Paternalism – not Matriarchy – is the Problem

by W.F. Price on December 6, 2013

Some time ago, Jack Donovan wrote that matriarchy does not really exist, preferring to call women-centered societies “matrifocal” or matrilineal. He’s spent a lot of time studying cultures around the world to write books about men from an anthropological perspective, so he would know. Every supposedly matriarchal culture is, when you scratch the surface, ruled by men at the top; these matrifocal societies would be better termed “paternalist.” However, this does not mean that every culture is patriarchal, at least not in the customary sense of the word.

Paternalism grows out of the “big man” societies in which there is a top-down system for wealth redistribution. All wealth flows to the chief, and he doles it out to his subjects, often favoring those who support him or otherwise please him. In some contexts, we refer to this as patronage, which is a common practice throughout the world, and is not always a terrible thing.

This form of social organization worked fairly well in small societies, such as pre-contact Amerindian tribes. The chief was obliged to patronize his warriors, which put a check on despotism and arbitrary acts. In many tribes, the chief would be amongst the poorest in the village, because he had to dole out gifts and war spoils as soon as he obtained them to maintain his position.

Ultimately, in some cases, this led to the development of a formalized system of patriarchy, in which it was legally recognized that each male householder had a privileged status in regards to his own family, if nothing else, which gave rise to the practice of patrilineal descent. This laid the groundwork for the development of civilization from barbarism, as taxation and patronage now required recordkeeping and certain conditions. A shift then began to occur away from a purely paternalistic society to one in which rulers had to adhere to laws that placed controls on their wealth collection and redistribution. Thus, social hierarchies flourished, social organization solidified, and increasingly large and complex forms of government evolved.

However, the codified patriarchy that led to the development of cooperative societies hasn’t always lasted. When enough wealth and power has been accumulated, rulers tend to look for ways around it, because it isn’t always convenient for them to follow the laws and customs which do, after all, put a check on their power. Getting rid of these impediments often seems like a good idea when you’re in charge.

American politicians have been hard at work doing just that for decades. To increase revenue and political support, they have promoted and passed laws that shatter the concept of the patriarchal family. A few examples include preferential maternal custody, decriminalization of adultery, introducing no-fault divorce and preferential welfare to single mothers. Gay marriage, which is essentially a formal declaration that the government does not recognize patriarchy as valid or supported by any law or policy at all, is the latest example.

When patriarchy is smashed, as it has been in the United States, we are left only with primitive paternalism. We have local bosses, corporate titans, and a “benevolent” paternalist at the helm of our country. Perhaps it is fitting that the son of an academic feminist is the current president of the US. He is more a product of paternalism than any other president. I think it’s the only system he really knows and understands, despite his tragic efforts to assign some purpose and meaning to his relationship with his father (efforts I understand myself).

So, what we’re really facing today is not matriarchy, but an increasingly despotic paternalism, in which men’s autonomy and authority is being steadily eroded in the interests of those in power. Our intimate relationships, our conditions of employment, and taxes all conspire to subjugate us to the powerful, who are working steadily to remove any checks on their own power and challenges to their authority. Almost every government-led initiative, whether it be population replacement through immigration, women’s “empowerment,” or highway checkpoints leads in this direction.

Will it ever end? Only when outcompeted by another system that works better. It is the nature of power and government to preserve itself, and as long as there is no credible opposition it will not change. You may ask, “where’s the opposition?” The phrase “there’s a lot of ruin in a nation” has become common these days, and maybe there is some grounds for pessimism. But then again, look at who’s in charge and where things are headed. Our president is creating a destabilized, weaker United States, and this is an enormous country. It requires a lot of working parts to hold a country together, and that isn’t even taking foreign affairs into consideration. With a growing and belligerent China, an increasingly assertive Russia, and a Latin American pope who clearly doesn’t have much regard for the US, there will be plenty of challenges ahead.

The signs point to an increasingly factious era, in which allegiances will be strained and challenges mounted to authority. In all such situations, it pays to have a few good men on one’s side, and this is the hope we have for reform: challengers who offer a better deal to men will have an advantage. Politicians and businesses that treat men as slaves will find themselves abandoned by their male constituents, and although under the contemporary enforced equality system they may think this is OK, they’ll find out that this is not how things work. Personally, I think we’ve already begun to enter this era, but it may take a few years before it really shows.

In the meanwhile, as men, we should hold out not for “equality” with women, which will never, ever, turn out equal, but a more desirable system of democratic patriarchy, in which all men are afforded equal rights to independence in their own homes and affairs and freedom from arbitrary paternalism.

{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }

jay December 6, 2013 at 16:32

@W.F price

Matriarchy weakens us so that paternalism can move in to seize control.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner December 6, 2013 at 16:51

Dear Bill:

Thanks for your contribution. I’ve lived on two different reserves as a teacher and I’ve seen many Aboriginal students in the women’s government schools. I can tell you that on reserves, the women manage very much of the, “government” and they drive the agenda.

There is no place for a man in the residence (except by being a culturally recognized, “guest”). As such, with the greatest part of the Aboriginal population functioning as rats (with, for all intents and purposes, everyone has sex with everyone else), the only thing one knows as per lineage is which vagina the bastard came out of, hence the matrilineal line.

Men are considered to be inseminators only. The whole feminine world view of being passive-consumptive (men are the inventors and discovers, let’s face it, just look around as per real ideas, discoveries, technologies, etc.), such boils down to this orientation: If a deer comes by, we have a deer; if a deer doesn’t come by, we don’t have a deer.

They do not invent. Their cultures are primitive/cavewoman-like. Very few ideas are developed of any value and when given resources of land, etc., they just let it sit passively, overwhelmingly. In contrast, a Hutterite colony, with much less land, is much more productive, the crime rate is much lower, the health is much higher, inventiveness is much higher and depression is almost non-existent. People are connected.

In Indian culture, people are not really connected and the people are unaccomplished. The males have no future because matriarchy excludes them from the residence and women are given preference in employment. The girls are given 10s of thousands of dollars for the first bastard, plus food bank, plus school breakfast and lunch programs (eternal feminine irresponsibility is the name of the game).

