Culture

Why We Need To Fight For The Patriarchy

199 Comments

We are in a transition from a traditional society (let’s call it the patriarchy) to a liberal-minded society (let’s call it a matriarchy). Men suffer quite a lot in this transition, because the laws are essentially all very patriarchal and women still expect things like child-support (something which would normally only exist in a patriarchy), while they behave as though they are in a matriarchy (wanting to sleep around and still be respected, etc.).

Now the patriarchy is actually not a society that favors men over women, and the matriarchy is not a society which favors women over men. Both societies favor men and women equally. I know a lot of MRAs do not believe this and use the draft as evidence that the patriarchy favored women more, but that is not true. The patriarchy is actually a society that favors children, while the matriarchy favors the individual (or self).

The patriarchy is a child-centered society. It is interested in birth and survival rates of children, and that is why males were drafted. Male disposability led to more children.  The patriarchy comes from difficult times, it was born in hard times, it is a very social system, an efficient system, and it’s a survival mechanism.

We know it leads to successful societies because many of the major cultures that dominate the world today have a patriarchal history. And we can see this most clearly through the fact that the world’s major religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Confucianism all come from cultures which support the patriarchy. All of these religions and the cultures that support them speak of female obedience to her husband and male responsibility and dominance over to his family.

Most of the world’s major cultures have patriarchal roots, this is a map showing the major religions of each country as it was in 1960. It is taken from Hans Rosling’s talk on religion and babies.

religion and babiesxs

Since people who share the same religion also often share common cultural practices with respect to structuring family life, and the cultures associated with the major religions in the picture above are all patriarchal, we can see that the patriarchal way of structuring society has had a lot of success.

The matriarchy–and I feel like I have lived in one, which is Jamaica–is a “matriarchal” society within a patriarchal setting.  It is not a very social system, and is in fact very inefficient. It works when resources are abundant and easy to access and it works on the principal that everyone just does what is best for themselves. What happens in such a society is that men do not take care of or even know their kids. Women work and take all the steady, easy and good jobs. Men, who only need to take care of themselves, take the unstable and unreliable jobs, the hard jobs.

Men and women do not live together and do not seek to form relationships. They just come together for sex. Gender roles still exist, but male female interaction is more limited so they only exist pre-sex. Typically males compete for female attention and have to offer women something material in order to get sex. The thing is, though, in this system most women are attracted to the same men and those men get the most sex. Also, on a side-note, I think you have bit more bisexualism in this type of society.  This is not a bad thing, but I think many women use it as a sort of birth control, they have sex with other women because they know it is safe and they cannot get pregnant.

Now I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but in part male/female relations are actually a trade with sex being the commodity. In any sexual act the person with the most at stake is the female. Putting aside unfair laws, child support actually came from the patriarchy. The woman is the one who might get pregnant when the act is over, she might end up with a child, while the man ends up with no consequence beyond sex. That sets things up so that men are always seeking sex from women.

Now essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants, and men do not make babies or feed infants, freeing them up to do other things with their time. This sets things up so that women are more limited than men with respect to their access to resources. So with men in need of sex and women in need of rare or hard to get resources, in both the patriarchy and the matriarchy, this trade takes place.

Marriage was a trade of sex (and access to one’s children) for male work (less limited work).  In the matriarchy that same trade occurs (minus access to one’s children) but on a short term basis. The traditional system is a much more social system because it shares the sex and male work equally, while the matriarchal does not. I think the majority of people can actually benefit from the traditional system. There are some who will do better in the matriarchal system, but the majority does better in the patriarchy. So we need to maintain that balance and so we need to fight for the patriarchy to stay.

Humans are social beings. The social part of us causes most of us to follow the crowd and to fit into whatever we identify as the pattern (whether that pattern is to be weird, to be liberal, to be odd, or to fit in). The social part of our psychology causes society to trend either to traditionalism in an extreme form or to liberalism in an extreme form. We have to fight so that society does not end up on the extremely liberal side, so that we have balance.

The picture below shows how I think the cycle between the matriarchy and the patriarchy works, I do not mean to imply that any one society is fully matriarchal or fully patriarchal, because in fact I think there are layers from both sides in every society. The idea of a central government and taxes for example is a social system and it exists in many capitalist settings. I think society takes the parts from the self-centered society that it can, while using the parts of the society-centered society that are necessary.

patriarchymatriarchy2xs

What I do mean to imply is that many parts of the traditional way of structuring society are beneficial to the majority of society, and so I think we should hold on to them. The patriarchy has been successful for many reasons, and we have to be careful not to ignore some of these reasons. Male investment and access to their offspring both in the form of being a role model who would love, guide, and seek the best interests of their children and through their economic contributions benefited society enormously. Allowing women the freedom to focus on producing and caring for children also benefited society.

The patriarchy as we know it was not perfect, but neither is a matriarchy, and so I think we as a society need to start sifting through both systems, and it is important that as we do this we keep the parts of the patriarchal ways of structuring society that were, and can still be, beneficial to individuals and society.

Read More: The Mosou: A Matriarchal Dream or Aberration of History?

199 thoughts on “Why We Need To Fight For The Patriarchy”

      1. It’s a valiant effort but unless history is understood multi-dimensionally, it is not understood at all.

        1. Don’t mistake the female tolerance for competition for egalitarianism. They’re animals just like us. Women have a very strict dominance hierarchy within their own ranks. They sit in a circle because it appears egalitarian, but when the alpha female is at odds with group decisions, the alpha female will undermine the decisions. Effectively, it makes more sense to block the group than to create factions and descend into open conflict. Women are more prone to total war than we are, which explains why their committee decisions are often toothless. If their circle had teeth, it would eat itself.

  2. As usual, bonecrcker wrote about this first: http://no-maam.blogspot.co.nz/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html
    “Once married and attached to their own children, these
    beta males were suddenly yoked like an ox and working at 100% capacity.
    This utilization of the full capacity of male labour is what pulled
    mankind into a civilization. It is what built our houses and planted our
    corn. It built our roads and our bridges. It created our literature and
    our art. It created, well, pretty much everything that we have. Men,
    women and children all obviously benefited from this.”
    “Welcome to the Patriarchy! (Sometimes it is simply known as civilization, but also, occasionally, as fatherhood).”

    1. That’s not bonecracker. You’re quoting the regular blog, written by Red Fedderz, a long time standing member of the manosphere. Old as the walls, as they say.
      And Fedderz didn’t come up with that analysis on his own, it comes from Daniel Amneus, who wrote “The Garbage Generation, which I will be writing an article about.

  3. Western society has never really a “Patriarchal” to begin with. Western society for the most part was established on puritanism and absurd overvaluation of women.

    1. With a healthy knowledge of biology, I don’t think this works, in terms of the overvaluation. Genetically, we provide sperm and protection. They provide babies. You can’t overvalue the fact that they can do what we can’t. For this reason alone, we peak physically 15 years after they do, to fulfill the second role.
      We’re a k-selected species, requiring social groups and massive energy expenditures to allow our children to successfully pass on our genes. Everything is based on this, including patriarchy. For this reason alone, matriarchy doesn’t work. Men have the genetic imperative to lead in an alpha role- women in an alpha role still have a primary job to do in nature too, but just one, and it’s not leadership.
      We ignore instinct and the biology of behavior at our risk.

      1. It’s not as binary as you make it out to be where societies are only patriarchal and matriarchal.
        The West has never been a Patriarchal society simply because women have always had an elevated status in puritan society. Since women were seen as a moral compass and guiding hand for future next generations.
        Men = Corruptable/Amoral
        Women = Pure/Moral
        At least in Puritan Logic.
        Everyone knows eggs are more valuable than sperm it’s a point that is not even being argued.
        There is a difference between valuing women and overvaluing them.
        The West since its inception has overvalued women. This is pretty common knowledge and almost no one disagrees with it.
        Here’s a quote from a Japanese traveler to the west that I believe summarizes my point quite nicely. Note that the Japanese were not Matriarchal society.
        “Kawaji … had ample opportunity to observe the European tradition of chivalry in practice. It seemed to him that ‘the ladies on this ship possess great authority and assume an air of importance equivalent to that of an imperial princess in our land. He was curious to discover the British custom of paying inordinate respect to ladies; they take their seats before their husbands and sit in the best places at mealtimes as well.
        Later in the voyage he concluded that, of all the countries in
        the West, Britain has the most pronounced custom of paying respect to ladies. From what I have seen on this ship, it seems that, when talking to a lady, you take off your hat and treat her most politely. This is the reverse of the ranking in our country, and I find it most astonishing’. Kawaji felt moved to ask for some clarification on the subject of chivalry, but was disappointed to learn that ‘this is an old custom, and there is no particular explanation for it’.”
        This is the overvaluation and pedestalization that founded the west. I mean our founders thought indians were savage because they made women work.

        1. As I recall there was a conflict between the decadent woman-valueing West & Japan. Remind me again…which culture won in the end?

        2. The outcome has yet to be seen. As far as I know many seem to think the West is on the decline due to feminism. Which no doubt sprung from the overvaluation I spoke of earlier.
          Don’t take it personally. Just stating facts. No need to get emotional about it.

        3. Interesting point. I need to think on that more. I suspect that protein availability and female fecundity played a role, too on why the valuation of women in general varied so greatly beween East and West. I’m talking out my my ass here, but I’m going to guess that the Brits placed high value on women because there were more resources available and far more protein, which led to more babies and more surviving babies from larger, more robust women who could survive multiple childbirth.
          I’m thinking out loud here. Need to flesh this out.

        5. >He thinks that’s a valid comparison
          Japan and the rest of East Asia will still be around while the West mixes and degrades into something unrecognizable from its past.
          Tell me, who do you think would come out on top if Japan had say, 1.4 billion people?
          Bingo.

