What Patriarchy?

a reply to: tridentblue

there will always be a culture war going on, because there will always be a difference of opinion between nations. it has always been that way.

Shall we be honest about our conditioning admit that patriarchy, and hatred of patriarchy is code for one thing. One thing only. Church. Not Ashram, not mosque, not temple, not yoga, not meditation garden. But church. And church only.







Consider the female spokesperson for the church burning in Kosovo pictured above. In the video Islamic men are being encouraged by their women. Thousands of churches have been burned across Europe and the world. 248 in Iraq alone.

But all these psy-ops, these manipulations of the masses through media and propaganda, where is it all leading. So far society has been rewarded with debt slavery, and the extinction of the extended family. Women are inadvertently creating a future where their own grandchildren want nothing to do with them and find them boring.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: InTheLight

I'll take that as a compliment.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If you're working from made-up definitions of words, it's hardly worth engaging in a discussion with you. Feminism has everything to do with equality.

Feminism advocates for the rights of women. Do they advocate for the rights of men? Because you can keep saying it doesn't make it true unfortunately.

I could go on and illustrate the indications of the current patriarchy (which is getting better, but still exists) but I'm sure you would say that women contributed 50% to the conditions (after all we LOVE being paid less than men and being sexually assaulted and underrepresented in government and business), but I'll just ask you to google "women should" and check out the first few options for finishing the search.

Men, on average, apply for more dangerous and high paying jobs, work in undesirable conditions, work in more stressful fields, and work longer hours than women. Yeah right, you love getting paid less. No, you love working less.

However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public.

Economic research has identified many factors that account for portions of the gender wage gap. Some of the factors are consequences of differences in decisions made by women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include their human capital development, their work experience, the occupations and industries in which they work, and interruptions in their careers.

As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that
collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more likely, unachievable.

An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women

Hey, men also LOVE getting sexually assaulted, underrepresented in government and business. What do you know, we have something in common!

a reply to: Klassified

Now before anyone cries foul. This is not off-topic. Nor am I making this a racial issue. So the example stands...

To say that women have just as much to do with their oppression in a "patriarchal" society as men do, and blame their personal beliefs, as well as their alleged lack of contributions is, in my opinion, a lack of overrall perspective. Would one say the slaves were as much to blame for their slavery as their so-called masters? One could argue it, I suppose. Considering they could have come together and rebelled against the system that labeled them as animals, and treated them as such.

I objected this to my self as well. It is a very tough question.

First, I think there is very little parallel between slavery and the oppression of women. I think it is a risky analogy, perhaps a little too emotional for this discussion (It might be noted here that feminist critique of slavery is concerned strictly with how female slaves were treated. This is the equality feminists speak of). Second, my argument was actually pro-feminist, and I was merely trying to follow the distorted logic of feminism, as ironically as I could. Note the sarcasm in those paragraphs.

A patriarchy implies women are inferior to men, and have been since the dawn of civilization (remember, this is a feminist notion). However, this notion is false; women are not inferior to men, and this can be proven historically, as many women have held positions of absolute power. Women are 50% of the world’s population, and have always had 50% of the share in culture necessarily.

Society obviously doesn’t favour all men. Most of the homeless population are men. Most soldiers are men. It is simply untrue to state that such a society favours men based purely on their gender, and subjugates women based purely on their gender. The existence of the Queen with power over entire armies of men etc. proves the patriarchy false evidentially. The idea that a society that favours men will make a woman a queen is a contradiction. It must follow then that society is an oligarchy, and regardless of gender, people are oppressed by those who hold power, not masculinity. In the instances where women are oppressed based solely on their gender, it is the result of theocracy, not masculinity.

Patriarchy does exist but the extent of its existance is heavily exagerated by feminists. So i both agree and dissagree with some of your premises.

originally posted by: Aural
Patriarchy does exist but the extent of its existance is heavily exagerated by feminists. So i both agree and dissagree with some of your premises.

I don't know what they are making topical in schools these days,
but it sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with knowledge.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

I'll take that as a compliment.

