Why Patriarchy Is The Greatest Social System Ever Created

“One of feminism’s irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for “patriarchal society,” to which nothing good is ever attributed. But it is patriarchal society that has freed me as a woman. It is capitalism that has given me the leisure to sit at this desk writing this book. Let us stop being small-minded about men… If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”
– Camille Paglia, lesbian feminist, in Sexual Personae

In the feminist creation myth, patriarchy is original sin. It is the Lucifer from which all evils flow. Without patriarchy, we would all live in a genderless role-less feminist garden of Eden.

However, just as the name Lucifer actually means light-bringer, patriarchy is actually an enlightening influence which has brought humanity out of the mud into civilization. Feminism only exists in the shadow of the massive abundance produced by patriarchy. Patriarchy is not the enemy. Patriarchy is the greatest social system ever created.


The Myth of Patriarchy

Feminists ascribe all social ills to patriarchy. Like a medieval inquisitor looking for evidence of the devil, patriarchy’s influence is supposedly all around us – our media, our schools, and even our most intimate relationships. Patriarchy is responsible for domestic violence, lost promotions, mean comments on twitter – even women’s own feeling about themselves.

Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to feminist dogma is believed to be possessed by the influence of patriarchy and in need of exorcism by an ordained Priest of the Cathedral of gender studies theory. They are forced to renounce their views, or face excommunication from the public sphere. In more honest times, the dominant religion simply called freethinkers “heretics” and burned them at the stake.

Origins Of Patriarchy

In reality, there is nothing so mysterious about patriarchy. Patriarchy is a division of social roles based in natural biological gender differences.

Males and females have very obvious self-evident biological differences. Women can have babies. Men cannot. Women’s bodies are designed for nurturing, with wombs, breasts, and hormonal cycles. During pregnancy, women are unable to physically exert themselves. Men’s bodies are designed for physical exertion, and as a whole, physically stronger.

Imagine you are part of a small tribe in a survival situation. Conquest, war, famine, death – any of the four horsemen could strike at any moment. How would you divide social roles?

As Jack Donovan states in The Way of Men:

Because your group is struggling to survive, every choice matters. If you give the wrong person the wrong job, that person could die, you could die, another person could die, or you could all die. Because of the differences between the sexes, the best person for jobs that involve exploring, hunting, fighting, building, or defending is usually going to be male. This is not some arbitrary cultural prejudice; it is the kind of vital strategic determination you need to keep your group alive.


In other words, traditional roles are the basis of our survival as a species.

The Sacrifice Of Men

In patriarchy, men sacrifice their energy, their time, and sometimes even their lives for the betterment of women and children, and women give themselves to nurturing children and families.

Feminists define patriarchy as a system of dominance, in which men oppress women. This redefines men’s sacrifice as an act of control, rather than love. Many men are perfectly happy to have sex with women without offering any protection or value to the woman or her resulting children. It is an act of love that men willingly give up their freedom in order to provide for women, and their young.

Patriarchy is about love. It is about the love of human beings in families, tribes, and small communities working interdependently for the benefit of one another.

Feminism Was Created By Capitalism

Feminism in it’s modern form began in the last hundred years, when industrialization moved our economic survival from requiring hard labor to requiring skilled labor. Work used to require hours of physical lifting, now it requires sitting at a desk. This transition made it possible for even the weakest women to work.

Employees are much easier to manage as interchangeable cogs than as gendered individuals with unique needs. In fact, convincing women to work doubles the size of the work force, allowing employers to half everyone’s wages. It’s simple supply and demand. As the book Revolution From Above chronicles, early feminist movements – even Marxist feminists – were bankrolled by major capitalists in order to increase the workforce and lower wages.


Feminism is a product of capitalism. The “you can have it all” message is an attempt by corporations to swindle women out of their biological needs. If you’re a feminist, you’re a capitalist, because you’ve make work a greater priority than community, children, or love.

In families, each member is irreplaceable, but in a company everyone is replaceable. In patriarchy, women toiled for one man who loved her and the children he gave her. In capitalism, women work for many men completely indifferent to her and willing to disposes of her the moment cheaper labor appears.

Feminism Commodifies Relationships

In patriarchy, selfish relationship impulses were restrained. In capitalism, they are encouraged. Each member of a tribe of community works for the benefit of those around him, but in capitalism men and women are independent agents, with no loyalty or duty to anyone else.

Roles that were traditionally played by family are now outsourced. Group homes for the elderly, day care for the children. Even mentors and friends can be bought in the form of therapists and life coaches.

This system destroys intimate relationships. It selfishly benefits a woman to bear the children of strong lone alpha’s rather than the man providing for her. It selfishly benefits a man to impregnate every available fertile woman with no intention of further contact. Alpha fucks, beta bucks.

Feminism has created a war between the sexes with each side trying to maximize their profits in the sexual marketplace while spending as little as possible. We’re all little atomized corporations united only by the laws of bio-mechanics.


Men Have Lost Reason To Work

This new dynamic has freed men from work. In his new book Bachelor Pad Economics, Aaron Clarey advocates a minimalist approach to money – buy only what your need and using your time for your benefit rather than a corporation’s. This approach is already being taken as men drop out of the system, earn less than women, and avoid higher eduction.

The reason men worked hard was to provide for their families. Men didn’t work long hours out of self-interest. They did so out of love. Most men can subsist on very little. It’s been said that civilization was created to impress the opposite gender. Without reward, there is no reason to work. No carrot, no jump.

As a society, we’ve reached a point where technology has eliminated the need for everyone to work. Just as capitalism freed women from their natural role, it’s freed men from theirs. Masculinity has been reduced to a fashion statement.

Return To The Natural Order

While we understand that animals exists in natural groups – a herd, a flock, a pack – we forget that man is an animal too. Man’s natural group is the tribe. Humans are mammals. We learn through relationships, rather than instinct.


Children require love, attachment, and stability that can only be found in emotional bonds with present adults. They are not interchangeable cogs. You can’t buy a mother’s love or a father’s wisdom. Love cannot be outsourced. Authentic love is only possible within patriarchal community.

To a company, non-working children are a nuisance. The epidemic of single motherhood, plummeting birthrates, and mental illness is due to the rejection of traditional roles. If society wants healthy happy children and loving stable communities, it must embrace the lost values of patriarchy.

In the early tribes, humans were entirely dependent on one another. Now they are independent and unsatisfied. Returning to traditional roles means living interdependently, and align with the natural order not because we have to, but because we choose to. We could exist alone, but we are fulfilled together.

Of course, feminists will call this oppressive. They want you to be free – free from community, free from belonging, free from love. A mass of apes fighting over the highest value mate behind a gilded cage.


Back to the mud, or back to the kitchen, the choice is yours.

Read More: The Patriarchy Conspiracy Theory

399 thoughts on “Why Patriarchy Is The Greatest Social System Ever Created”

      1. I don t care about all this stuff. I find it irrelevant in how it can help me in having more sex with more women. I don t think being an old man dreaming of WWII post war economical situation is attractive to young women

        1. Women are moral relativists, not moral absolutists like men.
          They will find attraction in whatever they cultural narrative tells them is attractive.
          F*ck, they reckon skrillex haircuts look hot, because the culture tells them that.

        2. feminist troll. This “don’t talk about this stuff, just fuck more bitches” trolls almost every article saying a variation of the exact same thing.

  1. Correct, it is a myth that patriarchy oppresses women.
    Women demanded men be better, and they did. They invented everything as Paglia points out, to the point women have a great deal of leisure time.
    Men gifted women freedom from chores, not women.
    All men wanted in return was for them to get #backtothekitchen.

    1. I often feel like money is a dirty thing, that its very existence demeans us all.
      Patriarchy allows women to opt out of the degradation that comes with being a wage slave.
      If a woman builds a strong family with her man their future generations are a testament to their success. If a woman focuses on career she dies alone in a nursing home as the last of her money lines yet another richer person’s pockets.
      Which one sounds more oppressive?

      1. The alternative to money is owning cattle, having to feed, clean up after them, and care for them, and then when you want to buy a new ___, you have to get on your horse and drive your cattle to someone who will exchange your cattle for what it is you want.
        Money isn’t dirty, the old ways of transferring value were dirty. Money is nothing more than a method of assigning common barter value to something that is more easily exchanged than livestock. If we hadn’t invented money, everyone would still be ranchers and farmers because those are the only ways of growing value and exchanging it.
        Compare that to cryptocurrency (bitcoin), which is the most modern version of money that exists, where you can exchange value instantly with anyone on the globe. It doesn’t seem so dirty now does it?

        1. I gather that Josh wasn’t speaking to money. I just don’t think people should think of money as dirty.

        2. You sure you can’t ride a tricycle for transport? Commerce uses that as its backbone in Africa and Central Asia. Me, i actually use a pushbike.

      2. I think you are hitting on the basic nature of fiat (i.e. paper) money. It has a corrupting influence on all of us because essentially it is valueless. Money used to be a commodity (i.e. gold) which had real value. As such, for productive work you would receive a valuable commodity in exchange which you could exchange for other real goods. The process was then one of accumulating goods rather than debts.

    2. Only patriarchal tribes and societies survive, as history proves – the exceptions, if any, are few and far between. Those who forget this are doomed to repeat history over and over again, for the current social system is designed to enrich the few at the long-term expense of the many.

    3. Paglia hasn’t got back to the kitchen. Or married a man. Or produced and raised a man’s offspring. She has greatly reaped men’s gifts and given very little to men in return.

        1. She actually recognises her life is better because of men. Men allowed her to ‘coast’.

      1. She is the feminist most supportive of men, she denounces third and fourth wave feminism due to it marginalising men, and understands a civilisation is doomed if it oppresses it men to the level it does now..
        She ain’t going to give birth to a kid, nor be in a kitchen for a man because she’s suffers from the abnormality of being homosexual.
        She also concedes she benefits greatly from men.

        1. I agree that Paglia is an astute observer of the marginalization of men and that she acknowledges that she has benefited from men, but she represents what most ROK readers abhor: she is a highly educated, unmarried, childless, lesbian feminist who has not who has not followed a traditional feminine role.

    4. community was the start of science and technology development which lead men to become more domesticated and less men-like

  2. I mean, I do agree with all this.
    But what about when the man up & leaves the family (like it happens all too often). How’s the woman supposed to take care of herself & the kids then if she’s not allowed to work? The option for women to work should always be available.

    1. Well she should stay thin, keep her hair long, lose the cuntitude and cook, and give oral and anal on demand.. then he won’t leave.

      1. Did that plan work out for your mama?
        Oh, I see….never mind.
        Love to read marital/relationship/parenting advice from guys who have never actually experienced any of these things!

        1. Men are broken in Western civilization much like women are. Patriarchy is a 2-way street. Men have to provide for women and children just as women have to nurture and care for men and children. Fact of the matter is, if a woman provides for a man all he desires, he will have no reason to leave. How many men ” up & left” pre-1960’s in ANY part of the world?
          None of these things were issues before the feminist movement came in place. Single motherhood and divorce rates were very low when natural patriarchal sex roles were in place.

    2. But what about when the man up & leaves the family (like it happens all too often).

      This happens more often than women demand divorce? Really? I demand to see evidence that this claim is at all true.

    3. Both of my grandmother’s worked outside the home and their mothers, too, during the “good old days”. Their children would not have eaten otherwise.

    4. Men by nature like routine and stability. So they dont leave women unless something is seriously wrong. “T and A man” comment below (or above) might be tongue in cheek but it’s true. Dont believe these stories of men leaving their family for a younger women, of course that happens, but whats making him think the grass is greener on the other side?

        1. What they make of Jesus is not the historical Jesus. A faggot he is not if indeed he whipped the money changers and ripped the pharisees a new one.

      1. Oh, hello Mr Mangina
        Is kissing eastern european women’s asses working out for you? Let me guess, “His Sister” didn’t fuck you after all, she took you for all you were worth and then left your ass on the street corner while she drove away with some alpha male thug?

        1. I am who is eastern european.
          Hid Sister was a crazy girl with a weird fetish for EE men. Have you read what that girl wrote? Absolute nonsense.



        1. Dammit, you beautiful, derpy troll. I so wanted to believe you were real, but the name was just too on-the-nose.


        3. Please do it, also, report me. But I am Jewish and Israeli, that could pose a problem for you.

  3. This is a very interesting article, as a feminist, I have to say I almost completely agree with you. I’m quite an unusual feminist though, I don’t think gender roles aren’t important, I just think it’s important that men and women have equal freedoms to pursue whatever it is that they want, although most of the time I expect what they want to be the traditional nuclear family set up, there is no reason why if this isn’t what is desired by a person they should be considered bad or wrong. Also, it’s a very nice article and very thought-provoking, but you have left out the part where “women have to do exactly as the man says as though they have no mind or will of their own and if they don’t then the man can beat them and that is fine” from the examples of archaic patriarchy.
    Women need respect for performing their gender roles which has been unfortunately greatly lacking in the past. All you have to do is look at this website and how you say all the things in the above article, but then without skpping a beat are happy to refer to women as “hamster brained”, that is an incredible lack of respect, and while I would be very happy being a wife and mother, a terrific cook and generally would adore taking care of my family, I would never ever want to do that for a man who does not respect my intellect and wishes.