  4. Thanks to feminist governments, all the burdens of sex is placed on men. Women’s pregnancy burden is one of their own choosing. In a feminist society, woman who is pregnant can always abort the baby. Even if she doesn’t abort, she can abandon the baby and the government will not impose legal or financial sanctions on her.
    Man has all the burdens imposed on him. First, if he makes a sexual move the woman doesn’t enjoy, she can charge him with rape. Second, if his woman is accidentally pregnant, he has no choice but to pay child support, whether he wanted to be a father or not. So, all of the risk and burden of having sex has been shifted from woman to man, in the name of feminism and government.
    I don’t agree with this specific part of the article, as described above. I congratulate you for writing an interesting article with many good points, especially the patriarchy-matriarchy timeline.

    1. “Also, on a side-note, I think you have bit more bisexualism in this type of society. This is not a bad thing, but I think many women use it as a
      sort of birth control, they have sex with other women because they know it is safe and they cannot get pregnant.”
      I could write an entire metaphysical treatise on why this is wrong but instead I’ll try to stick to some form of science to not bore people.
      Women are attracted to other women because they lack a clearly defined sense of self and therefore do not know what they are attracted to until directed by external influences(males).
      This experiment shows the state of female arousal when shown a series of sexuality explicit material. Men predictably were attracted to what they said they were attracted to while women were attracted to everything.
      http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/What_Women_Want:_Gender_and_Sexuality

      1. This by the way is exactly why Roosh is dead on about game. Game works because it’s entirely socially driven.

  5. Also, lets not forget that fathers have no rights to their children. If the mother wants to name her child without the father’s last name, she can do so. If she wants to raise the child alone, without the father, she is allowed to do so regardless of her selfish reasons. Thirdly, a father who murders his toddler is treated as a child murderer and imprisoned for life or executed, whereas a mother who murders her toddler is treated as a troubled victim and given sympathy and no jail time.
    This is the reality. I read you are a stay at home mom and housewife. This is an ideal arrangement and should be maintained or the child’s health and benefit – raised by 2 parents who act like adults and work their problems out reasonably.

  6. I didn’t know jinna was a blogger on here.
    It’s interesting how the women who share this kind of viewpoint (judgybitch) are usually happily married with kids to some degree.
    It’s like trying to find hay in a stack of needles.

      3. The obvious solution to “a needle in a haystack” but if you burned a stack of needles, you would have hot metal and nothing more.

  7. One point Jinna misses is that these “Matriarchal” societies where relatively few men have sex with the majority of women are more unhappy and violent societies. When men do not have their sexual needs met, they tend to be more violent. Indeed, one of the reasons Arabian countries are more politically unstable is because Islam allows a single man to be married to multiple women, resulting in more sexually frustrated and violent men.
    Like I said before, pick-up is only a stopgap measure to slow down the society’s decay after a society becomes matriarchal. It’s a stop-gap that allows more men to be sexually satisfied and therefore less violent.

    1. I think I read somewhere that many of these polygamous societies actually arose because historically, men worked higher-risk jobs (hunting, mining, etc.) and went to fight wars, thus died more often, resulting in a huge excess number of females of reproductive age. Thus polygamy was a useful way to keep society stable.
      Of course, in modern times it’s not true that men die sooner, so a polygamous society can never be stable.

  8. Thank you for putting Capitalism and Socialism under the right headings. This is what American conservatives don’t understand. The free marketers were on the Left during the French Revolution. Consumerism is beta.

    1. In our society socialist policys are nothing more than a transfer of wealth from men to women, typically single mothers and other degenerates.
      ill admit i know next to nothing about the french revolution, but i do know its not ‘beta’ to want your money to stay in your pocket if the alternative is sending it to cryneesha with 3 kids and 3 baby daddys. in fact, its probably the opposite.

  9. Since this article was written by a woman, I will not read it…whether she is red pill or not…whether you call me sexist or not…whether you think it’s the message and not the messenger that matters or not.
    You want to fight for the patriarchy jinna, write, or continue to write, to girls and women about such issues. Your voice will better benefit them and society since most women will not listen to men but rather to women. You are useless on a blog like this…unless you post topless photos of yourself, of course.

    2. LOL
      Let’s be real, her writing seems to suggest that there is a proper balance between the two (capitalism and socialism) and if we merely sift through the rubbish of both during disasters we can make some sort of Utopia. I don’t think so.
      More than likely, her primitive graph at the end is spot on. Spot on in that socialistic, state centered economies actually spring up in harsh economic climates. However, it would have been more accurate if at the peak of the graph instead of capitalism, she put “capitalism-> Socialism.” And then at the trough of the graph, put “socialism->Capitalism.” This is two fold, in that ti would complete the graph better highlighting how fear-mongering post economic distress/collapse happens, and how women in the workplace usually corresponds with heightened sexual primacy of hypergamous females. The more women able to provide for themselves, the less likely that society will survive.
      Hence the reason she put in a unwritten, but implied, caveat that we should strip the “best of both worlds” mentality into her writing. I don’t buy it, and not because she is a woman. It is because I strongly suspect that her line of thinking is what future moles for feminist apologentia will make to try and keep their stolen tax fund agencies they have busily been propping up over the past forty years.
      She is learning, so I won’t say she can’t write, she made a valid attempt. But she has a ways to go before most men buy it.

    3. Gosh, I was just going to write that I wish more blacks would ride on Tradition across the wide range of the alt right.

  10. “Mr Mitchell” is probably a feminist impersonating a man to make this community look bad. I judge articles on their merits and concepts, without regard who wrote them, unless they have a history of writing shitty articles, but that could be man or woman

    1. he/she is right though. this is a male space so I am invading. i do argue a lot with feminists though. and would like to start a space for women against feminism who are secular and like gender roles. all of the female spaces are either religious or just against feminism in the sense that they agree with feminism but think that males need rights as well. I think males need rights but I think males and females are different. Anyway it is true that I am invading here, I just do not know where to find like-minded females. If a like minded female reads this please message me.

      1. “likes gender roles” = “wants bills paid”
        Roles and rights aren’t compatible, you have to choose one. Unless you’re prepared to make the ridiculous assertion that men should have the right to live their lives out in a predetermined female-compatible role. There is nothing so cancerous in the manosphere as the mounting legions of blue pill tradcon women like you peddling your hypergamous wares as red pill merchandise. I’d sooner raise my glass to the future with a feminist than with you.
        P.S. I personally don’t care if females join men’s spaces, so don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that you’re a woman.

        2. roles and rights are not the same as you said. we should have the right to not fit in yes. but i think gender roles are also nice since men and women are different. to those that do not want to live with gender roles they should have their choices respected my only request is that they do not demonize the gender roles of the patriarchy which some people (like me) like. Yes in that system men pay more of the bills than women, women however do contribute through childcare and work that is compatible with having children (in the past this work was domestic because there was more domestic work and it was compatible with having children). Today with less domestic work expanding the scope of ”women’s work” is something that I would welcome, but trying to eliminate gender roles completely in a world where men and women are still different in my opinion simply leads to a new set of gender roles, a set that I have seen and that I think would be wise to avoid in it’s extremity.

        3. Total non sequitur. Your contention is that men and women are different, therefore gender roles are a good idea. Yes, men and women are different, but how does it logically follow that gender roles are a good idea? You haven’t argued that in a logical way whatsoever.
          All you’ve done in discuss different human drives in terms of biology.
          And “requesting” that people not demonize the gender roles of the “patriarchy” that you like isn’t gonna fly with guys like me. Those roles force people into a narrow construct. So “requesting” that people respect your desire to force other people into a narrow construct? No.
          We need to do away with gender roles. If humanity naturally gravitates back to what appear to be “roles,” then fine, but it must be 100% by choice. And for once women need to be responsible.
          Irresponsible women are the reason we have a system of runaway child support and alimony. It’s just someone else’s job to support her, child that she is, because she isn’t responsible enough to support herself.
          Eliminating gender roles leads to a new set of gender roles? No, it doesn’t. Whatever it leads to happens by choice, not mandate.
          Now that women are free to do whatever they want, the tradcons want to enshrine a cherry-picked “patriarchy” where men support them. It amazes me that there are guys on this blog that are falling for this.
          P.S. Judgybitch isn’t a tradcon.

        4. I have no desire to force anyone into anything. When I ask that people do not shame gender roles it is because shaming gender roles is a form of forcing people in a certain direction (that is away from patriarchal gender roles). I also do not support the idea that not having gender roles should be shamed. Neither should be shamed, it makes more sense to me to simply make logical arguments supporting what you believe to be best. A logical argument against the use of traditional gender roles where the females many focus is childcare and where her job is a flexible one that gives her enough room to carry out that purpose and where the male is the main breadwinner and therefore the head of the family is therefore welcome.
          The sexes being different leads to gender roles because it is our differences that created gender roles. It was the fact that women got pregnant and had to nurse babies that lead to gender roles like them doing domestic work, not going to war, and them doing far less than men with respect to resource acquisition. Without gender roles, when you ask men and women to be the same and to do exactly the same you get an imbalance, in some sense you get inequality because men and women have differences that must be considered when we talk about what should be expected from them.
          To ask the general women to enter a relationship with a man and do the same task as him with respect to working and child care ignores the different instincts and capabilities between men and women. It ignores the time it takes to breastfeed, it ignores the time that the general woman needs to spend with her children to effectively bond with them and to guide them. To ask the general guy to do the same amount of childcare as the general woman also ignores the fact that he does not have breast to quiet babies or the instincts associated with motherhood. It ignores that for most of our evolution men were not doing the same amount of childcare as women and so have not adapted to it as much as we have. To ask men and women to work in the same jobs ignores the fact that women get more tired when pregnant and need to be in a flexible enough position to even make the decision to get pregnant. It ignores that men and women may generally just gravitate towards different jobs because they may just like different things and that should be okay.
          Men and women in general doing different things in society are gender roles. And these roles stem from the difference between men and women; that essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants, and men do not make babies or feed infants, freeing them up to do other things with their time
          If someone does not feel like conforming to gender roles that should be fine. Their decisions should be respected because only they know what is really best for them. But to seek to destroy gender roles completely does ignore that we are just not the same, we are not identical and although science enables us to be more identical than we have ever been before we are still not fully identical and so expecting men and women to behave the same is not logical!
          Traditional gender roles need to change in that they should be more reflective of our time, but the general framework of them does work and they are in their own way the result of a cultural evolution that should be respected in my opinion; but it is only an opinion and at the end of it all yes people should be free to do what they see as best. I am probably tradcon (but I am not American), but I do not seek for the whole world to be that way, only that it remains a viable option for other people who may also feel as I do.

