Well said! The part about the christian understanding of authority reminded me ofna George Macdonald quote, from his book The Seaboard Parish. It's long but worth reading, I think.
> In America, the very name of servant is repudiated as inconsistent with human dignity. There is no dignity but of service. How different the whole notion of training is now from what it was in the middle ages! Service was honourable then. No doubt we have made progress as a whole, but in some things we have degenerated sadly. The first thing taught then was how to serve. No man could rise to the honour of knighthood without service. A nobleman’s son even had to wait on his father, or to go into the family of another nobleman, and wait upon him as a page, standing behind his chair at dinner. This was an honour. No notion of degradation was in it. It was a necessary step to higher honour. And what was the next higher honour? To be set free from service? No. To serve in the harder service of the field; to be a squire to some noble knight; to tend his horse, to clean his armour, to see that every rivet was sound, every buckle true, every strap strong; to ride behind him, and carry his spear, and if more than one attacked him, to rush to his aid. This service was the more honourable because it was harder, and was the next step to higher honour yet. And what was this higher honour? That of knighthood. Wherein did this knighthood consist? The very word means simply service. And for what was the knight thus waited upon by his squire? That he might be free to do as he pleased? No, but that he might be free to be the servant of all. By being a squire first, the servant of one, he learned to rise to the higher rank, that of servant of all. His horse was tended, this armour observed, his sword and spear and shield held to his hand, that he might have no trouble looking after himself, but might be free, strong, unwearied, to shoot like an arrow to the rescue of any and every one who needed his ready aid. There was a grand heart of Christianity in that old chivalry, notwithstanding all its abuses which must be no more laid to its charge than the burning of Jews and heretics to Christianity. It was the lack of it, not the presence of it that occasioned the abuses that coexisted with it.
From a practical perspective, I feel the most accurate definition of 'patriarchy' is male LEADERSHIP, rather than male dominance or rule.
Male leadership is an obligation and a responsibility we place on men's shoulders. The traditionally feminine ways of behaving, dressing and acting are all designed (I mean by nature itself) to compel men to step up to the plate and take on the masculine leadership role.
If you act submissive or vulnerable to any degree you are signalling to men that they need to be chivalrous, protective and assertive and take charge of the situation. It signals to men that they need to assume responsibility not just for their own wellbeing but your needs too - or indeed the needs of all women.
The studies are very clear that a more feminine presentation = a more chivalrous response from men.
A classic example of this signalling wound be Emma Watson walking to the podium at the UN's 'He for She' event dressed all in white, and then giving a speech about how fragile and vulnerable women are, before demanding men step up to the plate and be chivalrous and offer women even more protection and resources. UN Women is pure patriarchy in action, but with a twist (explained in a moment).
For men 'patriarchy' is an extra burden placed on their shoulders. Traditionally that burden also came with a degree of added autonomy and freedom - but only to facilitate men's role as the providers and protectors of women and children. So men's patriarchal 'authority' and 'freedom' has always been conditional on their service (and often self sacrifice) to women.
The idea that male leadership is 'oppression of women' comes from a recent and very particular strategy of female intrasexual competition known as 'feminism'.
'Feminism' is used by women to encourage rival women to sabotage their chances of reproductive success.
Feminism works by gaslighting rival women into believing strong, masculine men with strong leadership qualities are the worst thing that can ever happen to a woman, and that these kinds of men should be avoided at all costs!
The gaslighting continues by telling a woman to assume a faux leadership role herself (AKA 'female empowerment') by abandoning all of her natural female drives and ambitions and adopting superficially male ambitions instead. But this is all just play acting because no actual leadership is performed (no self sacrifice, no accountability, no obligation to serve others at the expense of your own self interests). The feminist concept of a female leader just means playing the victim while throwing your weight around.
A classic example of this would be, once again, Emma Watson - a faux leader who spends all her time playing the helpless victim and then gets on stage at the UN to demand 'he for she' (male leadership and self sacrifice to serve women .... AKA patriarchy). Feminists like Watson demand a special type of patriarchy where men are supposed to just lie down in the gutter and throw money at women so they can remain single and childless.
