the man December 7, 2013 at 14:10

@The Truth I repeat the men in the fifties, did not want, or need their wives to work. You are spouting cultural marxist, historical revisionist claptrap. Race is another subject. Feminism has been bad for all men, no matter the race.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Andrew December 7, 2013 at 14:27

1. Dan the man asked me the following question: “What are you trying to say!”
2. My response: Avoid marriage. Avoid having children. Get a vasectomy asap. Abandon feminism. Abandon the patriarchy. Avoid people who use any of the following phrases: “man-up”, “be a man”, “real man” and “real men”. The patriarchy is just as bad as feminism. Both the patriarchy and feminism are trying to control and manipulate men. Both the patriarchy and feminism want men to financially support women. Feminism won’t help me and neither will the patriarchy. I intend to live my life on my own terms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
www.coalpha.com December 7, 2013 at 20:27

@etype
“What we need is a brotherhood of man.”

Indeed we do. The only solution is to abandon modern culture. I keep saying it because it is true. We can even hasten the fall of the leviathan this way. Unite, and in Brotherhood we do what is right and seek for our freedom from slavery.

It will be a bloodless revolution. Don’t fight, just leave. Men need modern culture like a fish needs a bicycle. Women/feminists need men like a fish needs an ocean. Think about it. Whatever you fear about leaving modern culture…can you honestly do worse than this? I’m trying to organize like minded men with a Brotherhood, but most guys are too lazy/fearful to do anything. You can sit and watch things burn around you, or you can go out into the other 70% of the world where you can have a life, experience like like it was meant to be to lived.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
jay December 7, 2013 at 21:48

@cxj

Egalitarianism may lead to androgyny and the diminishment of sexual dimorphism. Likewise I believe it is a truly futile endeavor courtesy of the way reality is structured. The ideal of Egalitarianism is a utopian ideal. And only through great suffering is it implemented.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
jay December 7, 2013 at 21:52

@W.F Price
“However, that long period of patriarchal civilization, largely cemented by philosophical guidelines around 2,500 years ago, contributed to a steady increase in native intelligence and social aptitude. ”

Could you expand on that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Dan the man December 7, 2013 at 22:09

@andrew You are sad little angry boy. No matter what you say it is feminism that got us here, not patriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6
Andrew December 8, 2013 at 09:36

Dan the man said to me: “You are sad little angry boy.”
My response:
1. “Reverting to name calling suggests that you are defensive, and therefore, find my opinion valid.” ~Spock, Into Darkness.
2. The feminists also attempted to manipulate me with shaming language and name calling. It didn’t work for them either.
3. Feminism and the patriarchy are two different roads that lead to the same destination: men giving money to women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
The Truth December 8, 2013 at 10:50

@Dan the man I repeat the men in the fifties, did not want, or need their wives to work. You are spouting cultural marxist, historical revisionist claptrap. Race is another subject….

Yes, and men were proud of that fact…I was there, I remember the bragging…the status of a man who’s wife did not work. Anyway, I know feminism is bad for all men, but the 50′s is a time that I would never go back to, Because I am black.
So are you saying that the role breadwinner/mule, was best for men? I lke having / prefer, having a wife that likes to contribute (even if small amounts) to the household. Especially if you don’t have kids.
I am not a mule, or a revisonist, and definitely not a marxist of any kind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Dan the man December 8, 2013 at 15:09

@ The Truth Sorry, I misunderstood your thrust. @ Andrew Defensive, HELL YOW!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Towgunner December 9, 2013 at 13:59

@ Martel:

“Have some empathy. Remember what your wife was up to while you were making the worl’ safe for dermockasee. There’s more to this than just manning up.”

I offered plenty of “empathy”. He has every right to post here, but, if “manning up” is “owning up” to what you say then he should be held accountable for his defeatist attitude, which (kind reminder) has ZERO value to us as individual men and as a movement. Um, please note, I wasn’t married while I was in the marines? However, I do know what wives were up to and saw what they put some of my Marines through…I’m happy to share some of the stories, but be forewarned, its going to support Price’s case.

You agree with everything he said…fine, don’t do anything and enjoy having the government force you to sit down to pee.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
gilgamesh December 11, 2013 at 04:55

“So are you saying that the role breadwinner/mule, was best for men?”