        5. I wrote out a long reply to this, but I’ll save it. You can’t argue for both gender roles and non conformity. Gender roles imply conformity. I’ll ask you only one question. What do you think of child support and alimony?

        6. I think it depends on the society and in the west in the society that we have today they are misplaced. If a woman can divorce in the way she can today and with the economic opportunities available to her they are misplaced and should not exist. Basically I think you cannot have it both ways and that is a problem with feminism, they want the good parts of patriarchy/traditionalism and that good parts of matriarchy/liberalism.. it does not work that way. That is simply unfair. So as it is today there should be no forced child support or alimony.. but if things were different then I could understand it.

        7. I guess I never understood why some men make a big deal out of paying for their woman. I’ve paid for plenty of dates and gotten laid, so it’s all about how you frame yourself when you use money.
          But more importantly, and more on topic, remember that if men were paying for women all the time then the man would have a lot more power in his relationships. Back in the day they called this, “The power of the purse,” and if the man didn’t want to spend his money on something THAT WAS THAT.
          Too many betas ended up paying for everything women wanted, and thus they are spoiled, but if I had a wife and kids they wouldn’t get more than the basic necessities. And if she wanted more, I’d tell her to stop being so damn greedy.
          So don’t think that gender roles are necessarily a bad thing for men. It would involve giving a lot more power to men which would allow men to be more proactive in their relationships, but at the same time it would also allow for weak men to be exploited (but at least it would be more difficult to exploit weak men than it is in the present time).
          There will never be a set of laws in place where weak men cannot be exploited.

        8. Yeah, but the point you’re missing is suppose the man doesn’t want to pay it? You said if someone does not feel like conforming to gender roles that should be fine.

        9. also child-support is tricky.. I think males need more reproductive rights if they are going to be held responsible for children. With male reproductive rights then child-support makes more sense.

        10. Oh legally I am not a conservative, legally I like as much freedom as can safely be allowed, however I think that conservative behavior can benefit a large percentage of society. Legally child-support/alimony should not be enforceable especially under today’s conditions, but in a cultural sense conservatism and gender roles can benefit people and society so I just would rather them not be shamed!

        11. If we ended up going back to 100% male authority, then I agree with you, we’d avoid some of these problems. Personally, I don’t think women should be subject to those conditions unless it’s of their own choosing. The problem I have is that none of these women want to go back to 100% male authority, but they’re OK with 100% male obligation.
          You need to also remember that the “patriarchy” controlled male sexuality through shame. You were expected to devote yourself to your dependent wife. There is no game or hook up culture in a patriarchy.

        12. True, but for the purposes of this article I was assuming we were talking about living in a genuine patriarchy, not this pseudo-patriarchy (which is actually a matriarchy) that makes a man’s life hell.
          And yes, you were expected to be devoted to your wife… that’s why patriarchies invented travel.

        13. Right well I don’t completely disagree with you because I think males do need reproductive rights and I don’t have a problem with familial arrangements that appear traditionalist (provided they’re based on choice).
          But we came from a system of male authority/female dependence. Right now we have a system of just female dependence. The answer to maximize freedom isn’t to go back to male authority, it’s to get rid of female dependence. The answer is for our society to expect and demand female responsibility.
          Here’s what I mean about responsibility, see how you like it:
          If you choose to stay at home to carry out domestic tasks, that’s your choice, but as it is your choice, you need to take responsibility for it. What that means is that if there’s a divorce, you’ll have to find a job if you want to support yourself and keep your share of child custody. If you can’t do this, the guy gets de facto custody, and you can live in the street. That’s an adult standard. That is a standard of responsibility we’d have no problem holding men to. We currently hold men to even greater responsibility than that, because we expect them to pay for their exes WHILE they live on the street.
          The alternative is parasitic female dependence. If a relationship ends, the woman doesn’t have to take responsibility for her lack of income and general worthlessness, the man is expected to pick up the slack and pay child support, give her spousal support etc. In effect he ends up paying to support himself, and paying to support her because for some reason we give her the child. Yes, we’d rather give a woman with no money a child and force the father to pay for two households than to simply take the child away from an irresponsible woman.
          Equal responsibility is a bitch, but it’s the only way forward if you want to maximize freedom. The only other alternative is going back fully to the “patriarchy.” That means 100% male authority, and 100% male obligation, not some gynocentric combination of the two. The trouble is that’s going backwards in terms of maximizing freedom, not forwards.

        14. I completely agree with all of what you said in a legal sense. In a cultural sense I would like laws like that to be accompanied by stronger family bonds so that if a dependent woman loses her guy she would not be on the street. Women also in an ideal case would not be completely dependent on males. In a traditional sense women were very much dependent but they also contributed to the household economically via house work and childcare (making the male dependent on his wife in that sense, which gave women some sort of independence though less than men).
          We will see, society will do what it must, my message is more or less culturally the patriarchy had beneficial parts. It forced a family unit that was efficient and led to competitive societies and so to completely abandon it seems not ideal. But people will do what they must and so we will see.

        15. Jinna – I am about as far from a traditional conservative woman as is possible ( and thus would not be interested in the proposed website) yet I agree with much of what you say. I notice all that ‘liberalism diversity free thinking’ Idealism vanishes instantly if a woman wants to stay home & raise her kids. It’s just as valid a choice as any other, but there is little support of it or families in general, if you consider the father to be an important part of the family ( I do).

        16. I see. I’ve been somewhat unfair to you. You’re being more fair than I originally gave you credit for so I apologize to you for that.
          I’m against no-fault divorce actually to protect women. I think if you can get a guy to marry you and you both choose to live out a traditional relationship, then getting rid of no fault divorce is the cultural fail safe to protect women in this position. The guy can’t just leave.
          But two people choosing to live out non-traditional relationships, I think we need to expect greater female responsibility. Female non responsibility is why men are stuck paying child support, it’s why they’re stuck dishing out alimony for decades, and it’s why they have no reproductive rights.
          I don’t want to spam this blog with MRA-type rhetoric because I know this isn’t the place for it, but after all, this article is that kinda article.

        17. I do not mind no fault divorce, but the rest I totally agree, in some sense the marriage contract of the past was a form of reproductive rights for males, it was a way of signaling that they were okay with supporting the children of their wife. We need a new contract like that, males need reproductive rights reflective of today’s cultural norms.
          At the same time culturally speaking both sexes need to get that sex is not just sex, especially where no birth control is involved. Sex can result in children whose lives should be considered before the act takes place, so again I think conservative ideas are healthy in a cultural sense.

        18. I agree with you and Wadsworth, the problem right now is not the patriarchy or even the matriarchy.. it is this current hybrid of the two. women want the good in the patriarchy and the good in the matriarchy and that will never work, men will fight back and take the good in one and because of how loud feminists are men will likely take away the good in the patriarchy which I do not think is good for the majority.
          And yes male economic power, does men male leadership. I think it is important for people in a modern context to remember that historically though men contributed more economically and so had more power in the patriarchy it was not that women contributed nothing. Women also had an economic role to play as they did housework and childcare. Housework was more work then and so without someone to do it the male would need to hire someone to do it (as in if his wife was to vanish). So naturally in a patriarchy men lead and have the final say but it is not that women were completely and utterly voiceless, but rather that it made sense with everyone being dependent on males that they should have the last say.
          The thing is if the current hybrid is the problem, what is the solution??? We can not go back to 100% patriarchy or towards 100% matriarchy but trying to mix the two landed us here. I know I am thinking in binary terms and many people say there are other more egalitarian alternatives to these two types of societies.
          Ideally to me the solution would be a cultural understanding that the patriarchy does have benefits and that it really works best when we use gender roles including things like male leadership and females being child-focused. I personally think that the majority of people can be happy with such a culture but I have no way to prove that and we are not trending there. Feminists and all women in fact, just need to know that they cannot have it both ways. They need to choose, independence means not being lead by males but it also means they take care of their own kids and that males are free from childcare and childsupport etc. That is what is fair. Dependency means male leadership, but it also means you get the help of males to care for your children etc.
          Feminists will then say it is his children as well so they should be able to have independence and child support but if they are equally his kids as they are a woman’s then custody must be equal and you as a feminist women cannot expect to have more than 50% custody regardless of what type of father he is, and males need reproductive rights that mirror very closely those that females have. The reality is just that kids are not as much male’s as they are female’s own. Nature gave kids to women and if we want help to raise our kids we have to trade our independence to get it. One way of doing that is patriarchy another way would be male reproductive rights and sharing custody more equally; I suppose this is the feminists preference. I agree that that should be the law and an option culturally I prefer the patriarchal option because the children get a more stable environment and it will be easier on both parents.

        19. Actually it really depends on what phase of western civilization your talking about. In Christianized Europe men were subject to the same rules as women concerning marital fidelity. In Greco-Roman times (and probably almost everywhere else on the globe) fidelity was understood to be a one way street. Men had the privilege of extra martial sexual relationships and women did not. Period. That was an era of actual male authority, when his wife was quite literally property and there was a TRUE patriarchy – which is what makes the feminist indictments of modern times so ludicrous as to be laughable.

      2. I concur completely. I wish we had a site like this where like minded females who wish a return to traditional values/society could discuss these issues. Sadly, I doubt I could name even one besides myself. I wish that more men would rally against feminism. I tell every male I know about the Manosphere but seems they are too afraid to even look at this site for fear their wives/girlfriends will find out.

