Why Tribal Patriarchy Is The Best Model For Society

Feminists like to claim that men forced women to adopt a subservient role at the dawn of civilization, but it is more likely that men lured women into civilized life by bribing them. After all, when chimps are given treats in a lab, the first thing the males do is offer them to the females in return for sex.

This practice, in essence, is what patriarchy is all about. Men in settled towns or villages offering women shelter, a reliable food supply, and protection in exchange for monogamous pair bonding. This practice of monetary capitalism and sexual socialism has kept human societies together for thousands of years. Mating may be a little boring, and you may grow to despise your spouse, but you get a shot at having a family and raising offspring, which is the primary motivation that drives men to do the difficult and dangerous work that civilization requires.

WWII AIR RAID ASANO ZAIBATSU

Fast-forward to 1960 and this system of motivating men may have worked too well. They had invented machines that made housework so easy that for the first time in history housewives grew bored. Bored women become rebellious; rebellious women stir up trouble; and bam—we have second-wave feminists who view homemaking as so tedious that it isn’t even necessary.

Society falls apart as the crucial role of mothering gets outsourced to daycares, women enter the workforce where they stir up more trouble, wages plummet, costs rise, homemaking becomes financially improbable, and society turns into a nuthouse with feral children running around spouting Cultural Marxism because they don’t know any better.

What’s the solution? We can’t send women back to the kitchen. They don’t like it there. They’re bored. The obvious solution is to let women figure it out for themselves. Problem is, women aren’t very good problem solvers. They place themselves first and leave their families to suffer – if they have one. They try to be men, but they’re not very good at it, and we men don’t like them anymore.

So, as always, it is men that must find the solution. We must lure women back into the home by making it more attractive than the work environment. Society depends on us doing exactly that. Problem is, how do we do it?

Indian Island

Indian island reduced

There used to be a ramp between the dock and the pier. In the 1920’s there was a mansion and a vineyard on the island. Now only the water tower remains.

When I was a kid, my family would go camping on Indian Island in Clear Lake, California with several other families. Each mom would bring one pre-cooked dinner. There would be several coolers of drinks that were fair game and tons of snacks. The boys would set up camp on the far side of the island, while the girls took the nearest, flattest, best camping spot because the eldest girl’s father owned the island (female privilege).

On the way in and out, the boys would carry all the heavy stuff, and the girls would strut around and do almost nothing. The dads would launch the boats and take us water skiing, knee-boarding, wakeboarding, tubing, and an occasional trip to the hot springs, while the wives lounged around between meals and read romance novels.

It was a magical place for a young boy. We were free to do whatever we wanted, and we could stare at the bikini-clad bodies of the older girls to our hearts’ content. I have many stories to tell about that place that are not relevant to this article. Suffice it to say that it was a lesson in stress-free living when multiple families work together.

The reason I bring this up is because it shows that (1) gender roles magically pop back into place when people go camping, because there is nothing that can compel women to find firewood when there are young men around, (2) that cooking for 30 people isn’t that much harder than cooking for four when you plan ahead, and (3) both men and women are happier when they have other men and women to spend time with so they aren’t stuck with only their significant other for company.

Enter Tribal Patriarchy

Happy marriages are the bedrock of civilization.

Happy marriages are the bedrock of civilization.

Which brings me to the idea of Tribal Patriarchy. Suburbs suck. There’s nowhere to go, nothing to do, and nobody’s home because everyone is commuting. Family dinners are extinct. Living in the city is no better. It’s no place for children. Living in the countryside can be lonely, too, if you don’t have company.

What social arrangement did humans have for most of their time on Earth? That’s right, tribes. Tribes give people a community, an identity, a culture, an “us” to juxtapose to a world of “them.” Multiple families working together increases efficiency in all the tasks that life requires. It gives children multiple role models to emulate. It gives parents the opportunity to either get involved and oversee everyone’s kids, or let someone else do it so they can relax.

Imagine a home designed for four families instead of one. The children have friends to play with. The moms can coordinate their efforts and have one pair of women cook and look after their kids for a day, while the other two work or have the day off. Dads can coordinate their schedules so at least one has time to coach the soccer team. The moms can drive the kids to school, sports, and social events in large vans, reducing the number of vehicles needed.

Dads can carpool to work if their jobs are near enough. And when they’re not working they can hang out in the garage and do projects together, man-bonding while retaining their masculinity. Moms are never bored or alone because they have a friend to share their chores with. Ironing alone is a lonely, boring task. Ironing while gossiping with friends may actually be fun.

Everyone has a community to belong to. And when the interaction gets too much to handle, couples can go on vacation, secure in the knowledge that their children are being looked after by their best friends. Someone is always on hand to take sick kids to the doctor, go to parent-teacher conferences, and make sure the boys don’t poke each other’s eyes out. Everyone gets to socialize with their peers. Maybe everything is done so efficiently that parents actually have a chance to relax — something that is missing in our modern, fast-paced world.

Conclusion

A win for everyone.

A win for everyone.

A common theme on ROK is that we want women to be homemakers again because children and society need someone to fill that role. But if we wish to prove to women that we love them, and have their best interests at heart, we cannot send them back to a lonely home that bores them. Instead, we must lure them back into the home with the carrot and not the stick. One way to do that is by making the home a greater social center than the workplace, and voila – most of our societal problems are solved.

Multiple families working together increases efficiency. Having multiple sets of parents around decreases the workload of each individual parent. Letting your best friends co-parent your kids reduces your anxiety that the babysitter isn’t giving them the attention and guidance they deserve. Tribal Patriarchy meets all of these needs and more.

It takes a village to raise a child, and we know that public schools are not an adequate substitute for a village. If we want to protect our children from government indoctrination, we parents need help. What better way to address that need than to form a coalition with our closest friends and invite them into our homes, form a tribe, and give our wives and children the support they need and deserve?