I think it would be if the rewards were better. If I had a wife I’d rather keep her at home than send her to the office so she can bang her boss while I’m at work.

Things fell out of balance when women no longer had to do the laundry by hand and raise 16 kids. If women don’t want to find a way to be productive then they’re going to have to learn to share.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andrew December 11, 2013 at 15:48

gilgamesh said: “If I had a wife I’d rather keep her at home than send her to the office so she can bang her boss while I’m at work.”

My questions: Are you saying that housewives will not cheat on their husbands? What will keep a housewife from banging some guy that she met at Starbucks?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Attila December 12, 2013 at 21:27

When was the last time you saw an advert anywhere showing a father and son doing something together? Or a film or TV show? The heroic culture is still alive in our beloved Turkey. Come and See! – your life and way of looking at things will never be the same. Take the Turquoise Pill and enjoy the days of your life!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Chicago-JSO December 13, 2013 at 05:48

I for one am glad to have read this article. I think comming to the Patriarchy is best conclusion is one which lies at the end of a long long road. The greatest resistence to the idea is not merely that it is unjustly villified. The resistence is sherely the long road necessary to get from suspicious of feminism to pro-patriarchy.

Second, I have thought about patriarchy often. I whish to address some of the prior comments as to why patriarchy is so fragile. I think it’s simply because patriarchy is so un natural it in many ways goes against both men and women’s sexual urges. But there’s more to it than that.

I maintain that contrary to almost anything elase anyone says patriarchy is necessary for the middle class to form. A just democracy and a bountiful middle class of society is created by empowered both legally and financially, men.

You want to see a woman safe secure and happy, she’s standing behind an empowered man. You want to see children growing up to be successful their the pride and joy of an empowered man.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I think it’s likely that many in power intuitively know this. This is why patriarchy must be vigorously defended because it’s under constant and pervasive attack. This attack may have a focal point in recent years however, be sure patriarchy must always be defended.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 27, 2013 at 06:22

Here’s a question to anyone who would care to answer. I see that some here say the patriarchy is dead – will never come back. Some say that it will. Well, in order for it to come back, you need to convince people of the merits of the system. How are you going to convince society that patriarchy is preferable? How do you convince women? Someone said it is impossible to convince people that don’t want to listen. But maybe people here don’t really understand what some of the messages being broadcast here sound like.

I know that the opinions vary on this site. Some posters here are of the opinion that most women don’t produce, only consume. Don’t work. Don’t create. Can’t think logically. Don’t have any responsibility. Can’t make thought out decisions. Can’t lead. They’re lazy. Moochers. Raising 1-2 kids with a bunch of electronic appliances to do housework is no big deal, and doesn’t require much in mental or physical capability.

In a patriarchy, a woman would be Taking care of the household, taking care of her husband, raising children. In our current system, Some women do this while working full-time, some part-time, some don’t work outside the home and are stay at home moms. But according to the people that populate this site, “women’s” work isn’t really work. It has no responsibilities. The women aren’t producing or building anything useful.

So if the women’s role in a patriarchal society is so looked down upon by people here, their contribution to civilization negated, why do you think women would want to go back to that system? To a role which has no perceived value to those which are pushing for a return to that system?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Dire Badger December 27, 2013 at 17:30

Lynn- first of all, many of us simply do not care what our ‘message sounds like’. the majority here have been badly damaged by women doing exactly what the proponents of feminism claim as their perogative. There are men here who’s children have been murdered in the womb, stolen from them, and given up for adoption without permission. There are men here that have been cheated on, lied to, robbed, and had murder attempted on them by their women. In general, to even CONSIDER the idea that women may be less than the angelic beings our upbringing and soul wishes them to be, we have to be badly damaged… taking the red pill is always a traumatic experience, especially when it means that the comfortable illusions we have lived with our entire lives have been ripped away, and being betrayed by the one you love and who is SUPPOSED to, gave her WORD to, love you in return is perhaps the most painful emotional experience a man can ever endure… not to mention having kids ripped away and then being forced to pay, at gunpoint, for the privilege of having a government lesbian watching you like a hawk on the one day a month you are allowed to be in physical proximity to them…. and often getting thrown into jail on top of the trauma of losing a job, to boot.