        1. Meanwhile their wives/girlfriends will or will likely cheat with a guy that does.
          If you guys want to start a site like this, then do so. It isn’t that hard.

        3. There is a site called “Taken in Hand”, where like minded females who wish to return to traditional values discuss these issues.

      3. Then I suggest strongly that you get the emails of any women who respond to your call, and start a “anti-jezebel.com” blog. Then zealousy guard it from alpha cad’s like most of us here. ;P

      4. Personally, I think only men are capable of changing anything because the vast majority of women are completely useless when it comes to rational thought and getting anything done. So I don’t really see the point of a women’s version of this website. Change will come when men decide that they’ve had enough of this nonsense.

        1. I somewhat disagree. When I first moved to TN from Puerto Rico, I was labeled an outcast because of my traditional views, wearing dresses, being too “girly”, not having sex until I was engaged, etc. The women of my generation (I’m an X’er), THINK this is the only way to behave. They don’t know anything else. For example. I recently got bashed on another site by a lot of women for “slut shaming” some girl. Umm, when did it not become shameful to be a slut???? I didn’t even know what slut shaming was. Never mind daring to speak your views on if someone is overweight. OH NO- she isn’t fat she is BEAUTIFUL.
          I’m sorry but I don’t feel that men are qualified to teach a woman femininity. That would be like me telling my husband which wrench to use. Women have to start coming together on these issues. But, it is hard because it is so much easier for them just to be a fat, lazy, slut.

        2. “Career obsessed” and seeking a man “to pay for” their child don’t really go together. Those are two different women. A major reason some women are interested in building careers is to support themselves (and, if necessary, child/en) rather than be leeches.

      6. No need to be self-deprecating. That’s the kind of crap you see from groveling men on feminist websites. This Mitchell is clearly an idiot, and should not be taken seriously.

        1. I never visited a feminist website and I don’t support feminism at all.
          Why do you consider me an idiot? Why shouldn’t I be taken seriously?
          Look at how quick you are at throwing on your cape to come to the rescue of some less-than-average female writer. You are the quintessential white knight.
          The fact of the matter is this: a site like ROK is designed for masculine men. I don’t know of any masculine man who listens to women and take them seriously. It’s not a matter of being disrespectful; it’s a matter of men having the confidence and ability to communicate with each other and thereby learn from each other without turning to the lesser sex for guidance or knowledge.
          This is not worthy of my time or attention. If you male readers want to lessen your masculinity and alpha cred by giving space to women, who by the way will ignore you in real life should you give them such consideration in person and you watch from the sidelines while they sex the men who disregard them, go ahead.

        2. You should have stopped short of the last paragraph. You gave yourself away as being a bitter women hater.
          Being a woman-hater is FAR from what being a masculine man is about. It is about as far from masculine as you can be without being a male feminist.

        3. There’s a word to describe men who have no use for women like you describe: GAY.
          Most of us here celebrate the presence in women in our life. We limit the impact that our interactions will have, based on the quality and nature of the individual women we deal with.
          You talk about alpha cred while discussing things like a theorist. I’d rather not resort to name-calling, but I am absolutely going to call you on “…without turning to the lesser sex for guidance or knowledge.” Only a FOOL (and I’m talking as a ship’s captain, not just as a father, brother and husband) fails to listen and mine the knowledge base of his subordinates, opponents and persons-met along the way. Of course we’re here to learn from our peers, but if we’re to be self-sufficient as people, we need to be able to bring our knowledge base into the world and expose it to hard use. From what you describe, it sounds like you’d rather move from monastery to whorehouse as the need strikes, and forget about the spaces between and around.
          We never fail to call out the writers here when we disagree, and in doing so we strengthen our understanding of the world. Jinna had some solid points worth revisiting, especially in seeing how the secular/religious frame pigeonholes us. That’s a a valuable lesson, and you would have missed it simply because she’s got tits.

        4. I am not GAY…not that I see anything wrong with being gay; in fact, I’ve got 3 sexy women on my rotation: two of which are both Ivy League grads (one from Columbia U. the other from UPenn) and one fresh out of Jamaica.
          I certainly celebrate in the presence of their warm and moist pink chasms.
          Finally, women like jinna would be better useful lecturing the you-go-girlism ladies in north america than us men.
          There’s something rotten that stinks in my nostrils when a site like ROK allow women to post. We men can address our own issues and confront them and resolve them on our own. Jinna is better off posting at some female site.

        5. Am not a woman hater…not by a longshot. I love women; in fact, there’s nothing I love more than a woman I have bent over my kitchen counter as I pound the shit out of her poosey…how could I hate such useful creatures?

        6. I agree! You sound like my Father, and he was the epitome of manliness! A true “Alpha” that was secure, calm, and confident (not boastful). We need more men like you in our society, and frankly these men are the real heroes. To quote one of my favorite movies:
          “Heroes in the real world live twenty-four hours a day, not just two hours in a football game. The truth is pain and sweat and payin’ bills and makin’ love to a woman that you don’t love any more. Truth is dreams that don’t come true, and nobody prints your name in the paper ’til you die.”<<< these everyday men are the ones who we need to lift up again to hero status.
          Frankly, posters like you are what has drawn me to this site. It is so refreshing to see a true Alpha gentleman in a sea of Beta idiots and Alpha posers.

        7. I agree with this guy. Any time women join a male space, they poison it and fuck it up with political correctness. Also, men can be total sellout tools around women. The only way to have an honest dialogue about mens issues is to exclude women from it completely. Arent there enough spaces where men and women can lie to each other?

        10. Shut the fuck up, faggot.
          Anti-feminists are so rare and so thoroughly outnumbered we could use any sort of voice. Your puritanical attitude will just ensure we stay mired in infighting and never gain any kind of serious support.

        11. And if I don’t shut the fuck up what will you do?
          As I said before, the messenger is just as important as the message. The messenger must deliver the message to the right audience. Jinna wasted time and space delivering her message here to us. If you can’t understand that girls need this message coming out of a woman’s mouth and not out of a man’s mouth, and that men/young males listen (or read) this message from a woman is strategically blunderous in this fight to restore civility in the Western world, then I don’t know what else to tell you.

        12. I think you’re misreading what I said. I’m merely pointing out that being bitter and angry is not masculine. I’m not telling anyone to ‘man up’ and ‘take care of a woman’. I don’t know how you reached that conclusion but it seems like you only heard what you wanted to hear.

        13. Dear Quintus (lol), I respect your work. Yours are the articles that are most worth the reading on this site.
          But I must disagree with you here. If this site were an MRA site, where primary focus is to combat legal and social inequities, the voice of women would be a most welcome addition. But its not. Its primary focus is Masculine behaviour and outlook. It has already been proven that the female psyche unconsciously or not will try to establish a social status in any stable environment and then try to skew agendas in its own interests. And that certainly can’t be tolerated in this matter. Kudos to our sisters for making a conscious effort but its just a harsh reality.
          Beware Elmer’s law.

      7. You’re not invading anything. You wouldn’t be here if we didn’t want you. I think the essay posted here today is an excellent summary of familial issues surrounding sex roles. We didn’t have anything like it on the site so I posted the essay. It’s a good primer for a lot of bigger discussions we’ll be having at RoK.
        As for her being a girl – had this article been written under a pseudonym, would it make a difference? Regardless having a woman’s viewpoint on topics concerning masculine men can still be informative provided there is a sincere effort made by the woman.

        1. In this effort to restore civilization, the messenger is just as important as the message.
          And it is imperative that men utilize their own voices to fight for the patriarchy, aka civilization, and disregard women like jinna do it for us.
          Understand that ROK have young male readers who are incessantly bombarded with messages from women EVERYWHERE they go: school, work, media, etc…it doesn’t fucking end!! It’s a complete waste of time and space for mangosteen or jinna to post on this site. Samseau if such an article above did not exist on ROK, then why didn’t you write on it? Young men need men they can look up to especially in our current society, and having a post by a woman doesn’t help in that regard. There is a quote that Frederick Douglass tends to use in some of his writing that somewhat encapsulates what am saying: “Hereditary bondmen, know ye not / Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?”
          If ROK wants to deceive its readers by allowing women to post using male names, then I’d question the integrity of this site.

        2. “Samseau if such an article above did not exist on ROK, then why didn’t you write on it?”
          Because I have a real life with other responsibilities that preclude me from writing for free all day. Additionally, while I could monopolize the voice of the site, I think it would detract from the overall message. We live in a democracy and people believe that more voices = more authority. Which is retarded, but that’s just the way democracies are.
          Before I approved this article, I did not even know if it was a man or a woman, I read it blind like I do all submissions and I decided if I wanted it. I was actually a bit surprised to learn it was a woman. “Jinna” is a very common male name (google it).
          I think young men who read this site will learn a lot about how to be a man – the issues facing them, and the behavior they should exemplify when it comes to both other men and other women. We are not blind zealots nor are we pushovers. We operate on principle and not emotion. We do not claim to be infallible but we do claim to know more than our opponents. We call ourselves Kings but that does not mean we are Tyrants.
          The women who are posted (there will not be many) on this site will also set a role model for the kind of behavior we are looking for in women, or at least the standards of writing we are looking for. If a woman can make it here, then there’s really no reason why many other men shouldn’t be able to either.

        5. What happened to ignore women in comments, ignore any advice from a woman, etc and the excellent reasons why? Yup, RoK is on the downward spiral.

      8. Arguing with feminists seems pretty pointless – all circular arguments, blanket statements and accusations. It can be amusing to say that I like traditional gender roles when they clearly don’t expect that from a “modern” girl. They don’t seem to like discussions on submission either – gets angry pretty fast!
        It would be interesting to have a forum for like minded females but I am not sure how long it would stay friendly. For some reason, based on the women I know, it tends to get pretty divisive. Even if everyone agrees with the main points there will be little petty details that get people riled up.