Feminism's version of patriarchy is called 'dismantling the patriarchy'.
It is a perversion of patriarchy. It is not supposed to make sense because it is, after all, just gaslighting designed to confuse women and destroy their ability to pair bond and reproduce successfully. Watson is herself single, childless and the wrong side of 30. Her girl bossing days are drawing to a close, as is her fertility window. Feminism has achieved its objective of reducing her reproductive success.
Under feminism, men are still expected to sacrifice for women ('he for she') but their authority as leaders is undermined at every turn and they are relentlessly attacked, ridiculed, insulted, belittled and accused of harming women instead.... while still being expected to provide infinite protection and resources to women ('he for she') despite now being labelled as women's 'oppressors' (enemies), rather than women's natural allies, protectors and partners in crime. None of this makes ANY sense until you realise it's just about sabotaging male/ female pair bonding and reproduction.
Both feminists and tradcons expect men to sacrifice themselves to provide for and protect women ('he for she'). Tradcons include children too which is nice ('women and children first') and they also work WITH men, not against men, by offering support, respect and encouragement.... and even the occasional sandwich.
Once you realise feminism is just female intrasexual competition playing out, all the mixed messaging about 'patriarchy' and all the contradictory and self defeating behaviour of feminists themselves makes sense.
Feminism is deliberate confusion invented by women and designed to confuse rival women into making the most catastrophic life choices.
It's very confusing for men because they are hard wired to be chivalrous and so they take feminists at their word when they say "patriarchy is oppression" and "being a strong, masculine, assertive man with good leadership qualities harms women".... but they are also aware that feminists are still demanding 'he for she' as well (special treatment and free stuff).
So they end up amplifying their chivalrous behaviour in order to 'save women' and 'lift women up' into positions of leadership and authority, while stepping down themselves. Then they agree to take responsibility for any fuck ups the women make and to never criticise what the women are doing. Then they agree to carry on being super strong, masculine, assertive providers and protectors (but from their new position sitting quietly at the back of the bus) while the feminists sit up front and continue to drive society off a cliff.
And they also agree to let feminists blame them for all the problems they themselves are creating, such as the collapse in fertility that will destroy the west, as well as the collapse in mental health of children today, caused by feminists keeping men out of the home and outsourcing motherhood to day orphanages and state indoctrination camps so they can do something more 'fulfilling' with their time than raising their own children.
All of this contradictory and dysfunctional behaviour is set up to drive women's reproductive success down, which hands an evolutionary 'win' to any woman who goes the other way and secures a masculine man, builds a stable home and raises a family in the normal way as nature intended.
I don’t know, man – my whole point was that evolutionary psychology is the wrong way to look at male-female relations, and you bring a dissertation on evolutionary psychology as if we just needed to have it explained better. It’s a completely inadequate framework, whether by a dogmatic or a pragmatic standard. Men and women were designed, we didn’t just happen. And we were designed to work together in a certain way, with mutual love and mutual respect. That’s the good stuff.
If you’re interested in chivalry, there’s a lot of wisdom out there to discover. Maybe start with Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd, Hugo’s Les Miserables, and the Solomon trilogy (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs).
“you bring a dissertation on evolutionary psychology as if we just needed to have it explained better.”
Well yes, I’d say we do need to have it explained better.
Every institution in the west has adopted feminist ideology (including all institutions related to the law, marriage, family courts, rape accusations, due process and DV) and they all act in alignment with feminism as if feminism were a) true and valid b) a force for good AKA ‘progress’.
If it turns out they are all labouring under a set of false premises (not just false but pernicious) then that is a big problem.
The explanation I’ve outlined above is the only one which adequately explains why our current society is the way it is and how we got here.
“Men and women were designed, we didn’t just happen.”
I’m not sure what that means or how it relates.
“And we were designed to work together in a certain way, with mutual love and mutual respect”
Sure, but this does nothing to explain how and why the relationship between men and women has gone awry and how to fix it.
I would argue that it’s not men and women who have changed, it’s our situation and environment. In the post industrial world infant mortality is low for all and this has more or less levelled the playing field.
This is why female intrasexual competition has switched from an ‘enhance your own success’ strategy to a ‘sabotage the success of other women’ strategy.
This is key to understanding the current discourse on matters like ‘patriarchy’, ‘rape’, ‘marriage’, ‘masculinity’ etc etc. The majority of claims being made about these topics today are not sincere but gaslighting designed to confuse and disorientate rival females.
The Doge guy argues that marital rape laws are not necessary. You did not argue that they are. All you did was hurl insults. What a pathetic article. Good grief.
Your article is incoherent and jumps all over the place. And you seem incredibly neurotic and unhinged. All in all, you hurled insults rather than counter his conclusion: we should get rid of marital rape laws.
That is the topic, not the personal characteristics of the author. It’s embarrassing how emotional your article is. Total cuck energy.
I said absolutely nothing about “the personal characteristics of the author” except that he is a cad. My response was not directed at his conclusion re. marital rape laws, which I did not intend to address, but at his brutal and disrespectful approach to sexuality and marriage. Get some sleep, read his article again and then mine – hopefully that will help.
You called the man stupid. You’re so cucked you went all in on the emotions in the this one lol. “He disrespected what I believe, let me disrespect him”
With all the crap going on in the world absolutely one who regularly goes outside has time to argue about nonsense like legalizing marital rape or repealing the 19th.
Well said! The part about the christian understanding of authority reminded me ofna George Macdonald quote, from his book The Seaboard Parish. It's long but worth reading, I think.
> In America, the very name of servant is repudiated as inconsistent with human dignity. There is no dignity but of service. How different the whole notion of training is now from what it was in the middle ages! Service was honourable then. No doubt we have made progress as a whole, but in some things we have degenerated sadly. The first thing taught then was how to serve. No man could rise to the honour of knighthood without service. A nobleman’s son even had to wait on his father, or to go into the family of another nobleman, and wait upon him as a page, standing behind his chair at dinner. This was an honour. No notion of degradation was in it. It was a necessary step to higher honour. And what was the next higher honour? To be set free from service? No. To serve in the harder service of the field; to be a squire to some noble knight; to tend his horse, to clean his armour, to see that every rivet was sound, every buckle true, every strap strong; to ride behind him, and carry his spear, and if more than one attacked him, to rush to his aid. This service was the more honourable because it was harder, and was the next step to higher honour yet. And what was this higher honour? That of knighthood. Wherein did this knighthood consist? The very word means simply service. And for what was the knight thus waited upon by his squire? That he might be free to do as he pleased? No, but that he might be free to be the servant of all. By being a squire first, the servant of one, he learned to rise to the higher rank, that of servant of all. His horse was tended, this armour observed, his sword and spear and shield held to his hand, that he might have no trouble looking after himself, but might be free, strong, unwearied, to shoot like an arrow to the rescue of any and every one who needed his ready aid. There was a grand heart of Christianity in that old chivalry, notwithstanding all its abuses which must be no more laid to its charge than the burning of Jews and heretics to Christianity. It was the lack of it, not the presence of it that occasioned the abuses that coexisted with it.
Good to hear a man chime in and take this garbage out.
I really really want to clarify that when I restacked that post I was 100% being sarcastic
Good to know. Seriously.
Sarcasm online can be hit-or-miss.
I doubt he cares. He is blinded by rage.
I appreciated your initial read of the headline and ignoring it, an excellent approach
Thank you for this, I appreciate you undercutting his argument from such a rational standpoint.
Thank you for the shout-out.
For the record you are incorrect in assuming I am single. I'm married with kids.
You were spot on by calling me "abysmally stupid" however.
I had a whole schpeal typed up about how much this essay means to me — all I will say is you write very important and needed things
From a practical perspective, I feel the most accurate definition of 'patriarchy' is male LEADERSHIP, rather than male dominance or rule.
Male leadership is an obligation and a responsibility we place on men's shoulders. The traditionally feminine ways of behaving, dressing and acting are all designed (I mean by nature itself) to compel men to step up to the plate and take on the masculine leadership role.
If you act submissive or vulnerable to any degree you are signalling to men that they need to be chivalrous, protective and assertive and take charge of the situation. It signals to men that they need to assume responsibility not just for their own wellbeing but your needs too - or indeed the needs of all women.
The studies are very clear that a more feminine presentation = a more chivalrous response from men.
A classic example of this signalling wound be Emma Watson walking to the podium at the UN's 'He for She' event dressed all in white, and then giving a speech about how fragile and vulnerable women are, before demanding men step up to the plate and be chivalrous and offer women even more protection and resources. UN Women is pure patriarchy in action, but with a twist (explained in a moment).
For men 'patriarchy' is an extra burden placed on their shoulders. Traditionally that burden also came with a degree of added autonomy and freedom - but only to facilitate men's role as the providers and protectors of women and children. So men's patriarchal 'authority' and 'freedom' has always been conditional on their service (and often self sacrifice) to women.
The idea that male leadership is 'oppression of women' comes from a recent and very particular strategy of female intrasexual competition known as 'feminism'.
'Feminism' is used by women to encourage rival women to sabotage their chances of reproductive success.
Feminism works by gaslighting rival women into believing strong, masculine men with strong leadership qualities are the worst thing that can ever happen to a woman, and that these kinds of men should be avoided at all costs!
The gaslighting continues by telling a woman to assume a faux leadership role herself (AKA 'female empowerment') by abandoning all of her natural female drives and ambitions and adopting superficially male ambitions instead. But this is all just play acting because no actual leadership is performed (no self sacrifice, no accountability, no obligation to serve others at the expense of your own self interests). The feminist concept of a female leader just means playing the victim while throwing your weight around.
A classic example of this would be, once again, Emma Watson - a faux leader who spends all her time playing the helpless victim and then gets on stage at the UN to demand 'he for she' (male leadership and self sacrifice to serve women .... AKA patriarchy). Feminists like Watson demand a special type of patriarchy where men are supposed to just lie down in the gutter and throw money at women so they can remain single and childless.
Feminism's version of patriarchy is called 'dismantling the patriarchy'.
It is a perversion of patriarchy. It is not supposed to make sense because it is, after all, just gaslighting designed to confuse women and destroy their ability to pair bond and reproduce successfully. Watson is herself single, childless and the wrong side of 30. Her girl bossing days are drawing to a close, as is her fertility window. Feminism has achieved its objective of reducing her reproductive success.
Under feminism, men are still expected to sacrifice for women ('he for she') but their authority as leaders is undermined at every turn and they are relentlessly attacked, ridiculed, insulted, belittled and accused of harming women instead.... while still being expected to provide infinite protection and resources to women ('he for she') despite now being labelled as women's 'oppressors' (enemies), rather than women's natural allies, protectors and partners in crime. None of this makes ANY sense until you realise it's just about sabotaging male/ female pair bonding and reproduction.
Both feminists and tradcons expect men to sacrifice themselves to provide for and protect women ('he for she'). Tradcons include children too which is nice ('women and children first') and they also work WITH men, not against men, by offering support, respect and encouragement.... and even the occasional sandwich.
Once you realise feminism is just female intrasexual competition playing out, all the mixed messaging about 'patriarchy' and all the contradictory and self defeating behaviour of feminists themselves makes sense.
Feminism is deliberate confusion invented by women and designed to confuse rival women into making the most catastrophic life choices.
It's very confusing for men because they are hard wired to be chivalrous and so they take feminists at their word when they say "patriarchy is oppression" and "being a strong, masculine, assertive man with good leadership qualities harms women".... but they are also aware that feminists are still demanding 'he for she' as well (special treatment and free stuff).
So they end up amplifying their chivalrous behaviour in order to 'save women' and 'lift women up' into positions of leadership and authority, while stepping down themselves. Then they agree to take responsibility for any fuck ups the women make and to never criticise what the women are doing. Then they agree to carry on being super strong, masculine, assertive providers and protectors (but from their new position sitting quietly at the back of the bus) while the feminists sit up front and continue to drive society off a cliff.
And they also agree to let feminists blame them for all the problems they themselves are creating, such as the collapse in fertility that will destroy the west, as well as the collapse in mental health of children today, caused by feminists keeping men out of the home and outsourcing motherhood to day orphanages and state indoctrination camps so they can do something more 'fulfilling' with their time than raising their own children.
All of this contradictory and dysfunctional behaviour is set up to drive women's reproductive success down, which hands an evolutionary 'win' to any woman who goes the other way and secures a masculine man, builds a stable home and raises a family in the normal way as nature intended.
I don’t know, man – my whole point was that evolutionary psychology is the wrong way to look at male-female relations, and you bring a dissertation on evolutionary psychology as if we just needed to have it explained better. It’s a completely inadequate framework, whether by a dogmatic or a pragmatic standard. Men and women were designed, we didn’t just happen. And we were designed to work together in a certain way, with mutual love and mutual respect. That’s the good stuff.
If you’re interested in chivalry, there’s a lot of wisdom out there to discover. Maybe start with Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd, Hugo’s Les Miserables, and the Solomon trilogy (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs).
“you bring a dissertation on evolutionary psychology as if we just needed to have it explained better.”
Well yes, I’d say we do need to have it explained better.
Every institution in the west has adopted feminist ideology (including all institutions related to the law, marriage, family courts, rape accusations, due process and DV) and they all act in alignment with feminism as if feminism were a) true and valid b) a force for good AKA ‘progress’.
If it turns out they are all labouring under a set of false premises (not just false but pernicious) then that is a big problem.
The explanation I’ve outlined above is the only one which adequately explains why our current society is the way it is and how we got here.
“Men and women were designed, we didn’t just happen.”
I’m not sure what that means or how it relates.
“And we were designed to work together in a certain way, with mutual love and mutual respect”
Sure, but this does nothing to explain how and why the relationship between men and women has gone awry and how to fix it.
I would argue that it’s not men and women who have changed, it’s our situation and environment. In the post industrial world infant mortality is low for all and this has more or less levelled the playing field.
This is why female intrasexual competition has switched from an ‘enhance your own success’ strategy to a ‘sabotage the success of other women’ strategy.
This is key to understanding the current discourse on matters like ‘patriarchy’, ‘rape’, ‘marriage’, ‘masculinity’ etc etc. The majority of claims being made about these topics today are not sincere but gaslighting designed to confuse and disorientate rival females.
The Doge guy argues that marital rape laws are not necessary. You did not argue that they are. All you did was hurl insults. What a pathetic article. Good grief.
I don’t believe you read either of the articles in question, amigo.
Your article is incoherent and jumps all over the place. And you seem incredibly neurotic and unhinged. All in all, you hurled insults rather than counter his conclusion: we should get rid of marital rape laws.
That is the topic, not the personal characteristics of the author. It’s embarrassing how emotional your article is. Total cuck energy.
I said absolutely nothing about “the personal characteristics of the author” except that he is a cad. My response was not directed at his conclusion re. marital rape laws, which I did not intend to address, but at his brutal and disrespectful approach to sexuality and marriage. Get some sleep, read his article again and then mine – hopefully that will help.
You called the man stupid. You’re so cucked you went all in on the emotions in the this one lol. “He disrespected what I believe, let me disrespect him”
Pathetic.
Someone give this poor guy a mirror.
😂😂😂
With all the crap going on in the world absolutely one who regularly goes outside has time to argue about nonsense like legalizing marital rape or repealing the 19th.
That earned you a permanent ban.