I wish, before I die, to see the patriarchy. If only someone could produce it for me, I might be able to finally cash in on my entitlement and
privilege. Show it to me. Put it in my hands. Or maybe, I'll put it in yours.
he feminist idea of a patriarchy—the idea that the authority, both moral and institutional, is
male-centric, male-dominated—is basically a commonplace idea throughout society nowadays. This male-dominated “system” implies the subordination
of women in favour of the privilege and entitlement of men, not only in the structure of the family, but also in the very culture families build
I would tend to agree that most positions of power, and most positions of cultural and moral authority, have been held by men. Historically, these
positions of power seem to be, for the most part, populated by males, with women making fewer contributions in the areas of statecraft, politics,
literature, art, industry, religion and invention. It is not quite apparent whether the assertion of a patriarchy is instead a subtle admission to a
lack of contribution towards culture and society by women on the part of feminism, but with such a vast difference in sheer output of contributions to
these areas, it is safe to say that these areas were not only populated by men, but indeed, shaped and formed by them. That is, of course, not to
speak little of the contributions women have made to the patriarchy when they were in power—to religion, to reform, to philosophy, to science, to
exploration, to imperialism—a group of female misogynists the feminists are silent about.
Have men really shaped society to favour them? I find it somewhat strange that 50% of a human population is responsible for 100% of its culture. How
this is logically possible when 100% of a culture represents 100% of its population is quite unclear, but perhaps it can be followed with simple black
and white logic. If 100% of a culture favours only 50% of itself, we might begin to wonder what the other 50% has been doing. In order to believe
this, we can only assume that 50% of the population is endowed with volition, creativity, reason, power and the will to use it, while the other half
is, well, mindless automatons or submissive slaves who favour the other 50% simply because they are told to. For the sake of argument, we will
conclude that the less favoured half of the population were submissive slaves, who have always lived under the black boot of their oppressive masters,
the other 50%. If the oppressive gender has always held positions of power, and the other gender, positions of submission, we must note that every
incremental advancement of the subjugated gender towards “equality” has either been given by, or taken from, the oppressive gender. And if the
culture was both created by, built by and enforced by the oppressive gender, then it would follow that any acquisition of positions of power in these
areas would be made at a loss to that gender, with a gain to the other. Following this, if one gender is both governor and the sole contributor to
100% of culture and its advancement, this must also include the cultural advancements of the other gender. In other words, every advancement of women
has been made by men. Every feminist advance towards “equality” was built within and upon patriarchal structures and patriarchal principles.
Irony? And this only puts a subtle paradox into new light: How could a society invented by, built by, or enforced by one half, reorientate itself to
favour the half who had nothing to do with its construction? Further, if men have always invented, built and enforced society, then doesn’t that
imply women are merely a guest here? What kind of guest seeks to trade places with the host?
But this doesn’t work in reality. Only 100% of a population can be responsible for 100% of the culture; meaning, every culture represents 100% of
the individuals that make it up. If a sub-section of a population becomes marginalized, and another sub-section becomes a majority—which comes with
political power, institutional control and higher influence on culture—that is simply the present culture in all its chaotic glory, every party to
blame. Can it be changed? You damn rights—. But it isn’t until the oppressed stand up and take their rights by force, convince the oppressors to
compromise in some fashion, or at least chip away at the foundations that this might occur. This can be seen historically, as women got their right to
vote, blacks won their freedom from slavery, and the proletariates seized power through their revolutions, and so on. Society is no ironclad structure
of laws, power positions, speech communities, and governments; society is the acting out of a system by its population, all of it, not just half.
Society is an effect, not a cause. In short, society is written by everyone. If history only ever seems written by those in power, it was because
those who weren’t in power never bothered to pick up the pen.
Of course, as we know, this isn’t entirely true, and women have held positions of power throughout all the ages, and have made plenty of
contributions towards social, political and cultural change to human populations. How this is possible in a society totally geared to the male gender
is unclear, and we are perhaps supposed to assume that these women must have been somewhat of a manly nature in order to take these masculine
positions, or that they were forced by men against their will. If not, then these women got there on their own accord, but I wouldn’t put it past
those idiotic men who, in their quest to devise male-centric institutions, stupidly left a sort of loophole within the patriarchy that allowed women
direct back-door access to their positions of power and control. Either way, another paradox emerges and is embodied in physical form: a female
authority in a patriarchal system. How is this possible? Only answer: anything is.
A simple look at men and women we find that we are not equal. We have different parts. And the constitutions already specify equal rights to all
individuals regardless of gender. So what do feminists really want? What implicit ideology lies beneath the lie “we want equality”, and “death
to patriarchy”? What rights do men have left to give them, or rather, build for them? They want what every ideology wants: to assert itself in the
public square, to seize power—if not in the political arena, at least in parasitic form within the minds who come across it. To a privileged
entitled soul such as my self at least, it sounds like a lust for power, position, money and security. Indeed, if men aren’t going to hold positions
of power any longer, guess who the feminists have in mind for a substitute. Preaching equality while at the same time denouncing white male privilege,
which to any anti-sexist and anti-racist is a completely sexist and racist assumption, gives irony a bad name. Instead, equality for them has become a
seduction, a means of convincing others with a romantic idea so as to make equal two unequal things; and this is not pushed by any sort of logical or
reasonable argument, but through shame tactics, propaganda, slander and outright dishonesty. Underneath the costume, underneath the faceless bogeyman
known as “patriarchy”, ideologists pushing an agenda—Patriarchy as a means to matriarchy.
Thank you for reading.
edit on 18-7-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)