    1. I didn’t see anything about “hamster brained” here. What a lot of feminists do is latch onto particular words, out of context, to them dismiss anti-feminist points. It’s funny because they accuse the patriarchy of dismissing their viewpoint yet they are quick to generalize and dismiss themselves.
      The whole point of the above article in regarding feminism as a capitalist stooge is that in a so-called free market, people have freedom but also lack of support. Freedom often is illusionary because the market doesn’t exist to give you choice, it exists to get as many resources from you as possible while giving as little in return. You may want to go to Hollywood and be a star, for instance, but the nature of the market means most will fail. Therefore, for most women and men for that matter, capitalism is about most not getting what they “choose” or want and, this is a bad word in feminism: Settle. You don’t get to be a star in Hollywood but you can work at Disneyworld as a Sleeping Beauty.
      Are *some* women beaten under the patriarchy. Sure. But some women are beaten in modern times too. So what’s the point of this choice? Overall, MORE women got what they wanted under patriarchy rather than under feminism which ironically means that feminism is out of touch with most women. The notion of “having it all” and gimme gimme gimme for women meant that in the end, most women got less.
      In the meantime, feminism which literally means seeing things in terms of what women want often means griping that men don’t respect women enough, blah blah blah, while expecting that men should be providers and protectors like it’s magic. If women think that role is so easy, let them enjoy it as single mothers (but without welfare, affirmative action, or child-support.) It’s already happened in third world countries where such protections for women don’t exist and late night TV shows their children starving to death and begging viewers to send a dollar a day to save these women’s children. Expect the same situation here in your lifetime.

      1. I don’t believe you have made any point that wasn’t made in the article, which I said I agreed with.
        You are right that this article had absolutely nothing I would consider sexist in it, however it is on a website which does degrade women often, and therefore I feel it’s integrity has been compromised. If only this article was published somewhere more worthwhile, maybe it would have changed a few minds.

        1. Yeah, I’ll save the sandwiches for my sexy respectful boyfriend. Yes you can be both respectful and hot as hell, it just takes more than learning “game” to do so, you need to be a natural alpha.

        2. Agreeing feminist, if we want to go on reputation, then feminism has the worst. The word literally means seeing things in terms of what women want and then defines itself as ‘equality’. This is like someone saying that fairness is defined as what they want. But even aside from semantics, feminism has been man bashing for the past 50 years so that most women would rather say they’re a Muslim than a feminist.
          So what’s the point of feminism? It’s largely now a stooge of the leftist anti-white male economic fascists that funnel trillions of dollars a year to leftist (and right wing) oligarchs. They’re the ones getting the last laugh. Enjoy working 30 years to pay off a house that my father bought in under 10 years. And it’s not even the number one stooge anymore. Other leftist constituencies based upon race and religion (Islam) are now taking center stage.

        3. So what? I married a playboy playmate and have a job as a CEO of a major tech company.
          This is the internet, so what I said has to be true.

        4. Is Islam left? How so?
          I sort of agree about feminism… personally I think it’s too many things, there are too many types of feminism, so what people think of you when you say you’re a feminist is much more a reflection of them than you, to someone on here I am a man-hating slut covered in tattoos, to a daily mail reader I am communist scrounger taking jobs from talented white men, to my mum I am arguing for a view point which is good, but not necessary anymore… feminism is just the belief in equality of the sexes, sorry but you’re definition isn’t in any dictionary, and I do believe in equality for both sexes, I want children to live with the better care-taker in the case of a divorce, I want the most talented person to get the job, I want everyone to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they are not harming other people.
          The most interesting view point that ROK offers is that feminism is making women feel like they need to work and be powerful and not be stay at home mothers, creating a pressure which means that people aren’t doing what they actually want. Which I think is probably true, and a shame. I am thinking of starting my own feminist “don’t be ashamed to be a wife and mother” movement.

        5. Your imaginary secret millionaire handyman boyfriend loves you and that is all that matters, right?

        6. You’re running to the dictionary? How… patriarchal! I’m looking at semantics. The word itself, feminism, is literally means to see in the world in terms of what women want. Feminism is spun politically as a movement for equality and that’s reflected in the dictionary but in terms of how it behaves, it’s more in keeping with what it semantically means.
          For example, feminists often lobby for free daycare. Free daycare has nothing to do with equality. Men do not have “free daycare” available at work that is denied to women. Women have the option to marry a stay at home spouse if they desire. Neither are “work/life balance” issues anything to do with “equality.”
          You’re what I refer to as a feminist apologist. You claim that you’re not a man-hater or a goodie grabber and want mere equality and opportunity but then turn around and look for ways to rationalize away that position. You remind me of Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. “I don’t hate men Charlie Brown! Feminism can be about equality! Now how about getting handout jobs for women to buy prada bags and you guys can still pay for us to stay at home when we choose by shitting gold bars out of your butt?”

        7. Your claim you aren’t bothered by what I think reminds me of an incident where a daughter of a girlfriend was fighting with her mother. She screamed: “I don’t care what you think!” and slammed the door. I laughed because if she didn’t care what her mother thought, why scream it and slam a door?
          She came back and punched at me. I tried to restrain her from hitting me and dislocated my shoulder.
          The police arrived from a noise complaint and saw me in pain and that the daughter was unhurt and left. Feminist equality in the Violence Against entitled White Women Act in action. Fiddle dee dee. I went to the hospital and got it fixed. The daughter felt terrible about it. I didn’t want to press charges, of course, but the police didn’t care.
          Agreeing feminist, I actually know former Nazis (one is 80 years old). They’re far nicer, and more decent, than man-hating, hypocritical feminists. I don’t buy your claims.
          And no, you won’t find man-hating hairy-legged ugly feminist in the dictionary. But that doesn’t change the fact that’s what most WOMEN think it means.

        8. “Is Islam left? How so?”
          That’s a question worthy of a separate response.
          Most Muslims vote left. By that simple observation alone, Islam is leftist. Obama is a born Muslim and therefore, a Muslim (there is no option in Islam to deny their faith. Catholicism does allow one to request excommunication.) Leftist institutions such as leftist leaning college campuses routinely reach out to Islam such as providing prayer rooms, special cleansing areas, campus Islamic community centers, etc.
          And Hillary Clinton visited a mosque in NYC and called for a 911 Mosque.
          Islam is now a camel in the tent of the left. It’s a big tent with room for lots of Patriarchs who have a special plan for what to do with their harem. Europe is coming up with women only beaches so you gals can be protected from men without wearing a veil. Progress!

        9. I’d say it’s less that Islam is leftist and more that they are alien rightists gaming the leftist system in order to subvert the native rightist, their mortal enemies for centuries. Its just like when cads take advantage of the left to game sluts, only the Muslims have bigger fish to catch than poon alone, they’re eying the conquest of an entire civilization. Sharia law by its very nature is not left one bit

        10. I feel like our discussion is pretty much done, I hope you don’t think that this means you ‘beat’ me in any way, I just think we’ve both got as much out of it as we can, and I actually have really enjoyed it.
          Despite disagreeing and perhaps gentle hostility on both sides, I think this is the ideal of how an Internet discussion should look… So thanks! And I’ll keep the same name when commenting on this website so we might run into each other again.

        11. Take care and have a good weekend! If I can’t respect people’s right to disagree, then I shouldn’t be in a discussion.

        12. I also want to add that I didn’t mean to go against you personally. I wanted you to understand where I come from and that this is not merely an abstract set of beliefs for me. When I let people “have it” sometimes, they think I’m setting a firehose on them in order to “win” when instead I am communicating. It’s fun to discuss and to go tit-for-tat and I do that sometimes and sometimes I want to be more “real.”
          Again, take care and have a good weekend (even if you don’t want a good weekend, have one anyway.)

        13. We should also put the rest the bull of equality itself at least in the biological realm. Because aside from material non-living things Men and women are so fundamentally different there can’t be equality.
          Maybe equality under the law. But otherwise to try to equalize the sexes and you diminish sexual dimorphism. Hence weakening both the sexes and their inherent beauty and ability to fulfill their complementary roles.

        14. The left is sucking them off right now but when the left have lost its usefulness, its head will be chopped off!

        15. Indeed, note that mere equality under the law is insufficient for most feminists. Most feminists want special government programs to help women (free daycare, bigger bathrooms, special paid maternity leave). These are not equality issues but rather goodie grabs. Then there’s discrimination against men: Affirmative action, the Violence Against Women Act (violence against men is ok even if they pretend like it’s not.) Finally, there’s sexist benefits women have enjoyed they pretend to object to but secretly enjoy: comfy preferences on lifeboats, divorce courts giving them preferred custody, legal to abandon infants.
          What all of this means is that women are no more equal to men today than they were 100 years ago. It’s effectively the way that Islamic republics treat women but in reverse and even then, it’s run by chivalrous white men. So few women truly want equality. Some are man haters. Some are opportunists. Some just don’t know what equality really means since the term has been twisted so badly in recent years.
          Since the “equality” feminists refer to: workplace opportunity, is so artificial then it’s most likely that it wouldn’t last long after the preferences were removed. Men would fight to the death for university slots and jobs because for them, it’s sink or swim. Women would secretly be looking for a back door to marry a rich guy and quit when times got tough. Why is this inevitable? Because that’s how it’s happened throughout history. If women were naturally equal, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

        16. This is correct, but technically speaking Islam is a theocratic system, which is neither right or left. They vote left, because voting left brings them closer to imposing a theocracy sooner.

    2. she has a point that needs addressing. Having said that the law would provide that freedom. Everything would be voluntaristic – a social contract like any other

    3. …I would never ever want to do that for a man who does not respect my intellect and wishes.

      There’s the blue-pill hook right there. “Oh, I’m perfectly happy to be your loving, doting, smart, sexy, everything wife, so long as you respect all of my wishes.”
      That’s a losers bet, you’re creating carte blanche for women to demand whatever they want out of marriage/LTR or somehow the social deal is busted. This creates a situation that permits unrestricted hypergamy and is frankly no different than modern out-of-control feminism.

    4. Honey, I don’t doubt your good intentions, but ROK is a very strange place for you to look for “respect” and “equal freedoms.” The majority of men here desire women to be attractive, compliant sexual partners and/or wives who look after their men, children, and households in exchange for protection and financial support. These men do not want you to be part of the public sector or the world at large. They don’t want you as a co-worker. They consider higher education wasted on you. Some of them don’t want you to vote, drive, practice birth control, or have the legal rights and privileges you presently hold. Understand? You’d do best posting elsewhere with a different kind of male audience.

    5. “I’m quite an unusual feminist though”
      I don’t believe you. There is no such thing as an “unusual feminist”, either you are the *usual*, typical feminist or you are not.
      It’s like being pregnant, either you are pregnant or not pregnant.

  4. Feminism is just a shit test on a global level. Its like when a girl tells you she wants ” A nice, sensitive guy” while she’s fucking the neighborhood thugs or a woman with ‘rape tourettes’ who fantasizes about being raped.
    Any logical thinker can deconstruct the feminist ideology in seconds and find that it is rooted in paranoia, hypocrisy and pseudo-intellectualism.
    Paranoia- “All men are rapists”
    Hypocrisy-“Women are the fairer, gentler sex”
    pseudo-intellectualism- ” Women are paid less than men”
    A womens’ hatred’ of Patriarchy is like a her ‘hatred’ of badboys/alphas. They hate it consciously but loves it in her subconscious.
    The Patriarch and the traditional woman need to return in our increasingly dysfunctional gender relations. Our families, future generations and the very platform of our society demands it.

    1. Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch
      version of Survivor with my feminist roommate. That particular series of Dutch Survivor would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. The feminist roommate had been promoting that
      particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women – free from the evils of Patriarchy – would be like.
      And it did. Oh it did.
      Here is what happened: Initially both groups were dropped on
      their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.
      The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other
      hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.
      Watching this with my feminist roommate was wonderful.Initially she tried to rationalize the differences, but her arguments became weaker and weaker. Eventually, the people running the program decided something
      had to change. In order to help the women out, three men would be selected to go to their island. In return, three women would take their place at the men’s island. The look on my feminist roommates face during this episode was priceless.
      Initially, the three men selected for the women’s island were ecstatic,
      for obvious reason. But then they arrived at the island and were greeted by the women.
      ‘Where is your hut?’,they asked.
      ‘We have no hut’
      ‘Where are your supplies?’ they asked, dismayed
      ‘We ate all the rice’
      And so on. The three men ended up working like dogs, using all the skills developed by trial and error in their first few weeks – building a hut, fish, trying to get the women to forage. The women continued to bitch and sunbathe.
      The three women who were sent to the men’s island were delighted – food, shelter and plenty of male attention was freely available.They too continued to sunbathe.
      And that my friends, is what Patriarchy is. My former roommate is no longer a feminist.