Read More: Why Patriarchy Is The Greatest Social System Ever Created

90 thoughts on “Why Tribal Patriarchy Is The Best Model For Society”

  1. “Which brings me to the idea of Tribal Patriarchy. Suburbs suck. There’s
    nowhere to go, nothing to do, and nobody’s home because everyone is
    commuting. Family dinners are extinct. Living in the city is no better.
    It’s no place for children. Living in the countryside can be lonely,
    too, if you don’t have company.”
    Suburbs exist because of welfare. In a healthy society the most productive are concentrated in center of the city, and the less productive along the outskirts of the city, and the non-productive are beggars of charity (charity, not welfare) at the walls.
    In the socialist welfare state, the people who are mentally ill, socially dysfunctional, who do nothing but collect checks, and have unlimited time to commit crimes and disturbances, collect in the center, because that’s where the cheap public transportation and “walkable communities” are. To avoid the welfare class, suburbs must be built for the working and middle classes, ideally with no public transportation (to prevent “visits” from the welfare class), to live and raise functional families in. There are usually plenty of healthy activities (sports, music classes, etc) to partake of in suburbs, and typically no non-work related reason to go to the center of the city, except for illegal drugs and prostitution and maybe to watch pro sports teams (for those who haven’t become doers instead of watchers).
    Such is order of things; or would be, if things aren’t further complicated by the welfare state being multicultural, like the USA. The American Democrats think that it is unfair when blacks are concentrated in “bad areas.” If only the blacks on welfare could be moved to “good areas” with “nice things” then the blacks would be socially raised up. So, they developed “Section 8 Housing Vouchers” to pay for blacks to live in suburban housing. The result is Ferguson and Baltimore. The blacks commit crimes at 10x the rate of the surrounding community, businesses start to close, non blacks start to move out, the police are told to stop “being racist” by arresting so many blacks (God forbid they shoot and kill one), law and order collapses, all the productive people move out, blacks celebrate and put in black Democrats as leaders, and the suburb becomes a complete black ghetto. However, now the blacks complain about the crime and the “lack of nice things” (often because they burned them down in a riot at some point). The Democrats select a new suburb to move blacks on welfare into, and the whole “white flight” (really just “flight” because Asians, Hispanics, and the “talented tenth” blacks, all flee as well) repeats. The USA is one big Benny Hill chase routine only with houses.

    1. Agreed, although Baltimore is only 29% white, so I’m not sure housing vouchers had much to do with blacks spreading throughout the city–they are the majority.

      1. “Agreed, although Baltimore is only 29% white, so I’m not sure housing
        vouchers had much to do with blacks spreading throughout the city–they are the majority.”
        I meant the black rioting aimed at whites and Baltimore just happened to be one of the two most recent examples. I wasn’t intending to give the impression that Baltimore was a white suburb, like Ferguson, that was flooded by Section 8. Baltimore had public housing in the 1940s and “urban renewal” high rise public housing from the 1950s on. Baltimore is now the textbook case of how black Democrats make open alliances with the black criminal gangs (in this case the Bloods and the Crips) against their own police force (even if that police force is majority black as in Baltimore).
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PtzqnQV1GiI/VVlXFiXirNI/AAAAAAAAC-0/bb7Ptx7e5o0/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-05-17%2Bat%2B11.05.31%2BPM.png
        http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-baltimore-riots-gangs-analysis-0429-20150428-story.html#page=1

    2. I’ve got to say, this comment, just like many others on ROK is more profound that the best professionally written article in mainstream media websites or the stupid kind of stuff my friends put on their facebook.

      1. OrthodoxChristian is essentially correct, but there’s more to the story here. Whites actually lived in the cities until the 1960s, when blacks started rioting all over the country. See the “Long Hot Summer of 1967.” They also rioted in 1968 after MLK was shot. Basically, what was brewing in the major cities was a massive race war. Whites moved out of the cities and into the suburbs to avoid this war. This was only possible due to the highways that were built in the 50s.
        After “white flight” most of the money dried up, and America’s cities turned into run down, blighted black ghettos. So many American cities have lost so many beautiful old buildings, many of the areas blacks took over literally looked like WWII war zones. Detroit had one of the worst race riots ever and never recovered.
        Here’s what they don’t tell you: the vast majority of American blacks live in the Deep South, where many “gun totting rednecks” also live. Now that’s strange, don’t you think? If blacks and whites live in much closer proximity in the South, and they do, then why is “racism” so much worse there? Shouldn’t all that proximity lead to peace and understanding like the liberals claim?
        Nope. The whites in the South are armed to the teeth because they’re not stupid, despite what the Leftist media wants you to believe. Blacks make up a mere 13% of the US population, yet commit 50% of the murders. In some places in the South, blacks make up 80% of the population. And people wonder why white Southerners don’t want to give their guns up? Protection, son. Read about the Haiti Revolution and the white genocide that followed. Liberals try to explain the black violent crime rate as a function of poverty, but the poorest area in the USA is white Appalachia, and violent crime is lower than average there.
        Few know that the most segregated cities are actually in the North, NOT the Deep South. The white liberal, perfectly isolated in its peaceful, homogeneous, all-white neighborhoods has little actual experience with African-Americans, outside of perhaps what said liberal sees on television, was told in school, and a handful of superficial interactions in public.

    3. I immediately had to think of Amsterdam. Almost that whole city is subsidized housing mainly inhabited by unemployed immigrants while the people who actually work in Amsterdam live in suburbs up to 40 km from Amsterdam. It’s ridiculous, but that’s what socialism does. It favors the parasites and punishes the useful. Why don’t they live in Amsterdam if they work there you say? Because having a job and paying taxes a lot of the time can be less profitable than just sitting on your ass and draw benefits from different funds. No computer? There is a fund for that. No washing machine? Just complain enough and the municipality will give you one. No internet? You have to be able to apply for a job, right? Free internet. The list goes on. We have immigrants who live from our money, and after 30, 40 years still can’t speak Dutch and despise us for being infidel pigs.
      In a socialist country a healthy heterosexual male who pays taxes contributes most to society and it respected the least. He, – especially the father figure – is laughed at and put on show as a loveable loser in the media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOGdgvbX5Ls
      In a feminist country like so many European countries are women love to delay having a relationship. They want to be independent only to panic once they’re in their late 20’s and the best men already are taken or just not interested in a broad that rode the cockcarousel. And then you get the shaming of men: “Where are all the good men?”. Well, you turned down approximately 50+ good honest males between the age of 18-25. Now good luck with your shriveling ovaries.
      Of course this revenge fantasy is ludicrous, because we all know there is always a sucker sperm donor (and ATM) waiting around the corner. But still, it’s good to know that she’ll be unhappy after a couple of years, and starts whaling pretty soon after child 1.

  2. Bored women become rebellious; rebellious women stir up trouble; and bam—we have second-wave feminists who view homemaking as so tedious that it isn’t even necessary.