Men come here to vent their anxiety. They have just been sucked through a wood chipper by their balls. complaining that they may sound bitter is concern trolling of the worst sort. This is OUR spot, Price has set it up for US, you are at best tentative guest, and in general your presence is only tolerated because the others here cannot instantly evict you. There are MILLIONS of places on the internet that women go to ‘bring their concerns’, as well as the prior masculine areas that have been feminised. Don’t even attempt to tell us to moderate our language or our hatred, this is what we do INSTEAD of grabbing a shotgun and ending the cunt that ruined our life. If we want to cuss, we cuss, if we want to talk about how women are all worthless cunts that should have been replaced by machines decades ago, we will. It is our space and our welmer-granted right. If it makes you feel better, remember that men are DOERS and not TALKERS, and if we really intended to turn all women into slaves or blow them into the next universe, we would have done it already.

That being said, the second part of your argument is framed badly. You are assuming a definition of patriarchy that conflates the feminist and masculist definitions, and you are adding too much information… It’s akin to saying “So, considering that you regularly beat your wife, what do you have to say about the violence against women act?”

This is a poor debate tactic, and unfortunately you have fallen into a nest of guys who recognise those sorts of ‘question’ statements at a glance… we spend a lot of time picking that crap apart.

a more neutral question would be, “Why would women want to go back to a patriarchial system?” which could be answered quickly, easily, and definitively. In fact, I bet if you ask yourself that exact same question, “Why would I want to go back to a patriarchial system.?” and then actually DEFINE the exact system which you are referring to as patriarchial (taking pains to avoid feminist revisionism… find a better source, such as ladies’ home journal circa 1920) you might even be able tio answer the question yourself… what would YOU gain from returning to a system where you are not expected to have to go to work, where your every whim is indulged if possible, where men will literally punch each other for uttering a swear word in your presence, and where you are cared for and never required to divide your time between work and home, children and achievement, and where you are instantly valued for YOURSELF and not for what you can do?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 28, 2013 at 04:44

Dire Badger-

This is why I’ve been asking what this hypothetical patriarchy is. What is it based on. What is the ideal. In trying to understand what your (or at least what is commonly accepted here) definition of it is. I’d always assumed that MRAs wanted to go back to the 50′s, I was wrong. Or maybe there are those that think the 50′s are ideal – and they’re just not responding.

Granted, I haven’t been on this site long enough to distill the differences in everyone’s opinions, and I’m limited to those who respond to my questions, which isn’t many because I’m commenting on a post that is a month old. Nobody is forced to answer my questions. I’m not looking for your approval. No one on this site will approve of me. I don’t think that’s important. My purpose here is to understand why some people think the things they do. Especially if those ideas seem contradictory or illogical. Which is why I ask for clarification because my assumption is that most people have logical reasons for their beliefs, even if I don’t agree with them.

You don’t have to reply to me, but I’m grateful that you do. And if I offend you, I’m sorry, it’s not my intention. I know that a lot of MRAs have had nasty experiences with spouses/divorce courts, and I wouldn’t touch someone else’s misery with a 10 foot pole. It’s bad enough to go through , you don’t need some random person on the internet using it against you or lecturing you on it.

So if we can get back to what I was asking…

One thing that is illogical to me, is how women are regarded here, in light of what the ideal role for them would be. Forget “modern women”. Let’s go back to pre- 50′s or before the migration to the cities, or to the time at which, in your opinion, women were fulfilling their role in a patriarchal society. It’s not really important when because For the majority of human history, women have been fulfilling their role in patriarchal societies.

And so comes the commentary that is so frequently expressed when referring to women throughout history – not just modern women, but women throughout history while they are fulfilling their role in patriarchal societies: Women have never produced anything, they only consume. Women are destructive, they have never built anything. Women can’t make decisions. Women are less intelligent than men. Women are less capable than men. Women can’t think logically. Women can’t think critically, can’t reason. Men built civilization, men achieved, women have done neither. Women are not “doers.” Women don’t work as hard as men. Women need to be guided by men for their own good because they are not capable of making their own decisions. Women are less than men.