Discipline is virtually nonexistent. Crime is high…

I’ve seen matriarchy and it’s parasitic, consumptive, passive, excluding of men in the residence and work place, infectiously diseased (serial and broad fornication spreads all kinds of venereal diseases including HIV/AIDS…

You did make a contribution (as did Mr. Donovan) and I really appreciate your valuable commentary. I can see it as a qualifier to the above facts as I know them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 1
Henry Hazlitt December 6, 2013 at 17:46

To be honest, I’m not seeing how patriarchal families act as barriers against central power: the men who rule their families are stilled ruled by the state/chief, after all, with all the potential taxation and exploitation this implies.

What you’re describing with an expanding state is a matter of constitutional law/political philosophy, and equal independence/protection from arbitrary state action is a remedy against such a corrupt state regardless of family structure or sex.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12
cxj December 6, 2013 at 18:02

“Some time ago, Jack Donovan wrote that matriarchy does not really exist, preferring to call women-centered societies “matrifocal” or matrilineal.”

I had a cultural anthropology class in college where the teacher, herself a feminist, said this exact same thing. She said whenever people claim “there WERE female dominated societies and they were peaceful/ecological/better in some way!” They are wrong, and do not understand what they read about “matriarchy.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
etype December 6, 2013 at 18:43

Obviously, the matriarchy exists whatever Donovan prefers to call it. You could say that the matriarchy works hand in hand with the patriarchy, and the matrilineal etc. is a self-sufficient system like corrosion or a fungus.
I think you could use a little bit of anger Price. I think it’s justified – not too much, but a little. If not let out of hand it can put a bit of starch in your sails.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
patriarch December 6, 2013 at 19:36

about women not ruling society? They dominate and write the rules for the media, academia, the government (including the courts) the elementary school system, the book publishing industry, and the movie/television “entertainment industries. Because they don’t have “absolute complete control” of all things does not mean that they are not the ones determining our course… which is towards hell.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price December 6, 2013 at 19:58

To be honest, I’m not seeing how patriarchal families act as barriers against central power: the men who rule their families are stilled ruled by the state/chief, after all, with all the potential taxation and exploitation this implies.

What you’re describing with an expanding state is a matter of constitutional law/political philosophy, and equal independence/protection from arbitrary state action is a remedy against such a corrupt state regardless of family structure or sex.

-Henry Hazlitt

“Henry,” you know, I don’t mind engaging with you, but if you don’t fess up to being “Bob Dole” on Manboobz and adjust your tone accordingly you’re banned permanently. I don’t like dealing with sneaky fuckers.

Johnycomelatley December 6, 2013 at 20:04

I think what Donovan is describing is one of the stages of Polybius’ cycles of government, oligarchy.

A powerful middle class is dangerous to oligarchies, as it’s the only place revolt can come from, the managerial class never revolts (you don’t bite the hand that feeds you) and is stacked by yes men and increasingly women.

To the elites a middle class was a necessary evil but the advent of technology is making that need redundant as previously respectable positions are being edged out by technology, outsourcing or monopolies.

Problem is without a self directed middle class the oligarchs need satraps to enforce rule. I think feminism is being used to this end and women as a whole are being used as satraps. They are the perfect foil as they are incapable of challenging the status quo, very dependent, perniciously self interested, hold a particular power over men and suitably well compensated.

According to Polybius it will only change when a ‘big man’ arrives on the scene.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Henry Hazlitt December 6, 2013 at 20:33

@Price

There’s a perverse glory in how upfront you got over the past couple of days, so I’ll come clean in turn. Yes, I’m Bob Dole, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that I hang around the enemy camp.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19
W.F. Price December 6, 2013 at 20:45

@HH

OK, good enough for me. Feel free to stick around.

BTW, I’ve always been pretty upfront about my situation, although I often avoid the subject to spare the drama. My views are not static, so it’s harder to nail that one down, but I try to be consistent.

I really don’t have a problem with your POV, but it’s kind of annoying to see you over at Dave’s breathlessly trying to pin me down as some psycho while you maintain a fairly reasonable tone here. Strikes me as a bit deceptive, and I’d appreciate it if you’d be more upfront yourself.

Henry Hazlitt December 6, 2013 at 20:56

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22
gender foreigner December 6, 2013 at 21:10

Dear Henry Hazlitt December 6, 2013 at 17:46:
.
To be honest, I’m not seeing how patriarchal families act as barriers against central power: the men who rule their families are stilled ruled by the state/chief, after all, with all the potential taxation and exploitation this implies.
.
.
.
Thank you for your comments. Comparison between the matriarchy of today and patriarchy which came before it can be made in answer to your words.

Today, and widely, women use the coercive power of the state to confiscate men’s property via taxes and give women rights by way of masses of government programs including one-way-street affirmative action. Many healthcare programs for female excluding males are made both by government and the insurance industry are in evidence.

Women have the right to vote with the responsibilities of the vote. For example, they don’t have to go to war and they don’t even have to pay the same taxes as men (a number of North American jurisdictions have sales taxes which women do not have to pay on women-only products whereas men-only products such as jock straps are taxed.

Previously, women could not seek divorce without knowing that a divorce meant a divorce from rights and not just a divorce of their responsibilities. Men knew that a divorce meant women would be divorced from rights as well as responsibilities.

Today, divorce means women are divorced from responsibilities. They don’t have to cook or clean house for their former husbands. They don’t have to let their former husbands exercise visitation rights as essentially former husbands/continuing fathers don’t have rights of visitation and certainly no right per se to custody. They are not divorced from a right to their former husbands’ wallets but they are divorced from a responsibility to provide their (former) husbands with sex.

Certainly, (former) husbands do not have a continuing right to sex nor a responsibility to provide it to their (former) wives. Even while married, they are under threat backed by the coercive women’s state to be accused, tried, convicted and punished solely on the wife’s word and even the (former) wife’s word.

Under patriarchy, the husband had a right to sex and a responsibility to provide sex. The wife had a responsibility to provide sex and a right to receive it. Both husband and wife had a criminal-law responsibility to remain physically faithful to their spouses, not so under matriarchy. Even when a child is a DNA bastard, the legal husband had the responsibility and right to be the father and no man could usurp that.