    Correct. A hundred years ago, keeping house was a real job. Then men created household technology that made the work so easy it didn’t require a dedicated “employee.” Originally, women took jobs that were low-impact on the body, which is ideal during pregnancy. Men took the more physically demanding and more dangerous jobs, which our bodies are better designed for. Men need not worry about miscarriages from lifting too much. Division of labor based on human biology.
    Men also invented modern medicine, which greatly reduced the infant mortality rate, thus allowing women to get away with birthing less children than before.
    Finally, men invented birth control, which gave women the ability to control their sexuality once and for all, which had never been possible in human history before. For the first time ever, women could escape their biology and live “like” men. Only then did feminism take off.
    Did they thank us? Hell no, they invented a bunch of “Patriarchy” bullshit, took everything in history out of context, and accused us of basically being Satan on Earth. Then the world actually bought it. Complete bullshit.

    1. I’ve often thought the dutiful Beta male was so successful in creating the world around us that he brought about own his own demise. I’ve also thought about why the Western male, for all his creative genius, might end up being a genetic dead end because other males, by dint of not being as creative and resourceful in creating an artificial world for females to enjoy, have been able to keep their bitches in line. They don’t get spoiled like they do here. (Of course, globalization will soon fuck that up.) But already in the West, the womynz are now running the civilization that men created. Truly a testament to the disposability of the male in nature.

      1. Your point is well received… and yet, when the machinery of the modern world begins to breakdown – and it will… cracking under the strain of neglect and unstable social policy then once again evolutionary biology will rear it’s murderous head. When that eventually happens expect to see strong, independent, women turning tricks for canned goods.

        1. I welcome that day. It’s tidal force, ebb and flow, for a creature such as the Western woman to get her just comeuppance. If she thinks the dutiful Western Beta male oppressed her, just wait until she gets a taste of what’s to come as the painting that’s being painted by rapidly changing demographics comes into focus. I, for one, will not be sacrificing myself to save a creature that so carelessly cast her men aside once that shit hits the fan.

        2. This happened already. Women turning to porn and prostitution to finance college degrees. Women turning to sugar daddies to pay for tuition and a place to live. Sadly, marriage rates will never return to pre-feminist levels. Men can’t be tricked into marriage in this climate and the easy availability of sex. While marriage is on the decline and more rare, women haven’t treated the status with more respect either. Divorce is still at record levels with women responsible for 2/3rds of divorce. Women support gay marriage at higher rates. Women entering into relationships with men to survive is a hard path for them to accept.

        3. Haha. When that happens the strong, independent, women will resort to their primal instinct, and offer sex for the resources that a man collects.

        4. Civilization is a thin layer, but feminism and the emancipated state of being we live in is even more frail. I’m very curious what is going to happen when the first signs of the decline of our overabundance in material goods and the lifestyle they provide for us shrink to a noticeable level (like an oilcrisis or fall of the Dollar, a war or natural disaster with long lasting effects) In all probability women will panic first and immediately fall back from big mouths to submissive homemakers doing what they’re supposed to do: please her man, care for her children. Because in the end that is all that she has to do really. How incomprehensible it seems, I can not wait for this to happen.

        5. AHAHAH right on mate. As I said to a colleague of mine, If you know 6 professional women, 3 or 4 of them have some knowledge or experience in the dirty business be it cam or selling panties on craigslist to actual prostitution.
          If they drive a nice car and their daddy aint rich!? then you kow what it is!

    2. The idea that throughout history men have somehow banded up and “forced” women to be homemakers is very stupid. Firstly, for most of the history, there has been no globalization on such a large scale as it is today. There was no internet for rapid communication, so that the evil men throughout the world could discuss and scheme somehow how to “force” women into submission or oppress them. Most of these men never even came into contact with people from other lands. Yet, somehow, in almost every land, every continent of the world, men were the providers, and women the homemakers.
      It does not take a genius to figure out, that no one forced these roles on men and women. They somehow figured it out themselves, what they were supposed to do, or what their mental and/or physical capacities allow them to do. In the human species men are over represented as inventors, architects, philosophers and the builders of civilizations, not because it is a social construct, but because the have always been interested in it. The vast majority of men I have men, are interested in science, mathematics, and the vast majority of women that I’ve met are interested in children, marriage, love, romance, etc. It’s what comes naturally to us. Nothing here is forced.
      And of course there are evolutionary proofs of these differences between men and woman. As the writer of this article says about chimps, a couple of days I watched a documentary in which male chimps offer food which they hunt to female chimps in return to sex. When females are the most fertile, hunting among the chimps increases, to get more sex. That’s how it always have been. Males always have had the resources, and females, their bodies. That’s what they trade to each other. The feminist lie that rape has been the basis of marriage, is after all, when compared to evolutionary science, illiterately wrong. Marriage has always been about trading sex for resources, protection, and shelter.
      Furthermore, the feminist lie, that women are just as capable as men in searching for food, building civilization, inventing tools/machines, and building giant pyramids falls flat on their face. Females are intellectually and physically inferior to do that. They rely on men for all this, and for all the other resources, and in return, give the only thing they have, which is their bodies for sex. No wonder, that at some point of their lives all women realize that men see them just as sex objects. That’s how it is meant to be. That’s the bitter, hard reality in a nutshell, that feminists and women don’t want to accept.

      1. Actually the Male Alpha Male Chimp will give the meat to his lieutenants first then maybe give some to the females.

      2. What you are saying is that marriage was not based on rape, but rather on prostitution going institutional.

        1. Yes, and it’s very evident in the modern society. Most women will, in their social circle will go for the man who has the most resources, like the biggest house, the most fashionable car, the best job, etc.
          That’s how women have evolved. They marry or get fucked by a man with the most resources.
          So why don’t most of them give their bodies to the poor guy with no money. Because he hasn’t any resources. Most women will unconsciously, give their bodies to the man who has the most resources. It’s a form of prostitution. It’s no coincidence that prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession.

        2. Marriage has always been legal prostitution. Prostitution should be legal anyways because in a sense we are all selling our bodies. Someone is selling physical strength, someone intellect and someone purely body. If you think otherwise then go tell your wife that you are bankrupt and from now on she has to work and pay for all, then let me know how long your marriage last.

    3. > Then men created technology that made the work so easy it didn’t require a dedicated “employee.”
      Indeed. All those cries that men no longer have a role, that our gender have lost our place and are looking for meaning are mere projection. The truth is that household electrification stripped *women* of *their* place, their valued and important role. Germaine Greer identified knowing deep down that housework is bullshit and that a housewife is superfluous as a feeling of *emasculation*.