      1. This is the best thing I have read in a long time.
        To ironically quote a modern feminist: “Wow. Just wow.”



        3. Seems like you’ve been reading the hate manuals Maury, or does it just come naturally?

        4. Maureen, I’ve heard that old people write in ALL CAPS, since they have bad eyesight.
          Are you old Maureen? Eggs dried all up? Hit The Wall already, have you? No man wants you, is that it?
          Back to Jezebel with you. Go read those lies how being fat is beautiful and every woman is perfect exactly the way she is.

        5. Guys you know this person is a troll and still you chomp at the bit. Leave it alone. “Maureen” is probably some dude who doesn’t actually think that shit. Nobody is that dumb.

        6. READ?? You need to STFU AND WATCH and open your fucking eyes to the world around you, ya dumb cunt.

        1. Dude, it’s a troll. Probably one of the usual commenters here having fun. Relax dude.

        2. Its BoomersGreatestGeneration Aka PabloAnd Gringo Aka Mashenka Aka Maria.
          Dudes still got sand in his vagina from getting banned as Boomerv – his first incarnation as a troll.
          Gotta admit the Maureen one was good though..he has his moments.

      2. “The three men ended up working like dogs …” “The three women … were delighted … and continued to sunbathe.”
        Those men were dummies.

        1. Well, it was survivor. So they could have done nothing, watched themselves get voted out by the wimmenz, and lose. Frankly if I were one of the men who was mixed into a group of non-contributing women, I would look after myself, then vote myself out. Winning a stupid contest isn’t worth the humiliation of supporting leech women.

        2. True that but then the feminist women watching the show with their boyfriends afterwards would not have been educated about what a man-free society looked like.

      3. That sounds really interesting, do you know where one could watch it? (preferably with English subtitles)

      4. Greatest post ever. ROK is fast becoming the hallmark of the men’s movement. Purely by being bold.

      5. Hi guys, thanks for all the comments and upvotes. I did a bit of googling to try and find the old episodes on youtube. The program is called ‘Expeditie Robinson’ broadcast in 2002. All of the stuff I described above happened in episode 1-3. Unfortunately, only episode 3+ are on youtube. E3 shows what happens when a few men are sent to the women and a few women are sent to the men.
        The highlights is min 8-10 where the men slump at the wreckage of the female island while the women are delighted to be at the men’s island. You don’t have to speak Dutch to understand what is going on – body language say everything.

      6. Funny that this happened on the Dutch season too. It was replicated almost blow for blow in the American version of the men vs women season. Squabbling, sunbathing bitches eventually beaten down by the elements while the men built their own thriving community. A study in microcosms indeed..

        1. It’s happened across a few seasons, but the one most fresh in my mind is Survivor One World, because the men were slightly hamstrung by the most effeminate gaylord to ever appear on reality tv before – what was funny was that the tribes were free to interact – so the gay guy, completely ostracised by the men, went over to the women, who took a vote to tell him to piss off.
          The second episode was called “Total Dysfunction” and Jeff remarked at Tribal Council “that this is one of the most embarrassing starts in Survivor. He compares the female tribe to a group of sixth graders.”

        2. Sadly, the men sabotaged themselves and I think a woman won that season. This is the danger of blue pillers.

      7. I don’t get why is capitalism an issue for the author? He should know that marxist feminists are the first to promote a big government, so women can live by subidies. In a free market the value of women plummets, and if they have a child, plummets faster.

      8. I keep hearing about this show and this episode in particular, and now I’d really like to watch it. Do you remember the exact title of the episode?

      9. Most women are just fucking lazy. they bitch, moan, whine and complain. Like you said they want the sun, the beach, the sand and a lavish lifestyle and some sucker to pay the tab until they bleed him dry. Find a woman who is passionate about life loves to do something productive, then you have a good friend, partner, mother, and possibly wife…

      10. I have got to look that show up! It sounds like the perfect thing to show my feminazi sisters. Hahaha. Thanks!

    2. Patriarchy does not exist, only achievement does, a gap that is the result of biological differences between genders.
      Today, it is a false enemy to to unite women under the banner of feminism, from recognizing and tearing down their real enemy, feminism.

        1. “This is how you know you’d have to be completely zany to be a Christian.”
          I suppose you would have to be, if the Lord Jesus had actually been an anarchist. He wasn’t. Instead He claimed to be, and was, God incarnate, the ultimate monarch and law giver, and could ignore the laws and traditions of man. But, the Left has long history trying to revise Him as a “Long-Haired Radical Socialist Jew.”

        2. The most likely reason Jesus was executed as a criminal…is probably because he WAS one in the first place!

        3. Furthermore, Jesus actually wasn’t good, given how many lives he destroyed, of people who had no leß done nothing to him in the first place. Even the Bible itself implicitly admits Jesus as devoid of empathy. Also, he wasn’t sired by any god, contrary to what he told his audiences; he was simply illegitimate and his father was yet another insignificant human, probably a bushranger. He’s never mentioned nor named ithe Bible though.
          Whatever way it’s put, it really does explain somewhat, why the Bible’s God was absolutely devoid of any real empathy, and especially why He was amoral. The book of Exodus, for instance, tells of God’s emotional manipulation of His people by feeling sorry for Himself and equivocating their complaints to Moses, and later Aaron, with complaints against Him.

        4. Check my continuation reply. No morals is not good morals, contrary to what the Bible’s God practically tells via His actions.

    3. Meanwhile Feminism sees the exact same faults in male detractors:
      Paranoia: “All women are thieves, murderers, any other incarnation of pure malice”
      Hypocrisy: “Men are morally superior, who avoid women”
      Pseudo-intellectualism: “Men are paid leß per joule of work than women”, “Husbands are slaves both of women and the State”, “Feminists want only to unify vagina and State”
      However, all those examples are blatant projection, as you can see by comparing your comment to my reply and the real world as we look around.

    1. I think it’s from the Assassin’s Creed video game. There was one set during revolutionary times.

    2. Assassins Creed 3. It’s from a DLC set of missions called The Tyranny of King Washington where in an alternate timeline, George Washington becomes corrupt with power and declares himself king.

  5. “Men have lost the reason to work”
    Why the hell do you wanna work? This is fucking stupid thinking. The whole point is to get as much as you can and work as little as possible. If our productivity gains allow us to work 20 hour work weeks, why the hell would we as a society not wanna take that. We don’t live to work; only suckers think that. What matters is the quality of life. If we can work 20 hour weeks and spend the rest of the time taking care of our minds, our bodies, and most importantly, our families and children. Do we really want people to work more? The goal should be improvements in the quality of life so our culture, ideas, and values can be preserved.

    1. I am actually happy that we do not live in the world of 1950′. The world, as shithole as it is now, have a lot of good things too. There was never a better time to be a bachelor.
      You just have to game the system to your advantage.

      1. Agreed. A lot of guys are failing to grasp this concept, mistakenly thinking that men somehow had it better back then. Men did not have it better back in the 50s. Shit was rough and stressful back in those days. Remember the Korean War? Would you want to get drafted into that? Remember fellas, there’s no military draft anymore. That’s a pretty big deal for men. I think a lot of the younger guys on here don’t realize that. There has NEVER been a better time in all of history to be a man that right now. That is of course if you are a man who understands things and has taken the red pill. Any modern blue pill guy should just give in now. He’s trying to handicap himself with 1950s gender values that don’t make sense in the modern era.

        1. Yep. Having a family and keeping a good wife takes just as much effort as gaming chicks in the bar. It is just different.
          It was never easy to be a men.

        2. I wish there was a draft today so we could watch all of the stupid cunts show the world that they are not equal and they know it.
          I’d like to see a bitch drafted into the Infantry.

        3. I agree things are easy for the hedonists. I used to be one not long ago. But I’ve been getting in touch with my spiritual side lately. It may be a good time to laze around and get laid, but men have never had less agency than they do now.
          For example I want to have kids, but society is falling apart around me. Who’s going to fix this problem? It’s up to us to fix, the women sure as hell won’t do it. They’ll bring us “back to the mud”. We’ve been blindsided by greedy elites that sold us out. We were duped.
          If society continues to devolve this way, I wouldn’t want to be born on this planet. Whether you believe in reincarnation or not, our kids will have to pick up the slack. It’s hard to decide not to have kids when you’re really honest with yourself. When you think of all the bloodshed and triumphs your ancestors did to bring you to where you are right now. To just say “the buck stops with me motherfuckers, I’mma do me!!!” is the ultimate failure of the human race, and our forefathers are rolling in their graves.
          That reminds me of a quote I stumbled upon:
          The blood of your parents was not lost in you, but ye are of the line of men that are sceptered kings, the
          fosterlings of Zeus, for no churl could beget sons like you. – The Odyssey
          Anyway that’s just the flip-side of the coin, I do understand where you guys are coming from.

        4. I would not like to see that all. Just imagine a lesser, more pathetic version of Gomer Pyle. Talk about loss of unit cohesion.

        5. and you think tens of thousand of men’s lives is worth that? any war is chock full of casualties, and besides we all know that women would find a way to spin the whole story in their favour.

        6. True that, if you don´t have children, that is giving up and letting the enemy win, simple as that.
          Bitches and scum will keep dropping their children like turds and contribute to making this world a squalid pig pen.
          Sure the collapse is coming but that is going to be awesome, if you make it awesome to yourself.
          Don´t fight just to survive, your life will suck for sure. No, life to fight, your life might suck at some points but will be great in others.

        7. This summer, before going to university (and after working my ass off all year, as I have done throughout my teen years) I will attend voluntary military training sponsored by my country’s Army. Provided I pass the fitness test, something I will also work hard to achieve. Almost all of the athletes on the National teams do the same – even the gymnasts, predominantly female.
          This does not mean that I don’t love my boyfriend, or that I can’t cook a decent meal. Yes, I was born with a vagina. If the opportunity ever came, I would be one of those ‘cunts’ – like many young men before me. Would you ‘like’ to see them die, too?

        8. You are mistakenly assuming that the advances in quality of life since the 50’s are due to culture. They are not. They are due solely to TECHNOLOGY. the better quality of life we, as men, have right now, are balanced out by the greatest lack of achievement, individual accomplishment, and personal fullfilment men have had since stalin’s russia.
          if your sole reason for existence is chasing random pussy, sure, you have it good. If you want ANYTHING more permanent, you are totally fucked.


      3. I would say that although the 50’s was a bit harder to live in technology and materially-wise i do think that society made more happy people, because this was right before the 60’s cultural revolution and that shit really took us down the path to hell.
        And mostly i think of this because you grew up and learned stuff, you learned values, principals, you’re father teached you good skills to have later in life. There was jobs to go to, society as a whole was not atomisized, people actually knew each other in their society. You were just given a much better head-start in life than having to go through 10+ years of indoctrination against your will and gender, having to break through painful realisations about the illusions you’ve had in life etc. You didn’t need game per se in the 50’s, all you needed was to have something to provide for her and a sense of how to court her, which you learned naturally instead of having to read on techniques in books etc.
        Not saying it was the best time to grow up, but it was surely a lot less stressful and harmful to your mind and general happiness.

      4. “There was never a better time to be a bachelor.”
        There was this thing called “The War.”
        In the 50s it was the women who were thirsty.

      5. If you look at what truly makes people happy its not the things modern society is offering. If you go to a poor country like colombia that has been stuck in a time warp because no one wanted to touch it with its guerilla warfare for 50 + years, everyone is mysteriously happy. It consistently ranks #1 or #2 in world happiness scales. And the thing you always hear from Americans who visit Colombia or Argentina is “I don’t want to go home”

        1. Kidnappings, taking drugs, selling drugs and getting a lot of cash, blowing up stuff, shooting stuff etc.
          Heaven to the followers of He Who Thirst.

      1. If we can afford it and do so in a fiscally responsible manner, why not? That’s the problem with socialists by the way. Socialists have no fiscal rectitude. THE most important thing is to protect our values and culture.

        1. Because that shit leads to laziness. Why not have a welfare state if it’s done right? because it is a slippery slope, health comes from moving and working, not pushing buttons.

    2. That’s not the point, work is needed, it is never stated that one should work for working, work is to gain money so you can spend on ordering your life and on loved ones, but it still needs to be done.

  6. It’s not so much capitalism that has put women into the work place, because most capitalist, free thinking, free market corporations are run by men. Apple is a prime example of a company that has been historically dominated by men, for the simple reason that they are the ones with the creative drive and ambition to sit up all night and all weekend rewriting code and redesigning product to make it 110%.
    The nagging wife or girlfriend wanted her man back home at 5pm, to have some boring dinner and watch a sitcom holding hands, but the great capitalists were having none of it. They worked night and day with a passion.
    It’s socialism, communism and marxism that has pushed women into the work place, and capitalism has just taken advantage of what amounts to an anomaly in the market place.
    Real free market capitalism would not tolerate orders from government to have equal numbers of women in the work force, nor would it make pronouncements about having a commitment to have equal female board members and hire more female executives, as Lloyds has just done for example.
    Corporations may pay lip service to government initiatives and companies may leverage wages downwards, especially in middle management that can be filled by women, but it’s socialism and governments that have imposed the working woman on us all.