Today, a woman can abandon her husband and rely on all levels of government to provide for her economically and more, including private support by way of food banks (and government-school breakfast programs and lunch programs–with no charge to her). As such, commitment of the domestic violence of destroying a marriage and family are quite easy for the woman but hellish for the man.

Under patriarchy, governments backed the husband/father and required the obedience of the wife/mother to him. Runaway wives were forcibly returned to their domestic responsibilities by the state.

Today, when a father disciplines his children, he is very limited in what he may do and the disobedient children are given many state-sponsored father-undermining options to obedience to the father. Such includes free housing, both short-term and long-term, free education, money allowances, welfare of many kinds, food-bank food, etc.

In Canada, the woman/wife/mother receives direct payments monthly for having children. Such undermines her dependence on her husband and, as such, a centrifugal force is in play as per her willingness to stay with her husband and be subject to reasonable control by him. The same is the case throughout the other dominions and the western world as a whole.

Formerly, a wife/mother had to be careful how she treated her husband as she could not afford to bight the hand that fed her. With all her dependency on the feminist-socialist state, she cannot afford to bight the state hand that feeds her. She is a ersatz follower, a member of a categorical dependency of the state. And the police are agents of her whims against men and children in the family. Formerly, the police backed the father’s authority over their women and children (and fathers’ permission to marry was the norm for the daughters). Today, girls fornicate at will and state supports for her exclusion of men in her birth rights are not only uncurtailed, they are enhanced variously.

With the men-only vote, men did not expand government so that women could parasite off the state at all levels. As the ones who paid taxes, they were motivated to keep government as small as possible, exercising skeletal functions only such as armed forces, land registry, a legal system and the like.

Under the women’s vote, the response to any issue is expand government at men’s expense and for women’s benefit….

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
gilgamesh December 7, 2013 at 00:08

“According to Polybius it will only change when a ‘big man’ arrives on the scene.”

You mean like going from the Weimar regime to Hitler?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 7, 2013 at 02:51

I think you could use a little bit of anger Price. I think it’s justified – not too much, but a little. If not let out of hand it can put a bit of starch in your sails.

-etype

Oh, I get angry enough sometimes. But writing angry is kind of like writing drunk. Both can make you come off as an ass.

bruno December 7, 2013 at 06:03

Equality is the only way out for us.
Women want equality? OK, let them have it.

No more privileges.
No more government transfers.
No unequal reproduction rights.
No more prisons full of men, and women walking free.
No more women creating all the problems, and men fixing all the problems.
No more men making money, and women spending money.
No more all the good things in life for women, and all the bad things for men.
No more men working and creating, and women destroying and enjoying.

The ghost of equality is out of the bottle, and it will not go back inside.
Traditional gender roles, patriarchy, it was all enormously to the benefit of women.
Women were supported and protected and privileged all the way.
But they chose to destroy it.

it’s time that they face the consequences of their own choices.
There is no turning back to patriarchy and all the privileges that they had, and still have.

The more men push forward for real equality, the more women will be afraid, and say: “Ooh, patriarchy, that was not so bad, we can go back to that.”
But we should never fall into that trap.

If we can return to some kind of patriarchy, we may have won a symbolic battle, but we will have lost the war, … again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner December 7, 2013 at 07:18

Dear gilgamesh December 7, 2013 at 00:08:
.
“According to Polybius it will only change when a ‘big man’ arrives on the scene.”

You mean like going from the Weimar regime to Hitler?
.
.
.
Your point is well made and I thank you for it. Of course, both good and bad, “big (men)” can arrive on the scene. You rightly pointed to the arrival of a significantly bad man who did arrive on the scene. Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia much more mirrors or approximates a good, “big man” as per his intent in state of exercise and its intended results. Although not perfect (few have achieved that), he does come to mind in juxtaposition to your well noted Adolf Hitler.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 7, 2013 at 11:34

By the way, the gender-designated, “PATernalism” needs to be replaced with the gender-neutral (perhaps, “gender-inclusive), “condescension.”

Once again, the feminist gender-designating of objectionable things is made in the masculine (and not the feminine) as, “MATernalism.” Language reform is a requirement that MRAs must insist-upon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 7, 2013 at 11:40

Correction:
.
“Women have the right to vote with the responsibilities of the vote.” should have read, “Women have the right to vote WITHOUT the responsibilities of the vote.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself December 7, 2013 at 11:57

“Personally, I think we’ve already begun to enter this era, but it may take a few years before it really shows.”

Do you really think we have entered an era of strained allegiances already? While I agree that Obama is the most divisive president imaginable (and the one who has probably successfully blackened the most hearts; I know I’m not the only one with a blackened heart), I am not so confident that we are already in this era.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
keyster December 7, 2013 at 12:50

What you’re describing with an expanding state is a matter of constitutional law/political philosophy, and equal independence/protection from arbitrary state action is a remedy against such a corrupt state regardless of family structure or sex.

“The Personal Is Political” said that coming to a personal realization of how “grim” the situation was for women was as important as doing political “action” such as protests. You seek to change the culture through propaganda/indocrination first – fomenting rage at some monolithic imaginary enemy, such as patriarchy (ie – “traditional” men) to better unite against a common cause. You exploit the female propensity for perpetual discontent. Then you change the politics or in the case of Roe v Wade, short of legislative will, you seek judicial remedy…and a stacked court (with the first female justice) will ablige. “We the People” would have no voice.

Feminists WANT Big Government because it replaces dependence on individual men. What they DON’T realize is that dependence on government is actually a worse situation – as they too will be paying higher taxes and losing freedoms…if they’re not working for the government themselves already.

The sovereign individual is the essence of our country. He is his own government, with his own property and responsibilities to his family. The more the government encroaches upon his life, property and family, the less relevant he becomes – which is exactly the plan; to promote social and economic equality at the expense of diminishing his natural role…manhood, masculinity, leadership, his labor and the fruits that it bears.

There is no greater threat to the State than a freedom seeking, self-reliant man. There is no greater promoter of dependence on the State than the single woman. She will always seek some form of paternalism whether directly of indirectly. She needs to understand that individual men are not her enemy – the ever growing, ever encroaching State is. Unfortuntely this logic escapes feminists…but then logic matters not when the stakes of declaring victory are so high; collapsing a Billion dollar a year 501c3 industry.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
keyster December 7, 2013 at 13:18

Do you really think we have entered an era of strained allegiances already? While I agree that Obama is the most divisive president imaginable (and the one who has probably successfully blackened the most hearts; I know I’m not the only one with a blackened heart), I am not so confident that we are already in this era.

