Archive for the ‘patriarchy’ Category

Couple of new links

July 17, 2008

Female liberation frees both sexes from duty

Matrism/Patrism Explained

Such inane acts of violence are predicted by the book “Sex In History”, as an inevitable part of a Matrist community. The author’s 1950s prophecy has come true, however Taylor’s explanation that the killer behaved in this fashion because— “he identified with his mother sexually, and failed to develop a super-ego” —raises more questions than it answers. A more lucid explanation is that the murderer was just indulging his whims, which were totally unfettered by any sense of moral restraint. Indeed he was doing no more than most of his fellow citizens already do—give free reign to their immediate desires regardless of the results. The fact that wanton behaviour does not generally result in the violent deaths of 35 people is incidental; the motives and considerations employed by Bryant were no different in principle from those of the over-whelming majority of our 1996 community.

This website is well worth exploring.


Conservative Essay on Patriarchy

April 25, 2008

I just read The Natural Family Dimly Seen through Feminist Eyes. It’s a very good essay on the inevitability of male dominance.

The essay made something clear to me I’ve been suspecting. In Daniel Amneus’s excellent The Garbage Generation, he explained that matriarchies – that is, societies in which women are not bound to husbands and children are the mother’s, not the father’s – are found only in primitive tribes, and that no society has become advanced without patriarchy.

I was fascinated by this book because I had never encountered this concept before, that it was the introduction of patriarchy – of a father having a possessive interest in his children – that made civilization possible. Then when I acquired a copy of Manhood Unplugged, I browsed through it and found the same concept.

Amneus had referred to Bachofen as a source. Now this essay refers to at least three nineteenth-century works that also draw on this theory of history. It turns out it was once standard. And how did this change? This essay traces the revisionist feminist historical theory, where patriarchy was where it all went wrong and women became OMG so oppressed, to the usual suspects: Marx and Engels. It has since become accepted gospel.

Also of interest are A Dawsonian View of Patriarchy and The Patriarchal Family in History.

Patriarchy: Its Benefits For Women

April 14, 2008

Not the benefits like the inventions men create and the comforts they produce, which women didn’t invent and probably wouldn’t have and can’t consistently produce. (Short reasons: women rarely have the temperament for sustained careers, and women vote for socialism, which destroys the infrastructure etc.) No, I’m talking about physical safety.

I was looking for something else and came across a couple more of those brainless feminist rants about how “rape is the patriarchy’s enforcer” or some such bullshit. It pissed me off, since that’s pretty much the opposite of the truth, so let me set the record straight: patriarchy is the only hope women have of being free from violence.

In unpatriarchal societies, which are invariably either primitive tribes or else rapidly collapsing civilizations, women are raped or robbed frequently. Men have no reason not to do these things; their sole purpose is to act as sperm donor and gratify their own whims. Such tribes have no real concept of paternity, so mothers are free to raise their sons as they wish, without interference from those pesky fathers. According to feminist propaganda, these women will raise their sons to be peaceful and nonviolent and respectful to women. In reality, these fatherless boys grow up violent, rootless, and with no reason not to do whatever they feel like. Women don’t feel this lack of purpose because they are the ones who give birth. Steven Goldberg discussed in depth how women instinctively understand that as far as nature is concerned, they are where it’s at, while men, equally instinctively, know that to justify their existence, to convince nature to keep them around, they have to do more. And they do.

Patriarchy, to begin with, gives males purpose. A man who is hoping to achieve great things, to build something, to discover something, has to restrain his violent impulses. He might be able to find ways to get away with some violence (though not nearly to the degree that modern, feminist-influenced historical movies pretend), but just the same, the law (law being another male, patriarchal invention) and the fear of societal disapproval force him to control himself.

Second, patriarchy involves something feminists claim is bad, but which is in fact one of the greatest boons to mankind, namely the idea that a wife and children belong to the patriarch. This is a very different sort of possession from the ownership of an inanimate object or an animal; a man can sell an object or livestock, but he can’t auction off his wife to someone else.

This ownership gives the man a motivation to protect his wife and daughters (and sons) from threats, chiefly other men. THERE IS NO OTHER HOPE OF SAFETY FOR WOMEN. WOMEN CAN ONLY BE SAFE FROM MEN IF OTHER MEN DEFEND THEM. Men are larger, stronger and more aggressive, and if the social system gives them no motivation to defend women, as matriarchy does not, they will leave women at their fellows’ mercy.

I guess it might be nice if we were a cuddly species that never hurt each other or anything. Complain to either evolution or God about the fact that we’re not. Kindly do not, however, react by dismantling the only possible safety women and children can have in this world.

Besides compelling men to protect their wives and children, patriarchy causes men to hesitate to assault other women and children, because of the innate masculine respect for property. A glaring illustration of this can be seen in the Marquis de Sade, a communist. He once declared that since all property is theft, rape should not be illegal, since the man who wants to keep a woman all to himself is depriving all other men of her use. So much for communism being profeminist.

In addition, moral codes are invariably the product of patriarchy. Notice that now that patriarchy is being systematically eradicated in the West, morals are similarly disappearing. Women are certainly capable of being moral, though they generally require male authority to be so, but inventing and maintaining moral codes seems to be beyond them. When women have a significant amount of power in society, morality collapses.

Let’s bring back patriarchy: women’s best friend.