Why is the Patriarchy Needed?



Anyone who has done a comprehensive study of history will know that it is typically the most Patriarchal cultures that dominated the other cultures around, whether it was the Persians, the Confucianist Chinese, the Romans, or the Arabs when they embraced Classical Islam.



In order to discuss what “Patriarchy” is we need a clarification of terms.

Patriarchy is a social system in which: males hold primary power; males predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; and, in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. 

Of course Matriarchal and Egalitarian systems have existed in history, but there has never been such a system that materialized into a major empire. Read about any empire that was a major world super power, I will guarantee you that this empire was Patriarchal. Most Matriarchal and Egalitarian systems were tribal at best.

The closest examples we have to Egalitarian ideas existing within an empire are Patriarchal societies that had some degree of women’s rights. For example, Ancient Egypt was a patriarchal place, but women in Ancient Egypt had a good deal of legal rights that women in Greece and Rome did not have. Of course, Egypt was later conquered by the much more patriarchal Greeks, and then Romans…so what does that say about that?




So why am I advocating the big bad evil Patriarchy here? As a woman, this should make no sense. However, I’m not thinking about myself, I’m thinking about what is best for society.

So why does Patriarchy work so well?

Let’s think of society in the same way we think of stocks at the stock market. In order for a stock to do well, it needs people to take a risk and invest in it. Are males more likely to invest in a society that gives them benefits and a direct role of power, or are they more likely to invest in a society that marginalizes them and takes away their power. You do the math.

So why are males the ones who need to hold power? Why can’t the power be split equally between men and women? Why can’t women hold the power?

Power necessitates responsibility, and responsibility necessitates risk. You can’t hold power if you are not willing to make sacrifices and take risks. 

This goes back to our stock market example. Will males and females invest in their societies “stock” at equal rates? Investment requires risk, and the male gender is the one most predispositioned to risk. Allow me to explain.





From a natural point of view, males are the disposable gender. They are the gender that sacrifices themselves to protect the females and the children. Everywhere you look in nature, nature gives its female members more protections than males. Female birds are more dull colored, to avoid prey, they also have sharper beaks and talons to protect themselves and the nest. Female sea creatures are typically bigger and stronger than their male counterparts. Among insects, females sometimes eat the males after mating, or are the stronger and more plentiful members of a colony. So in these examples, nature is giving females protection while making the males take more risks.

Yet mammals are different because females carry their babies inside of their wombs. This makes us more vulnerable. And when you consider that human females in the wild spent a good amount of time being vulnerable, we naturally needed strong and powerful mates to protect us. Thus, among humans, it is the natural order that females are protected and kept safe, while males face risk to obtain food and resources. Nature has also given us females a better immunity against disease and longer life spans. Females were meant to survive to create children and males were meant to risk themselves and die if necessary in protection of those of us who have creative power. Why do you think most mythologies are centered around a Male God who sacrificed himself – Jesus, Odin, Osiris, are just a few. Within the human psyche is a deep understanding of the heroic male and the heroic female, which are two different things.

It is not about fairness or equality. Equality does not exist in nature. It is about survival and about the way us humans were programmed to survive.


For instance, in the Aurora Theater Shooting, three men jumped in front of their girlfriends, to protect their girlfriends from a bullet. These three men died to protect their girlfriends. There were no girls taking a bullet for their boyfriends that day.

Most risky professions are populated by males. I know these are anecdotal examples, but overall, most societies are the most efficient when males are expended for the protection of those with the power to create life.

Since males are the gender that take the greatest risks, they typically hold more power in most societies. You can’t wield power without responsibility. A ruler who wields power without responsibility for his decisions becomes a tyrant. Many feminists today want all the trappings of power, without any responsibility. How many Feminists are advocating putting women on the draft? Not many. There are also many Feminists who bemoan the lack of women in high paying professions, but few who talk about the lack of female police officers, dog catchers, marines, security guards, oil rig workers, miners, electricians and other risky professions. They want all the ice cream and cookies, but none of the hardship and sacrifice.

Am I saying that women aren’t brave, or that women are incapable of doing these jobs? No. I’m saying that the male gender in general is more predispositioned to risk. Why are there severely more males with autism, color blindness, ADHD, off the chart IQ’s and mental retardation? This is because nature takes more risks with its males. Why are there so many more male criminals, males getting in trouble at school, males participating in terrorism or male mass shooters? Because the male personality is much more predispositioned to risky behavior.


So in order for a society to survive and thrive, you must have a significant number of males in the population who are willing to take positive risks and make sacrifices in order for that society to function. A man committed to his family and country will fight and die for that country, he would even work 80 hours a week if needed. But a man with no family or wife, a man with no job prospects, a man oppressed by an overbearing legal system has no stake in his country – and thus will make few sacrifices to protect that country.