    1. What we need to do is scrap 40 hour work weeks all together. We need to focus on productivity gains so that people can work less and take care of themselves and their families more. This idea of men need to work more and women need to work less is stupid because we both need to work less. We need to focus on sustained increases in productivity so we can focus on things like preserving our culture, our values, and our ideas. So that both men and women can be involved in their student’s lives. By the way, a large portion of the richest people don’t work very much at all (they use capital to create more capital and live off their assets). This idea that hard work by men will lead our society out of this rut/funk just makes no sense. The only thing that’ll get us out of this rut is having sustained increases in productivity and wages so we can all, as a society, work less.

    2. Capitalists want cheap workers. Women help reduce wages. That´s it, you don´t need more justification. Feminism is good for capitalism, and bad for everybody else, women included. Another little thing: capitalists do not work. They are capitalists. People that work are called workers. People that receive money from the use of their capital (means of production etc etc) are called capitalists.

      1. “Capitalists want cheap workers”
        Yea, no shit.
        “People that receive money from the use of their capital (means of production etc etc) are called capitalists.”
        Oh yea, so what’s the middle class worker who saves up all of his money to buy shares in quality companies (like say Google). That worker is using his accumulated capital to earn money off his capital. What about the average worker who indirectly owns equity and debt across the world through his pension fund? What’s he. Marxism is naive and stupid because it tries to create lines of separation where there really aren’t any out there. I hope you do realize that it’s the household sector that is actually the largest saver and accumulator of capital. That Marxist bullshit needs to be thrown out. No society can get rich with the kinds of values and ideas that Marx tried to pass on. Those societies will die out and suffocate themselves.

        1. The part he receives from stock ownership are payments to capital. The part he receives from adding value (working) are wages or payments for his work-force.
          A person can be both a capitalist and a worker. The difference is why do you receive a payment, because you put capital or because you added value by working (intellectual, physical, etc).

        2. “A person can be both a capitalist and a worker.”
          Exactly. It’s more complicated than the simplistic Marxist model assumes. So every worker is basically an indirect capitalist through their pension fund or 401k or whatever.

      2. If you use Marxist’s definitions of Capitalism then you shall always run into contradictions and false conclusions.’Work’ is not merely manual labor,but includes intellectual labor as well.Capitalism is about producing and exchanging value,which may be manifested as durable goods,literature,currency,entertainment or even Blow jobs(All of which are Capital).Wanting ‘cheap workers’ is not really the goal;wanting the most value in exchange for what you can contribute is.A cheap worker who actually hinders productivity is actually more expensive.Women(and men) who are under-qualified don’t merely reduce wages,they increase costs and decrease profit,for all.

        1. Where is “capital” in your definition? How´s different from “work”? What part does it take in the production? Marx´s is not “a” definition of Capitalism, the guy defined the system itself, that is why he is famous. His conclusions from there on, you can agree or disagree.

  7. “Feminism is a product of capitalism. The “you can have it all” message is an attempt by corporations to swindle women out of their biological needs. ”
    Damn, that’s pretty deep.

  8. I view single women’s obsession with selfies as a cry of desperation. I can understand why a woman would want to post photos of her children online; they provide evidence of something that could survive her own mortal passage. But these pathetic childless women in their 30’s who upload selfies after they have clearly entered the sexual aftermarket tell me that they realize they will leave nothing to show for their lives.

  9. Am I the only one that finds it funny that in creating an article about how “The Patriarchy is the greatest social system ever”, you make the thumbnail that of an evil dictator from a video game.

      1. Well, if you’re trying to make the argument that the patriarchy is a “good thing”, then you should definitely avoid using dictator’s face. Or at the very least, not use an evil dictators face. You could at least try a benevolent dictator. I mean come on, this is RoK; you’re telling me they didn’t have any extra images of dead greek guys to use?

        1. And major props to the artist for making a lovely picture. However, anyone whose played Assassins Creed 3 can tell you that the picture in question is from a DLC where George Washington…becomes an evil dictator…are you beginning to see why that might give a mixed message to your “benevolent patriarchy” message?

        2. I took it to be taking the piss out of the feminist narrative of the “evil patriarch”.

        3. And if this were a parody article of some sorts, then sure. However, “Evil George Washington” here was attached to an article that was meant to be taken at least somewhat seriously.

        4. You are right. He should have used an Evil Abe Lincoln. At least that would have been historically accurate.

  10. Good article overall, but Capitalism did not create feminism. Feminism is distinctly socialist in that women are enabled to be “independent” because of welfare and other forms of forced redistribution of wealth and jobs. Of course, they are far from independent, they are just dependent on the state rather than a husband.

    1. Capitalism was the necessary precursor to Socialism, as it created the technological efficiency and material abundance needed for Socialism to succeed. (Not my opinion, but the theory of Marx himself). Feminism is indeed socialist in its views and intentions however. In short, both you and the author are correct. Each one of you is looking at opposite sides of the same coin.

      1. Correct. I used to be a staunch capitalist having read Rand’s Capitalism the Unknown Ideal as a teenager. My subsequent years and experience however have lead me to hate both equally and see them as you said both sides of same the dialectic coin.
        Both need each other as a north pole needs a south pole and in the middle is the stupid masses amalgamated and synthesized and owned by the puppet masters who are dangling them along like rabbits chasing ideological carrots.
        Beginning to realize that perhaps that was the goal all along, At this point Im just pro gun-pro decentralization and pro patriarchy. Everyone else can fuck off and get the FUCK OFF MY LAND!

    2. Feminism is a bourgeois movement, it’s founders were upper-middle to ruling class women, it’s current champions are upper-middle to ruling class women. Working class feminists have about as much power and sway within the feminist movement as the working class has in society in general, i.e. next to none. Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist, described feminists as being ‘the parasites of parasites’, because the feminists of her age were women with wealthy or titled husbands (living off of their bourgeois husband’s earnings, hence ‘parasites of parasites’ in Marxist terms) who would spend their days ‘rescuing’ girls of the working class (from being barmaids, prostitutes and other ‘seedy’ jobs) and training them to become their domestic servants, having the working class girls do all their housework and dress them, thus freeing them ever more to concentrate on their ‘good works’.
      You’d think the clue would be in feminism being far far more entrenched in the USA and other western nations, which have been uninterruptedly capitalist, whereas it’s only really started getting gaining traction in the former soviet countries, which switched to capitalism relatively recently in comparison. Hell the main reason why feminism has so much association with the left and adopts Marxist language is to infiltrate and subvert the main treat to it’s continued march to dominance. Which is one of the main reasons why ‘the left’ is a complete joke of a paper tiger and struggles to organise a piss up in a brewery, never mind a ‘glorious revolution’.

      1. Great answer, and I hope the right-wing men in this website get the nuances that you put in there.

        1. What’s your idea? Give power to the average male. The average male is a fucking idiot. They’re stupid, naive, and have their head stuck up their ass. The bourgeoisie, intelligensia, and elite must rule because they’re the only ones fit to rule. The societies that will win out are the ones founded on liberal ideas. Marxism leads societies to crash and burn. By the way, Henry George>>>>>Karl Marx. Marx was a fucking idiot.
          Note: If I ever say liberal, I’m speaking in the classical sense, not in the modern sense.

        2. “The bourgeoisie, intelligensia, and elite must rule because they’re the only ones fit to rule”
          That phrase does not sound very smart. They rule because they should?

        3. Let me put it this way, do you actually want the working class to rule? They will literally bankrupt a nation. I hate this terminology, but let’s put average, blue-pill betas in charge. Good idea.

        4. Is the average man stupid because he wants to be, or is he stupid because he is kept that way so he may not rise up and realise that he does not need self-appointed “elites” to rule over him, robbing him blind and spitting in his face?
          I want the working class to rule. If only the average person were wiser, it’d be fine. Unfortunately, there is no way without natural advancements in culture.
          I’d say, “test people”. Earn a voting license by proving that you understand what you need to understand about the country. But then they’d just corrupt the education and the tests. Every contrived solution would have the same problem. Corruption.
          Anarchy is the true utopian path and it will come no matter how hard anyone tries to prevent it. There would be no laws in a utopia and certainly no government.
          Only when the individual, every individual, is wise and clever enough to govern themselves effectively, will we have a utopia. Only when we, as the common men, are not susceptible to the trickery and deceit of “elites”, when we aren’t slaves to our hormones and emotions, our greed and our lust.
          All our laws and attempts are instilling order are just a necessary part of the pathway. We are learning what we want and, more gradually, how to get it.

        5. No system has really worked that well, it always falls under corruption and bad management. Perhaps men can’t rule themselves under the influence of the wicked. It has been shown in history people can’t rule themselves without corruption and decay, only a supremely good , wise and just being can truly guide and rule people and give people utopia for Aeons and on.

      2. What you miss is that societies break down once the elite, upper middle class, and intelligensia leave. The working class is filled with idiots that are completely unfit to rule. Average males are stupid, so why would you want to give power to them. The best in society must rule. Marxism and socialism is a sucker’s trap. They both rely on the failure and stupidity of central planning.

        1. Average males are stupid, so why would you want to give power to them.

          That was Stalin’s general opinion too, or at least that’s the impression you get since average males or the working class most certainly weren’t given any power under his regime. Nor Mao’s, nor Castro’s, etc ad nauseum.

        2. Stalin was also a central planner who hated every aspect of free thought and free speech who thought he understood everything better than everyone else. The best societies are the ones that use mistakes and error as fuel to get stronger. In the end, societies that hold liberal values up will win out. All of the most talented, the best, and the brightest will flock there. This was how the Mongol empire became the largest land empire in the world. How could a bunch of nomads with no language, science, or literature beat Russian, Muslim, Chinese, and other civilizations? They’d just import the engineering skills, writing, literature, art, and all the other stuff they’d need. The Mongols were very explicit about this too. It’s not just the Mongols either; it’s every major empire.
          Women are effectively property, albeit very important property. The bottom half of men are basically just a waste; at least from a survivalist standpoint. The elite will always rule. The question is whether or not there’s some sort of a check on their power. Also, social mobility is a huge factor. In my personal opinion, I don’t think it’s possible to have a strong entrepreneurial class without a strong middle class and without lots of social mobility, but that’s a different issue for a different day.

        3. So while you’ve made it very clear that you’re no fan of central planning, do you have anything to contest about the idea that Feminism is a bourgeois movement and always has been?

  11. THIS -> The commodification of relationships
    From a cold economic efficiency pov, division of labor and specialization reduces costs and increase proffits. The problem is when that efficiency collides with human nature.
    Men is an experiment by Nature, and on top of this he actually creates social experiments like the one we are witnessing now.

  12. Great post. You & the gentle readers of ROK might also get some mileage from the “inevitability of the patriarchy” theory, which is that male domination is a natural and inevitable course of events stemming from natural innate differences between the sexes.
    There was a book on this subject written in the early 1970s, which I’ve been meaning to read for a while now. A bit of wiki-background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevitability_of_Patriarchy

    1. Stipulating the Theory of Evolution, the differences between the sexes stems from nature and is innate and inevitable only in the sense that:
      Against the ruler of death it measured up.
      When the horsemen ride again, as they always do, it will be, once again, men who are called upon to hold the line against them.
      Seize the day and use it well, my Brothers.

  13. Patriarchy was literally invented by women.
    Cavewoman to caveman: “Hey, stop messing around and lead the tribe. We’re starving. Man up!”
    Caveman “Uhhhh….ok. What do I do?”
    Cavewoman “Be a leader, dumbass. Don’t ask me. Go fight for us!”
    Caveman “Oh. OK.” turns and shouts “OK everybody, this is what we’re going to do!!”
    Feminists hate Patriarchy because in a Patriarchy, the 80% of girls who are pretty and clever are the winners, and 20% of ugly, angry, lesbian women are the losers. Ugly angry women invented Feminism (and twisted Patriarchy) as a way to put the losers in charge.

      1. Garden of Eden was very nice
        Adam never work in Paradise
        Eve meet snake
        Paradise gone
        She make Adam work from that day on.

        1. Better to live on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a nagging wife.
          Read your Bible, honey.

  14. Feminism Was Created By Capitalism”
    Uh, no. Feminism was not created by capitalism fool. It originates from Marxism.

    1. I think his point was the success of Capitalism in making survival an irrelevant consideration in the modern age, enabled feminism to spawn and expand.