        2. Not to mention there aren’t many women who literally can’t formulate a logical argument… The forum doesn’t have much of a chance.

        3. Since you’re complaining about logical fallacies, thought I’d edify you on your mistakes.
          1. Hasty generalisation;
          2. Anecdotal experience leading to inane stereotypes about feminists
          3. If you wanna be submissive or adhere to traditional gender roles then no one’s stopping you (yeah you can choose to do or not do something; if you like that liberty, you may be closer to feminism than you think)
          4. Yep, I’d say make fewer generalisations about people and factions and you may have some luck.

        4. Indeed! A lot of women don’t even want to acknowledge our existence. That there are women today who are “modern”, and proud and healthy, but who is glad to submit and be humble etc. Traditional gender roles are just something so beautiful and fulfilling if you ask me, hehe! 🙂

        5. Like the feminist generalization that all men throughout history were evil and that we’re all potential rapists??

      9. This was an excellent article, very perceptive and bringing together all sorts of various fields to provide great insights. Any commenter who does not see the merit in this article lacks IQ and belongs on a diverse vibrant community, not on RoK. Had no idea the writer was a woman.

      10. Jinna, feminism is about equal rights. It doesn’t equate to misandry. By feminists wishing for equal rights, it means you should have the right, just as should men, to abide by more traditional gender roles or deviate, to be a full-time mum or a full-time student/employer, to date whom you want, to be free to travel, work, parent, study, source out new avocations…
        Men, too, can be feminists by way of respecting women’s rights and freedom as equal to their own. A guy can be extremely “masculine” by our society’s standards or not so much, and be a feminist.
        If you’re looking for a community where women and men are respected, alike, and where you’re not considered a “slut” if you do and a slut if you don’t, or accused of attempting a matriarchal takeover for ever wanting to vote, or travel without male-accompaniment, or seek justice if you were ever assaulted… if you want to maintain your right to your genders’ conventional role in your society, as well as your human rights, any feminist or civil rights-oriented community – actually, really any community at all – is a better choice than a place where women are called sluts for going to certain colleges, or for dying their hair.
        You know that old saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire) – wouldn’t it be nicer to enjoy exercising your right to gender role-adherence, but also have the right to do otherwise if you so chose? Patriarchy stems from unjustified self-entitlement; it isn’t about equal rights, But if you think that men should earn more for the same work, receive more/all inheritance, including property rights, that women shouldn’t have the CHOICE to be a wife or mother, but the obligation to do as her father or courter sees fit, then exercise your right to follow the words of patriarchal internet-bloggers. I don’t think the outcome will be auspicious but, I’m a girl who enjoys her equal-rights so I’m not sure how much weight my advice will have.
        All the best

        1. I do not agree with calling women sluts or with shaming people in general. I think if it can be done we should just explain to each other the consequences of our actions. That being said the reality is that slut shaming came from a time when birth control was much harder to do.
          Sluts got pregnant and there was no nameable father around to help them with the child. THAT is why sluts were shamed. I believe that women and men should be free to be stay at home parents or sluts, but that is not what I see in feminism.
          It does not matter how many times feminists say that they stand for equality and choice, the reality is that feminism is not standing for equality or choice. Feminists minimize and ignore the problems that males face in society and feminists perpetuate the myth that working is more important, valuable and worthy that taking care of children for free.
          That is what I see in feminism and I am not alone, so I will stand for possibly the same rights as you but I will never call myself a feminist.

        2. I do not agree with calling women sluts or with shaming people in general. I think if it can be done we should just explain to each other the consequences of our actions. That being said the reality is that slut shaming came from a time when birth control was much harder to do.
          Sluts got pregnant and there was no nameable father around to help them with the child. THAT is why sluts were shamed. I believe that women and men should be free to be stay at home parents or sluts, but that is not what I see in feminism.
          It does not matter how many times feminists say that they stand for equality and choice, the reality is that feminism is not standing for equality or choice. Feminists minimize and ignore the problems that males face in society and feminists perpetuate the myth that working is more important, valuable and worthy that taking care of children for free.
          That is what I see in feminism and I am not alone, so I will stand for possibly the same rights as you but I will never call myself a feminist.

        3. Well then weren’t the fathers, too, sluts? If they had sex with a chick and left her with the mess?
          That’s not true. At all. That would be like saying that an organisation trying to fight racism in a bigoted, semi-segregated community is belittling to the white individuals’ problems. You can’t tackle every issue at once, so there is a myriad of different organisations and charitable businesses for tackling different issues. OneGirl is a charity that funds school tuition for younger girls, as they are safer in school, have the opportunity to make friends, form a community, and be educated. Because the actual data reveals the incidence of sexual violence against these girls to be more likely than the possibility that they may go to school. I don’t think it is minimising the issues of the males of that community by trying to tackle this huge problem.
          Domestic violence against males, for instance, as well as that against women, should be taken seriously. But as the statistics show women to be far, far more likely to be abused in the home (and elsewhere), more research and intervention strategies is required.

        4. The men were sluts as well but there was no evidence of their slutiness hanging around them, so it was not possible for society to identify them. It was therefore easier and most effective to shame women. Women have also always been the gate keepers of sex. Men chase women for sex, not the other way around, so we effectively decide when sex happens.
          Feminism does minimize male issues. 1) It doesnt matter which sex gets abused more domestically, what matters is that domestic violence is wrong and we are a society and as individuals should fight against domestic violence in ALL cases including the cases where it happens to men. Feminism ignores male cases. 2) Women may have problems that men do not have, but men also have issues that we do not have, I will write more on this tomorrow though lol.. I am half asleep at the moment.

        5. “A guy can be extremely masculine and a feminist.”
          Like that – he can only be extremely ridiculous. Or as it actually sometime happens – he can even be a feminst – but only in name.
          Because, being masculine means being strong(not only physically, but in every other important part of life)
          or to be more precise: it means to be dominant.
          Now how do you plan to dominate anything if you’re gonna respect everyone’s Rights, and their ridiculous overstreched rules? That’s endless status quo – at best.
          Not domination, not strenght. More like a weakness. Women would be the first to write you off as a wussy for such a behaviour.
          Now offcourse there are endless shades of not only grey in the story, but what is certain, is that it would have lowered him in the eyes of the others.
          Funny thing is that if you worry all the time about the Rights of others, yours get trampled.
          And offcourse, we always defined sluts by the color of her hair, and especially her college choice – what’s next in your feminst dreams? Being a slut for watching pokemon?

        6. 1. You’re using an incorrect definition of feminism.
          2. You’re using an incorrect definition of masculinity.
          3. Status quo would in most contexts and eras find the idea of respecting another’s basic human rights as disparate and hence the opposite of status quo.
          4. You’re not talking about rights most have fought for – to not have one’s body or intellectual/financial property violated, to edify oneself so that they may pursue goals cohesive with their skill-set and devotion (those which men – particularly white men following colonialism, obviously – have monopolised due to their places in government, monarchy, church, etc., and laws tailored to exclude women (e.g., up until around 1930s women couldn’t receive a PhD for which they had completed their dissertations, even when they were, as a minority with no “affirmative action” or whatever, at the top of their class. You’re talking about being taken advantage of, whilst abnegating the idea that it may be wrong for one to take, for e.g., physical advantage of another due to an atavistic ability in retaliation to another person outsmarting you or beating you in an enlightened pursuit.
          I really don’t want to waste any more time trying to explicate where each of your syllogisms deemed your arguments spurious in yours and many people’s arguments on your page; it’s a waste of time. I only wrote on here because I saw someone who could easily be lulled into a false notion of inferiority and a right for others to oppress another based on gender. I really don’t give a shit what you say because it’s devoid of reason (something that tends to require cognitive complexity and enlightenment, some tests of IQ, not physical strength, not those developments contingent on dominant ratios of androgens to oestrogens/progestogens). It is disappointing to me that people with your most basic errors in judgement have subsisted, despite those deficiencies, until this day. But as a believer in the non-aggression principle, property rights and similar ideals against non-defensive violence and coercion, I’d rather you all just continue to abrade at one another’s remaining neurological and reproductive functioning, so that others may progress without your interference (a somewhat myopic hope in its idealism).
          So many of you will obviously continue to deem women inferior and inculcate the susceptible with the fundamentally specious assertions that quake under your self-aggrandizement; you can maintain beliefs that are inferred at a critical level as simple emotion-fuelled delusion and hubris; and if it’s your thing, whore your dick out to wherever or in whomever you can spray your load, contradictorily retaining your arrogance in deriding the others’ part in the act.
          I’ll continue to sporadically mock you like I may Putin or Stephenie Meyer, but I should go use my brain, my physical health/fitness and earn based on merit…(Fine I’m going to hang with my feminist cult, so basically watch Ellen re-runs, plan our lesbian ritual to enslave all men under a hysterical matriarchy, light some bra-burning fires and watch our leg hair grow).
          Oh and yeah I know I’ve used a couple of logical fallacies myself in what could be seen as generalisations and loaded statements – it’s a half-assed philosophical argument cross opinion piece so whatever – but these don’t disrupt entire syllogisms or stand on post-hoc/ad-hoc manipulations.