    4. We have been our own worst enemy from the beginning. Thank God Almighty that feminism does not really have men backing it up. It would yield a Holocaust that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined seem like saints.

      1. ??? Feminism was created, organized, financed and directed by men, almost exclusively from the J-tribe. They paid the initial female dupes directly (Steinem et al) and created the infrastructure of the movement so future dupes could be placed without their understanding of who the puppet masters really are. Isn’t this obvious? Spend a Sunday afternoon researching the real history of feminism and where the concepts and money came from. Illuminating stuff…

        1. But, but, but….that goes against decades of indoctrination in state schools and the brainwashing machine we call the television!!!!!!! It is so much easier to tune in and go with the flow… Baaaaaaahhh!
          It is amazing how psychologically powerful the prevailing narrative is on the human psyche. I wonder if anybody has ever though of using this human evolutionary vulnerability against us to get what they want? Nah, seems too unlikely.

  3. The tribal society is redundant and it’s no more likelier than trying for the lost paradise of the 50’s. We need an all out apocalypse soft reset to go back to traditional gender roles.

  4. “…we can not send them back to a lonely home that bores them.”
    Sounds like something a male feminist would say.

      1. As alphas? Do you even know what an alpha is? The question that matters is HAVE you even met an alpha? Get over yourself pal, no offence.
        To be an alpha you need to have your life on lock down, control pretty much every aspect of it and numero uno rule is to be respected by those around you without doing much to gain their respect. You should come across as a charming dude with charisma, have a good financial situation on top of that.
        You need to look masculine and have an air about you; you need to be able to extrude your persona. You may be 6 feet tall but as an alpha your energy is 6x that and manage to pull people into your gravitational pull and let them bask in your aura.
        I’ve met enough people who are Alphas and managed to get their trust and stuck around to see how they behave and manage themselves in various circles. It is genealogical to a degree.
        I’m trying not to beta,I’m nearly halp way through to alpha (maybe) but end up falling into beta habits from time to time.
        Being an Alpha is constant work, well, until it comes off naturally.
        Forcing an image is not that good for you, women sniff you out really easy. Pheromones don’t lie and if you got Alphas around you, women gonna notice that even easier.
        Don’t get my advice the wrong way.

  5. Everyone will do what they do best. Women, taking care of children and the house, cooking, cleaning and brain dead gossiping, and men stuff like inventing quantum computers and hyper drives. It’s a win win.

  6. There is one variable to this equation and it’s the media (social media/TV/magazines). Women would waste time on social media and seeing what other women have and they don’t have, they get jealous and try to up one another. They get what they wanted and are content for the moment only to be unhappy again when her BFF has something better that she doesn’t have. Repeat the cycle and the men would be so into debt so she divorces him and hooks up with the next ATM husband.
    If she is unhappy, don’t bother trying to please her. Just ignore her and her manipulations. This is where a mistress(es) are a must.

  7. This is no joke. In the past lies the key to the future. My marriage would be much better with another woman, I have suggested this a few times to no avail. The kids and I would be much happier living in a group situation. I really don’t enjoy conversing or working with women, but desire many children. It is oppressive having to face my wife and provide for her inane need to discuss stupid shit all the time for decades just so we can have kids.

    1. Would it have been possible for you to marry an intelligent woman who discusses things you both have an interest in? Or can you adopt any of the hundreds of thousands of orphaned children in need of a home?

      1. Go back in time and tell that to my 20 year-old self.
        In my self defense though, I enjoyed fucking cute chicks, and to discuss things of importance, and have not found those things to exist in the same person. And why should they? Is that a reasonable expectation? I would prefer not to compromise my mental thought process so deep conversations with women can become enjoyable. Especially when there is a planet full of men that I enjoy conversation with.
        The problem is that we have divided ourselves and called it “progress”. Really, it’s just lonely. Unless of course you think like a chick and you can marry your “best friend”. Is that really normal? Men thinking like chicks, women thinking like men and best friends marrying each other?

      2. People who want other people to adopt orphans. Why shouldn’t people get to have their own kids, rather than adopt other people’s kids? “Oh you’re _____, that means you should adopt other people’s kids.” Often said by people who have already had their own kids.

  8. Asking for trouble. Women will form a hierarchy with one Alpha female (usually the older or richer). This role used to be filled with the Mother In Law. One or two wives will invariably form a clique or isolate themselves. Men will also find a tribe to be exhausting. To detail everything they do for a committee isn’t the best use of time. So everyone eats Spaghetti on a Tuesday. Who wants to go back to school after you long left it?
    You should look towards the marketplace for the solution. Some cities just have better services in both the public and private sectors. Live where it works best for you.
    BUT: Making it easier for the wife is precisely the problem. The more bored she is, the more she will stray. Women can’t be trapped into being homemakers. There is no cure for boredom.

  9. “gender roles magically pop back into place when people go camping”
    Oh lord this is so true. I run with some very jockish, marathon running, climbing, outdoors women and when we all get together for camping, they quickly huddle up for wine and gossip while the men cut wood and build fires. These girls are as capable if not more so than the guys, but totally go submissive female.

    1. That’s why I fucking love camping, and insist on taking the family camping, regardless of the wife’s fears of bears.

  10. If you want to live in this kind of environment then it’s best to own a land. Know how to farm, own your own farming land, hope that government isn’t going to harass you over shit, cut off contact with most people since they would be useless, keep tight, private trustful social connection (among few), raise your kids well in natural environment and make sure the girl has no trace of outside social influence and she is not mentally damaged and she comes from good traditional family background. Isn’t it any coincidence that country girls in general behave better than city girls?

  11. “It takes a village to raise a child”
    Yeah that’s what Hillary and the gynarchy have been telling me for forty years now. How’s that working out? Keep it right on up then!
    What Hillie and Company always failed to mention is that the Sisterhood (and male hirelings) ARE the village. The are the ‘community’ that they’re always yammering about.
    It takes a father, leading his own family, to raise a child, directing his wife and chidren. Women and their Village cannot raise a healthy child without leadership from, and deference to, the individual father. All the communitarian schemes have been tried a zillion times, in differing guises, and have failed miserably.
    Cheers.