    2. Feminism ultimately became a stooge of American leftists desperate for votes as they realized that “Archie Bunker” working class white males were no longer interested in the hammer and sickle (Josef Stalin murdering tens of millions of people made them suspicious.)
      So leftism did something similar to Jesus: They built up their constituency out of outcasts. Jesus was followed by reformed criminals, leftists recruited criminals (and kept them that way) and people who felt, legitimate or not, that they were disenfranchised. They sought to increase the numbers of such people and greedy capitalists let them get away with it.
      But originally, feminists were dupes of capitalists who wanted to drive down labor costs similar to illegal immigration today.

      1. Not sure about that, I think its more the case Feminism invented its own constituents (women) by convincing them how badly treated they were. Solipsism did the rest.

    3. Nowhere in Marx you can find Feminism, a 20th Century concept whose main example is from the main ubber-capitalist economy, the United States.

        1. And where is the exploitation? Because if they are talking about the use of women for household chores, they get more than what they give.

    4. The affluence created by capitalism is what allows feminism to exist.
      Ultimately marxists are too poor to support it.

    1. I won’t be able to make it, but Doc and I were discussing a Vegas meetup in early April…

      1. I can’t do the NO meetup, but after six months my schedule clears.
        Vegas sounds fun. Might be able to make that – definitely if it was post July.

  15. Camille Paglia is quite good, here are a couple of other articles about her. I like the quote about her getting in a fight with feminist teachers at a dinner party because they denied there was a hormonal difference between men and women.

  16. Natural order of the human specie is not the nuclear familly, it is the clans/tribes/gangs/dynasties.
    Victorian Britain? Monarchy, thought not absolut. Detroit? Street gangs. A lot of these single mothers are not that single, so don´t try anything there, especially if you are White!

  17. “Bachelor Pad Economics”
    This is true for me. I earned 96K per year as an Army Officer. I’ve since left the army and have become a Firefighter. I now earn 65K per year but I work a 24 hour shift (some of which I spend eating, sleeping and watching TV after my probation). And then I have 48 glabrous hours to myself.
    I could have used my Top Secret Clearance and Master’s Degree to get a $150 dollar a year job at Northrup Grumman but fuck that. Let the “providers” work 12 hour days.

    1. You were a kid once too….are you paying your parents the money you stole them as a kid back?

  18. Weren’t relationships commodified before?
    I think it might be true feminism contributed to the collapse of our family roles, but other social/cultural factors helped it along.
    Overall I think that patriarchy should exist as a beneficial social system with secure families, but it is true that it has oppressed women in ways.

    1. the article seeks to rehabilitate something that has been universally attacked, and as such it presents the positives that have been endlessly ignored on account of focussing on every injustice feminism can identify. Feminism, particularly as marxism, has been profoundly nihilistic. It critical weakness is that it is not creating viable alternatives (it probably thinks it does). This leaves open potential avenues for renewal….but its psychologically naive and unworkable to think this will be a return to the 1950s or whatever generally stands in for a golden age for the nostalgic.


    1. Why would anyone want to block your discuss? You are a prime example of what we are talking about. You are like a cockroach. The best way to get rid of you is to shine a light on you.

    2. Maureen, I think you have confused the definition of Rapist and stop using the site as an excuse for your twisted fantasy for grabbing the attentions of the men you hate the most who you secretly desire to tie you up and pound the heck out of you. I know you are probably masturbating every time you post here. 😛 LAWL!


    1. Because, obviously, a post-wall, rape-obsessed, lesbian-haircutted random woman on the internet’s judgment of my strength and masculinity should be taken seriously.

    2. Gotta love this feminist threat – instead of let’s take it outside and settle it like guys would do, her response is to settle it in a “COURT OF LAW.” Yeah, as always, run to the state because you’re otherwise powerless in taking charge of your own destiny. Men will take your worthless law degree and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine – what will you do about that? (tingles)

  21. The best piece of advice for men comes from a line by Ivan Vanko from the movie “Iron Man 2”.
    After Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) rescues Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) from prison, and entrusts him to build man-piloted Iron Man-like suits, Ivan instead starts building remote-controlled drones. When Justin returns to Ivan’s workshop to see a drone head on an armored suit, instead of a helmet (as for a man-piloted suit), he starts ranting (very much like a mangina).
    Justin Hammer: This isn’t a helmet, this is a head… Ivan, what’s going on?
    Ivan Vanko: Drone better.
    Justin Hammer: Drone better? What, why drone better? Ivan, I got an order for suits, not drones!
    Ivan Vanko: People make problem. Trust me. Drone better.
    This analogy can be applied to real life with women. Women eventually create problems with more rights/power.
    You give more rights/choices/power to women, like in matriarchal societies, they will eventually create problems with their solipsism. Though patriarchy may appear “oppressive”, “limiting”, “primitive” to feminist women, it actually is better for women to function as “drones” as in patriarchal societies (where men make the decisions/keep control), than men being “drones” for women as feminists would like (as in feminist dominated western societies), for the human race to survive and grow into civilizations with healthy gender roles. Patriarchal societies in the past are proof of it.

    1. You know honestly, I’d prefer the men making decisions, because I’m not good at making decisions for myself let alone society and even further, the world. I prefer to have people make decisions for me. Even when it seems like it’s my decision(say if I quit smoking or change my diet, the final decision is up to my boyfriend when I ask, “What do you think about X?”). I’ve always had decisions made for me so at this point I’m sixteen and have only made decisions on tests in school. Fact is, I only do something because someone else wants me too. Even losing weight I’ve been doing for society and to please my boyfriend. And honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with it. I don’t really plan on voting because I don’t think I’ll ever learn to make decisions for myself. I can a bit, but nothing serious. So guys, you can go ahead and make decisions for society, because right now it’s pretty bad due to feminsism. Fix it, please. I can’t take this society anymore. Women not having self respect and calling screwing around equality, men not respecting them because of it. Men eventually respecting no women because of it. It’s just not a good society. Women are valued by the list of Seven Heavenly Virtues, men are typically valued when they’re more sinful. Just the way it is, and the way it always will be.

      1. Just make sure you have respect for yourself, whatever that entails, and men will respect you back.

        1. Thank you. I do respect myself, and that’s why I can respect others. I prefer to avoid alcohol because that could lead to very bad decisions which would make me lose respect for myself. I don’t understand how women have sex with just anybody. I think when having it sex SHOULD be special, whatever that means to the individual person. I have way more respect for myself then to just have sex with just anyone. I believe we should all respect ourselves and stop just doing stuff just because it feel good. It’s okay to have sex, it’s okay to drink, but these things should be done in moderation, one should be special, the other one IMO should be saved for special occasions or for after work or wine with a lover, I think you see where I’m going here.

        2. that sounds like you have a strong moral compass….you should vote becky when you’re ready

    2. a bit zero sum. nobody has to be a droned. The point of the article is that women are valued in traditional families and that’s why they work well. Drone men are worth nothing, whereas drone women may still have value, but it isn’t psychologically persuasive

  22. This is an excellent article which concisely sums up the argument in favour of a traditional social structure.
    I am in my early 20’s and just graduated university. I have dozens of female friends, all of which have swallowed the feminist narrative. Most of them are attempting to make their way in the world as single, independent, career women and in the vast, vast majority of cases it is bringing them abject misery. They have spent their lives being told that they are ‘entitled’ to the same ‘privileges’ that men are (conveniently they’re not too interested in fighting for the ‘privilege’ of having their legs sheared off by I.E.Ds, or working on an oil rig in the North Sea in sub zero temperatures, or breaking rocks in a mine, or ploughing a field by hand, etc, etc or any of the other things that men have been ‘fortunate’ and ‘privileged’ to be allowed to do down the centuries) but what this really translates as is the ‘privilege’ of sitting in a sterile office for 9 or more hours a day putting money in somebody else’s pocket. They regularly call their friends in tears because a boss has raised his voice to them or because a client has been excessively (in their view) off-hand with them on the phone. They simply cannot cope with any of the pressures of the working world, even in a comfortable office job. They are bad workers – inefficient, easily distracted and lazy.
    I have been counselling them for years to find a good man by conducting themselves demurely, marry him and pursue their biologically predestined desire to raise healthy children. But did any of them listen? I think we know the answer. Many of them when pushed will admit to having no long term ambitions beyond eventually raising a family. So why wait? They appear to feel obliged to spend their twenties fucking about getting drunk, increasing their notch count and generally debasing themselves because
    it is now the social norm. It’s as if they have to do a compulsory ‘tour of duty’ in feckless slut land – it’s women’s Vietnam.
    I’m constantly amazed by the inability of women to recognize the steps they need to talk to ensure their own happiness. Patriarchy is, of course, the answer. Many of them are mentally ill through little fault of their own – they have been subjected to a decades long programme of dangerous and subsersive social engineering which has totally distorted their understanding of the way their own minds function. I genuinely do feel sorry for many women in this day and age. The solution is the firm, guiding hand of men.
    Just as we have done for millenia up to this point, we should lead them. We should show them the path to their happiness as doting, slim, feminine wives and mothers. Patriarchy works.

    1. A slut “tour of duty” – what a great analogy. You have feminists insisting that true women do the right thing by sleeping around; women swapping sad sex stories like they’re something to be proud of; the ludicrous idea that being a slut somehow liberates other women, and so on. The pseudo-military framing was already put there by the feminists themselves. Let’s just hope they don’t start agitating for a memorial in 20 years.

  23. Hi, there is a very good book I read a few years ago, “suffering
    patriarchy”, maybe you guys want to check it out, here’s the link and an introduction:
    “This book is a Free Public Domain publication, placed here to help Fathers and those scholars seeking to understand the present Aparthied being inflicted against
    American Males and especially, the Institution of Fatherhood. Please freely disseminate and publicize this work that will remain in the public domain.
    Fathers, who need to fight this system, will be armed with the facts and figures which are applicable to this war against them. Those so armed, will be able to enforce their rights as Fathers, to their own children, and defeat those working against Fatherhood. Author’s information has been catalogued after many years of study of this Domestic Enemy which invents Fatherhood into a crime, and inflicts a needless war against them in which to obtain money, power, and the ability to usurp and overthrow the foundation of our free society: The American Home and Family.”

  24. The patriarchy is a feminist myth.
    Some have just contributed more than others, sometimes there is something called the natural order. If you want to break that natural order, use genetic engineering but please do not pretend it is a social construct.
    The failures of feminists does not come from any natural limitations, their limitations are choosen.
    There is no patriarchal glass celing, there no oppression hidden in plain sight, there is only a prison of your own construction.
    Feminists ” choose” to let emotions guide their actions, they have decided that they won´t think but feeeeel.
    While I think there are natural differences, I will not blame this on your gender.
    That is not humanity, you cannot let your emotions guide your decisions and claime yourself to be a human, a person, not at all, you are an animal.

  25. As Plato used to say, direct opposition to something wrong is also wrong.
    Example: feminists make up some erroneous belief of theirs which they mistakenly name “patriarchy” and call it “bad”. The direct opposing reaction to that is to accept -without any consideration!- their own erroneous definition and simply reply “it is not bad, it is good”.
    In reality, both male and female values and roles have always composed and shaped together the human societies, at least the civilized ones. Which is obvious to anyone with a classical education and historical knowledge. Take Minoan culture, or Spartan society or Renaissance Italy for instance: there is no civilized society without both male and female structures and accomplishments.

  26. I’m a traditionalist, but find the “women’s issues” topic quite uninteresting (even that I’m a woman). This article is good though, pretty much sums up my thoughts on patriarchy, for both sexes and also the wider society.
    But this stuff about sandwiches and always looking perfect for your husband further proves how far we’ve moved from any sort of natural way of living. Idle time to spend doing your “toilette” and the like has always been for only tiny elite. The natural way, at least where I come from in Northern Europe was even for my grandparents generation hard work for both men and women. Different tasks for different sexes and both were needed to survive. People were highly self-sufficient – men built their houses, women made clothes for the whole family and took care of the animals, everyone worked on the field. Both sexes were also highly skilled in crafts, men in wood work and women in textile.
    So I don’t think the answer is to play some 50’s housewife – even in the 50’s most of the Western world didn’t have that sort of setup, its an import of American popular culture. Women should be more concerned about self-sufficiency and survival of their family. That’s why the rise of city farming and renewed interest in crafts is a good development. Both men and women are at the mercy of a consumerist scam at the moment.

  27. Runson, your articles are getting better and better. Insightful, thought-provoking and dead on.

  28. Essentially I agree with the thrust of this article but with respect, I think your argument is slightly invalid. Reason being is that patriarchy is a system of social order and governance, whereas capitalism (a term coined by Marx I believe?) is an economic system. Comparing apples and oranges here. I think if you replaced “capitalism” with democracy” your argument would be more correct. Once you have a social and political system where everyone else gets a say in what you do, the biggest voting blocks will have the most power. Since women are a huge voting block in democracies you can see clearly how that will have material impact on the structure of social institutions. For me, the word “capitalism” is merely a vulgar word to describe the system of voluntary exchange and my right to do whatever the hell I like with my property. It doesn’t get much more manly than that.