        7. 1. I was using your definition of feminism
          2. I think most of the men wouldn’t agree with YOUR definition of the masculinity, it’s too damn wrong.
          3.The fundamental right of any person on the Earth is a right to life. Great. Now only the threat of taking that right from someone, can properly assure it. And to be able to achieve the effectiveness of that threat – is to be dominant, and strong – and probably trample some other less important Rights along the way to achieve that. There has to be a hierarchy of rights.
          P.S. It does bring status quo.
          4. You’re forgetting that wives and daughters of nobles were always more privileged than most of the men of any given kingdom in the world. To be honest, these women once married could have read philosophy, or poetry, or something, and some did, but the thing was most of them weren’t interested, and the same is today. You’ll also see that often queens were the regents after the king dies, and sons haven’t matured yet. If men did stop women from everything as you claim, you wouldn’t have seen any of this.
          You can’t think (every aspect of) history in the terms of the XXI. century. They didn’t view Reality as you might today. Seeing that only men lead everything and women nothing.
          Family was what mattered It was important which family Controls what, not; is it a man or a woman that is performing the actual function.
          Also competent women controlled things via their husbands, so rest assured, patriarchy wasn’t that bad – only for women, nor that good – only for men.
          If you care take a look at: http://www.women-philosophers.com/Beguines.html
          – who the beguines were.
          It may have appeared that way but no i wouldn’t
          beat the girl that might appear more smart than me. Hell no, that would be sign of a weakness, though if she tries to belittle me, or break rules of fair conversation, like you did i return in the same manner, and if she’s little too vile, and/or persistent, than i would apply my edge in physical strength, and give a smack over the face or two.
          So, Ad hominem is your thing than? Very much enlightened
          indeed. Yet i feel the need to respond:
          Delusional as you are, feel free to progress without
          us into the ground where you’ve been going for some time.
          And while doing so, It would be very wise to waste as little Resources as possible in your “noble” and”enlightened” endeavor of utter regression.
          And regression i say because everything you have, and
          even everything you are – is a product of the development of the
          patriarchal civilization – of both men and women, who put their
          Energy and even lives into it, no matter how much you keep failing in the
          recognition of such an undisputable fact.
          I also can’t help but notice that you put a bit too much emphasis on the enlightenment of the mind, and than fail to proceed in providing the fruits of that enlightenment of yours… Also that overemphasis on only one facet of life makes me pity that one – dimensional creature under the name Katty.
          And… Putin is who you would like to ridicule?
          Why don’t you examine those LGBT folks on march through the streets every year? They surely look more funny than a man that tamed Russia.
          But you seem to be of different thought. So you probably enjoy these freak shows, so it comes to
          mind: Is that what your enlightenment is all about? So you can get drunk, undress and dance on the streets? You don’t necessarily need any kind of enlightenment for that.
          Ambushing people around like FEMEN surely sounds like a great idea too, it has to really
          look as one great leap forward in your struggle for salvation of the world from
          the civilization that had built it.
          So
          next time keep your ad hominem shit in your mouth since you have much more garbage to talk about than anybody else…
          God bless you.

        9. “Jinna, feminism is about equal rights. It doesn’t equate to misandry.”
          The French revolution was about “Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite”
          Something to think about.

        10. It’s called INSTABILITY. Ever hear the term united we stand, divided we fall?? If everyone thinks so differently about everything and there is no uniform beliefs… society will fall into chaos, because everyone thinks they’re right. Look at the way women are today in relationships. They care more about themselves than they care about what their husbands need. Men are far less likely to throw women out for not having a job. That kind of oversensitive, self-centered, sexist attitude is NOT GOOD for a government.

        11. It’s sad that women like you refuse to believe that before feminism took charge, most women didn’t want the same rights and all of the equally sh!tty responsibilities that men had. There were a lot of women fighting the suffragettes. Majority rules. That’s how it should work in society. Not a small group, whining because they’re not taken seriously or respected like men – even though they’re not men. They’re the exception. They’re the minority. What’s best for society as a whole should be decided by a majority. And that’s what happened all those years ago. You really think men wouldn’t listen to women if they all got together to fight for something they wanted?? LMAO. You don’t know men.

        12. LOL. Speaking of sexual violence…. You’re complaining that women are always called sluts for whatever reason right? And yet, you feminists have no qualms about looking at all men as potential rapists or murderers, fearing us for some natural impulses. Now, personally, I would rather be generalized as a slut than a rapist. I would rather be seen as dim-witted or incapable than the next Hitler. Why can you justify generalizing all men – like your sons, brothers, fathers, etc as evil while bitching and moaning because some morons somewhere considers women sluts for dressing a certain way??

    2. I am a 28 yo black male living in brooklyn, NY. I am not a feminist; in fact, I detest feminism to the core.
      I cannot make this community look bad; I don’t control the look of any community…every comment I make is my opinion and my opinion alone. I speak for no community…I only speak for myself.
      ROK has gone through this already with the Mangosteen article; I don’t understand why women find it necessary to infiltrate every “man space”. As discriminatory and prejudiced that I am, I’d rather read a terrible article by a male writer than a well written article by a female writer.
      Any female writer on ROK will be ignored by me. If a female can deliver this message to me, so can a man. For some reason, I can’t exactly explain as of now, I want my messenger to be a man and not a woman.

      1. “I’d rather read a terrible article by a male writer than a well written article by a female writer.”
        Congratulations. This is the dumbest comment I have ever seen on this site.
        I suggest doing what you said you would do and ignore the article. Because you aren’t doing a good job of it and spreading mental diarrhea in the process of not doing so.

        1. You’re missing my point: it’s better that men make an attempt, whether executed well or dismally, to stand up and speak for themselves than to have a woman fight our battles. It is men who must assert their masculinity and moral convictions in fighting for the patriarchy and against feminism. Women like jinna can only support us in that endeavor and not fight for us or write articles for us to read. She’d be more effective talking to females about such issues as fighting for the patriarchy.

        2. You are creating a false dichotomy that only walls yourself off from enlightened and productive discourse.
          I’d say more but it’s obvious that you are either a Trojan Horse or an unchained idiot, and you are not worth my time.

        3. Those things are not mutually exclusive. All sorts of people can resist feminism, and all sorts of people can speak to and within anti-feminist circles. Why is this such a big deal to you?

    3. The vetting of articles for this site has really gone downhill the past couple of years.

  11. “It is interested in birth and survival rates of children, and that is why males were drafted. Male disposability led to more children.”
    No. Men were conscripted primarily because they were physically fit to fight battles and women were not. Try having women in pike blocks for example. Not gonna happen.
    While the idea that gender roles are correlated with the material wealth of a society is valid, I can’t help but think that this article overgeneralizes. “Capitalism, socialism, patriarchy, and matriarchy” are also loaded as hell words that obfuscate the overall meaning of the message.

    1. it definitely over generalized. a lot. it is extremely difficult to say what I am trying to say without over generalizing. it is not that there is one patriarchy or matriarchy or capitalism or socialism.. it exist on hundreds of levels throughout society and even within our minds.

    2. And now more men tend to fight than women but as it’s voluntary, it means that the puny weakling guys aren’t dying on the front-lines and the physically strong and capable men and women are both able to fight if they wish.

      1. That’s how it always was. It was always voluntary, as long as it could be. When shit got serious, drafting was introduced. And we’re back on the Liberta’s point – men are drafted because even if they don’t feel like fighting, turning them into soldiers is more viable than turning unwiling women into soldiers. Truth be told i would rather lose my father in war, than my mother. If i was still a little kid, death of the mother would have struck me MUCH harsher than death of my father. See one more reason to put men into army instead of women. Cheers

  12. “She is half Trinidadian and half Jamaican but lived in Jamaica for most of her life. Her husband is German.”
    What race does that make her kids ?

  13. The article in a nutshell:
    “If you ignore this, this, this and this you come to my conclusion.”

  15. hi Jinna, its nice to hear a woman stand up and take the criticism that us guys take when we spread red-pill wisdom. I don’t think this particular wisdom is new but I, for one, appreciate a womans need to be part of the conversation. no ass kissing here. the positive masculine info here and in a few other sites are helping me daily get closer to a state of nirvana. any help is appreciated.

  16. Patriarchy can’t be considered the equivalent of socialism like your graph seems to indicate. While traditional marriage allows for more male provisioning to go to the children, it allows men more honor, and a wider availability of sex. Socialism is designed for the state to take over that role, usually giving the choice to keep the father in the children’s lives to the mother.
    In essence, Socialism is our country’s system of transition from real family to anarchy.
    Some people seem to act like before the invention of the welfare state, no aid went to the poor, sick, elderly, and injured. This simply isn’t true. It was accomplished by a combination of the church and private charities.

  17. “the matriarchy is not a society that favors women”
    I blame Roosh for allowing some cunt to post feminist propaganda here. It’s articles like this that will prove most damaging if he continues to allow such retarded shit. The only thing I can speculate on is he is trying to piss off his admirers in order to boost readership traffic or something. Of course this is his blog he can do what he wants, but his choice of content will determine credibility and ultimately SALES.

    1. It’s not beneficial to women in that women in a matriarchal society end up having to do the work of both the father and mother in a traditional society. This in turn leads to a lower quality upbringing for children, and ultimately a lower quality people. So in the long run, it is detrimental for everybody involved.

  18. Patriarchy = pretty much all of human history. Social contracting for stability.
    Matriarchy = aberrant behaviour that led to unsuccessful civilizations, which is why the West is being buttfucked.
    Enough said.

    1. I agree. If matriarchy had positive value, why were there no successful matriarchies?

      1. Because matriarchies are weaker in comparison to patriarchies. In a war between the two the patriarchy will always win, patriarchies produce more children, more technology etc.. because they are more efficient. The social structure of a patriarchy uses both male and female output to a greater extent than the social structure in matriarchies that is why matriarchies only exist where resources are abundant and they die out as soon as they enter war with patriarchies. Biology seems to favor matriarchies when resources are easy to get and there are no wars though (and yes that is an over simplification that biology favors it).. but we trend more towards it because in times when we can humans put themselves before others. A lot of people who studies pre-historic societies think that many hunter gatherer tribes were matriarchal, when europeans came to the Caribbean for example they also wrote about one particular tribe here (Kalinagos) that were matriarchial (not entirely but they had significant elements of it). Matriarchies can and have existed they just can not compete with patriarchies.