Ironically it would take someone like the first black president of South Africa (Mandela), to do what the first black president of the US has obsolutely no desire to do – and that’s unite the country.

Mandela understood that his country and it’s people were bigger than him and his 27 years in prison; his humility was his genius and greatness. Obama looks down on his country and it’s people from on-high as flawed and needing his brilliant oratory to lift us up – transform our minds. We want Obamacare, green energy investment, minimum wage increases, continued deficit spending and retreat from international strife – if only we were smart enough to realize it. He just needs the Tea Party, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to somehow be silenced, so we will believe too.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
ramram December 7, 2013 at 14:10

@keyster in one post you (rightfully) defend personal freedom from the state and in the next you give Nelson Mandel as an example.
NM was a communist trying to bring down government of RSA using violence in order to implement communist paradise. Here, the tribute by workers.org:

http://www.workers.org/articles/2013/12/06/statement-south-african-communist-party-nelson-mandela/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Muro December 7, 2013 at 14:27

There is no patriarchy or paternalism. There never was.

Stop with this feminist-like muddying of reality.

The problem is simply feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
keyster December 7, 2013 at 14:58

NM was a communist trying to bring down government of RSA using violence in order to implement communist paradise. Here, the tribute by workers.org:

Operative word: “was”.
He threatened and planned terrorist activities in a response to police killing dozens of peaceful protestors. He and others of the ANC were sent to prison for their activities. Once president he was very much a capitalist and supported a thriving free enterprise system. His successors however have been mostly incompetent and corrupt.

My point is Obama has made no such about-face in ideology and his politics. He threw away the opportunity to be our greatest leader, and may end up being our worst instead. How does a president “reach across the aisle” toward the opposition when he can’t even be bothered to build relationships with his own party?

Mandela brilliantly put the past behind him and forgave his enemies, because peacefully uniting the country was bigger than one man’s ego and petty grievances. Obama not so much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Morrisfactor December 7, 2013 at 15:19

“Will it ever end? Only when outcompeted by another system that works better.”

I’m wondering if that new system won’t be Islam? Look at Sweden and much of Europe, supposed to be Islamic majorities around 2040.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Jaego December 7, 2013 at 19:41

Mandela was all about image. He never really went after those who were butchering Whites after the treaty was signed. He just wanted to appear to be. When at tribal gatherings, he sang the famous “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer” song along with everyone else. Yet he called Whites who fled “cowards”. Despicable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel December 7, 2013 at 21:01

keyster
Mandela understood that his country and it’s people were bigger than him and his 27 years in prison; his humility was his genius and greatness.

Mandela was not a political prisoner, he was a Marxist terrorist, imprisoned for the murder of two police officers. He killed dozens, if not hundreds of South Africans, white and black alike. This information is still out there if you care to look, not yet all stuffed down the memory hole.

Everyone has forgotten what really happened in Rhodesia and later in South Africa. Rhodesia in particular was a spectacular success, a kind of Athenian democracy that literally fed much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Both countries were attacked by Communist insurgencies, proxy wars in the ongoing Cold War between the West and the USSR. Both Rhodesia and South Africa could have prevailed had they not been betrayed and isolated by socialists in the UK and USA governments.

In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe is a mass murderer, having killed tens of thousands of people from the rival Matabele tribe. The Western press has been almost completely silent about this.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
etype December 7, 2013 at 21:26

@W.F. Price

Good point. I’ll remember that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
www.coalpha.com December 7, 2013 at 23:21

Let’s simplify things a little. How does the feminist process work? Start at birth of what will become a prosperous civilization:

-New civilization is born. People unite, work hard, act morally towards each other, and have lots of liberty. Government is small and used minimally.

-The civilization becomes prosperous, gradually. With this new-found wealth comes “enlightenment,” something that is often referred to today as progressive-ism. Life becomes easier, less harsh. Welcome to the “first-world.”

- With this wealth and progressive-ism comes a massive change in the culture. People are wealthy and free. There’s no where to go but down. The men stop being vigilant. The women start getting bored and the men aren’t watching to snap them back into reality. Massive social changes begin, but these things are not random – the seeds of social change get sown long before they actually happen.

-The culture degrades. Progressive-ism becomes more complex, certain groups are protected while men are forced to shoulder everyone’s’ burdens – especially for women. Government becomes massive and bloated due to pointless and harmful legislation, policies, and bureaucracy. Taxes increase. Men work more but make less. Men either drop out of the system or are pushed out entirely. Only a “lucky” minority remain stable and successful during this cultural decline.

-Due to being weakened considerably from within, a rising culture invades. This can take the form of war, or nowadays can be done through immigration and economics. The declining culture cannot maintain itself and with its men disillusioned and unwilling to fight for it, it falls to the rising culture that is invading. Feminism dies a harsh death in the transition back to patriarchy. Women lose their privileges and get treated as they deserve to be. But new generations of women will suffer because of their foremothers’ wickedness.

Gentlemen, it is imperative that you abandon modern culture. Western civilization is on its death bed and THERE IS NO SAVING IT! You’ve got a huge world to get out into. MOVE TO A PATRIARCHY. Resist this corrupt culture. Depart from it and help deprive it of its food – you. This will hasten the collapse, even if only slightly. Don’t be afraid. Don’t fail to act. Your life and your future depend on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
epoche* December 8, 2013 at 11:34

Gay marriage, which is essentially a formal declaration that the government does not recognize patriarchy as valid or supported by any law or policy at all, is the latest example.

When patriarchy is smashed, as it has been in the United States, we are left only with primitive paternalism.
——————————————
Not only does the government not recognize patriarchy as valid it doesnt recognize the family as an economic unit as valid or to be supported by any law or policy at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
epoche* December 8, 2013 at 14:48

When patriarchy is smashed, as it has been in the United States, we are left only with primitive paternalism. We have local bosses, corporate titans, and a “benevolent” paternalist at the helm of our country.