Thus a society must appeal to its men – particularly its virile and strong young men – to function. Today we have a lost generation of young men who would rather play World of World Craft in their mom’s basement than commit to their country, and honestly, I don’t blame them.

Where you can appeal to heroic, masculine young men, women will naturally follow. Why? Because quality women desire heroic and masculine men. It’s cliche, but it is true. Behind every great man there is a great woman.  Great women are needed to support and prop up the future generations of great men. If the genders are too busy fighting each other for dominance, instead of working together as they were meant to, than this creates a society of friction rather than strength.


Are women more oppressed in patriarchal societies? There are some who try to white wash history and act like the past was all flowers and rainbows for women while it was toil and misery for men. Equally, there are those who act like men all had power and luxuries, while women were slaving and toiling away. Of course the past is complex and nuanced. Some women had it better than others. Yet the short answer to this question is that women in patriarchal societies did have less freedom than their male counterparts. They had less legal rights. They had less choice in who they were going to marry and where they were going to live.

Yet we also must remember that throughout most of history, survival was not always a given. In tribal societies, such as the Celts for example, women had way more freedoms. But they also had shorter lifespans, died more often in child birth, had less security and less food. Roman women by comparison had less liberty, but lived longer, were healthier in general, could have more children with less complications and saw more of those children live to adulthood.

So the trade off is between freedom and stability. Today’s women have way more freedoms than their mothers and grandmothers ever did. Yet the female life expectancy is beginning to decrease, especially among working class women. The number of women having stress related illnesses and dying from these illnesses is also growing. While life is probably better for upper middle class or wealthy white women, it’s becoming much more onerous for the rest of us.

The whole reason why Feminism exists in the first place is because today we in a society that has luxuries and opulence unthinkable in any other time period in history. The fact that a majority of American adults are overweight is a testament to that fact.  Feminism can exist because the wealth of the state can supplant the sacrifices that were originally demanded of a father. Yet if such a state were to disappear, I guarantee that patriarchy would be back in less than a week. The other fact is that the current opulence we enjoy today was won by hard work and sacrifice from all parties in previous generations. Today’s society in general is less stable than it was before the second wave of Feminism. If we don’t turn things around soon, societal collapse will be approaching much sooner than we think.

So the ultimate question is whether security and health is more important than freedom. A mix of both is ideal, but too much freedom without stability only breeds chaos.


While I don’t agree with his racist ideologies, I think the quote from Markus Willinger applies here:

“You’ve taken the manliness out of men. You’ve raised them to be feeble teddy bears lacking the power to act, lacking courage, lacking strength—in short, the will to power.

You’ve convinced women that femininity is outdated and socially constructed. You’ve told them that it’s not necessary to look pretty and healthy, not necessary to have families and children, and that only their careers matter.

So it was that the womanly men and the manly women met, and didn’t know what to do.

We won’t repeat your mistakes. We shake our heads at your imbecile theories, and want to be masculine men and feminine women. It may appear old-school and outdated to you, but we like it that way.

Women want to be conquered. The longing for the one who can win them over and make them his lies deep in them.

Instead of heroic knights, you send them ‘good friends’ and feeble cowards.

Men want to win a woman who is worth the effort and the trials they must endure, for whom the leap through the fire and the battle with the dragon are worth it.

Today, instead of the beautiful princess, only a scowling feminist or jutting manjaw awaits the hero at the end.

We’ve recognised the true nature of the sexes, and we want to live in harmony with it. We want to be real men and real women. “

Markus Willinger, Generation Identity


17 thoughts on “Why is the Patriarchy Needed?

  1. No comments on this excellent article yet?

    I’d make a distinction between monogamous patriarchy – which brings out the best in men and women, and polygynous patriarchy, which tends to bring out the worst in men and women.

    Hope you’re planning on posting some more.


    • Sorry it took me so long to approve your request. I don’t go on WordPress as often as I should.

      I totally agree with you about the monogamy via polygamy thing.

      I think at one point Polygamy was a necessary arrangement, because early societies typically had more women around then men. Why was this? Because most of the men were getting themselves killed as a necessary risk for protecting the rest of society. Since many men were dying, a small number of the survivors married multiple women to balance things out.

      Yet as societies became more sophisticated, they could afford to mobilize a small percentage of the population as a fighting force, while having different jobs for everyone else. The population ratio between men and women became more equal. Men began to fight over women and this would create chaos.

      Thus the societies that instituted monogamy became more balanced there was less fighting over mates, and more cooperation.

      We see that the most chaotic places in the world today are Patriarchal Polygamous cultures (Middle East and Africa), while the most orderly and safe cultures are Patriarchal Monogamous (East Asian and Western Civilization before it started its slow motion collapse).


  2. What you fail to address here, however, is that with power inequality being so ingrained in society, women may not have been expected to put themselves at risk to defend the community, but they also had no protection from abuse. In many of the societies you mentioned, it was also true that women were not allowed to reject sexual advances from their husbands, had little to no way of seeking help or support from domestic violence, and were usually barred from finding work that could sustain them upon being widowed. These systems also often had enforcement mechanisms, meaning that there was no choice involved. Those who stepped outside of the system faced consequences, directly through punishment, or indirectly through being ostracized. I would say that there are many women in modern societies who would prefer the right to choose their role in society, just as there are some men who undoubtedly feel constricted by archaic and narrow definitions of masculinity.

    The patriarchy, like feudalism and tribalism, is no longer necessary for society’s survival. In developed nations, one need not be put at risk to obtain food security. One need only choose to work a job as simple or demanding as they choose. Many women are more stressed today not because they are being forced to put themselves at risk but because they are being allowed to have ambition, to put pressure on themselves to succeed and find fulfillment. Stress is a natural part of checking one’s performance against one’s goals. We, as humans, no longer need to take up our spears against wild animals, nor do we need to protect our women to save our population from extinction. So the patriarchy, while perhaps having been a useful system in human society’s conception, is ultimately archaic and outdated, and we should leave people free to choose whether or not they wish to subscribe to traditional gender roles.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you Reyna for taking the time to read my article. While you make some good points, allow me to offer a counter argument.

    “What you fail to address here, however, is that with power inequality being so ingrained in society, women may not have been expected to put themselves at risk to defend the community.”

    That may be true. Much of the arguments about how society should be are always a struggle between what is natural and what is instilled by cultural expectations. Yet I believe that cultural expectations are partially an outgrowth of the natural. For example, men have greater upper body strength than women do. They also have more testosterone, which drives risky behavior and aggression. Because of this natural aspect of human beings, men have usually been encouraged to be the protectors and providers of the species. History is a case study of what works and what doesn’t work. The Patriarchal societies with an all male military succeeded in crushing more egalitarian societies without a shadow of a doubt. For example, the Romans crushed the Celts, and the Christians eventually overtook the Vikings (who actually had a much more egalitarian society as far as women’s rights is concerned.)

    So societies in which men are encouraged to shoulder more of the risk than women, have historically been much more successful.

    “In many of the societies you mentioned, it was also true that women were not allowed to reject sexual advances from their husbands, had little to no way of seeking help or support from domestic violence, and were usually barred from finding work that could sustain them upon being widowed.”

    I’m not going to white wash history as some others do in discussing this topic. I’m well aware that women had much less rights in Patriarchal societies. And yes, rape and domestic violence did occur. Yet now that we live in a more egalitarian society, is there less rape and domestic violence? The epidemic of rape on college campuses and the rape of military service women is much more rampant than the past. Domestic violence also still occurs at an alarming rate. In fact, you can make a very real argument that society is less stable today than it was in its Patriarchal days. In less stable societies, there is actually more sexual violence and abuse.

    “The patriarchy, like feudalism and tribalism, is no longer necessary for society’s survival.”

    That statement makes the assumption that today’s way of living – that today’s society – is a success. If you look at today’s deep environmental crisis along with our ever growing financial crisis, I would say that today’s society is not a success. In fact, income inequality is at an all time high, there is more poverty, more slums, more pollution, more single mothers struggling to pay the rent and raise their children, more gangs, more intercity violence, less stability than their was in the past.

    If society continues on its current course, it will not survive. Perhaps you can’t see it on the short term, but western societies are stagnating. The rate of growth in the sectors of technology, science and innovation in Patriarchal Asian nations is far greater than what is going on in the West. The West may still be further ahead in certain aspects, but a lot of our current success is the after spoils of our more Patriarchal, Imperialist days. Asian societies have more inertia than Western Nations. They may not be the wealthiest or strongest nations right now, but in about 20-50 years that will change.

    So Patriarchy is not just needed for some stone aged hunting and gathering antics. It’s needed to drive space exploration, science, technology, to hold the family together and to encourage young men to take interest in their society, rather disdain. Antipathy among young men towards today’s society is at an all time high. Is that going to have positive results for the future? I doubt it.


  4. Many of the contentions you raise here overlook outside causes of societal success. International relations theory and societal values are not always directly related. For example, you tie a very close association to patriarchy and imperialism. Imperialistic nation-building practices are just that: a nation-building practice, determined based on the country’s national economic and security interests. Imperialism is not patriarchal, it is political, and it is improper to classify forms of government and trends in international policy as being patriarchal or non-patriachal.

    Another concept I’d like to bring up here is the model of stages of industrialism. What it is important to note in this analysis is that developed, developing, and less developed nations act in different ways and experience different rates of growth. The United States, like many Wester European nations, is a post-industrial society, a stage of growth characterized by slowed consumption of raw materials and a more stabilized economy that moves instead toward developing individual freedoms and public health. This distinction is important, as it is an economy growing with decreasing trajectory, not an economy that is declining. Most of the Asian nations citing large economic growth right now are industrial nations, characterized by massive consumption of fossil fuels and economic growth, generally at the sacrifice of public health and individual freedoms. As these nations develop, it is very likely that their societies will begin to move into the post-industrial phase of the model, and comparing nations that exist in different stages as if they were on the same continuum is frankly an inaccuracy.

    Other factors you might consider are values of collectivism, rather than simply patriarchy. Or perhaps the form of government might also be responsible for some of the economic growth and policies we see in these different nations? It might even be a policy reason, like the fact that as non-Annex A nations, most of the Asian nations undergoing growth right now were not subject to the carbon limits put in place under the Kyoto Protocols.

    To put these points into a more direct statement, essentially we cannot attribute economic success only to patriarchal values, especially when there is little explicit data to back up this association. To cite an important principle of logical analysis, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The ideas cited above, which arose from decades of international relations and policy analysis, are a more reasonable explanation for these trends at the present. As a counterexample to your ideas of egalitarianism causing a decline in society, I would like to bring up a few historical events. The United States political system and economy did not suffer from women gaining the right to vote, nor did it decline with the widespread admission of women into universities. And it certainly has not collapsed because of recent campaigns to equally represent women in STEMS careers.

    You also make much of your argument under the assumption that we are living in a society that has already rejected patriarchy. While to state that the patriarchy has not made a decline since the “patriarchal golden years” of ancient societies would, in my opinion, be presenting this issue far too dichotomously, it is also simply incorrect to say that we live in a wholly egalitarian society. The reason that violence against women persists and exists more widely than abuse of men is that we live in a society that, on some level, still views women as innately lesser, a group that can be possessed and controlled by more dominant actors. Our society still believes in some regard that male desires are more important than female personal freedoms, as we can see with media coverage of rape cases that lament the impact of videotaping themselves raping and violating drugged women on gang rapists’ football careers. It is something of an insult to say that the outbreak of sexual assault and rape cases is due to our increasingly egalitarian society, as this view overlooks the underlying societal factors that allow women to continue to be violated and their assaulters continuing to get away clean. I might also remind you that these is a major difference between actual prevalence of abuse, and reports of abuse, as the latter naturally increases as the former becomes less societally acceptable.

    There is simply a reason that educated, intellectual societies tend to become increasingly egalitarian. Intelligence and personal skills are more important than upper body strength in managing economic policy and producing scientific advances. Ambition is a larger actor than testosterone in determining who will become a successful CEO that will bring economic growth to a nation. Rather than giving you a generalization that lacks evidence, I will end by reminding you that just as all women do not necessarily want to be housewives, not all men want to bear the cross of being society’s protectors and the family bread-winners. The beauty of egalitarianism is that it frees both genders to pursue their personal identity without being bound to unbreakable roles. I would argue that freeing young boys from the expectation of traditionally masculine pursuits, which adheres to a wholly binary view of gender, gives them more freedom to engage in their society in the way they wish. Along these lines, I would once again ask you to see that while you may be pleased to turn over your personal freedoms to men so that they might protect you with their superior upper body strength, and I will defend to the death your right to do this, there are also many women who are simply not content with lacking the agency afforded to their male peers. In a society without patriarchy, both of these groups would be free to pursue either of these directions, or any in-between, rather than the single-sided contentment afforded in a patriarchal society.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Patriarchy will lead to World War III and the destruction of this planet. You are confusing what is with what is actually desirable and necessary for human behavior. It is also highly questionable if pre-historic societies were actually patriarchal. The human race survived a million years without it.


    • When we had tribal societies with more loose sex ethics, there was actually much more violence and chaos. You can read about this in Lawrence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization.”

      There is this mass delusion propelled by academics today that the pre-civilization world was this peaceful place (think Jame’s Cameron’s Avatar) where everyone was communing with nature and living this peaceful egalitarian life.

      Yet there is little actual evidence to prove this narrative aside from a lot of sentimentality and wishful thinking.

      If you look at the actual archaeological evidence (as well as anthropological evidence of researchers living with tribes today), pre-civilization tribal society was actually much more ruthless and violent than civilization today.

      Today, around 1-2% of our population is mobilized for violent war time activity and only a small percent of people die from violent deaths. Most die from heart disease, cancer or other health related issues.

      Yet the examination of skeletons in tribal societies show that at least 16% of the people, if not more, died from violent assaults. Also more studies show that at least 40% of the men in most tribal societies were mobilized in violent, wartime activity.

      Why did humanity survive? Because they followed the brutal, vicious laws of nature. Kill or be killed.

      Today do you live in a society where a man can just come and take your home if he busts into the place with a couple of his bros and beats you over the head with an axe? No. That does not happen (commonly). Do you live in a world where some guy can just break into a woman’s house and rape her without getting in trouble? Most of the time, the answer is no.

      Yet this was the tribal world. If you read anything about the history of the Mongols, the Celts, the Vikings, Pre-Islamic Arabia, or any other tribal people, this was common, everyday life stuff.

      In fact, studies in the Amazon showed that the men who killed the most people actually got the most sex. The way that tribal societies would work is that a few of the biggest, baddest and strongest guys in the tribe would have sex with a majority of the women, while the weaker males were shunned, dominated by the stronger males, killed (by being weak and unable to defend themselves) or just kicked out of the tribe.

      Civilization began when males in a group agreed not to kill each other or rape each other’s wives. Look at the ten commandments. Look at the first written laws. Most of them are against murder and sleeping with “another man’s wife.” There’s very little prohibiting other extra-marital acts like prostitution and taking captives of war.

      Anyways, when males made a social contract to increase the availability of sex in their society, by giving more men autonomy and control over their families, society became more cooperative and more peaceful (compared to our barbaric tribal days).

      As societies became more civilized, things like cannibalism, ritualistic torture and human sacrifice decreased. Some of the most civilized societies with the most inventions and the longest periods of peace and productivity were actually some of the most Patriarchal (China is the most notorious example).

      Patriarchy, simply defined, is giving more power and more sexual opportunities to men in a society. This gives men more incentive to work hard, get along, give a shit and belong.

      Men are more violent by nature than women (even though we women can certainly be aggressive in our own creative ways). But men are more physically violent and more capable of doing a good deal of physical damage (notice how most of the mass shooters in the news have been male?)

      When males are not given access to power and sex in a society, they are more likely to become violent and cause problems.

      Notice in ghettoized portions of society where single motherhood is prominent and the family unit has disintegrated, how violence is much more prevalent.

      So it’s not patriarchy that will cause World War III. It’s actually the disintegration of the family unit and society that weakens people to the point where they can become easy prey for vulture capitalism and consumer culture.


  6. It’s should also be mentioned that the Y chromosome is much more susceptible to mutation. Which is the harbinger of evolution. It is this genetic roll of the dice that gives women options for procreation. Which in turn increases the likelihood of beneficial traits being passed down to the next generation. In a very real sense, women create the species and men are the ingredients. By suppressing male achievement and will to power, our society is literally degenerating.


  7. I felt compelled to leave this thought here. There is a gap in your logic, which states that because gender roles created stability in the past we need them currently for stability. But as has been stated, feminism arose because industrialization has separated us from the types of situations in which gender roles were relevant. Feminism is a sign in and of itself that our society is outgrowing gender roles, and the current instability that you cite as well as discussions like this one are simply growing pains caused by the psychological stress that comes hand in hand with evolution.

    Yes it’s true that there was a functional basis for the patriarchy and gender roles, and that those roles are still very much a part of who we are, but they are fast becoming a vestigial part of our psychology and should be recognized as evolutionary baggage that simply weighs us down. It prevents us from seeing past our biological restrictions when we should be discovering how to overcome them.


    • I think you make a good point that society changes in reaction to technology. However, the 1950-1960’s was a time when the U.S. made tremendous strides in technology. We put a man on the moon in 1969, we were the technological innovators of the world. While we were more progressive at that time in terms of gender roles than the Victorian Era, the fact was that gender roles still existed. Now that gender roles and the fabric of family is deteriorating, The West is falling behind its competitors in Asia. The reality is that Asian countries like China are holding us up. While they are going through some more progressive ideas on gender as well, they still have some gender roles.

      I’m not saying that things have to be like they were in the past. But I’m saying there needs to be a balance, a harmony between the sexes that supports everyone. They realize this in Asia, and make changes in gender role slowly. We don’t realize this in the West. We focus on the individual to the exclusion of the health of the family and the State.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s