Maybe this is not what you think personally. Maybe you agree with some of these sentiments. I’m not attributing any of them to you. These sentiments could have been posted in a fit of rage, or just as one would state a fact. But these sentiments about women (again, not just modern women) appear to be prevalent.

So if this is how women are viewed fulfilling their role in a patriarchal society, why would they want to go back to that? “Women’s work” is a derogatory phrase. It’s not valued as highly as men’s work. The message being broadcasted here (and again, I don’t mean that you should change your language or refrain from expressing yourself, I’m just telling you what is said) is that the woman’s role in a patriarchal society is not appreciated by people here for what it actually is. The woman’s contribution in a patriarchal society is not recognized by people here. The woman fulfilling that role is viewed as less. Her accomplishments and hard work are viewed as negligible. The mental and physical demands of such work are negated by people here and deemed less than her male counterpart.

Women would be returning to a role where they have less freedom, are denigrated, and are deemed less capable human beings. Why do you think women would want a role that (from how things are described here) people here don’t think much of to begin with?

That is my question.

And here’s another. If you were a woman, would you want that role?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger December 28, 2013 at 15:36

“So if this is how women are viewed fulfilling their role in a patriarchal society, why would they want to go back to that?”
They are not viewed that way, they are viewed that way ‘in comparison to modern society”.

Remember that a lot of the conflict that arises here is in direct response to the propaganda that has surrounded pro-woman media for decades. We do not have to point out the two basic facts, because they appear to be self-evident.

Women are one half of the formula to create humans.
Women are vital to the emotional well-being of men.

Men without women become monsters. This is so obvious that it should not even be discussed. The only exception to this rule is homosexuals, and unfortunately they are not self-sustaining. This, humanity NEEDS women as vitally as it needs men.

The problem is there are three, very much opposed, and very distinctly opposite, views throughout the MRA. We are in an uneasy alliance because we all agree on one and only one thing: there is something very, very wrong, and that MUST be changed if our culture is to continue.

View #1: The ‘MGTOW’ view: women are unnecessary to a man’s happiness. This group often has the strongest (and loudest) voice. They are composed of those who have lost the MOST to the modern victim-worshipping and feminised society, either due to general practices, or the actions of an individual ‘empowered’ by men with guns to destroy their lives.
View #2: The ‘MHRA’: These are individuals that seldom comment, who simply want men and women to be treated as equally as possible. if a woman murders her husband, she goes to jail or is executed. All affirmative action should be abolished, and laws should be made for men that match the incentives for women. This is a very popular (if somewhat childish) view, and is not often supported by the spearhead… most of the people consistently holding that sort of viewpoint are over at avoiceformen.com, the ‘moderate’ site… These individuals have purposely renamed themselves ‘MHRA’ to show their personal allegiance.
View 3: the ‘MRA’ view: Also known as conservatives, these individuals either wish a return to, or a creation of, a historically-proven model of male-female cooperation. They acknowledge the value of women within a historical framework, and are typically the most politically (if not socially) active group.

Basically, your question is addressed to #3, while referencing the framework of #1. It’s a bit like asking a chinese guy why he is fighting so hard for first amendment rights… a bit of a null program.

The thing is, the individuals (group 3) who want women to return to a patriarchial society, and the women who WISH to reassume a patriarchial society, look at the statements you recited above, and realize the inherent flaw in the reasoning… that is NOT how a patriarchial society views women.

so let’s address the points ‘within a historically patriarchial society’ one by one:

Women have never produced anything, they only consume.: Incorrect. they produce half of the human race. They produce stable, well-adjusted, and responsible men, WHEN they are within a civilized framework.

Women are destructive, they have never built anything. : Partially true. see above.

Women can’t make decisions. : within a patriarchial framework, women make decisions all the time. However, those decisions are on a micro-scale rather than a macro-scale. men are strategic, men are tactical. This has been proven numerous times throughout history.

Women are less intelligent than men. : This is patently incorrect. Women are less prone to EXTREME variations in intelligence. They tend to cluster, intellectually, around the median of IQ and rationality. Unfortunately, the people who make scientific, social, and macro-scale contributions to society do NOT cluster around the median…. they are men who are far beyond the median levels. Of course, the obverse is also true… a stupid man tends to be FAR stupider than a stupid woman, although this allows them to be indentified more easily and stopped long before a stupid woman… net effect, a greater level of destruction a stupid woman can achieve before she is identified and stopped.