        1. Quite interesting situation we have in here.
          Catherine H. commented that all should be free to chose, what they want, of their personal life, and that free choice in many areas of life was not quite an option in the patriarchies of the world.
          So for one’s personal life, and happiness it is better to live in her feminist democracy – you can choose what you want, right?
          That’s how indians and Africans lived (within many patriarchal elements), with much more relaxed morals, and gender roles – more freedom – something like a Jamaican matriarchy as described earlier.
          Now European patriarchies crushed these with ease, and they ended up as slaves, oppressed, and exploited.
          So what is better? To enjoy freedoms, knowing that your civilization won’t last for (too) long. If you care only for yourself – matriarchy seems to be the solution.
          But it’s time to come to the point of this post of mine;
          I don’t think that all this freedoms makes you any more happy than some Chinese woman, or some ordinary South American women. Humans get used to things, and all of this freedom deprivation that proper patriarchy encompases is not such of a problem to either men or women involved, since they’ve got used to it. So even though you aren’t much happier than those under patriarchal systems, you still contribute to the downfall of your civilization.
          I live in Balkans, and you live in the USA. While i was growing up, Balkans was a patriarchal, warlike, and poor place to live in.
          In part of Balkans where i come from we didn’t se much of war, except for a little bit of airstrikes, and small arms fire, so most of the time there was peace. we were(still are) poor, and i didn’t have the PC as early as you did in USA like in nineties, nor playstation, nor my own car as soon as i reached 18, also as an adolescent i have gone to work on the farms for lousy pay -which you didn’t even considered to do – ever. but overall i had a really good time, and surely wouldn’t change that for all the standard of yours.
          You just adapt to the present situation where your Rights might be restricted, and you do something out of things you can.
          It’s something like the fact that you can’t fly. So what should you do? You don’t think about it, just do what you can do, with things you can get to.

  20. I don’t buy it. The patriarchy was about the family unit, not the children. The children (and parents and grandparents and etc.) were viewed as part of a whole, not having them on a pedestal. It is the current “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” hysteria that’s causing some of our current issues.
    I think the author should rethink the article.
    Granted, this fresh outlook is welcoming, but it just doesn’t add up.
    And no, I refuse to fight for the patriarchy, I’m not going to put my ass on the line against the childish whims of Western society just to save the morons from themselves.

    1. So you’re telling me that in a life and death situation, you wouldn’t make the health and safety of your children a top priority?

  22. In a matriarchy, public wealth is created by men and administered by women.
    Women make wealth distribution-related decisions based on their own interests. Their interests are defined by emotions and social relationships.
    In a matriarchy, wealth distribution is not merit-based.
    No intelligent man is willing to create wealth under the rules of a matriarchy. A life of crime and pleasure is a much attractive option.

    1. If mentally sane feminine women (who are willing to make and raise healthy children and nurture their families) want join the fight, then wtf, I also welcome them.
      Please create your own blogs and allow everyone to participate. ROK is already doing it.
      This is beautiful @[email protected] Long live the revolution.

  23. The world IS a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest arena even during good times. People in first world countries simply forget this because they’ve become accustomed to comfort. Hence the unrealistic ideals of love/tolerance/equality/various nonsense coming out of the West.
    In that sense patriarchy isn’t so much an ideology as it is a reflection of reality.

    1. Women will be begging for a patriarchy if modern society collapses again. They don’t want to have to deal with all the trials and hardships (being attacked by anyone and everyone, and nature itself). They’re not stupid when it comes to survival. Women know their limitations. What bothers modern men about this dynamic is that we have all the comforts in the world and yet, women are proving that they can’t actually love us unless they need us.

      1. That’s not “love”; that’s business. Women have often faked love to get things they needed.

  24. I like vivalamanosphere, but is there a PUA/Game version of that. As in, it collects a bunch of Game bloggers posts.

  25. Jinna, thanks for causing the revealing that a few men here are more interested in putting down a woman than in alphaness, truth. or procreation.
    Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    1. It is no man’s responsibility to raise/elevate women, as far am concerned.
      Any man concerned with alphaness will come closer to being alpha if he stops listening to and reading articles by women.
      The above two points and the next one are the truth.
      Procreation? I wouldn’t want children, my own offspring in particular (if I decided to have any) to become cannon fodder for corporations’ wars.
      And your lame attempt to utilize that quote at the end of your comment is just that: lame.

      1. Thanks for the evidence that you are not telling truth.
        The evidence is this: “The above two points and the next one are the truth.” and your absence of evidence for this.
        There was no attempt to utilise my quote at the end of my previous comment. I used it as a signature, because I was the first to prove it true. This comment, however, utilises it.
        Your comments are too wrong.

      2. Your children will become cannon fodder only if you allow yourself to believe that there are no alternatives to the status quo.
        Anarchism is closer to the heart.
        Powerful people and organizations depend on their reputation. Expose the truth and watch them fall.

  26. Well, not only am I a guy, but I’m short (which are the only 2 things that are allowed to be made fun of in today’s society). So even if guys get their act together and somehow get their rights back, I’m still screwed.
    So I’m perfectly fine with just sitting back and watching this shithole society burn.

    1. Unless you’re short because you’re in a wheelchair, that’s just an excuse. My husband is more than 3 inches shorter than me, never had any problem attracting women. He does have a good sense of humor though, you might consider trying it!

  27. “the matriarchy is not a society that favors women”
    Roosh should be more dicerning then to allow some female to post feminist propaganda here. It’s articles like this that will prove most damaging if he continues to allow such retarded shit. The only thing I can speculate on is he is trying to piss off his admirers in order to boost readership traffic or something. Of course this is his blog he can do what he wants, but his choice of content will determine credibility and ultimately SALES.

    1. Guys, I also forgot to mention something known as ‘astro turfing’ whereby someone starts asserting true-isms that everyone can agree on giving the impression to the readers that the writer either understands us or is one of us, lowering our defenses, while in a very subtle manner eases in the feminist agenda in the rest of the text rhetotic. Look guys, the said author is based in the Nederlands, i.e. EUROPE which is staunch socialist and socialism = feminism. E’nuff said.

  28. I’ve just got to say, this is the worst rubbish I’ve ever read on this otherwise excellent site. I thought so as soon as I read it and before I realised the author was a woman. I don’t care about the gender of the author, but I care about the quality and the integrity of the ideas that an author tries to convey, and in this case the ideas are complete nonsense.
    When the author tried to say that patriarchy=socialism and matriarchy=capitalism? Get fucked. Straight up, get fucked. Socialism is THE most “egalitarian” and inefficent i.e. matriarchal system of societal organisation that exists. Capitalism on the other hand is all about strong men excelling, like strong men are apt to do, i.e. a true patriarchy.
    Honestly, this author is an idiot. She is just so wrong in her analysis. Why was this tripe published on this otherwise excellent site?

    1. I do not think that patriarchy=socialism and matriarchy=capitalism. I think that patriarchy and socialism come from the same type of thinking that is putting the benefit of others/society above the short term benefit of self, just as matriarchy and capitalism are both based on the idea of everyone seeking what is best for self and not caring to much about the long term success of others and society. They all can work under different conditions and combinations in my opinion, also under a capitalistic system I think the patriarchy becomes even more important as a social structure because a structure that benefits and supports children and all members of society become more important when the economy does not put the interest of society above the interest of personal gain. Just my thoughts though, what is your take on it? Does patriarchy seek to benefit self more than society in your opinion or is it totally unrelated?

      1. Oh, I see.
        Yeah I don’t know whether a patriarchy seeks to benefit self more than society. I think socialism ultimately seeks to benefit only the thugs at the top who are running the whole show, we saw that happen in the old U.S.S.R. Everyone under that Socialist system suffered: children, women, men, everyone, they all had a lower living standard than their counterparts in western capitalist nations, except of course for the Patriarchs of the Communist Party, who had a fabulous lifestyle, enabled by the brutocracy that they practiced.

        2. Socialism must always devolve into such, it is a natural law.
          Likewise, capitalism always drives forward technological advancements and improving living standards. The immutable nature of human psychology ensures it.

        4. Well it is true I think a mix of the two would be a nice approach and that the things on the ”seeking self interest” side of the graph are more natural to humans, it is possible that with respect to economic socialism we have not yet found a model that works. This page http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism says that socialism can sometimes mean social democracy which is using taxes for social things like the fire department, welfare, education, healthcare, public transport etc. So some things socialist have worked. The socialism you describe they call collectivism and yes it has not worked, I think it’s intentions are society focused though, but in practice you are right.

    1. really good article they explained it much better than I did, the only thing is I am not sure if patriarchy is going to come back because patriarchal people are having more kids. They are hopefully, I think we have to fight for it. Culturally we are shaming patriarchy and even the children of patriarchal people are exposed to tv etc.

  30. This is the lamest ass article that I have ever read on this site, and it just happened to be written by a woman. Estrogen fucks their brains up.

  31. RoK can be a very strange experience sometimes. You can jump from an article about banging as many women as possible, to an article the slams on women for sleeping around. Which is notable because if the second thing didn’t happen, the first thing couldn’t. You can have an article that slams men who get married, and then slams women who don’t. I suppose the only thing this really shows is that RoK is not manifesting a single coherent vision, which is fine too, but it can make for a very disjointed read some days.