  29. Not that it makes that much of a difference to the point of the article, but you could argue that Feminism was a reaction against having been made second-class cogs in the industrial production system in the first place.
    By which I mean prior to and during WWII the Banksters funded the suffragette and equality movements to induce women to enter the workforce (as you said) and then paid them less then they would pay a man for the same job. Which is unfair. You can give them that.
    But what should have happened is that once the war was over everyone should have been let go to do what they did before.
    Which for the women wasn’t limited to just making sandwiches, but being the backbone of Western society and culture.

    1. Let’s dissect that, shall we?
      “Not that it makes that much of a difference to the point of the article,
      but you could argue that Feminism was a reaction against having been
      made second-class cogs in the industrial production system in the first
      For starters, industrialization actually made men, women, and children the ultimate losers here.
      Men? They have to resort to crutches like beer.
      Women? Intentionally set up as competition vs men in the industrial/corporate fields.
      Children? Child Slavery: Made in England.
      “By which I mean prior to and during WWII the Banksters funded the
      suffragette and equality movements to induce women to enter the
      workforce (as you said) and then paid them less then they would pay a
      man for the same job. Which is unfair. You can give them that.”
      And what was the first thing women voted in favor for? Prohibition (read: outlawing booze), all in accordance to Victorian ‘purist’ concepts.
      Even then, corporations purposely hire women more because they are less likely to *demand* pay raises.
      “But what should have happened is that once the war was over everyone should have been let go to do what they did before.”
      Sadly, that’s not the case today, because women working = extra tax revenues.
      “Which for the women wasn’t limited to just making sandwiches, but being the backbone of Western society and culture.”
      At the very worst, American women (just being specific here) during the Deep South 19th Century USA had gotten innocent men LYNCHED for false accusations: specifically, false rape accusations.
      Lower-class British women (another specific example) like Virginia Woolf openly endorsed eugenics and was a vocal anti-Semite.

  30. Not bad, but we haven’t practiced capitalism in Amerika in decades. Capitalism is the free exchange of the value for value. Whether in the form of goods, services, or currency, capitalism is nothing but a mutually agreed upon exchange, without the interference of government, beggars, or thieves.

  31. “Patriarchy is a division of social roles based in natural biological gender differences.”
    I am not trying to sound snobbish, but as as a biochemistry student, I find this claim difficult to substantiate. This to sounds very much like evolutionary psychology, which is mostly garbage. This article also talks a good deal about a shift to an agricultural-based economy to an industrial one. So is it biological differences or a demands of the economy that drive gender roles?
    As a female, I think that gender politics, feminism and men’s rights movement alike, are divisive and not helpful towards true human progress. I think it is more important to understand that we all have same or similar physical, sexual, and emotional needs as well as additional desires. Feminism vs. patriarchy is non-sensical and plays upon the insecurities, fears, and emotions of both genders. Male and female are just two sides of the same coin. Differences are exaggerated in order to divide us, which are mostly no longer necessary, due to improvements in technology and a shift from an agriculturally based economy to a industrial one, and now to a service based one.
    I also like to entertain the thought that feminism could have been pushed through by the government and corporations to have more taxpayers and consumers of material goods, and not just industrial workers. Also, I think that no system can fix the imperfections of an individual. The article says men have no reason to work, yet is that the result of a feminist system to which everyone is such a victim to, or is it the result of just a lazy or unmotivated individual? Is our society individually centered or collectivist centered? You cannot say the system is responsible for the choices of the individual, if our society is individually centered. Also note that many men work because they have to, in order to earn money to survive. So the question is again, are gender roles based in biological differences, or the demands of the household and/or economy?

    1. Solipsistic garbage.
      You don’t “find it difficult to substantiate”, you don’t “feel it is good to substantiate”. You have commenced your analysis based on your feelings towards to subject matter, then extrapolated a poor argument to fit it.
      Prima facae i this nonsense is your “..or demands of the eocnomy that drive gender roles”. The economy is whatever roles shape it to be, not the other way around. No matter what roles a population plays, transaction regarding scarce resources occur, thus (gender) roles drives the economy, and current roles see the economy taking taxes away from men, and delivering them to women, that sounds like gender is driving the economy to me.
      A men’s role in this? As the case with taxes above, men are always net beneficiaries, they always create surplus. Even in individual relationship scenarios where the female earns more than the male, invariably the male is earning more than he spends on himself, with the surplus going towards the family unit. Men need incentives to create surplus, and increasingly as we see these incentives taken away, and in fact disincentives put in place, there will be no reason to create surplus.
      Living in a caravan besides a creek where a man can fish all day, or use wireless internet… takes very little work to afford. Likewise, a sick society isn’t an incentive for a man to wear khaki, pick up a rifle and defend it. When a large enough number of men think this way.. society dies.

  32. I’m not sure that Capitalism is the opposite/ opponent to Gender Roles/ Patriarchy, but perhaps its misuse… unintended consequences. If not caught up in feminist causes, they seem to use that free time spending our money in/ with/ for non-profits of every stripe.

  33. Articles like this just prove everything we claim. We are the essential forerunners in society and women are along for the ride.

  34. I’ve been living in a culture where the women usually stay at home after getting married. Men do the work and pay the bills.
    My friend’s dad was violent. His mum wanted to break up but she couldn’t. Why? Because she didn’t have any money, education or work. She wouldn’t have been able to feed her children if she had left and besides the law said that the kids would go to the father since he has a job and she doesn’t.
    Well my friend is a male but he is obviously a feminist and he thinks his dad is a piece of shit and really hates him for everything he’s done to them. Being feminist doesn’t mean he thinks females are superior. It means he thinks that females should have the same rights as the men and the possibilities to work and leave the relationship if they’re not treated well…

  35. You want some real talk? You don’t want that. Just drink your hemlock guys. It’s actually funnier this way.

  36. We need all of you like minded people to occupy the low level jobs. Keep making the babies. 🙂

  37. The most natural response of any girl to the facts of life is disgust. Men’s penises are tools for urination. It’s unhygienic and therefore disgusting to let a man put his penis inside your body. A natural girl would be ready to kill that man rather than let that happen.
    Only extensive enculturation and socialization could suppress that natural and clean response, and most women innately know that.
    FYI, a man also has breasts. and not all women have functioning ovaries. Only fat girls menstruate. Ask any serious anorexic.

    1. And women don’t piss out of the same place they get fucked in?

      1. I know this is a really old comment. Dude, being an owner of a vagina last time I checked my urethra was quite a bit away from my vagina. Not right next door

        1. Ohh! I’m sorry you are right. I just didn’t know you fucked the urethra. I should have read more carefully.

    2. “And if men are built for physical labor, why did they monopolize intellectual work for centuries?”
      Because we also are built for intellectual labour. We have more geniuses because of a greater standard deviation from the norm in IQ. We also are better spatially and arithmetically by the functioning of our brains. We were built to better judge distances between ourselves and our prey, which was the foundation of our intellectual superiority as well.
      “More women than men enter and graduate from college, and they gain as
      many grad degrees as men and they are gaining in the sciences all the
      Interesting that you omit that most women are generally graduating with shit degrees in non-STEM subjects that don’t actually result in any intellectual labour or benefit for civilisation at large. And women taking over the sciences is never going to happen because (a) you’re not built for it and (b) more than 50% of you are confused about whether you want kids or career, as evidenced by the massive fallout rate from the workforce of university-educated women who suddenly decide to stop playing chicken with their biological clocks.

    3. “And if men are built for physical labor, why did they monopolize intellectual work for centuries? They’re not doing it now. More women than men enter and graduate from college, and they gain as many grad degrees as men and they are gaining in the sciences all the time. If men are so great at physical labor, let them do the physical labor while women take over the sciences.” Because men are also more intellectual than women…

    4. Intellectual work is often a sign of wealth and status in many places.
      You can generally get more long-term wealth, social status and influence, and variety and stability of pussy as a recognized professor/investment banker/surgeon/etc., than as a plumber.
      When tradesman and builders gain more social status than doctors, pretty sure fewer men will study to get those more rigorous credentials.

  38. I think traditional gender roles are okay, especially way back when. It makes sense that men would hunt and women would take care of the children and such. But how it went not so long ago.. that is opression. I don’t think an induvidual should be forced to spend their lives in a way they don’t want to. “Going back to the kitchen” must be a way of life as woman choses herself.

  39. You are absolutely correct. Women have proven themselves to be exceedingly naive in their rush to replace the sound tenets of their Christian faith with the twisted ideology of radical feminism. You may enjoy reading my take on patriarchy. Google, “Longform Essay- How did “patriarchy” become a Dirty Word?”

  40. I am a woman, and I agree with every part of this essay. I hate feminism; being treated well is one thing but I believe in gender roles. It’s seen everywhere in nature; men lead and women follow. It’s even there if you look back to the Paleolithic age; tribes would be lead by men while women took care of the children. It wasn’t untill about sixty years ago that women started to undermine traditional gender roles. Men are physically built to be the leaders; females are built to follow.

  41. Correction: feminism was created by Marxism. Marx wanted to abolish the traditional family because he considered it bourgeois and an obstacle to his utopia. Feminists then and now attack capitalism and the traditional family. In fact, it was a state policy in East Germany not to criticize out-of-wedlock birth, single marriage and loose morals.

  42. To be honest, I’m kind of a fan of only a matriarchy and phasing men out altogether. I mean, it can be done through IVF – two female zygotes can be used to make a baby and we could just clone the sperm heads they go in, so yay let’s have a society of women.
    I mean, if there were just women, international relations would run so smoothly because as feminist peace theory states, women leaders don’t like using real power in terms of military so there wouldn’t be any wars. Yay! No death, no fighting! Peace states like Japan all round.
    Also, there would be a huge reduction in rape because most rape is perpetuated by men.
    There would not be unwanted pregnancy, because men’s sperm is a factor in all unwanted pregnancies.
    And finally, and most blessedly, there would be no more ignorant blogs like this one who are written by idiots who clearly haven’t ever picked up a peer reviewed journal in their entire lives.

    1. “Also, there would be a huge reduction in rape because most rape is perpetuated by men.”
      The domestic violence rate among lesbian couples suggests otherwise, dear.

    2. “I mean, if there were just women, international relations would run so smoothly because as feminist peace theory states, women leaders don’t like using real power in terms of military so there wouldn’t be any wars.” The problem is when men stand up to this, and rebel… Also, what happens when some sort of alignment in a large percent of the population hits their menstrual cycle? Society will collapse without men!

    3. “Wouldn’t be any wars.” Nope, just an explosion of myterious deaths as the women in power send out their assassin death squads to stab their friends in the back.

  43. Patriarchy is one of the things that allowed the human specie to thrive. Anyone bashing it must be a retard. By the way, where are the historical examples of thriving feminist societies? There is a reason why they don’t exist.

      1. Yeah, a fictional group is a good example to them. Typical argument from ignorant idiot SJWs.

  44. The ancients with civilization were well aware of what the difference was between them and the non-civilized backward societies.
    The Romans had an ancient myth about the stork people and the pygmies. The civilized Romans were represented by the storks and the uncivilized as pygmies, small and backward. Storks are an animal that mate for life and both care for the offspring. IOW patriarchy.

  45. Amen, brother! Feminism has not enhanced women; it’s REDUCED them to infantile little shitbags incapable of doing any shit of their own, yet feeling entitled to the world at large.

    1. They renounced all they were good at. Now they just like to think that working at a desk makes their lives more purposeful than creating a family.

  46. What’s interesting is that the kind of “traditional gender roles” the author seem to long back to, is an anomaly that mostly existed only in the 50s.
    ” Authentic love is only possible within patriarchal community.”
    I call BS on that one.

    1. “that mostly existed only in the 50s.” And the 60’s (for most people), 40’s, 30’s, 20’s, early 20th century, Victorian Era, screw it, pretty much the entirety of Christian civilization…

  47. You and many of your commenters seem to be against capitalism, not feminism. Many feminists are against a capitalist system that devalues reproduction, relationships, care, and community, in the same way that you are. They want societies where women AND men can contribute equally to the market economy, care work and community. They don’t agree with societies where one gender dominates and makes the other subservient property (patriarchy) and they don’t agree with societies where accumulation of wealth makes reproduction, care and community irrelevant (capitalism). Men should be able to spend time with their families, and love and nurture their children, partners, parents and communities as much as women
    do. Women should be able to work and earn as much as men do, if they are to be resilient and active citizens. That kind of system is not impossible, look at Scandinavian countries.
    If you think men can’t love, nurture and connect, then half of humanity must be incredibly sad and purposeless. If you think women can’t work in the 21st century, walk in to any office, shop, factory, farm or house of parliament. We need to change corporate and government regulations and provisions to move forward to harmony and equity, not backward to apes fucking, hunting, killing and protecting.