    1. Yes, nuclear family setup, is the ideal setup for raising children. There’s a reason why a country is divided into provinces, a province into cities, each with their own administration. It makes governing easier and more efficient. That’s why nuclear families are to a society as cell are to a human body. The community raising of children scenario is what is currently going on in the west, and it’s quite ineffective.

      1. The only really effective (and honest) government I’ve ever witnessed was in my childhood, and that was the very small LOCAL government in a working-class town. The only reason that government functioned properly was that INVESTED DADS were at the core of it, and at the heart of running the town — courts, cops, administration, licensing, and so forth.
        Once that dad-led, nuclear unit was destroyed by our ‘improved’ American culture, many of the local governments no longer could be trusted, as they gradually became influenced (and then dominated) by the interests of Team Woman, rich men, etc.
        I’m amazed and disappointed that after all the trauma and screw-ups of the past forty years, that collectivisms like The Village could still be held forth as the preferred option for human organization. Yet here we are. It’s a MEN’S site too! yikes.
        Cheers.

        1. That’s because dads think about their families before themselves, and moms think about themselves before their families. Women don’t just make sacrifices for their family like men do.
          And women lack the physical and intellectual capacity, to accomplish something or draft a good strategy. Not to mention the fact that they can’t work together in unity. They quarrel all the time. The only unity they are capable of showing is when they have to unite to organize some witch hunt to end the job of some poor man who mildly offended them.

        2. Yeah.
          Some women certainly do make sacrifices for their family, mostly when the culture places them in a position to do so, in areas of their natural strengths (raising kids, keeping house, helping men etc.) Fifty years ago, there were a lot of such women in the U.S., I know, because I grew up around them. Now…. not so much.
          In our feminist culture, females are empowered and entitled from birth, especially the daughters and wives of powerful or rich men. These females are then trained away from their feminine strengths, instead to dispossess and triumph over males — not MY son, of course, but Somebody Else’s Son! lol because I got mine and who cares what happens to him? That’s how the game is now played.
          This of course can only be maintained briefly under conditions of Empire, and the Empire inevitably will weaken and die from such an inversion of human nature, and from the predatory and selfish character of all feminist societies, both the females and males within them.
          Cheers.

        3. Yeah. Men make sacrifices for their kids, whether the society, tells them or not. Women on the other hand, make sacrifices for their kids, only when the culture shames them for not doing so.
          We’ve got a culture which pretends as if men are the ones running away, afraid of making sacrifices for the kids, when in reality it is not so. About seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women. This shows that men are more likely to suffer in a broken marriage for the sake of their kids, as compared to women.

        4. Right, the deadbeat-dad meme is about beat dead after forty years of bleed-out.
          Females (of all ages) soak up and extrude the spiritual and socio-cultural atmosphere in which they are immersed. So in modern America, they’re often encouraged to be selfish, vindictive, deceitful, faithless, and manipulative. Instead of chaste and faithful.
          In the extended-families, smallish-town where I was raised in the fifties and sixties, the general assumptive meme was that married females, especially, were life-long partners of husbands, and the whole unto-death-do-us-part thing had not been waived-off. Nor massively monetized by government agencies, courts, lawyers, prisons, ‘counselors’ and other ticks.
          It was a far less sexualized and monetized society back then. The fidelity of women towards their husbands wasn’t due so much to overt or ongoing shaming of women, but more the result of the general accepted spirit and standards of those times. Also, my grandparents lived through some very rough periods, as life-partners, as husband-and-wife. They had to count on one another to survive, and learned the value of standing by one another through troubles.
          One of my grannies followed Christ, and one was an eastern European immigrant whose life consisted mostly of hard farm work. Even in their very late years, both of these women looked after their husbands carefully and lovingly (tho not of course perfectly! lol) despite both these men being incapacitated in their later years. One of them was essentially alzheimers for a decade, at least. But his wife got him up, got him fed and cleaned, dressed and settled comfortably, and into bed every night, and nobody hovered over her enforcing her obedience. Never heard a mutter of complaint out of her, either. She approached it the same as baking day in the kitchen.
          So, that’s a long way of saying, things are extreme now, but this is only a temporary aberrational stage in male/female relations — that must be resisted and stomped out, but not clung to with resentment. Later on things will be good again, much better than before actually, so when families are having fun again, they’ll forget most of this nastiness.
          Cheers.

    2. Excellent post.
      ANY healthy relationship dynamic requires a base of the man being in charge. If he’s abusing his authority over his family, he should be held accountable to adjust his approach based on men exercising their authority properly. Society should never throw the baby out with the bath water and try to strip authority from the man and give it to the woman(Under the serpentine guise of “equality”).
      Anything less is immoral, but more importantly disastrous.
      The thing is, in an absolute sense men are ALWAYS in charge whether they realize it or not, even in the faggotland of sweden. The swedes are simply a bunch of permissive fags. The Swedish men simply need to learn how to say “no bitch” and direct their behavior to a like-able condition, with no apologies, and problem solved. Same with American men.

  12. It’s this kind of article posted right next to the ones about travelling the world and boning as many women as possible that confuse me as to the intent of this site. If you don’t want women to be sluts, why not just avoid using them as such? It’s hard but so is a lot of the stuff suggested on this blog.

    1. Read the title of the article. I would guess the author is promoting the tribe as “the best model for society”. Western culture has degraded to such an extent that “boning as many women as possible” has now become an enjoyable pastime akin to gaming or other pursuits. Western women want high heels, cocktails, and all the other accoutrements that they suck up from the mags, TV and movies.
      Take what you will from the articles, make up your own mind, do shit and enjoy your life. You will be under the ground longer than you will be above…..

      1. I just feel bad that you and seemingly so many others on here have limited your social circles such that you only encounter women whose only source of cultural exposure is through trashy mags and TV. I don’t understand why you don’t go out and network, join clubs, volunteer, travel, attend lectures or other classes, and meet the kind of women who reject such toxic things and actually have minds of their own and contribute intellectually-stimulating topics and original thoughts to conversation.
        Instead of “all women” being the problem, maybe the problem is you. Where you live, who you talk to, the hobbies you have, your education level, your job. Raise the barrier and you’ll find women worth your time.

        1. Ha ha I don’t need you to “feel bad” about anything. Did you understand my post? Maybe you should read it again.
          “Encounter women”? I have plenty of experience with women of all sorts. Especially western women and find many of them materialistic, self absorbed and selfish. Are you saying they are not? The particular snowflakes you mention that “reject such toxic things” are rare and worth their weight in gold.
          I have female friends who are near and dear to me. They are of a different mind set. But they are friends and I feel no romantic attachments to them.
          You know nothing about me and make so many presumptions. I won’t even go into what I am about. From your condescending comment you end up sounding off like an sjw.