  32. First off I’m a supporter of jinnaZiller; I’m a secular traditionalist, more specifically I am a TWRA. Also I am a man. I support patriarchy; however I think patriarchy should be the expected norm for everyone, a societal standard. I think matriarchy or feminism is intrinsically dysfunctional and should not be imposed upon children.
    A point of disagreement with jinnaZiller. I am not an expert on traditional cultures so my knowledge of how things worked in the past may be lacking. However my impression is that patriarchy is basically historically universal. Matriarchy may be seen a bit here and there but patriarchy is by far the norm. If matriarchy is seen in say 1 out of 100 cultures that would be consistent with matriarchy being universally unstable and of short duration.
    My main point of disagreement is this idea that the
    patriarchy / matriarchy continuum is cyclical with good times leading to matriarchy which then leads to bad times which then leads to a return of patriarchy which then leads to good times which then leads to matriarchy; etc. My impression is that patriarchy is
    highly stable while matriarchy is highly unstable. Patriarchy does not undermine itself but matriarchy does undermine itself.
    I think this idea that prosperity leads to matriarchy
    probably comes from the current cultural environment where the rich countries have broken families while the poor countries don’t. However I would not say that prosperity leads to matriarchy and self-centeredness because people can materially afford it; instead I would say that the rapid economic change that has occurred in the past several decades has happened too quickly for people to adapt to. Current family breakdown is caused by disorientation, not by wealth.
    Secular Patriarchy is my website
    http://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/

  33. Women are thinking eugenetically, which means they want the best genes for their children as possible. This happens of course subconsciously and often traits like game, attitude, confidence, looks, merits, wealth etc. are the things she thinks decide if a man has good genes or not.
    The faster you know these facts the faster you will “eat the red pill” about women.
    After that you got to realise that feminism, women starting to work and egalitarism and the matriarchy isn’t something that has happened naturally because women felt opressed or some other bullshit explanation. Start by connecting the dots between feminism, marxism and more importantly the Francfurt-school. Very interesting information you will get there.
    P.S. Hans Rosling is a hack-job who is praising for the masses that all will be good eventually. He is the true Bagdad Bob and his work is very similar to the newscasters in 1984, who says the exact same thing.

  34. You forget that advanced civilization beyond sod huts and barbarism requires patriarchy. Matriarchy doesn’t get you air conditioning, moon walks, Ipads, or anything beyond base level agrarian and hunter gathering societies because most male effort is wasted and not used. You can only do so much with slaves. If males have no stake (legally or otherwise) in their offspring they do not work to produce. This is why we still have child support and the vicious apparatus to continue it – because when you throw dad out of his home and take everything he tends to drink, get depressed, and stop working 80 hour weeks – but the government still wants to tax him so they use a gun. That won’t last, it can’t last, and you can’t base a civilization on it. If you want to know what a matriarchal city looks like examine Africa or Detroit and you’ll see the glories of it. Historically such were easy pickens for the neighbors so the system never got off and stayed off the ground.

  35. You forget that advanced civilization beyond sod huts and barbarism requires patriarchy. Matriarchy doesn’t get you air conditioning, moon walks, Ipads, or anything beyond base level agrarian and hunter gathering societies because most male effort is wasted and not used. You can only do so much with slaves. If males have no stake (legally or otherwise) in their offspring they do not work to produce. This is why we still have child support and the vicious apparatus to continue it – because when you throw dad out of his home and take everything he tends to drink, get depressed, and stop working 80 hour weeks – but the government still wants to tax him so they use a gun. That won’t last, it can’t last, and you can’t base a civilization on it. If you want to know what a matriarchal city looks like examine Africa or Detroit and you’ll see the glories of it. Historically such were easy pickens for the neighbors so the system never got off and stayed off the ground.

  36. You forget that advanced civilization beyond sod huts and barbarism requires patriarchy. Matriarchy doesn’t get you air conditioning, moon walks, Ipads, or anything beyond base level agrarian and hunter gathering societies because most male effort is wasted and not used. You can only do so much with slaves. If males have no stake (legally or otherwise) in their offspring they do not work to produce. This is why we still have child support and the vicious apparatus to continue it – because when you throw dad out of his home and take everything he tends to drink, get depressed, and stop working 80 hour weeks – but the government still wants to tax him so they use a gun. That won’t last, it can’t last, and you can’t base a civilization on it. If you want to know what a matriarchal city looks like examine Africa or Detroit and you’ll see the glories of it. Historically such were easy pickens for the neighbors so the system never got off and stayed off the ground.

  38. There can be pathological paternalism as there can be pathological maternalism. These two extremes correspond to philosophical rationalism and philosophical positivism. What we need is the balance of the paternal with the maternal as in a healthy family formed y the bond of love between a man and a woman. This corresponds to philosophical realism.

  39. There can be pathological paternalism as there can be pathological maternalism. These two extremes correspond to philosophical rationalism and philosophical positivism. What we need is the balance of the paternal with the maternal as in a healthy family formed y the bond of love between a man and a woman. This corresponds to philosophical realism.

  40. Dude, read a history book. Your main argument about “Child support” is a completely wrong. Not only was it the case that women would get absolute nothing after a divorce, but in most cases they would lose their dowry and their inheritance too. It is only in the past century that women in a relationship were allowed to hold property (at least in Canada)! These oppressive laws were challenged and new precedents were made first wave feminists! For those interested, check out the “Persons Case” (Edwards v Canada).
    jinnaZiller, you need to learn how to construct an argument. Unless you use evidence and analysis, you’re ranting. You didn’t use either.

  41. Dude, read a history book. Your main argument about “Child support” is a completely wrong. Not only was it the case that women would get absolute nothing after a divorce, but in most cases they would lose their dowry and their inheritance too. It is only in the past century that women in a relationship were allowed to hold property (at least in Canada)! These oppressive laws were challenged and new precedents were made first wave feminists! For those interested, check out the “Persons Case” (Edwards v Canada).
    jinnaZiller, you need to learn how to construct an argument. Unless you use evidence and analysis, you’re ranting. You didn’t use either.

  42. Also, most feminist thinking attacks concepts of individualism and liberalism. Your creation of the “matriarchy” is rooted in empty conjecture, not reality or the actually thinking that has shaped the many different feminist movements. Read Judith Butler and Simeon du Beauvoir and you can see for yourself. You might also be interested in Shulamith Firestone. And I think you’d love bell hooks! @disqus_ArNjmVj6o2:disqus Read bell hooks as soon as you can. “Ain’t a woman” is one of the most important pieces of American thought ever produced.

  43. I dont understand. How actually he is suggesting ways to fight for patriarchy, giving real and solid answers to solve the problem? For how i see this just bitching and whining, just like the other posts on feminism. Zero action, 100% crying to get back the good old times. But,lets not be too rough,it takes courage to tackle this problem. In internet. Hiding behind a fake name.

  45. I would argue the capitalist/socialist lines in your diagram. Capitalism enhances the value of hard selfless work (generally a male trait) whereas socialism creates a safety net where every has less but no one has nothing which provides the ability for women to benefit over men because hard work is punished and intermittent work is rewarded.

  46. “…and the matriarchy is not a society which favors women over men. Both societies favor men and women equally. I know a lot of MRAs do not believe this…”
    That’s right, we don’t because it’s bullshit.

  47. Thank god the times have changed and the Age of Aquarius has trumped the Age of Pisces (patriarchy). I don’t think I could tolerate ‘obeying’ my husband (puke). I agree it may have something to do with the abundance of resources, the density of the population, the types of jobs required to accumulate resources, the rates of disease, and the rates of infant mortality. It’s about time men need to start entertaining me and giving me something of value materially rather than expecting me to kowtow to them. They have 2,000 years of kissing ars to make up for the last 2,000.

    1. Your husband is too weak to control you. No wonder you become ill at the thought of obeying him.
      But you would not be happy with weak men kissing your ass.

    2. Wow. What a horrible, selfish human being you sound like. You really think your sh!t doesn’t stink huh? You really think you know everything and men know nothing? You need help.

  49. tl;dr author doesn’t understand shit about history or sociology and wants the world to stay in the 14th century.

  50. then why are you here stating your opinion? stay at home and babysit. because, if you haven’t notice – that’s what you should do in patriarchal society.
    what an ignorant. but i guess you’re american, so no wonder you don’t even know what PATRIARCHY means.
    and you’re here ‘discussing’ with primitives, like it’s normal to discuss with them. they would only use you for sex and you giving them heirs, but you don’t mind being humiliated like that. congratulation to your parents.

  51. K my man lost me BIG with this ramble. You hve to give him a pass. I been reading him for a few hours. one after the other I’m either learning a new nugget, or I’m reading literally word for word, things I have also said. But His patriarchy deal was billed as his “wet dream” society. The post gradually gave you a PC feel. Defending himself against his prior paragraphs comments. When in fact many, if not all of the positions taken were not even close to strong opinions and views of other posts that he made.
    It gets wrapped up with patriarchy not bein all that. “its not perfect”. Ehhh ? In the beginning I felt the love so much that I thought he was going to request a monarch. Matriarchy and patriarchy should come together ? WHAT THE ?
    I don’t understand the way the mind works sometime. I have been blown away, but never made a comment. I dislike one post and here I am. Youre a pioneer, a natural born leader, and in my opinion a total genius. The whole arrogant , cocky deal seems to turn the Beta’s off. ALOT.
    You’ve put yourself out there. YOU stepped up to what so many of us think. So youre the man. I’m sure you hear it all the time. With that being said, this post is bad. No i mean it makes no sense. I dont want someone to read this, be turned off, and not read your other poetic peices. lol. No other way to say it.
    You have to go back and read it. I know its been a few years since you made this article. You’re going to see what I mean. ( who my kidding. been 2 yrs since a post for this one. No one even gonna see my own ramble) I’ll wrap it up. If you read this, it makes no sense. at least take a look. It makes no sense that i’ve missed this website for a few yrs. You don’t need a back bencher giving you advice. I’m only saying it because i was so impressed. I’ll be back to read more. Keep fightin them

  52. The shift is NOT a war, an attack, or a problem unless you cling to outdated identities that favor your desire to promote yourself as King. This woman knows what she means…and she means to be true to the human spirit regardless of race or gender. The Jewery on the other hand…is an intensely genetically lopsided matriarchal tyrant that is still whining over a small scuttle that happened thousands of years ago.

  53. Thanks @disqus_ArNjmVj6o2:disqus for this very interesting paper. Arguments in favour of “female obedience to her husband and male responsibility and dominance over to his family” are stronger when expressed by women rather than by men.

  54. Aren’t there more important things for humanity then the fight between male and female ego? This thing with “We need to fight for patriarchy” engages in as much ego war as feminism. A prosperous society takes care of all of its members and ensures that they grow up to experience life in its entirety. From my opinion Osho’s take on raising children and the future of humanity is the most valid option that integrates the human species harmoniously back into nature while retaining its potential for growth and evolution.

Comments are closed.