    1. “That kind of system is not impossible, look at Scandinavian countries.”
      Thank you for supporting white nationalism.
      No, really! The only reason Scandinavian systems work — and they’re failing right now as we speak — is because their populations were comprised of homogenous white populations. The moment you start introducing more than a tiny minority of non-white into the mix of such a nation, the system is headed for inevitable collapse. Review any study of which ethnic groups the majority of crime is committed by in the “snowy paradises” and the evidence is clear.
      And that’s on top of the fact Scandinavian countries, supposedly progressive and freethinking and genderfluid and stuff, suck at their citizens’ happiness. Women in Iceland, Sweden, and Finland suicide at a higher rate than women in the US. Norway has a female suicide rate as high as the US with a tiny slice of the population. Because women like yourself don’t actually give a shit about men for all your mouthbreathing that passes for “advocacy”, we need not go into the suicide rates for men in these icy shitholes. And the youth suicide rate in Sweden is much, much higher than America’s, too – to say nothing of the youth unemployment rate, again higher, and the produce of supposedly “world leading” education systems.
      Not a terribly transferable model, I’m afraid. But then feminists don’t understand that the economics of a village and the economics of a continent are radically different. A woman might be able to rule a village; the security and stability of a continent requires the hand of man.

    2. First off, how did you make this comment 1 year ago? Is this a re-run of an article or something? “Many feminists are against a capitalist system that devalues reproduction, relationships, care, and community, in the same way that you are.” Yeah but feminists who are against capitalism generally want MARXISM that is like trading a a crappy sandwich for a LITERAL CRAP SANDWICH!
      “They don’t agree with societies where one gender dominates and makes the other subservient property (patriarchy)” Sorry, that system doesn’t and never did exist outside of Islamic society. Many societies set out specific places and institutions for each gender, but none of them (outside Islam) have ever truly had a “dominant gender”. “That kind of system is not impossible, look at Scandinavian countries.” You mean the countries that are on the fringe of collapse from migration, extremely low birth rates, and thus social security systems that are on the verge of bankruptcy? “If you think men can’t love, nurture and connect, then half of humanity must be incredibly sad and purposeless.” Yes we can, women are just better at taking care of children, it’s in DNA… “or house of parliament.” Point proven! “apes fucking,” What the fÜck are you talking about? “protecting” protecting people is a bad thing?

    3. feminists / liberals always name white countries as the model for how the USA should be. I agree.
      ‘we should be like scandanavia!’
      why not like mexico or Somalia hmmm?

    4. Yeah , except that what you are proposing doesn’t work. The rate of success for that arrangement is incredibly low. A household where both partners work , both clean , both cook , both take care of children , means a half-ass job at all of these. The only way for this to work is if both partners have very big paying , low-stress , low-hours jobs so they can have time for everything else. For the rest of 90% of middle and low-class people all around the world , it means zero time for family because both parents are all the time at work. It means kids staying at grandparents or in state institutions because parents don’t have time for them. It means low-quality food because of the lack of time to procure and cook quality stuff. All of this equates to erosion of the family and high-stress lives that you pass on to the innocent children.

  48. You lot do realize that being a PUA is getting a death sentence in a proper patriarchy? You’d deflower some girl, move onto the next, her brother and father will come after you and gut you alive. They’ll also get a medal for protecting their daughter’s honour.

    1. Quite: so what kind of social system do you think not only permits PUAs to wander the world banging any pussy that finds them interesting, but damn well incentivises this sort of behaviour?

    2. In a patriarchy there would be no need for PUA. PUA , at least from my point o view , is a reaction to the unfaithfulness and randomness of women. If a man can’t be sure to secure a faithful wife , there is little reason to invest more time and money in a single relationship. Big investment – little reward is bad business.

    3. “You’d deflower some girl, move onto the next, her brother and father will come after you and gut you alive.”
      Shotgun weddings. I’ve been to a couple in the old days.

  49. Many women…want to be men.
    This article is very good. More should read it.

  50. This article is so powerful and moving, it caused me to weep a bit

  51. Sadly, everything this article says is true. Including the part about capitalism.
    The next logical step is to honestly examine capitalism, as the source of all this mischief. Is a system that encourages people to be selfish – indeed so selfish that they throw away family, ignore love, and sabotage their entire community and culture, just to “get ahead”, really such a great system?

      1. “We must take the next step, to fascism.”
        The USA is fascist, has been so for ages (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, or at least no latter than LBJ).
        Fact: the more fascist the USA grew over time, the more power was taken from husbands/fathers and given to women by the fascist state.
        Conclusion:the entire history of the USA in specific, and western Europe in general, has been unfolding in the wrong direction. Russian/Byzantine civilization and theocratic autocracy is the correct model.

        1. “The USA is fascist, has been so for ages (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, or at least no latter than LBJ).” You clearly have a superficial view of fascism. Please go and read an actual book on what fascism is and is trying to achieve. For one thing, fascists states are nation states and require a homogeneous culture, the US is the opposite of that.
          “Fact: the more fascist the USA grew over time, the more power was taken from husbands/fathers and given to women by the fascist state.” Again, that is not fascism. Fascism is all for bringing back natural gender roles.
          “Conclusion:the entire history of the USA in specific, and western Europe in general, has been unfolding in the wrong direction. Russian/Byzantine civilization and theocratic autocracy is the correct model.” Oh, so fascism!

        1. Serious, not in the sense of the way the post WWII order talks about fascism, but as in a political system that is built around community.

        2. How is fascism built around community? I always thought of it as a system where the government is controlled by private corporations. That’s apparently how Mussolini defined it…

        3. “How is fascism built around community?” For one thing they are all about creating a culturally homogeneous nation state, they feel as though this gives people a sense of belonging and community in society. This does not necessarily mean that they hate other cultures or are “racists”. “I always thought of it as a system where the government is controlled by private corporations.” Again, this is something touted by globalists and SJW’s sense WWII. Fascism doesn’t really have an set policies, and this was something touted by Hitler in fact. The only set policy they had was this: Do what is best for the people.

        4. Well ok, supposing you’re correct, at what social organizational level would this homogeneity exist? Personally I think the “village” level would be best. For the past year I’ve lived in western China, a region of an absolute rainbow of ethnicities. There are over 15 distinct cultures here. One village might be Nakhi, the next village Lisu, the next Bai, the next Nakhi again… and it works spectacularly. No conflict at all. If you’re a villager, you spend 95% – 100% of your time around people who look and talk like you, and you always have the option to head into the town or city for a more cosmopolitan experience.

        5. That would work. It honestly all depends on the particular country, region, city, etc. Like I said, it’s a relatively plastic philosophy.

    1. Not that I necessarily disagree with your comment but I felt it incumbent upon me to at least ask if this article didn’t make a mistake by saying “capitalism” but was really referring to “crony capitalism”. The economist Thomas Sowell has more than a few really good articles concerning the difference between “capitalism” and a system which has some of its features but has lost many of its internal controls, such as “crony capitalism”.
      Afterall, there is nothing inherently wrong with individuals striving to improve themselves monetarily, especially if its done through providing goods and/or services that help to improve the lives of their fellow man. The problem becomes when those individuals who would take advantage of their fellow man are removed from any type of meaningful consequences for their actions. Just a thought. What say you?

      1. Well too much of any good thing can be poisonous. I look at it like a spectrum: leftwards is socialism and rightwards is capitalism. At the extreme left pole is communism and at the extreme right pole is feudalism. We’ve always been somewhere in the middle. There’s always been regulations on business, to prevent the extreme sociopathic behavior that unrestricted business usually falls into. And there have always been socialist policies… I mean heck, public roadways are socialism, as are food safety agencies, and police departments (if you’re rich, you dont need cops, because you can hire private guards).
        Basically, pure, 100% capitalism IS crony capitalism. Just like pure 100% socialism is totalitarianism. I think we were balanced in the 1950’s and 60’s… maybe the 70’s… but in the 80’s we took a hard right turn (on economic issues, not social ones, obviously), which is where we’ve been heading ever since. Toward a new feudalism. Trump, Kardashians… they’re an aristocratic class in everything but name.
        It also doesn’t help that our ethos, or ‘national narrative’ has been explicitly encouraging business to ditch whatever social responsibility they may have started out with. Remember “greed is good”? Even if you’re a moral person, the culture encourages you to sell your neighbors out. We really have to wake up. For a country that claims to be based on Christianity, we really don’t pay much attention to what Jesus actually said and did.
        IMO the best system is one where everyday affairs are managed by the free market, but big decisions are made collectively. Business should be free to run itself – within certain limits. There are lines that absolutely shan’t be crossed, and this article explained some of the dangers of crossing them.

        1. I tend to agree with the overall theme of your comment. Though, I would tend to disagree with your “spectrum” only because I feel that “crony capitalism” and socialism/totalitarianism should be placed on the same side of the spectrum. If I may, I would suggest a spectrum that is based on power. On the left, all power, complete and total is possessed by a governing entity (of some kind) while on the right is absolutely no governing power whatsoever (every man for himself if you will). The John Birch society has a somewhat decent video talking about this if you’re interested (disclosure: I am not a member of the society). Anyway, as this regards power, economics, and patriarchy, I feel that they are all tied together. Crony capitalism is fostered by a system that allows too much power to be in the hands of the political class who use that power to reward their cronies (both public and private). These cronies then use this power to help destroy the “family centered” model of social structure (the term patriarchy could be used here).
          Here I would agree with you that the “national narrative” has been directed towards the abdication of responsibility in general; what we see in business is merely a symptom of that.
          I would also agree that a free-market that honors the rights of others on the local level is a system worth having. I think this could be applied even higher out though; I don’t believe that the size of the population matters, or even the size of the governing body, as long as the overarching principle is a respect for reality and the rights of our fellow citizens/men.
          I think this ties into your comment regarding the “aristocracy” in all but name. I have had the same thoughts myself and have become increasingly disgusted with those around me who seem to be falling on their knees in worship of these “elite” instead of embracing their own lives as worthy of living, improving, and enjoying. This “aristocracy” cares nothing for us, nor should we care for them. This was not always the case and this “worship” of them, leads to a breakdown of the model best suited to helping society progress (in the theme of this article, patriarchy). Where a man strives to provide for his family, while a woman strives to nurture and care for her family. This system then gives children a steady bedrock from which to help add a little bit more progress/understanding/advancement (choose your term) to their community/society.

  52. Sound logic and reasoning. Maybe some women will learn something from this article without those feminist hate-tinted glasses. But i fear that this brainwashing about equality that is happening all around the world is so heavily ingrained that it will take decades for something to revert back to the original ways. People believe so much in equality nowadays that they take it as given fact and never once in their lives stop to question it.
    Oh , and get back in the kitchen , i’m tired of women who can’t make even an omelette. Of women who can’t do jack shit except for bitching and sitting behind a desk. If an apocalypse ever came , i know that the first ones to go extinct are the human females , by starving themselves to death because they wouldn’t know how to cook food that is not pre-packaged-place-in-microwave-food.

  53. The author mentioned Lucifer in the beginning of this post and I found that to be an interesting inclusion. Not to long ago I read an article (I believe it was on ROK) where the author put forth the idea (my paraphrase) that God himself was the ultimate patriarch. That he was the “father” of all of creation, and as such had crafted the rules that would allow his creation to flourish and grow…as long as his rules were obeyed. Saul Alinsky included an acknowledgment in his book “Rules for Radicals” to a “radical” he apparently admired; “the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
    I would say that this idea of rebelling against the rules and living in the outcome is applicable even if one is not religious because there certainly seems to be a corollary between the embracing of traditional gender roles and the growth of civilization and the abandoning of those same roles and civilizations degeneration and collapse.
    If one is religious, specifically Christian in this case, then the story of Lucifer is clearly paralled; He rebelled and convinced humanity to do so as well, apparently without care for the consequences, and feminists, SJWs, modern media, etc. would try and convince us all to do the same, also with an apparent lack of concern regarding the consequences.
    In my opinion, these same forces would rather see all of humanity in the mud, dejected, depressed, and awash in misery, merely to
    1) avoid having to admit that they might have been wrong…
    2) to exercise complete control and power over their fellow man…or
    3) simply to watch the world burn, because it gets them off (pardon my crudeness).

  54. About a year ago I realized virtually everything liberals/feminists have blamed Patriarchy for was actually due to an absence of patriarchy; chiefly because the family structure has always been the thing protecting the populace from being exploited by the 1% and each time in history the rulers have wanted to do that (ie. in the industrial revolution), they shattered the family structure.

  55. I would be happy if feminists just accepted the fact that there lower wages have to do with having babies and family. It is not a social crisis if a mother is not making the same thing as a CEO

    1. Women as a group take less demanding roles. Eg. A former employer of mine wanted to replace the group controller and ended up getting a guy externally. I asked the CFO later on why didn’t they promote someone internally, he said he tried. They had 3 female controllers and all declined— one simply said she didn’t value the 25% pay increase with the extra time and effort the role demanded.
      Women, ON AVERAGE, will always make less than men and is a complete non-issue.