    2. The articles were written by different people. I don’t think the intent of this site is to create a complete hive mind but to gather different insights and opinions from people who have a general agreement that feminism and modern women are a problem in society.

      1. Well it says rather clearly in the “about” section that this site is made to revitalize masculinity and fix the massive problems society faces due to female hypersexual habits and the ideology (feminism) behind it. At the same time like half the articles are about “game,” not just to develop masculine traits, but to make physical use of the women who have been turned into sluts by cultural Marxists.
        Then there are the articles glorifying foreign women for their classical femininity and then suggest that men from Western countries go over there to use these women, not for LTRs, but as cumbuckets.
        It takes two to tango—while feminists do bear the direct responsibility for destroying Western society, if men were to quit buying into this cultural catastrophe by refusing to date and marry sluts, then feminism would lose all power. A tall order, yes, but promoting endless boning doesn’t help. Articles like “How I turned ten Ukrainians/Filipinas/Russians into sluts” just make the site look stupid and hypocritical.
        The argument that men are to be applauded if they have sex with many women while the reverse is untrue only makes sense if there are very many women and few men, but the fact is that it’s mostly 50/50. The argument should be “women are sluts and the men who fall for them are johns aiding in nationwide whoredom.”

        1. Good point. I tend to agree with your side of things. I find sluts rather repulsive myself nor do I practice much “game.” I find most women to be boring and unworthy of my time. It seems, though, that most men have this conflict inside them and this site does seem to exemplify that. I just pick the articles I agree with and discard the ones I don’t.

  13. Fantastic thinking, but the governments of most Western countries now consider the basic tenants of this article as threats to national security, and thus, a form of terrorism. Doing any of the above would get your tribe labelled as a dangerous cult. Sad, but true.

    1. “Fantastic thinking, but the governments of most Western countries now consider the basic tenants of this article as threats to national security, and thus, a form of terrorism.”
      I wish I could call that hyperbole. But I can’t. That is how deep the denial and resentment of masculinity now runs in America and the West. To behave like a man is a criminal act in the U.S., and yup you will be criminalized for it, sooner or later.
      Cheers.

  14. that’s a good article. i recommend everyone to watch the documentary ‘tribe’ with bruce parry, just to get an idea of how real indigenous tribes all around the world are living.

  15. The problem with communalism is the sexual competition that will always exist, with each man trying to get with his neighbor’s wife. And each woman will want to be with whichever man appears most dominant at the time she is ovulating, which will be the same time for all of the women, as their cycles coordinate.
    Polygamy is the more practicable version of what you propose. Too many chefs spoil the pot. As catty as women are, they would all rather be the sister-wives of an alpha than a beta’s one and only. And polygamy is actually the direction in which we are (effectively) going, in case nobody noticed.

  16. “Men in settled towns or villages offering women shelter, a reliable food
    supply, and protection in exchange for monogamous pair bonding.”
    Except, of course, that tribal patriarchies tend to be polygamous. How many wives and concubines did Abraham have, again? What about Jacob?
    In a tribe, the top tier of men get all the women. The only way to become one of those top men is to kill the men from the tribe over on the other end of the river. If you are not part of that warrior subculture, you get no pussy and have no reason to do any work other than the bare minimum. This is why tribal patriarchies are shitholes – the women fetch the water, plough and sow the fields, and they are no goddamn good at it compared to a man.
    The genius of monogamy – which can only be enforced in a large culture with a king (ie, the top layer is small enough that even with monogamy fro everyone else, there are still enough women for the top guys to have a harem) – is that it gives the young men reason to work for a future.

  17. Putting families into groups does nothing to solve the problem of patriarchal decline.
    What would solve the problem is no more welfare support for women (men only), no more affirmative action, no more legal preferences for women, and a return to traditional religion.
    Those policy actions would reinstate male economic power, the decline of which is the ultimate reason for the decline of the patriarchy.

    1. It’s hard to get women to forget that there’s a nanny state only a phone call away. In any heated arguement, a woman blurts out that she’s calling so and so, some hotline or she reasons that she’ll be fine in a shelter as she’s packing her shit. Women must be taught to fear the state and trust their master, not the other way around.

  18. That’s one reason why i’m more attracted to asians, they have extended families and are close. Caucasians aim to move away from their family which only turns caucasian women into BIG TIME sluts where you can’t turn a slut into a housewife! They become lonely and look for instant hits (eating, drinking, attention seeking, fucking and sucking cock) to fill the void.
    Human beings are design to co-exist with each other. Us men are design to hunt in a pack so we can take down a lion.

  19. I would probably not want to live in a house with another family. But I do like the “It takes a village concept”.
    Not the Hillay kind. When liberals refer to a village or a community, what they really mean is bureaucrats socially engineering a cold, anonymous technocratic solution which performs functions that disempower and alienate those being served.
    I remember well the authentic extended families of my childhood. People were together and depended on each other.
    In that model, you can have a balance of people working outside the home,farming, gardening, feeding chickens, hunting. (My grandfather had land where all this was possible).
    I saw the dying gasp of the Southern Family. Lasted til about 1990 for us.

    1. I like the idea of a ring of houses with a common bonfire area, common garden, etc. some extended farm families do things that way.

  20. Good post.
    I think Tribal Patriarchies are the foundation of this country, and as that becomes split apart more and more so will the traditional family.

  21. A very intriguing idea. It’s something many serious science fiction stories attempt to simulate with various degrees of complexity (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to mind at the moment).
    The one problem I see is the necessity of keeping couples in monogamous relationships. One of the women will be more attractive than the other three, same goes for men. Unless men and women are allowed to mate among each other (as they were in the mentioned novel), there will be sexual tension.
    Other than that, this is a good start to solving a difficult problem.

    1. Great book and good example. Except women had way too much power in that society, even though the head of each group marriage was technically a man.