So, what we’re really facing today is not matriarchy, but an increasingly despotic paternalism, in which men’s autonomy and authority is being steadily eroded in the interests of those in power.
——————————————-
From:
http://www.menstribune.com/feminist.htm

The collectivist tendency even taken at its best, with “Big Sister” standing in for the all-protective Mother Earth, destroys the strong while protecting the weak. As strength and independence disappear, creativity eventually goes with them, and hence the means to create new technologies needed to support higher populations of these weak and dependent individuals. As this “victimization” philosophy reaches extreme proportions, demographic groups are categorized as to the degree which they are “at risk” and in need of differential protection from Big Sister. It does not seem to occur to many feminists that strength is an indispensable requisite of any system, that without it the system is destroyed from without by more virile societies, or falls upon itself like a house with rotten timbers. Not only can society not hold itself up, but additionally, the process is accelerated by being pulled down like a collapsing star, destroying all that try to resist it. As demagogues team up with the lower classes to crush the middle class, society is turned into a “melting pot,” which to men is a witches cauldron, for the destruction of independence and individuality is synonymous with emasculation. In like fashion, the Federal government promotes “the people” as one collectivist proletarian mass to slowly grind state governments out of existence. It is these “intermediate structures,” as Tocqueville called them, that comprise the backbone of our Republic, the creative “laboratories” of the states against the oppressive Federal government and the “mindless masses,” the virtuous middle class against the grasping nature of the rich and the poor. Instead of “masculine notions of limited authority and conditional obedience” (Lord Acton,) there is the all-pervasive totalitarian state that disregards “the blessings of liberty” in preventing any possibility of harm to its chosen wards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Mike December 9, 2013 at 10:06

Let this house of cards fall where it may. A collective awakening is the only thing that will bring about meaningful and lasting change.

We’ve long since morphed into a construct we weren’t designed for, and it’s time to stop placing band aids where tourniquets are required.

True change will only be spawned out of devastating events. From those ashes, our proverbial phoenix will rise and balance will be restored.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger December 10, 2013 at 04:29

epoche-

I prefer to refer to it as ‘the meek shall inherit the earth. and then they fuck up the place until the strong fix it.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jeff December 11, 2013 at 02:42

Great website. I agree that our government has done everything within its power to destroy the traditional family. History books describe the “tyranny” men had over their wives in children only 100 years ago but fail to describe how this was changed. Does anyone here know what US law or laws divested the husband as head of household? In a related issue, what law or laws made parents custodial guardians on behalf of the state?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gilgamesh December 11, 2013 at 04:49

@gender Foreigner
“Your point is well made and I thank you for it. Of course, both good and bad, “big (men)” can arrive on the scene. You rightly pointed to the arrival of a significantly bad man who did arrive on the scene. Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia much more mirrors or approximates a good, “big man” as per his intent in state of exercise and its intended results. Although not perfect (few have achieved that), he does come to mind in juxtaposition to your well noted Adolf Hitler.”

How can you be a good “big man?” That sounds like an oxymoron.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Mike December 11, 2013 at 07:25

@Dire…

I love it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 11, 2013 at 15:25

@DireBadger:
“I prefer to refer to it as ‘the meek shall inherit the earth. and then they fuck up the place until the strong fix it.”
================

You’re using the wrong definition of meek. “Weak” is one of the definitions of meek, but not the only definition. Meek can also mean patient and kind.

And not everyone who is patient and kind is a pathetically weak, bungling embodiment of incompetence.

Just look at Goku from DragonBall Z. Look how badly he bashed wicked Frieza left-and-right in the end. And Goku was as patient and kind as they came.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
viewtifuljoe December 11, 2013 at 15:26

@DireBadger:
“I prefer to refer to it as ‘the meek shall inherit the earth. and then they fuck up the place until the strong fix it.”
================

You’re using the wrong definition of meek. “Weak” is one of the definitions of meek, but not the only definition. Meek can also mean patient and kind.

And not everyone who is patient and kind is a pathetically weak, bungling embodiment of incompetence.

Just look at Goku from DragonBall Z. Look how badly he bashed wicked Frieza left-and-right in the end. And Goku was as patient and kind as they came.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger December 12, 2013 at 04:29

@Jeff-
The social security act of 1935 created funding specifically for the creation of child protective services. This funding (The primary method by which the fed manipulates state laws) was the springboard from which all CPS state law was founded. However, the real egregious abuses of the child welfare system, violation of parental rights and the ability to raise your children ‘as you see fit’ started happening on the state level around 1962.
Admittedly, post-depression alcoholism caused a lot of cases of obvious child abuses, but the child protective system put in place to stop those abuses was a lot like shooting a horse to keep it from getting sick. Victim politics at it’s finest.

the ‘no fault divorce’, pioneered by those sick fucks in California in 1969 and soon adopted nationwide, set the stage for the destruction of the family. mostly the riders adopted automatic splitting of assets regardless of contribution, although arguably the destruction of the man as head of household and the family as a cohesive political unit started with the 16th, 17th, and 18th amendments, breaking ‘family voting units’ into individuals. In fact, it was some iffy language in the 14th amendment that really started the ball rolling for nailing anything not at the federal level, since it effectively destroyed state’s rights in favor of ‘truth by consensus’, although the 16th and 17th amendments were the coffin nail in the ‘united states’, as well as the family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 12, 2013 at 16:54

Dear Dire Badger December 12, 2013 at 04:29:
.
.
.
the ‘no fault divorce’, pioneered by those sick fucks in California in 1969 and soon adopted nationwide, set the stage for the destruction of the family.
.
.
.
True, for sure. And contrary to the women’s, “churches” (“Fundamentalists, “Conservatives,” etc.), that destruction of the family by way of substantively feminist legislation was Ronald Reagan’s doing. That’s the same man who drove up the federal debt to eight times what it was the day he started.