To aid you in moving forward from your confusion and the repeated hitting of that brick wall you cannot transverse, I put it to you to take that step and research the theory behind today's feminism, which includes the fight for equality of all genders and orientations; or simply read the material I linked in my posts.

As well, we all must look beyond past history, psychologically, into our own agenda to realize and dismiss any deep-seated gender hatred and rein in the ego to find the truth, so I put it to you to also research topics such as unconscious bias; neither victim nor survivor.

Feminism is destroying our boys. As the castigation of men in general progresses women find themselves more frustrated with individual men. Even now a general hatred of men is growing.

Sparagmos is the inevitable conclusion to these trends.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: mikegrouchy

I don't know..... for centuries females were challenged by school systems which focused on skills they were not strong at- math, instead of reading, competition instead of cooperation, action instead of verbalization, independance instead of interdependance, etc.

Their performance lagged behind and they became less likely to go into higher education, and more dependant upon finding a male that would navigate the world for them and take care of them. At some points women were not considered much more than animals to train and keep around for domestic work. Their depression and emotional problems born from that repression was simply embraced as "the natural lunatic nature of females".

For a very long time, this was accepted collectively. Then feminism began to clamor against it, and the system began to change, the pendalum started to swing the other way.

If that is the case in the country you are in, and it has gone too far the opposite direction, well, I guess you have the right to try to get it more balanced. I suggest that might be more constructive than trying to get it back to the OTHER extreme again. Most modern feminists hope for that. It is not entirely fair to condemn them for the efforts earlier ones made to pull women out of that oppression.

Trying to keep balanced, while also applying pressure, is not easy for an individual, and maybe close to impossible for a collective- cultures just swing from one extreme to another in time. But in between, there are always individuals who find a way to do it, and their lives, and those close to them, benefit from that. It's worth trying, as least....

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: mikegrouchy

I don't know..... for centuries females were challenged by school systems which focused on skills they were not strong at- math, instead of reading, competition instead of cooperation, action instead of verbalization, independance instead of interdependance, etc.

Their performance lagged behind and they became less likely to go into higher education, and more dependant upon finding a male that would navigate the world for them and take care of them. At some points women were not considered much more than animals to train and keep around for domestic work. Their depression and emotional problems born from that repression was simply embraced as "the natural lunatic nature of females".

For a very long time, this was accepted collectively. Then feminism began to clamor against it, and the system began to change, the pendalum started to swing the other way.

If that is the case in the country you are in, and it has gone too far the opposite direction, well, I guess you have the right to try to get it more balanced. I suggest that might be more constructive than trying to get it back to the OTHER extreme again. Most modern feminists hope for that. It is not entirely fair to condemn them for the efforts earlier ones made to pull women out of that oppression.

Trying to keep balanced, while also applying pressure, is not easy for an individual, and maybe close to impossible for a collective- cultures just swing from one extreme to another in time. But in between, there are always individuals who find a way to do it, and their lives, and those close to them, benefit from that. It's worth trying, as least....

This is describing the supplanting of boys education. Neither a solution for girls or boys. I have already made a thread describing the solution.

ATS Thread: There are only two super geniuses of science that I am aware of.
Replies: 162
Flags: 6

It was NOT well received.

I reiterate. Education is not a pendulum, that swings in favor of girls or boys. Education has been hijacked by feminists, it is debasing our boys, and society is collectively flying right into the mountain of sparagmos.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

I reiterate. Education is not a pendulum, that swings in favor of girls or boys. Education has been hijacked by feminists, it is debasing our boys, and society is collectively flying right into the mountain of sparagmos.

Mike Grouchy

Very well. We disagree then, obviously. Unless we wish to say "Education was once hijacked by male chauvinists, before their female counterparts came in and took it away from them." That is, to me, a pendalum swing. This current is not without a larger historical context.

All I can say is, women survived and continued to exist, and eventually escaped. Maybe you guys will too.

Hatred is not the most effective tool in that. But go ahead and try- I am, afterall, a woman (and a mother) and will always try to promote my boys to channel their competivity and aggression into constructive actions, instead of mindless fury and hostility.... but then I also see that men have the innate drive to kill each other in order to leave the strongest and best adapted to reproduce. So go at it! But I think attacking the females is not the way you'll come out as the alpha. Just my ignorant, lunatic female opinion.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Just my ignorant, lunatic female opinion.

What is this? Someone playing the wounded goddess here. Making appeals to emotions? Just plain guilt tripping.

Calm down and pay attention.

1. What is the difference between information and knowledge?

A. Information changes, knowledge does not.


To describe the education system as a pendulum that swings in favor of one gender or another is to twist in the wind of trends and information. Education is _supposed_ to impart knowledge. Remember? The stuff that does not change. Two plus two will always equal four. Regardless of the sex of the mathematician.

I take it that the thread with the solution linked above was, once again, ignored.


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Bluesma
Just my ignorant, lunatic female opinion.

What is this? Someone playing the wounded goddess here. Making appeals to emotions? Just plain guilt tripping.

Calm down and pay attention.

LOL- get over yourself and laugh! It was humor- a reference to a statement I made earlier.

To describe the education system as a pendulum that swings in favor of one gender or another is to twist in the wind of trends and information. Education is _supposed_ to impart knowledge. Remember? The stuff that does not change. Two plus two will always equal four. Regardless of the sex of the mathematician.

We're talking about HOW knowledge is imparted- you started that part of the discussion yourself, with the video you put up. It makes claims that the system is partial to females and female based brain differences, so apparently you DO believe that how information is imparted can be done in a biased way. I agree. I only added that historically, it has been biased in different directions as well.

I take it that the thread with the solution linked above was, once again, ignored.

No- I gave my opinion that your idea and information might not be the source of your failure there, but your delivery.

How you impart it to others is not working as well as you'd like, you claim.

Successful men know that if that happens, listen to feedback and try to determine what you can tweek and do differently to achieve the success you want.

That's the difference between an alpha and a loser. The losers whine and rage that nobody gets them. The alphas find the way to be received effectively.

In a country that doesn’t have military conscription (obligatory service) attracting recruits is important.

The Gates Commission was set up in 1969 by President Richard Nixon to advise him on establishing an all-volunteer force. Supply and demand was the biggest problem to tackle. Bernays had had huge influence already in helping the PTB figure out how to manipulate the public.

Having passive civilians, and an especially large and aggressive military force just happens to be an ideal situation for them.

What a funny stroke of luck or coincidence that the educational system and media is repressing boys’ natural drives toward aggression and competition… so that either they remain passive, or (if they have trouble repressing, and don’t end up in the dwindling numbers of males who go to college) join the military ! The only acceptable outlet for those aggressive drives.

Taboo dynamics show us that- repress something here, it will come out somewhere else- and with ten times the force.

The higher socioeconomic classes are severely under represented in recruits- the force is almost entirely made up of middle and lower classes.
What a great stroke of luck there too- that the rich boys are not going to war for their daddies !

-Or maybe it is not so much coincidence and luck ?

But yeah, blame it on the women. The mothers of those soldiers, their wives.

Sometimes it is helpful to find the source of things by simply observing and asking "who does this benefit the most ???"

All of these questions are answered in the nine pages of the other thread.

One can lead a horse to water, but ...


Mike Grouchy

originally posted by: mikegrouchy
All of these questions are answered in the nine pages of the other thread.

One can lead a horse to water, but ...

Mike Grouchy

LOL- Mr. Grouchy, as I said, it is your delivery there that is flawed, not the basic ideas.

Nobody trusts a furious victim. They won't follow one.

originally posted by: Bluesma

LOL- Mr. Grouchy, as I said, it is your delivery there that is flawed, not the basic ideas.

Nobody trusts a furious victim. They won't follow one.

Good. I'm not a leader, and nobody should follow me.

Also the name is Grouchy, not Furious.


Mike Grouchy

Well, Let me start this by saying that this is my opinion and only my opinion. I feel strongly that women are the higher order of being on the planet right now....that is to say that I believe that it requires a more advanced soul in order to occupy the role of a woman on this planet at this time and to my knowledge at all times in the past on this planet. Btw... I am in the role of a male at this time but I certainly leave open the possibily that in past lives I may have occupied the role of a woman.( given that reincarnation is true..... I lean strongly that way at present). Now just to clarify I have no homosexual tendencies in me I am very much heterosexually orientated. In fact I think they shot a whole hyperdermic needle full in my ass when I was born... on second thought after watching the video on TED talks the other day...maybe they gave it to me before the womb : ) But...that is not the subject of this message.

I could go into great detail about why I believe this regardding women. But suffice it to say that the men have been "allowed" to occupy a more dominate role in order to be tested by them. Life is an immense refinement process of molding character and increasement of knowledge culminating in a "Wedding" of the male and female energy. I feel strongly that this is represented by the Sanctuary services performed on the Day of Atonement. The women are essentially in charge of the process and also are taking part by occupying the subordinate position and by bearing the attending "inconviences". Ultimately the "Oneness" of them established the parameters of our current existence and the time of it's continuance. Now I don't want anyone to think that I believe women as individuals are infallible or without flaw. She is "Maxxed out" and distortions of Her perfections are present....but She has accomplished Her purpose and I pray that She will enter her rest and receive Her peace. And Him likewise let Him know fulfillment blessing that He might serve Her in might and not in weakness. For God uses the weak things to overcome the mighty.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First, I think there is very little parallel between slavery and the oppression of women.

Not a parallel. Just a comparison of the mindset that fostered division among those enslaved. Or in the case of women, oppressed. If memory serves me correctly. There was a bit of division among women in the early 20th century as to whether or not they should be allowed to vote. Today, that argument would be considered ridiculous. Of course, women have a right to vote. Nevertheless, it was only "granted" them in the 20th century. This is merely one example of many that could be given. While we may have progressed much since the early 20th century. Equality is hardly a given in our modern society.

Second, my argument was actually pro-feminist, and I was merely trying to follow the distorted logic of feminism, as ironically as I could. Note the sarcasm in those paragraphs.

For the most part, I understood what you were trying to convey, I think. As well as the twisted logic of the extreme of feminism, and the prevalence of misandrists among them.

A patriarchy implies women are inferior to men, and have been since the dawn of civilization (remember, this is a feminist notion). However, this notion is false; women are not inferior to men, and this can be proven historically, as many women have held positions of absolute power. Women are 50% of the world’s population, and have always had 50% of the share in culture necessarily.

Historically, the percentage of women who have held absolute power, in comparison to the percentage of men is very unbalanced in the extreme. And in most cases, was considered a necessary evil to keep royalty in the seat of power until a male of the bloodline could take the throne. Also, it is obvious historically, that some women(and men) were more equal than others.
Culture has been shaped by men as far back as we can dig up. The Abrahamic cultures being a glaring example of such. That women are 50% of a culture, does not mean they were ever given a part in it's cultivation.

Society obviously doesn’t favour all men. Most of the homeless population are men. Most soldiers are men. It is simply untrue to state that such a society favours men based purely on their gender, and subjugates women based purely on their gender. The existence of the Queen with power over entire armies of men etc. proves the patriarchy false evidentially. The idea that a society that favours men will make a woman a queen is a contradiction.

That men would be the majority of the homeless, makes perfect sense in a patriarchal-type society. I suspect as women gain more of the "equality" they seek, in the psyche of the average person, this will balance out. That the majority of our armed forces are men, also makes perfect sense, considering it is only in recent history that women were allowed in combat. With the exception of the ancient Celtic tribes, and a few others.

It must follow then that society is an oligarchy, and regardless of gender, people are oppressed by those who hold power, not masculinity. In the instances where women are oppressed based solely on their gender, it is the result of theocracy, not masculinity.

Whatever the constitution may say. America is administrated by an oligarchy(imo), which also leans heavily toward theocracy, because it serves their purpose. When was the last time an atheist openly ran for office, and was elected. Christian "values" dominate the political landscape, and the psyche of the average citizen. Because of that, society still leans heavily toward a patriarchal structure.
Among the oligarchy and royalty, I would submit that gender equality exists. While among the commoners, gender division suits those who rule, because divide and conquer has always worked, and it still does.