Women are less capable than men. : You might have to redefine ‘capable’. In many areas they are dramatically less capable than men. In areas such as childbearing and emotional manipulation, men cannot even compete.

Women can’t think logically.: Women DON’T think logically. see intelligence above.

Women can’t think critically, can’t reason.: again, women DON’T think critically. Because women are more social creatures than men (check out evopsyche) They are more willing to accept the decisions of others, and support those decisions without thinking them through. This ‘lack of rebellion’ is a strong survival trait, but within a modern, highly -intellectual context of global information it leads to a massive level of intentional ignorance. This voluntary ignorance leads to a condition that is indistinguishable, to men, from an inability to come to a conclusion based upon available evidence. The thinking process is different, of course, but for men it is the functional equivalent.

Men built civilization, men achieved, women have done neither.:
Women help sustain the human race. men built civilization FOR women… This comment is a demand that you acknowledge our contribution, and is frankly simply asking why the fuck you ungrateful creatures won’t say ‘thank you’ and try to pretend you did it yourself. In point of fact, while women did NOT create civilization, they were the motivation behind civilization. We created everything for you. labor-saving technology, we did for you. If you are and were properly respectful, and acknowledge our achievements and abilities as complementary to your own, then we are rewarded… Everything men have done, everything they have achieved, can be traced back to a desire to help and please women. We know and acknowledge this, and have nothing but the rankest disgust for women who throw our contributions back in our faces.

Women are not “doers.”: Women achieve recognition and social acceptance through what they ARE, not what they DO. Men are the opposite… nothing we may be means anything if we have never achieved or succeeded at anything. men love women for what they are, women love men for what they do. This is only a problem for women who ARE nothing… in which case you may have to DO something (like get on a fucking treadmill) in order to ensure that you ARE someone useful… This goes right back to the question of why men are rewarded for sleeping with lots of women and why women are considered sluts for lots of men… being a virgin or a faithful wife is something you ARE (and thus is a huge plus for a woman) , while scoring with lots of women is something you DO (thus a huge plus for men). That’s not propaganda, that is simply explanation.

Women don’t work as hard as men.: This is only a problem within a modern framework. Have you ever had a guy lift the heaviest bag of groceries, or open a door for you? We don’t WANT you working as hard as we do…. hard work is something most men ENJOY, and it is our pleasure and privilege to do that so our woman does not have to.
However.
When a woman sets herself up as COMPETITION to a man, she is no longer ‘someone we want to do the work for’. She is our enemy. It is a fact, women do less work than men. But, when women are allowed to receive credit and reward for BEATING us, or even successfully competing with us, and yet she put forth a fraction of the effort and labor that we did, we get angry. Very angry. Because, she is not our woman, she is a competitor with an unfair advantage. It’s like playing poker with a mirror stuck to your forehead.
As long as you do YOUR job, and let us do OUR job, we are perfectly content with allowing you to conserve energy… your job is different from ours, and we will happily acknowledge that you know how much effort needs to be spent on it better than we do. we simply assume you are working smart instead of hard, meanwhile, we will go mow the lawn and let you enjoy your drink.
Women need to be guided by men for their own good because they are not capable of making their own decisions. : I hate to have to say this, but modern feminism is even WORSE about assuming women are incapable of making their own decisions than any patriarchy ever has been.
“Women are too stupid to be held accountable for what happens to them when they get drunk.”
“Some girls cannot say to a man that is having sex with them.”
“Women need affirmative action to compete with men in jobs. They cannot succeed on their own merits.”
“Women need different physical standards to be in the military”
“Women need greater protection from the police than men”
“Women need welfare. They cannot provide for children without help”
The list goes on and on and on. Women USED to be shielded from the consequences of their actions by their husbands… it was his honor and duty to guide them, and punish them when necessary… this protected women from the much harsher punishments meted out by governments, and often men would take punishments specifically because they could not prevent their wives from committing crimes.

Women are less than men. :
Hmm. your average guy weighs 160 pounds, your average woman 110.
this seems to be pretty much biology. Women are approximately 30% less than men.