  22. You ever hear about the book “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society”? It’s about people in a part of Italy who started living a tribal model – amoral familism – and the effects of them disinvesting from general society and only focusing on their families.
    Granted, the phrase amoral familism is widely considered racist but there is a grain of truth. The way parts of Chinese society are, and the way parts of Latin American society are, since these are the cultures myself and many people I know belong to, have some traits of that. Not in terms of not being nice to people, but in terms of society in general having less order.
    It’s like the Middle Eastern saying “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers”. Sometimes I see people from my culture buying multifamily houses or apartment buildings in the US so they can live with their cousins, ‘villas’ are common in non-western countries because people often want physical separation from non-kin. I mean there are some advantages but I don’t know if it’s good in the long-run.
    Ultimately your ‘tribe’ ends and you have to interact with the wider world. Guys become beta when they never interact with nonkin females. Familism also could lead to behaviors that cause society to become disorderly, like littering and dodging taxes.
    Ironically, feminism might actually be ‘baked in’ to modern Anglo society, just like antiracism, gay people, helping the ‘poor starving children in Somalia’. I think that what the liberal culture believes is that the entire country is their cousins. This is a double edged sword.

  23. The *BETTER* solution.
    We have plenty of muslim aliens in the west. Why not learn from them?
    In detail:
    My house is my castle and I am lording over it.
    My 4 wifes – muslims can have up to 4 wifes, why shouldnt we!
    One will take care of the many kids. No need for goverment daycare crap or public shools. She will be nanny and teacher in one person.
    Two more will do cooking and house cleaning.
    One will be my personal secretary and help with my businesses.
    This model will work much better than what we have now.
    Downside? The 4 wifes i take are 3 omega/lesser beta males who will get no wifes.
    Solution: Legal prostitution and/or internet porn for the masses of lesser men. If this is not enough we have a few wars going on where they can do their duty and not disturb society.
    For the wifes: Female hypergamie will love this. Women no longer have to settle down with boring beta males because the 25% of alphas and greater beta males can now take care of 100% of females. Women also do not have to work anymore because alphas/greater betas tend to be in the money. They have their group of fellow females, can share their chores and will be happy, fun loving wifes and mothers. They will also keep up their looks much better, due to heavy competition.
    This is a win:win and we will see this coming. It may not happens today, nor in 10 years but 50-80 years from now both europe and the US will have this system.

  24. I was just reading about this kind of thing. Google traditional cities and really narrow streets. There are a few blogs about it. The suburbs are the result of an unfortunate series of evolutionary steps that started when the founding city and town planners in the 1800s made streets ridiculously wide for some reason. That made walking around more difficult. When the auto came around, that forced a whole string of new requirements: more roads, parking, lights. All this misery induced people to want set back homes with green grass to try to make it more pleasant.
    I also once had an idea for a multifamily communal home of about 3 or 4 families. They would all help raise the children and living, but remain monogamous.

    1. The selection of residents of the community would be critical for its success. Take any motley row of suburbanites and they’re too varied. Suburbanites bicker and sue each other and the suburban queens start the shit talk that divides men who should otherwise be friendly neighbors. It keeps beta men in check and keeps them from straying when the bitch starts warring with neighbors out of the blue. The state always mediates in the end if the man doesn’t acquiesce to keep the peace.
      I too had idea for a ‘ring’ of houses connected with garden area / campfire in the middle. Add religious dancing in the evenings, testimonials to the virtue and sanctity of the clan and above all – no pants allowed on the women. Jubilant barefoot dancing every night with the women of the tribe, why no woman would run away from that. No manginas or white knights among the men, only red pillers with game and respect for their fellow man and his ‘property’.

  25. “A win for everyone.” Interesting photograph. Multiculturalism is so embedded in Western thought, even ROK promotes it.

  26. Really great idea and it has never occurred to me before. I should tell my fiancé that we need to start making friends our age that either have children or planning on having them because we can benefit mutually like a tribe.
    It’s true: sometimes housework for me can get tedious, so sometimes I put on music or time myself to see how fast I can get chores done or open a window in front of the sink to feel the breeze outside while washing dishes. Makes things tolerable.

  27. The problem with this is always the size of the village. The bigger the village the more Marxist it becomes.

  28. The idea that women left there gender roles becuase they are boring and now want to be feminist is erroneous. Women left them and becuase the male gave her no reason to be there, why cook for you why clean when she can go out and live how she wants. Why raise a child a family so they can go to school where the son will be told to sit down shut up and raise his hand and if he can’t do this they put him on pills. Or so your daughter can become a slut. What’s the purpose of all this is it for the country so Bruce Jenner can parade himself on tv this is the country im working so hard for. Men and women are having a disconnect with society becuase it is all fake. Even religion go to church pray this one two three repeat after me prayer. Even philosophy evolution im just an animal so it’s ok to act a fool. But any mention of Jesus Christ is muted out no we just want to talk about women not doing there jobs, what about men I see the same selfishness in men. People are not raising there kids right becuase they have no motivation too, women and men alike are not seeing a purpose why would they its not like if I neglect my children there’s consequences according to the whole world and so on I’ll be dead anyway. So why be a housewife and not a whore or why not just bang a bunch of women there’s no absolute wrong or right. Most people’s own beliefs don’t back them up. We teach one thing and wonder why people don’t behave. The bible says raise your child up in the way he will go and when he is old he will return to it. Women be in subjection to your husband. But the book is all fairytales I see marriage and decency is to then becuase it comes from the bible you can’t take morals from God and discard him and expect them to work for you. But we did we pick and choose what works for us as a society in turn others pick from an ever shrinking diluted pile of morals and codes and you have what you have now. Which is no code of morals no law and order only selectively enforced. And that is why women Are not in the kitchen and won’t return becuase why when she is just like most men she just want a few lovers male and female. Then she will look for a husband one she can control why should the male be in charge she’s been living according to a fantasy for so long why stop now. But the fact is males live the same way and do the same but on this site expect the females to be more decent than them we’ll sorry your wife had twice the partners you did. Becuase you both deny God or make up one wich is no God

  29. That tribal idea is something I had been bouncing around for a while because it had been done before by alternative religions like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, Mormons and look at their success now. It seems that first you must have a common religion or philosophical outlook as a foundation and also you must have a clear accountability so that we know who do what, such as a garden plot that belong to one man and another to another man and so forth.

  30. wow…. was just thinking along these lines.. the only problem is our controllers manipulated and devalued the money, raised interest rates and sent stay at home moms to the workforce. Latch key kids, (I was one at age 9 or so) thanks to Jimmy Carter and 19% home mortgage rates.. and volia, you have destroyed the traditional family unit…. down the tubes is the middle class. expanded the poor and welfare base over night and set our whole shooting match down in flames. Many look down at the Mormons which were pushed all the way out to Utah before they were left alone, but I think they have some of it right….at least in a tribal sense.. might not be the best thing to take many wives….but with many hands makes light work and a village…hopefully a happy village.