  56. Feminism wasn’t created by capitalism, capitalism is just the absence of coercion.
    Feminism can not exist without state intervention, wealth redistribution and welfare, all things that wouldn’t exist in a free market, free from coercion.

  57. I enjoyed the correlation to Lucifer. I’ve always had a soft spot for the devil. He has characteristics that I admire. He has to be brave and true to his beliefs. I mean, say what you want about the dude, but he stood up for what he believed in the face of god himself. I won’t even tell my boss to go fuck himself and I am like 3 times his size and half his age.
    I also picture the Devil not just as principled and brave, but also lonely and thoughtful. The one place he belongs, the heavens, is the one place he cannot go and so he is forced to live in this world that he does not belong to with no real companionship finding what distractions he can.
    As men we ought to feel this way. At some point we fucked things up. In our ignorance, our desire to be noble, our impetuous and naïve youth we allowed the world to be taken from us and here we are, masculine men, forced to live in a feminized world finding what little pleasures we can knowing, all along, that no matter what we can’t go back to where we belong.

    1. Beautifully written and I wholeheartedly agree. It’s how I’ve felt since I was about 14 or so, which is quite a long time hehe.
      I think that in general men are not really that social in equal terms, most social interaction is driven by a practical reason and has a hierarchical sense to it.
      At the end of the day, every leader must be lonely since by definition you then do not have peers. Not only that, but those closest to you are the most likely to try to bump you off and take your place.
      Edited for spelling and to add that I appreciate your comments, you have a solid view.

  58. I do recall seeing articles with feminists citing the Hadza hunter gatherers as proof that equality is the way to go. Now, I’m no anthropologist, but I believe if there is such a thing as equality in Hadza society, is because of the harsh conditions in the part of Africa where they live, so the women do have to help out their men gathering food. And yet, from what I’ve seen, men still have to protect the tribe from danger, and women still have to nurture children. In a dangerous world where one in five babies die, it has to be that way. In it rings true in third world countries, where women do sometimes have to hold jobs, but that’s because bare necessity. And yet they go back to nurture their children.

  59. Feminism is a product of socialism, not capitalism. When women can fall down and be picked up immediately by a government social safety net without fail THAT is when 2nd and 3rd wave feminism really thrive. Without that level of socialism the most you’ll see women do is occasionally take a job ONLY if they’re very gifted or forced to by necessity, which is the natural state of Capitalism.

    1. You have to distinguish capitalism from the various schools of apologetics for it. The libertarian school promotes feminism, no thanks in part to Ayn Rand.
      Rand wanted to live as a feminist degenerate with money, so she constructed her philosophy around that goal, and she promoted the damaging practices of modern feminism: women’s education and careers, women’s sexual freedom, contraception, abortion, open marriages, adultery, divorce and sterility. Given how miserable she turned out and how many lives she damaged along the way, from hindsight this didn’t look like a successful philosophy for guiding women’s existence.
      In other words, Rand resembles a leftist intellectual who held some contrarian views on economics and politics. I suppose you could salvage the better parts of her philosophy of Objectivism by constructing a strict division between men’s and women’s roles based on nature a.k.a. the Law of Identity – “A is A” – where the men go out to invent, mine, build factories and so forth, while their wives stay home and take care of the next generation of Objectivists.

    2. I have a question : would you call traditional economies from the pre-enlightenment era capitalists ?

  60. Interesting piece, but I can’t get on board with the whole feminism springs from capitalism bit. If you really want to stretch, perhaps the excess leisure and comfort made possible by capitalism allowed feminism to take root, along with a host of other evils.

  61. If women want to stay home and raise a family great, if they would rather have careers and not have kids also great.
    Live your life the way that makes you happy, as long as it’s in the confinse of the law and you’re not a complete ass hat to others.

  62. Considering we don’t have real capitalism, I’m not fully sure you can blame this on capitalism itself. You can blame it on the richest and most powerful people in the world and the people and corporations whom bankrolled feminism. But considering our capitalist system is closer to a government controlled socialist system at this point, I think the word capitalism is incorrectly used here.
    I think it’s also important to point out, that while businesses did benefit over a short term period of decades from doubling the workforce and thus halving the wages, plus put more money and power in the hands of more likely to spend females, there is a backlash to this in the long term. Lower birth rates means a smaller work force in the future and also less consumers in the future. So any “capitalist” whom ascribed to this was screwing over their children or grandchildren in terms of the company they would eventually hand them.
    It can be seen now with not enough young people to support social security, Obamacare or the economy itself and how the economy has slowed to almost nothing. Do you think our economy would be so slow if we had 600,000,000 people now instead of almost 400 million?

  63. I’ll grant that the incredible success of capitalism, which created unbelievable abundance also created the conditions to allow for feminism. But, because feminism is so contrived, and reliant of lies and outside support, I honestly think that we could still have social conditions similar to the 1950s minus the racism. I really do. Without life support, ultimately, from taxpayers feminism can’t survive, so, I can’t take this as some inevitability, rather, its a perversion. We have feminism thanks to socialism. Even with suffrage and first and perhaps parts of second wave feminism, Patriarchy would still be dominate. feminism is that weak. Its worth mentioning that under such conditions men would be a shit ton better off than they are today. And that’s sad. If only these men outside of our community even the fucking beta’s would just understand that…you want to shake them sometimes and scream “My God Man! Wise the fuck up!” But, this is all due to socialism. There are youtube channels with guys like us confronting the shock troop/brown shirts SJWs at various protests…they’re all for women’s rights and are all fucking socialist and communists. As far as the necessity for hardship to evoke proper conditions for a patriarchy to return and flourish, the truth its a breadth away and for most people its a real and stark reality. Read the statistics, 93 million (out of a population of ~ 320 million) people just aren’t working? I do well, but, even still the turmoil in my industry from my first day on the job has been fucking crazy. I know guys that used to make 400 grand a year and lived that way being fired or have their income severely cut. Don’t think this isn’t impacting Miss empowerment too, yeah, they have more protection, but, the average family must have mom and dad working. You take away these handout programs from the state and see these “courageous” sjw’s try life for real and conditions of patriarchy come flying back. And thats all it takes.

    1. I tend to agree with your take that feminism is a deliberate perversion, not necessarily a “natural” consequence, of capitalism. I think that the last part of your comment actually comes closer to the truth. Capitalism helps create an abundance that distances individuals, communities, and societies from “threat”, this lack of worry over threat then makes individuals, communities, and societies tend to lose perspective and then aberrant structures begin to crop up and are able to start thriving. I have often wondered what would happen if the “threats” were able to return in great force and we were all “put on our toes” again. That strikes me as being the circumstances under which true alphas, leaders if you will, could thrive. I wanted to be brief, so I hope you will forgive the, perhaps, overly simplistic nature of my response.

  64. I will agree feminism sprung from capitalism, mainly because you now had two people, a husband and a wife, earning ordinary income, some of the highest taxed income out there.
    It worked well for awhile but governments, as opposed to small businesses, the keystone of American society for many years, get rewarded for getting bigger and bigger and having big budgets. This caused them to start taxing more things and for ever increasing amounts. Growing so much, this increasingly sized government and branches of government needed to justify their existence so they began to demand greater control of more things hence greater regulation (fees and penalties) to justify their existence. Businesses acting to preserve themselves started playing defense and shifted their operations to lower taxed and regulated economies like China and Mexico.
    This brings us to today where the system has caused its own demise by demanding more and more from a populace that no longer has the resources to fuel its government’s insatiable appetites, which they helped by also demanding the government do more and more.

  65. anarchy is the only true way to be a real man again
    if you are for community in anyway capitalism and socialism would still be something you like, any kind of community patriarchy or not is still going to be due to feminine manipulation and your way of thinking community is so important is still a feminine way of thinking

    1. You don’t need any political or economic system to be a real man. You need to re-define what that means *without* some big system defining it for you. A hypermasculine person isn’t much more of a man than a one who is over-effeminate. You need a balance. A take-charge kind of guy who can also nurture the connections he has with others to build a strong family, community, and society.

  66. If we took women out of the workforce it would greatly increase wages and employment for men. Within their group the economy would look very healthy. Then if we cut government out of being women’s sugar daddy the men could spend the extra money supporting women in the frame of a nuclear family. This would increase birth rates to sustainable levels. The only way out of our hole is reversing how we got in it.

  67. So now women are expected to work AND take care of their kids and homes, while men face less pressure than ever to “settle down” and offer material support and sexual fidelity to one woman for life. Wait, who is this feminism thing benefiting, again?

  68. the achilles heel of capitalism with a patriarch culture is that it creates enough wealth with out stress on the females that it makes it possible for pansies and women to believe in socialism and feminism

  69. Feminism was created by capitalism
    Absolutely. We need to wake up out of extreme ideologies (Communism evil! Capitalism great!) Yes, I love having a free market where there are competing products and low prices. But it’s not the most important thing in the world. Give me a stable, patriarchal society and I don’t care if there’s only one brand of aspirin. I don’t worship at the altar of capitalism, and I don’t rant and rave about communism. There are even a few things communism got right (gasp!). It’s more about a holistic, rational approach and a patriarchal system that tempers technological advances with societal balance.

  70. Wow…. I’m sorry to inform you, the author, but you do NOT understand what Feminism is about. So, you are saying that say, myself, as a young girl, the oldest of five, who grew up with a dominating father, needed to kow tow to what HE ORDERED?
    He was physically abusive to my mother and molested myself and my sister. When he hugged me, he would rub himself against me and …. it was hard. At about 7 or so, I remember him with no pants, then laying on top of me on his bed. Don’t know what really happened, but I remember what “it” looked like.
    He did NOT want my mother to work. She wanted to work because he was a farmer. We had no type of health insurance or dental…. ( the 1960’s)… But, she did work some at first, then she got a job as janitor for IBM. She did that for about 1 year, making supervisor. At that point, my father had her committed to a mental institution. She was in for about 3 months and then let out because she stopped another patient from stabbing an aide… that is not her story, that is from my relatives who knew.
    My mother never did know about the sexual abuse until we, my sister and I were in our 30’s. But, THANK GOD for her strength and courage to leave him and get a divorce when I was 11.
    As for me. I loved horses. Having grown up on a farm ( and naturally oriented to fighting to do everything my younger brother was allowed to do..) I was used to riding etc… my dream was to work with Race Horses( Black Stallion books). I did go to a two year School for that. A.A. S. in Animal Husbandry, then while there, became really interested in Psychology… I NEVER WOULD HAVE EVEN GONE TO COLLEGE IF I hadn’t loved horses… AND been allowed to pursue that love. I ended up working with race horses for 8 years, then working my way through a B.S in Psychology after that… The fact that I had the FREEDOM for SELF DEVELOPMENT… was the key. The fact that I did NOT have to fulfill a gender specific role, that did not fit my PERSONALITY is what has KEPT ME SANE. If I had ended up in a kitchen with five kids… I would have BECOME INSANE. As a matter of fact, I probably would not have made it to five kids- would have melted down before that. In the long run, I have ended up working in special education and human services for over 25 years. I have two BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTERS AND YES, I AM MARRIED.

  71. So, the author seems to think that Feminism is ONLY A response to Captialism… well, I think Feminism is a LOT OLDER THAN THAT….. Feminism, IS NOT ONLY ABOUT FREEDOM FOR WOMEN… but, to assist in the understanding FOR THE NEED FOR ALL TO PURSUE SELF DEVELOPMENT.
    As for dividing various job tasks, survival tasks, PERSONALITY plays a more important role for better efficiency and better overall results… there are plenty of men, who couldn’t care less about being a soldier, or a hunter, or dominating the business sector by being the top dog C.E.O…. etc.. There are plenty of women, who do want to be soldiers and who are actually built stronger and more adept at that role, than some men…. So, REALLY, you are just going to divide jobs up by two biological factors, what sex parts one has?…
    You are forgetting that both sexes have a BRAIN…. that does come into play in real life.
    Has Capitalism TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FEMINISM?. ABSOLUTELY…. But in life, any ism or ology can become abused or do the abusing…. but that doesn’t make the ism or ology bad or wrong.
    Capitalism, Patriarchy have brought us to the destruction of the EARTH. We are currently in the SIXHT MASS EXTINCTION. All that “PROGRESS” That Patriarchy has brought us, has been brought about by the need for the Patriarchy DOMINATE nature. Not work WITH NATURE….. So, let’s see, maybe if we had stuck with MATRIARCHY, which was the actual working social organizing way of HUNTER GATHERS, WE MIGHT SITLL HAVE BEEN IN A MUD HUT, BUT BE ABLE OUR SPECIES MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INHABIT THIS LIVING PLANET FOR ANTOHER FEW HUNDRED MILLENIA…. but as it stands, we may not make even a few more decades… NUCLEAR POWER anyone…???

Comments are closed.