Yes, I know that was a facetious reply, but that comment was facetiously worded.

That men are BETTER than women at most physical activities, granted. that about half of all men are dramatically better at mental pursuits than most women I will also grant (although the other half tend to be much, much worse). that men are more reliable, or work harder than women… well, the lessons of history are irrefutable. Because of the way that we think, men are more willing to be expendable and to sacrifice themselves for what they love than women are. They also tend to be less internally absorbed, and less emotionally introspective.
“Women’s work” is only a derogatory term when it is applied to MEN.
Would you appreciate being referred to as a ‘bear’? or would you consider that term derogatory when applied to a woman? How about masculine terms like ‘Jock’, ‘man’s man’, or ‘dude’?
Do you think geeks appreciate being referred to as ‘pussies’? the whole point is that BOTH genders consider gender-specific compliments to be derogatory when applied to the wrong gender. If YOU consider ‘women’s work’ to be derogatory, perhaps the problem is not the term, but your own perception. Modern feminism is composed of sheer penis envy, and referring to complimentary terms as ‘derogatory’ is part and parcel of actualizing that envy in the mistaken belief that ‘the grass is greener on the other side’.

All this crap about women being considered ‘less’ is sheer bullshit. They were only considered ‘less’ when they were placed in an inappropriate framework. Do you think that WOMEN considered ‘women’s work’ less than a man’s? ever heard the old aphorism “Men will work from sun to sun, but a woman’s work is never done.”? Each gender naturally considered the other’s work ‘less’, but only feminism tries to apply that standard to both genders. feminists are the ones that consider women’s work ‘less’, not patriarchial societies.

However… looking at these facts, and how they fit into a historical context, shows that on the contrary… women were not ‘denigrated’ in the slightest compared to men. Assumptions that this is the case is only supported by historical patriarchy when that history has been warped, altered, or focused on individuals… yes, individual women HAVE been denigrated, but you know what? FAR more individual MEN have been denigrated. Assuming that a single example or limited groups of ‘examples’ are true for the whole of a group is utterly without logic or context.

Women that wish to return to a historical example of patriarchy are simply capable of seeing “Every Indian walks in single file, I saw one once.” for the lie that it is.

As far as ‘less freedom’ is concerned, you are absolutely right, if you consider ‘freedom without responsibility for your own actions’. You will lose all freedom that comes without responsibility.

Each and every ‘freedom’ MUST be paid for in risk and responsibility. And right now, WE MEN are paying for your freedom. WE are paying for your freedom, and you spit on us for it. Men have ALWAYS paid, in blood and sweat, for every ‘freedom’ that they receive. Your freedom is being bought by the corpses and slave labor of MEN, and you seem to see nothing wrong with it. You want freedom? It is yours for the taking… Move down to the Congo, you can be free as a bird as long as you are willing to pay the price for that freedom… I hope you bring plenty of bullets.

The women that want a return to patriarchy? They are willing to give men a kiss for their efforts, instead of a slap. They are willing to recognize that their freedom comes with a price tag, the same way men have always done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Dire Badger December 28, 2013 at 17:36

Excuse me, men are strategic, WOMEN are tactical. meaning that women are quite capable of micromanaging (hell, their ability to successfully divide their attention is pretty much the only thing that both MRA’s and feminists agree is a strength) while men are much better at looking at the long-term, overall picture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Lynn January 6, 2014 at 02:05

Dire Badger-

Why do you think that raising children into adulthood doesn’t require critical thinking, reasoning, strategic thinking, logic, the ability to lead?

Why do you think building and maintaining a home is not part and parcel of building and maintaining a civilization?

Why do you think that women who spend their lives raising children, caring for others, aging relatives, etc through sickness and death – are internally absorbed?

And why do you think that “men’s work” is harder than “women’s work”? Honestly, the way your post reads, I don’t think you really understand what a woman’s role entailed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 6, 2014 at 18:40

why do I think? excuse me? please try again. you don’t know what I think, and I asserted none of what you claim.

You prove to me that all, or even the majority, of women spend their lives caring for the sick and the elderly, you may have ground to stand on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Dire Badger January 7, 2014 at 00:30

man, I am such a sucker for trolls.