  31. One thing I came to know over the years reading Evolutionary Science and History books is that when it comes human society, traditional model always served well for human species.Humans (Homo Sapiens) had carved out successfully from other hominid species like Neanderthal,Homo Erectus successfully because of traditional gender roles, male species with deep-seated testosterone looked out for possible threats or attacks from other species and also did labour intensive work while their female counterparts did their jobs of raising their kids.And it’s no wonder when I see today why children of immigrants from Asia are so good in studies here because most of them have the females as home-makers looking after their children and their studies.More than half of the students at Harvard,UCLA,Berkeley are asians,mostly because of traditional parenting roles which is conducive for a child’s progress.

  32. There were many ‘communes’ which sprang up during the 60’s but most of them failed. A few which had religious foundation still exist. The problem with the failed communities was that most of the members, the ‘hippies’ or expats from society were rich kids who would jump on the Volkswagen love bus when it came rolling around. A typical farm kid with horse sense and the ability to fix a tractor wasn’t likely to join a commune. Mainly wealthy youth with few practical skills, the kids from the ‘old money’ urban estates of the 50’s, the old American bourgoese that had butlers, maids and groundskeepers joined the communes with their rich neighborhood friends. It was a mass exodus in some areas. These kids never even cut their own grass or fixed a mower or did plumbing repair and the ‘communes’ they built were ramshackle plywood shacks with a bucket in the corner for a toilet. The 60’s movement basically STOLE from the old bourgoese their youth and many old city mansions and districts deteriorated the following decade as their young heirs vanished. Patty Hurst RICH KID. Abbey Hoffman RICH KID. And many others.
    Today for a tribal community to survive, practical skills will be essential, like the three R’s:
    reloading
    rebuilding an engine
    roofing a roof over your head
    raising a garden
    Mangina-speak and white knight-speak have to be nipped at the bud with the young men of the tribe. Teach the young women of the tribe that a male getting his head dirty down working on an engine or framing a house is as sexy and alpha as hunting large game or fighting. Keep the woman’s work well defined and non automated.

  33. There are a couple things the author misunderstands:
    First of all, “It takes a village to raise a child” was a book by Hilary Clinton. It is about “collectivism”, which in reality is communism. “it takes a village to raise a child” means that your child is not really just your child, but it belongs to the community; hence, your child belongs to the state. In other words, everyone would be a product of the state just like the good ol’ former soviet union.
    Secondly, the idea of people living in more compact communities where families could collaborate, form collations, and even live together in a “home designed for multiple families” is something the elite would put an immediate stop to because they are threatened by it. Why? It’s been tried before: Waco. The feds burnt the place down with men, women, and children inside. There was also another community about 10 years ago down in Texas that was similar, and the elite had an activist out of colorado make an anonymous phone call to the authorities with a complete bogus claim of ‘domestic-abuse’ taking place in the community. It was a complete bogus call. The feds stormed the community and literally pulled everyone out and broke it up. They couldn’t find anything of course, but it’s unknown if this ‘community’ still exists any longer. <—- I remember the news coverage on this one. The mainstream media were focusing on the women, questioning on why they didn’t wear makeup and why they wore ankle length dresses. The women were basically quakers, but of course the elite portrayed it as something completely odd and bizarre, like the women were just a bunch of odd weirdos. In other words, the women stayed home, didn’t dress like whores, and took care of the children. The new norm according to the mainstream media is for women to dress like whores, join the workforce, sleep around, divorce when they feel like it, and of course just let the public schools brainwash their kids.

  34. Hierarchy is the essence of civilization, equality its degeneration
    it’s not so much that every woman must stay at home and do nothing else, it’s more the Confucian style of role acceptance – if most women are homemakers, nobody should be surprised

  35. Won’t work.
    Modern women in a four family household would sleep with the other married men and bicker and fuck it up.
    Boyish, “strong” women need to be seen as perfunctory and shunned like the flapper girls were when the depression came round to put them in their collective place before any return to tradition in any form can be attempted.

  36. Fuck it. Let it all crash and burn, who gives a shit anymore? Let them eat the fruits of their labor.
    This society is unsaveable. The Marxists and Statists have won because we couldn’t nut up and take it back, and now we’re on the path of an irreversible decline.
    I’m not saying that eschewing pussy is the best option, like those MGTOW faggots do.. I’m just saying that society in general is completely fucked, and there’s no point in trying to salvage any aspect of it, just as there was no point in salvaging the Western Roman Empire.
    The Barbarians are already at the gates, it’s far too late to try to save it. We are assailed from all sides.
    Enjoy these degenerates while you can, because the next enlightenment will happen when we’re all dead or damn near, if there is a new enlightenment at all.

  37. This has been tried in the not so distant past. They were called Kibbutzim. None of them survived more than a couple of generations and the fall off from the first to the second generation was huge. People prefer to raise their own children and not someone else’s; no matter how “close” they are to these others. that is the problem today; men want to raise their own children and the state and the mass of women are denying this to men.

  38. will you please stop pretending like you care about”society” and humanity and just accept that you use this to cover your need for women.” Love me, love me, love me”…yup, real aplha men here.

    1. Women are all over the place and not hard to find so that “need” can be easily filled.
      Finding fit ones on the same level who actually have common interests and want to build a legitimate family, and therefore society, is an entirely different matter.
      And what’s more is that you need to go through several (or a lot) to first learn about them and then to find the one who has the right attributes to best fit the requirements of creating something worthwhile.
      If men just needed women to get their rocks off, women would be competing with the all mighty hand and you can’t beat that (hehe). It’s very possible to not even interact with women when they don’t offer anything of value or create trouble (MGTOW is an obvious example, monks etc)
      So… your post isn’t entirely correct. There is an evolutionary/biological need which comes into play but I highly doubt you were addressing that.

  39. Anti-racism. People are taught to hate their own race and culture instead of celebrating their uniqueness. If they hate
    themselves, why would they want to create more of the same? This
    attitude basically undermines the goal of continuing your species/race as a tribe (from the top down).

  40. if there’s such a desperate need for children and society to have homemakers, why can’t men do it? Aren’t men capable of anything they put their minds to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *