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.
WHAT IS THE BIG BAD PATRIARCHY REALLY?
IT’S A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO EXPEND MALES IN ORDER TO PROTECT FEMALES
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?
NO POWER WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES
MALES TYPICALLY HOLD POWER BECAUSE THEY PUT THEMSELVES MOST AT RISK
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.
NATURE IS A SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS ITS FEMALES WHILE EXPOSING ITS MALES
ANY SOCIAL SYSTEM THAT DOES OTHERWISE IS NOT NATURAL
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.
THE HEROIC MALE AND THE HEROIC FEMALE
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.
FEMALE OPPRESSION IN PATRIARCHAL SOCIETIES?
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