Just another wolf in sheep’s clothing, par excellence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
John Gregorio Wood December 12, 2013 at 19:03

Patronage still exists today especially in politics. We do not practice paternalism in our family in fact, I think it’s the opposite one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger December 14, 2013 at 08:28

Gender foreigner-

Sorry to burst your bubble dude, but I was there. A lot of it was accomplished in SPITE of the Reagan cabinet, not because of it. You are falling into the democrat trap of blaming everything on the prior administration. If you can find feminist-oriented funding on the reagan administration’s head (Most state legislatures were just embracing liberalism, remember) I’ll eat my ballcap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
gender foreigner December 15, 2013 at 13:07

Dear Dire Badger December 14, 2013 at 08:28:

Thanks for the commentary. Funding is just ONE of the GOVERNING INSTRUMENTS of state (and otherwise). That Reagan started the fall rolling as per law trend evidences his lack of understanding as to the nature of male-female roles, tendencies, etc.

He also used feminist rhetoric in his speaking. When appealing to the women’s vote while addressing women’s groups, he freely spoke of the claimed civilizing effect of women on men in marriage. He did not understand that PATRIARCHAL MARRIAGE (the only REAL marriage) with its male rights and checks on women’s whims) was foundational to the advance of society.

Marriage did not civilize men: marriage prevented women from uncivilizing society, including the home unit.

The massive buildup of targeting groups against target groups via affirmative action was by way of the massive federal-government increase in defence contracts. This created a wave of confirmed social-entitlement disorder among targeting groups and it further isolated men from women. Of course, the women were the foremost beneficiaries of affirmative action as per defence contracts.

This further broke the private-enterprise (family unit–real family unit, that is to say, patriarchy) dependency of women on men directly. And, once again, in addition to the massive increase in welfare programs of the Johnson Administration, the Reagan defence contracts massively gave women a profound reliance on the federal government.

During the second Reagan win, 55% of the women who voted, voted for Reagan. Nancy wrote about it–including, “Ronnie’s words at women’s groups as per men in the book she, “wrote” (really a professional writer did it as she admitted in the credits–I forgot the book’s name but I read it entirely). I think the book was called, “In My Own Words” (but I forgot).

Whereas Ronnie addressed women’s groups routinely, he never addressed men’s groups. In that, he was exactly the same as per the other liberals, also….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger December 17, 2013 at 22:03

GF- excuse me, but I keep seeing a logic hole here.
You mentioned that increased defense contract spending equated to female entitlement and affirmative action gains…. but you do not present the logic chain that unites these two items.

I understand that non-defense contract spending was leveraging workplace alteration into a hostile, gossipy nightmare, but that was hardly in the cabinet’s control. Those programs were resolutely set up during Johnson’s and especially Carter’s terms. As I recall, subparagraphs in defense contracts requiring minority quotas didn’t come along until the Bush JR administration… one of the many reasons Dubya was a cuckoo in the conservative nest.

I am not trying to insult you, I am simply saying there seems to be a gap in the logic chain of defense spending=feminist entitlement.

As far as Reagan’s views on family and females, He was a hollywood-educated idiot, and had the same stupid egalitarian sexism of most of his social class. One blind spot does not make a Paladin a villain, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
In trouble December 23, 2013 at 10:26

I haven’t posted in a long time but I just wanted to come on here rot thank everyone for their kind advice.

I posted on here a couple of years ago after my ex’s lawyers destroyed my business and were about to leave me penniless (and in jail if they could)

Some guys here advised me to flee with what I could before they destroyed it all and that’s what I did.

Three years later and I’ve partly rebuilt my life and the funny thing is I’ve never been happier. I have no desire to return to America at all. Life really is better overseas even with much less than I had before. Just getting my ex and the foul lawyers out of my life has done wonders!

Thanks for the kind advice and for anyone out there who’s in trouble today, crazy as it sounds, it makes sense to run if you can even if you’ll lose a lot. The courts will destroy your life if they can. You’re better off elsewhere even if it costs you and the money you lose will be offset by a better life.

Men almost anywhere else live better than even wealthy American men

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
In trouble December 23, 2013 at 10:28

Feel free to repost my comment anywhere if you think it will help other guys who are being crushed by nazi feminist courts

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 26, 2013 at 08:59

I don’t understand why you think preferential maternal custody is a sign of the decline (or disappearance) of patriarchy. The view that the wife should be the one staying home and raising kids is a patriarchal concept. So courts leaning towards full custody for women regardless of what the spousal dynamics were, are issuing judgements which are a result of a patriarchal viewpoint.
More fathers being given custody would be a sign that the patriarchy is diminishing because these judgements recognize that men are just as competent at raising kids. That child rearing is not only women’s work.

I agree in that no-fault divorce, gay marriage legalization, and the decriminalization of adultery are signs that the patriarchy is diminishing.

I don’t see the connection to welfare/single mothers and patriarchy. How is the welfare preferential? Welfare is on a needs basis. Single parents are going to qualify in higher numbers than married couples or single people with no dependents to care for. It seems to me that wouldn’t change if the single parent was male vs female. Single moms are more common than single dads, and they tend to make much less. So I don’t understand why that would be preferential treatment. And if it was, what does that have to do with the patriarchy?

If single mothers were given more aid than single fathers with the same need, that would stem from a patriarchal viewpoint that women need to be protected and cared for, more so than men who, in a patriarchal society, should be able to fend for themselves. So if there is preferential treatment, and I don’t know that there is, this again would be from the existence of patriarchy, and not a lack thereof.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Dire Badger December 26, 2013 at 14:59

Lynn, you are stumbling across the core intellectual fallacy of feminist patriarchy theory… namely the idea that the patriarchy is something evil that sets women down, when in reality it is extremely benevolent.

patriarchy is also the core concept around which men’s rights group argue. Some wish it abolished entirely (mgtow,MHRA) and allow women to fend for themselves just as men always have. Others believe women are categorically incapable of fending for themselves, and want it strengthened to the level of earlier historical success. Either way will help men, but only one of the two is provably sustainable in the long run.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 26, 2013 at 18:09

Dear Lynn December 26, 2013 at 08:59:

Thank you for your sincere commentary. As per its substance, I would suggest you consider reading: The Garbage Generation, and, Back to Patriarchy. Those two books are available from amazon.com (I’ve read both). They are written by the same author and they address the matters you raise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 26, 2013 at 20:06

Hi gender foreigner,
I’ve got a lot of books in my queue, it will take a while before I get to either of those. Would you mind explaining in your own words? I’ll sum up since my post was lengthy:

1) why is preferential maternal custody a sign of diminishing patriarchal culture? This outcome goes hand in hand with patriarchal viewpoints.