Raising children to adulthood takes leadership, reason, and a strong set of ethics and discipline. Raising babies to childhood takes close attention, the ability to remember trivia, and a warm, oozing tit. Try to remember the difference, and look up the statistics of single-mother adults in prison. nuff said.

“Why do you think building and maintaining a home is not part and parcel of building and maintaining a civilization?”
Straw man. try again. I said you suck at building a civilization, not that you don’t have a valid and important part of maintaining it. Just stop fucking up the parts you suck at. I don’t have a mirror on my waist during surgery, and I don’t try to fix my own car. Get over it, you cannot ‘have it all’ because you cannot ‘do it all’. Adults would recognize this.

“And why do you think that “men’s work” is harder than “women’s work”?”
Apparently ‘women’s work’ in your opinion does not include the ability to fucking read. try again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lynn January 7, 2014 at 08:42

You do realize we’re still talking about a pre-Industrial Age setting? And I’m quoting your post. Your thoughts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 7, 2014 at 23:16

saying ‘why do you think xxxx’ when I never stated xxxx is what is known as a ‘straw man argument’. If you actually want a response, try asking a question, instead of making a statement of my opinions and expecting me to defend something I never said.

as far as factually, do your own goddamned research. Is working in a coal mine (which my father and grandfather did, and I narrowly squeaked by having to do as well) harder than traditional women’s roles? absolutely. Is working as an electrician, constantly working with voltages that could stop your heart in an instant, working 20 hour days in snowstorms, hip-deep in sludge, or with lightning striking around you harder than pampering babies, keeping a house clean, and preparing healthy food? absolutely. It’s so obvious only an utter fool would question it.

Do I think a civilization can grow without women? of course not. You are needed for reproduction, and without reproduction, there is no civilization. Whether you do it because of marriage, or you do it in forced breeding pens is utterly irrelevant, although I wouldn’t choose to live in a culture like that, since going down to the pens to get your rocks off sounds like it would not be much fun, and the culture itself would likely be unpleasant in other ways. Evil begets evil, just like slaughtering children begets a culture in which murder is condoned. The Aztecs engaged in ritual slaughter, and their culture and civilization dominated half a continent… but it was a miserable, unpleasant culture.

What, exactly, are you having so much trouble grasping?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lynn January 12, 2014 at 21:48

Pre- Industrial Age. Pre.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lynn January 12, 2014 at 22:07

Also, you seem to be saying that women raised babies to children, and therefore had the qualities that you listed. Then you state qualities that require raising children to adults (leadership, reason, discipline, strong set of ethics). I guess that you’re saying that since women in this ideal pre- Industrial Age time did not have these qualities because men raised children to adulthood.?
Did men raise girls to womanhood? Surely not. That’s not what you’re saying, is it? Their mothers did. So why do you think that women, back then, did not have those aforementioned qualities?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Dire Badger January 20, 2014 at 23:49

bullshit. raising babies to be children requires nothing but patience, lack of sleep, and a lactating tit. Congratulations. You have just discovered the entire contribution women have made to civilization. fertile cunt, and warm tit.

Any appreciation you recieve, any accolades you gain, any lauds you ever accomplish beyond being ‘womanly’, is no more than the appreciative clapping for an animal that has learned a new trick. Sure, you can ride a motorcycle better than that bear…but isn’t it fun to watch the bear do it? It doesn’t matter that the bear cannot follow traffic laws, repair the cycle, or even fill it with gas…it’s simply amusing to watch a bear do something it is completely unsuited to.

All women in business, in finance, in education, in any position outside of the domestic, is a bear on a motorcycle… watching you pretending to accomplish anything remotely worthwhile is amusing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
commercial insurance March 18, 2014 at 17:07

00 share of the tariff of replacement or repairs, you possibly will not be able to complete the repairs or replacing your vehicle.
A different method to spend less with typical insurance policies are to get the minimum needed
volume of insurance coverage. No one knows about the future unpredictable incidents or accidents.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
football August 21, 2014 at 06:24

Get focused and devoted and locate a spot where you can play daily,
whether with peers or other footballers. With the help of online resources you can easily
find several online gaming sites. I guess a handful of
suspensions was enough to satisfy the NCAA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: