A Case for the Patriarchy and for the Traditional Woman’s Right of Cultural Self-Determination.

Secular Traditionalism explained:

The Past versus the Present:

The differences between men and women:

Why the traditional family or something similar should be preserved and enhanced:

How I think we can end the War of the Sexes. 

How feminism and MRA are destroying the family unit and therefore destroying society.

A picture of my thoughts and an Islamic documentary about feminism!

Parallels between black communities and societies under the attack of feminism.

Disclaimer: To all the feminists and MRA out there.

Summary of Argument.

Links to supporting articles and other random blog entries that I have made on this topic!

The conclusions of the initial argument were false! Please read this for my current view. 

6 thoughts on “A Case for the Patriarchy and for the Traditional Woman’s Right of Cultural Self-Determination.

  1. This is the most interesting blog/website about gender relations, caring for children etc. I’ve seen in a long time. Please let me know if you’d be happy to add it to the list of blogs and websites at http://j4mb.wordpress.com and http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com.

    Just one observation. I think it’s a mistake to equate the traditional family with ‘patriarchy’. In modern times at least, feminists have appropriated the word to mean ‘the oppression of women as a class, by men as a class’. As you point out, the traditional family form was child-centred. It had nothing to do with men (as a class) oppressing women (as a class). In the sense that feminists use the term ‘patriarchy’, I would argue patriarchy never existed. Where women have fewer rights than men – e.g. in Islamic countries – it’s because they have far fewer responsibilities (particularly with respect to economically providing for families).

    Feminists have misrepresented traditional gender roles – notably men doing paid employment, and women remaining at home caring for children – as oppression. Hence their utter contempt towards, and hatred of, stay-at-home mothers. Feminism has long been a female supremacy movement based upon, and driven by, misandry. Feminism attacks almost every pillar of civilised society.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)
    http://j4mb.org.uk

    ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
    http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

    • Hello thank you for the nice comment, I just started following your blog. I would be really happy for it to be added to that list. Your blog is also great, it is pro-MRA and some of what I write here is anti-MRA and so that is the only reason I can see that it may not fully fit into your blog. I am actually pro-MRA because I think that everything MRAs are saying is true concerning misandry etc. But I do not support MRAs attacks on traditionalism.

      You are right about what feminists have turned the word patriarchy into. I think that social structures which leave no room for variation and people who want to be different are unhealthy and this can happen in any social structure, it happened with the ”’patriarchy” and that is what feminists mean when they say that they are anti-patriarchy. But that is not really the patriarchy. By patriarchy I just mean the social structure where men and women come together in committed relationships to form family units where women are the main care-givers to children.

      Women have not been oppressed by men. A social structure in which males are the leaders is not oppression, and if it was then people would always be oppressed as there will always be leaders. Feminists are hurting the family unit when they claim that gender roles and patriarchy are oppressive. Gender roles are not oppressive once there is room for variation and they aid the family unit. It does not mean that women should all be stay at home mothers and even when feminists speak about women of the past being stuck with motherhood and not contributing economically I do not think this is fully true.

      Women in the past may not have had jobs but the work they did at home “saved” their family money and was an economic contribution. Today women can do other things in combination with childcare, like office work or run business etc. and that would be their economic contribution; so to me this would still be patriarchy once the male female relationship is kept and women remain the primary carers for children while working with left over time. And men remain the primary breadwinners and political leaders.

      Of course we are moving out of a patriarchy so we will see. Thanks a lot for the comment and support and I look forward to reading more on your blog.

  2. Thank you, I’ll add this site to our recommended blogs and websites now.

    I’d also like to do a post pointing people to your site, and include the reply you just sent me, if that’s OK? I understand your point about many MRAs being opposed to ‘traditional roles’ but there’s a reason for that. These days, across much of not most of the world, men are at severe risk of being hammered if they adopt traditional roles, e.g. get married and have children. When a couple has one child or more, every wife knows she can make things so miserable for the husband he’ll walk. Then she’ll get the house, deny him access to the kids if she wants, still get lots of money from him… and the state will support her choice to sabotage the marriage all the way.

    Finally, am I right in assuming you’re a Jamaican lady, living in Jamaica?

    • Thanks and yes I totally agree with the logic behind MRAs being against the traditional roles, marriage and even children. Things as they are today are unfair towards men and it has to change. It is really sad when you think about it, that men should have to avoid marriage and even children simply because of the laws. The laws are not reflective of the cultural reality that we have today. So while I understand MRAs and can support them in a legal sense, I cannot support being against traditionalism in a cultural sense because I think that traditionalism leads to healthy, productive societies. Not extreme traditionalism but a least a mixture, traditionalism also could benefit the majority of people in my opinion.

      And yes you can use the reply or any other information that you find useful here.

  3. This blog has really made me think and given me new things to consider. I call myself a feminist, but reading your balanced opinions has enlightened me about some issues and hypocrisy I was beginning to find in the feminist community. I appreciate you taking the time to write these articles and share your ideas. You’ve put my mind more at ease when it comes to relationships.

    I’m curious about your views on women who can’t have children, or don’t want them? Do you think women can benefit from using our maternal tendencies on other pursuits? Like if a woman writes a book, could there be unique benefits to treating it like a child?

    I think it would. Many people get frustrated with writing and give up. But most people would feel very guilty about hiding their baby in a drawer! I think it can motivate us to nurture our projects until the end. They’re both something we’re creating.

    • Hi for women who don’t want or can’t have children.. i think if a woman does not want kids she should be able to not have them and live her life as she wishes, if one can not have but wants then I hope that she can find a way to be a huge part of some children’s life.

      We should all be able to do what we want to and live happily. If someone wants to treat work or a book as the center of their lives then good for them!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s