2) does preferential welfare of single mothers as opposed to single fathers with the same need even exist? And if it does, why isn’t this also representative of patriarchal viewpoints?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 26, 2013 at 22:23

Dear Lynn December 26, 2013 at 20:06:

1. When women get the children, they are neglected by the heart. A parent who does not correct the child does not love the child. Men correct: women neglect correction. That is why a child of a woman is a virtual synonym for a miscreant, the proverbial, “Son of a Bitch” whereas being a, “Son of a Father” is a compliment.

Studies show that the death of a mother has rounding-error detrimental effect on the offspring whereas the death/absence of the father is devastating to the child’s well being as measured by absolutely everything.

2. Giving financial and other material support to mothers and not fathers merely aids and abets women’s functioning as consumers and eternal children. Where I live, the women’s provincial government has posters in the women’s government schools informing women/girls that if/when they decide to have a child out of wedlock, the hubby state provides her with a guaranteed income of $30,000.00/year (times 18 years). Such is in addition to the food bank, subsidized housing, school breakfast and lunch programs (free food–i.e., government-tax-provided food–women don’t have to embrace responsibilities, just even more rights).

In, in addition, there is the school-located, government-subsidized, “dayCARE” (actually, a substantive, “day orphanage” or a, “DON’Tcare.” And, in addition, such, “mothers” (actually, they’re only egg providers and parasites–government, “does” the rest) get first crack at government jobs at all levels, various government grants to get, “education” so they can obtain (mostly government), “jobs.”

The above things are NOT patriarchal: they are MATRIARCHAL. But, they do represent chivalry (invented by a R.C. Pope of the 800s when Muslims were invading southeast Europe). Substantively, Roman Catholicism with its Mary worship and chivalry, is not really patriarchal but rather matriarchal.

I think I’ll leave it at that for now as I have readings, etc. that I’m doing, too for the books I’m writing.

Thanks for your response, Lynn. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 27, 2013 at 02:39

Hi dire badger
I’m not arguing about whether patriarchy is good or bad for women. I’m trying to understand why something which to me is a result of patriarchal bias, is – to the OP – a sign that patriarchy is being diminished.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lynn December 27, 2013 at 10:30

Gender foreigner-
To the best of my knowledge, qualifying for welfare depends on how many dependents one is caring for and what the combined household income is. It’s not dependent on gender.
I find it hard to believe that a single father in the same financial situation as a single mother is not going to receive aid in your country. You cite all these benefits that single mothers can apply for- they should be available to single fathers in the same financial situation to prevent poverty. If they’re not, that’s just horrible on so many levels. I really do find it hard to believe that single fathers with the same financial situation don’t qualify. That the posters are targeted towards women is because the majority of single parents are women.

Regarding preferential maternal custody, you don’t really explain why it’s not a patriarchal judgement. Or perhaps I misunderstood you. You say kids do better with a father as a single parent rather than a mother as a single parent. Ok, but that’s not a patriarchal viewpoint. Child rearing is “women’s work” in a patriarchal society. Therefore, preferential maternal custody would stem from the belief that the mother is more competent than the father to raise the children. That’s a patriarchal viewpoint. Am I explaining myself properly? I still don’t understand how you’re getting from point A to point B.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 27, 2013 at 10:35

Also, thought I’d add, I understand what you’re saying now about chivalry vs patriarchy. If preferential welfare were given to mothers over fathers in the same financial situation, then yes , that would appear “chivalrous” I guess, rather than patriarchal, but I would prefer to just call it horrible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 27, 2013 at 14:46

Dear Lynn December 27, 2013 at 10:30:

That is the way it is in the criminal Frauenreich of Canada. Women have rights that men don’t have, among them, the clustered right to avoid responsibilities in everything. The posters gender-specifically mention FEMALES to the exclusion of MALES in their offer to pay women’s bills as a reward for their sluttery and resultant bastardy…

It would be difficult to imagine a contrary scenario in how women rule parasitically, unlovingly and hypocritically.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn December 28, 2013 at 03:10

Gender foreigner-
Yes, I understand that the posters are geared towards women. What I’m saying is, that I don’t believe Canada is denying single parents, with a qualifying need, welfare on the basis of gender. Despite that the posters are geared towards single mothers, I believe that single fathers are also recipients.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Dire Badger December 28, 2013 at 15:41

“I don’t believe Canada is denying single parents, with a qualifying need, welfare on the basis of gender.”

Your belief is irrelevant. It is happening, but it is carefully disguised by making the term ‘qualifying need’ far more stringent for men than it is for women.

The vast majority of sexism is disguised as ‘policy’ instead of ‘law’. Is there a LAW that in domestic violence disputes, the man is always ‘the primary aggressor’ and removed from the premises? no, it is ‘policy’. Is there a law that men automatically assume far harsher penalties for the same crimes as women? No, but it exists.

Believe all you like, but hard facts show otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
gender foreigner December 28, 2013 at 19:37

Dear Dire Badger December 10, 2013 at 04:29:
.
.
.
.
epoche-

I prefer to refer to it as ‘the meek shall inherit the earth. and then they fuck up the place until the strong fix it.”
.
.
.
.
As per the above, I was thinking, the great Empire of Rome was a bottom-up Republic of about 250 years immediately followed by a top-down Monarchy which saved it from incipient and utter ruin. Such was the case of what you stated above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn January 6, 2014 at 02:26

Dire Badger -

Your right, my belief is irrelevant to others. But my world view dictates that welfare is for the poor and it is based on need, and doesn’t discriminate based on gender. That there isn’t a box that you check which increases your yearly stipend by $2000.

Maybe there is, and I am wrong, but I’m not inclined to believe that.

Mostly, as I’ve said, I just try to understand where the logic is coming from. If there is proof then I will think to myself, “Dire Badger thinks X, Y, Z because, among other things, welfare discriminates against men.” instead of “Dire Badger thinks X, Y, Z because, among other things, Dire Badger thinks that welfare discriminates against men.”

I’ve looked it up and found zilch. Do you have a source?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 7, 2014 at 00:21

You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means…

You apparently haven’t bothered to read any essays in the past on this website.
Welfare discriminates. It HAS to, or it is not welfare. Welfare has not and has never been based on need. What it is based on is the squeaky wheel principle.

The only people who benefit from an ‘automated’ welfare system (meaning welfare that is not a handout from a priest) are those who protest the loudest…professional victims, in other words. People who rely on the lack of personal attentioninto their mismanagement of their own affairs.

This is disproportionately women, because the automation is set up to automatically give single mothers a pass. It also includes “I got a hangnail in desert storm’ disability abusers, race abusers, etc.

But, seriously. one has only to look at programs like WIC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and
the Maternal and Child Health program. How about the wording under Obamacare? Or about a million other programs from the social security to persons with disabilities act. each has wording that ESPECIALLY applies special exceptions to specific ‘minorities’. Guess who is not represented? Men and white men.

Apparently, women are incapable of searching google. Do your own fucking research instead of depending on men to do it for you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn January 7, 2014 at 09:13

That’s not answering the question I asked though. Single parents. Welfare programs help single parents, it doesn’t matter what the gender is. Single dads also benefit from them. The question is if single dads with the same needs, are discriminated against. If, all else being equal (#of dependents, annual income, local cost of living) single moms receive more than single dads. You guys sure seem to think so. But I don’t. All these programs are targeted towards women because the majority if single parents in need are women. That doesn’t mean that single dads don’t receive assistance, or receive less than single moms.

The information that you claim is out there isn’t readily available. So I ask if there’s a statistical study that you are aware of that I am not. Although, straight up policy would be enough, something to the tune of for 3 dependents and an annual income of 5K, single dads will get 5K and single moms will get 7K. Or even Blacks will get 7K and whites will get 5K. As you said. The wording.

I don’t think this exists. I’m not going to spend hours combing the internet for something that doesn’t exist. It’s perfectly acceptable to ask a “specialist” to point you to relevant information someone who is more familiar with the primary sources. But from your reply you don’t seem to have understood my question. So you wouldn’t be able to direct be to the appropriate article/link anyway.

You consider the existence of welfare for single parents to be discrimination because the percentage of recipients is higher for women than men.

That’s not discrimination based on gender. Men with the same needs also receive it. Discrimination based on gender would mean that men with the same needs do not receive it, or receive less.

If you’re against welfare for single parents. Ok, that’s something else. And not relevant to what I’m asking at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
suspiciousmaster January 7, 2014 at 09:13

Men have tended historically to exercise formal power in societies & within the family unit, in some cases bordering on absolute power. What this may disguise is the informal influence & power women (and others) may enjoy. Under formal systems of patriarchy women may only be able to enjoy power by playing down or disguising their influence. Arguably feminism simply extends this strategy to the political realm as a whole. Since feminism claims to be about equality, and to derive its rationale and legitimacy by claiming women are treated unequally, any power accrued by virtue of feminist action, or its institutionalisation within society, must necessarily be either disguised or played down so as to not violate the principle of equality. In reality this works by focusing exclusively on masculine modes of power, which are the only modes of power that are recognised as power…typically the number of senior politicians, senior business figures, academicians etc. etc. The reason an article like this can seek to persuade us that men will continue to remain in charge even as patriarchy is everywhere dismantled is because men are egoists; we are ultimately flattered by the notion that we control everything, and therefore buy into the feminist analysis, one which says that men are always on the top, and women are always on the bottom, hence the need to correct for this injustice through political redistribution. Men still make up the majority of senior politicians, and business leaders (although this is declining) but it is questionable whether the real power in society lies at such an the executive or elite level. To speak of paternalism instead of patriarchy is to fall into a trap. A patriarch is the head of a family. Men are no longer automatically the heads of their families, and increasingly are not even present within those families. An analysis that seeks to shift the notion of power away from the family unit at exactly the point when men are being marginalised within the family unit is an analysis which to deliberately avoid unpalatable truth. It is an argument that saves male egos , at the expense of misinterpreting what is going on around us. To echo some others on this site it is to take the blue rather than the red pill. Paternalism as an alternative to patriarchy describes a fatherly political arrangement where actual fatherhood plays no necessary part. This is male power running on empty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 7, 2014 at 23:35

Approximately 82.2% of custodial parents are mothers, and
17.8% of custodial parents (approximately 1 in 6) are fathers

Child support is enforced on fathers, but almost never enforced on mothers (see later post by Bill). This is a form of welfare, and is direct, proveable welfare discrimination at it’s finest.

I can assure you that fathers are not eligible for WIC. I tried it myself.

How much more proof do you need? a 40 foot tall sign made of letters of flame from god himself? You and your ilk seem to be willing to believe all men are evil rapists that make twice as much as you do at all jobs with considerably less proof.

Although I will admit that it’s fucking impossible to find welfare expenditures by sex. all I can go by is driving past the social services buildings, which are packed daily with women and children. I don’t think I have ever seen a male in the building who was not a cop or a janitor. I can also go by the programs which are targeted specifically towards women, for which there are no corresponding programs for men.

Try filing an foia on welfare expenditures. Now feel free to get in the last word, woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 8, 2014 at 00:18

BTW- I do see what you are doing. You are trying to use a lack of publically-available records regarding gender disparity in welfare awards in order to attempt to claim that such a disparity does not exist. This is akin to claiming that the lack of a government study of dumping radioactive waste in the local groundwater ‘proves’ that it is not hazardous while the entire town’s population is suffering from Leukemia.

This is referred to as ‘proof by omission’ and is yet another logical fallacy. Are you simply running through wikipedia’s entry on logical fallacies and trying them on one at a time until you find one that sticks?

Whatever. I am done arguing with you, and I am not going to come to your house and fuck you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn January 12, 2014 at 21:52

So it’s not an official policy then? Something written out? Guidelines? You had talked about the wording, so I thought it existed, that you knew what the wording was. So now you’re saying that there is no wording. No policy or guidelines to quote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lynn January 12, 2014 at 22:00

At least, not that you or anyone here has access to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger January 14, 2014 at 23:43

Actually, the guidelines are public accessible under the FOIA, but I am not going to spend enormous sums to fight a constitutional legal war simply to ‘officially’ see information that many of us already have had access to, simply to provide the direct wording to you. Thomas Ball tried that. Look him up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: