The importance of the Traditional family or Traditional community.

The social structure and cultural norms that we have today are the result of hundreds of thousands of years of war and luck and conquest. It is not simply by chance and it does have a lot to say about what it takes to survive through some of life’s most harsh conditions, through famine, war and all of the other horrible things that we as humans can face. The cultural norms that led to better societies survived for a reason. Societies that were Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc., those that had monogamy survived for a reason. They were the fittest societies and they won the most wars.

The traditional family unit is one in which the parents are either married or intend to spend the rest of their lives together and furthermore one in which the female’s main focus is the children while the male’s main focus is economic resources. The traditional community is one in which three generations typically live under the same roof and children have regular access to aunts, uncles, grandparents or simply a wide range of adults who contribute to family life on a daily basis.

This type of setting is a very good breeding ground because it is efficient, mostly consistent with our biology and it ensures that children have access to male and female role models who both contribute positively to family life and to society in general. It is consistent with our evolutionary history in that it allows women to be near their children and also ensures that can develop normally and happily. It also allows fathers to invest in their children and the investments that fathers have made in their children and in society on behalf of their  families in many ways has shaped and does shape society for the better.

The traditional family/community provides an ideal platform for children to find role models who love them. School and daycare can also be great environments but in my opinion they are not as good as the home environment not only because parents are more likely to show their children love than teachers and nannies but also because women have evolved to exist and find happiness within an environment in which they have access to their children.

Throughout human evolution people have almost always lived with daily access to other members of the community and I think that is one major reason why the concept of stay at home mother does not work well with women and children in today’s society. Both women and children miss and long for a more communal setting than the suburbs or a quite apartment can offer.

When aunts and uncles and grandparents and children and strangers all lived under the same roof mothers and children were not bored at home; but consumerism killed the community and being a stay at home mother did become boring. And today in exactly the same way that consumerism killed the community; the traditional family unit is under the attack of liberalism. And if it does die my only concern is that it is replaced with another system which allows children to find role-models along sexist lines.

If we fail to provide society with this type of structure biology and nature will do it for us, mothers will end up raising kids and boys will become marginalized because they lack proper role models. Women will become loose, and when there are no dependable men the word father will become a word from the past.  Have you ever seen the show ”Maury” where women are unable to identify the father of their child? In the name of liberalism that can easily become the norm.

Marriages OR life-long commitments between men and women are therefore important in situations where children are present. Gender roles within a marriage or communal setting are equally as important as at some point children naturally seek out gender roles and seek to emulate them and the gender roles within the traditional family setting promote long relationships and productive lifestyles. In conclusion without the traditional family or community children suffer because they lack adequate access to role models from each gender. Without identifying one’s role it is harder for young people to structure their lives and they are less productive as a result (this is false read this change of view post).

Advertisements

Children biologically crave sexist role models, adults relationships can benefit from gender roles.

Children learn from their environments. They learn how to act, they learn how to speak, they start mimicking the adults around them before their first birthday and they never really stop. At some point though as most children mature and he or she comes to the realization that he/she is either male or female they begin to structure their lives based on what they see the adult males and females in their immediate environments doing.

The adults present in a child’s immediate environment are therefore very important. It is important that these adults love the children and guide them when they are in need of guidance. It is important that they understand their role as a role model.

Also many people may agree that children need role models but disagree that the sex of the role modes makes a difference, I say that children need to be shown that they have a crucial and indispensable role to play in family life and therefore within society and so even if sexist roles are not as important to you as they are to me, they do benefit the child because they show him or her that their role is specialized, crucial and indispensable and on top of that sexist roles are efficient.

Is there a correlation between valuing the male female relationship and gender roles??

Currently men and women are different and want different things in each other. With male/female interchangeability men and women have fewer differences. But who or what is more valuable to you? A person who is exactly like you and can do exactly the same things as you, or a person who is different from you and does things that you cannot do?

The obvious answer is we value people who bring something new to the table, so gender roles support relationships and add to their longevity.

Supporting Links (I will add more with time):

Kids whose parents smoke are more likely to smoke.

Daughters of working mothers are more motivated to be educated, while sons are not.

Single mothers more likely to raise daughters who become single mothers.

Single mothers focusing on the house instead of working produce less motivated kids.

Disclaimer: To all the feminists and MRA out there.

This entire website and everything written it is is a response to the way that feminists and MRAs have been demonizing the patriarchy and the traditional lifestyle. If you personally have not been doing either of those things, if you personally do show respect for people who choose the traditional/patriarchal lifestyle then this website is not directed to you. This website was written as a response as a way of fighting back against those who attack marriage, gender roles, stay at home motherhood, housewives as if these things are not all rational and very valid choices.

Also, although my traditional views are that society needs and always ends up with some sort of structure may be anti-liberal at its core I still respect and support your right to a different opinion and to a different lifestyle choice. See my post on Liberal Traditionalism. I do not advocate for laws that limit people’s life-style choices, but I am hoping that the majority of people if allowed to freely explore these topics will come to similar conclusions as I have. I am hoping that the majority of people will find that they are things under the realm of traditionalism worth keeping.

And that does not mean that I wish women would stop working completely, but I do wish we as a society would find it acceptable for women to prioritize their children over their careers in all ways because I think it benefits society, it benefits women and it benefits children. My views are dynamic though, as I learn more I change my views so this is my current view I will see what tomorrow brings.

Just know that if you are happy living a non-traditional lifestyle; I am happy for you and I support you! These are simply my opinions based on observations that I have made about what I think it would take to make most people happy. If you have another method that works for you in my opinion you are not the average person; and that is not a bad thing. Feel free to share your opinions here but just know that I am in no way opposing your life style choices.

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

Both feminism and MRA have done and are doing great things for society but there are major flaws in their approach that I am now going to explore.

First you need to understand that they both subscribe to the wrong definition of equality. When feminists and MRA say equality what they really mean in interchangeability. Men and women can be equal in value while maintaining certain differences and having very different roles. A key and a lock can be equal to society if they are both worth the same amount of money for example. If people would pay a euro for the lock and a euro for the key then the lock and the key are equal. But the lock and they key are not interchange able. If you have a lock you need a key and another lock just will not do and vice versa.

When feminists argue about the low numbers of women in CEO positions or the low numbers of stay at home dads, and when MRA argue that women need to pay their way in a relationship, or that fathers need to have the same custody rights as women (which I agree with) and that that would mean true equality they are wrong. That scenario would mean true interchangeability. Feminists are trying to gain the rights that men have had historically while MRA are trying to gain the rights that women have had historically and they do this all under the guise of liberalism.

The problem with this is that there is still one undeniable difference between men and women. The only difference that counts, and when you shame all aspects of traditionalism or guidelines within society this difference is what becomes the structural basis of society. And that difference is that essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants and men do not make babies or feed infants freeing them up to do other things with their time. And a society structured upon this principle alone is a society without long term relationships and where men grow up marginalized. Women grow children and males lack role models in the home, they then seek role models in society and end up being very easily used by those who only want what they can get from them.

Traditionalism; whether through the family unit or through a community setting counteracts that. Traditionalism benefits males especially because it ensures that there is a male role model present during the developing stages of a boy’s life.  And both feminism and MRA are destroying traditionalism by essentially saying that individuals need to just do what is best for themselves and everything will work out fine. They are shaming the idea of sexism, which traditionalism is built upon and they are telling males and females that society does not need structure or values forced upon their respective sexes and that if they both seek their own self-interest it will all work out.

This is a lie, and it is a lie which weakens society. If men and women simply do what feels best, and do not follow any form of traditional guidelines what happens is that children get raised by women and society surfers. Males become marginalized when raised in settings without male role models and this is exactly where feminism and MRA are taking society. This will lead to less productivity but maybe a higher quality gene pool (about the only good thing that will come from this scenario is less children).  The society as we know it today will be destroyed, we will return to a natural society. A hunter gatherer society, without guidelines and without tradition this is where our biology leads us. Please read this for a more updated view of where I think society it actually heading.

Examples of MRA shaming traditionalism: http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/a-letter-to-traditional-women/

Examples of feminism shaming traditionalism need not be given because the entire concept behind feminism shames traditional roles: think BIGOT, CHAUVINISTIC PIG, SEXIST or simply why aren’t there more stay at home dads? why aren’t there more female CEOs? Read this feminist housewife article at jezebel. Or what about the questions can you be a real feminist and a stay a home mom or housewife?

What makes women unique

Essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants and men do not make babies or feed infants freeing them up to do other things with their time.

Women are unique because they are the natural carers of children and in most cases the most efficient carers. Women are unique because they can get pregnant and nurse babies. Women were designed through evolution to stay very close to their children. Being close to your kids does not mean being the sole or even primary care giver though; it just means being close enough to them so that if they need you you will be present.

Read this to better understand your uniqueness: http://www.bobafamily.com/research/exterogestation-and-the-need-to-be-held/

What makes men unique

Essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants and men do not make babies or feed infants freeing them up to do other things with their time.

In my opinion, men are unique because they can impregnate a woman and not slow down, not get tired, need naps in the day or be short of breathe from holding something heavy. Men are unique because they do not have to nurse newborns every 2 to 3 hours, and lose sleep or mobility because of it. They are unique because they do not get pregnant and have to care for very young children and that uniqueness frees them up to explore the world in a way that women cannot without either abstinence or the use of science (ie. birth-control and formula). It frees them up to focus on bringing home the bacon while we focus on kids and the home.

That does not mean that women cannot bring home any bacon or that men can give no attention or nurturing to kids; but it does mean that we naturally have different focuses. And we can choose to acknowledge this and work together with this knowledge or we can ignore it and try to work against it; but in the end I think our biology does not change as quickly as science has or as quickly as mainstream feminism would like it to change.

Summary of Argument

NEW SUMMARY

Why I think we need to fight for the Patriarchy.

We are in a transition from a traditional society (let’s call it the patriarchy) to a liberal-minded society (let’s call it a matriarchy). Men suffer quite a lot in this transition, because the laws are essentially all very patriarchal and women still expect things like child-support (something which would normally only exist in a patriarchy), while they behave as though they are in a matriarchy (wanting to sleep around and still be respected, etc.).

Now the patriarchy is actually not a society that favors men over women, and the matriarchy is not a society which favors women over men. Both societies favor men and women equally. I know a lot of MRAs do not believe this and use the draft as evidence that the patriarchy favored women more, but that is not true. The patriarchy is actually a society that favors children, while the matriarchy favors the individual (or self).

The patriarchy is a child-centered society. It is interested in birth and survival rates of children, and that is why males were drafted. Male disposability led to more children.  The patriarchy comes from difficult times, it was born in hard times, it is a very social system, an efficient system, and it’s a survival mechanism.

We know it leads to successful societies because many of the major cultures that dominate the world today have a patriarchal history. And we can see this most clearly through the fact that the world’s major religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Confucianism all come from cultures which support the patriarchy. All of these religions and the cultures that support them speak of female obedience to her husband and male responsibility and dominance over to his family.

Most of the world’s major cultures have patriarchal roots, this is a map showing the major religions of each country as it was in 1960. It is taken from Hans Rosling’s talk on religion and babies.

religion and babiesxs

Since people who share the same religion also often share common cultural practices with respect to structuring family life, and the cultures associated with the major religions in the picture above are all patriarchal, we can see that the patriarchal way of structuring society has had a lot of success.

The matriarchy–and I feel like I have lived in one, which is Jamaica–is a “matriarchal” society within a patriarchal setting.  It is not a very social system, and is in fact very inefficient. It works when resources are abundant and easy to access and it works on the principal that everyone just does what is best for themselves. What happens in such a society is that men do not take care of or even know their kids. Women work and take all the steady, easy and good jobs. Men, who only need to take care of themselves, take the unstable and unreliable jobs, the hard jobs.

Men and women do not live together and do not seek to form relationships. They just come together for sex. Gender roles still exist, but male female interaction is more limited so they only exist pre-sex. Typically males compete for female attention and have to offer women something material in order to get sex. The thing is, though, in this system most women are attracted to the same men and those men get the most sex.

Now I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but in part male/female relations are actually a trade with sex being the commodity. In any sexual act the person with the most at stake is the female. Putting aside unfair laws and child support which actually came from the patriarchy. The woman is the one who might get pregnant when the act is over, she might end up with a child, while the man ends up with no consequence beyond sex. That sets things up so that men are always seeking sex from women.

Now essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants, and men do not make babies or feed infants, freeing them up to do other things with their time. This sets things up so that women are more limited than men with respect to their access to resources. So with men in need of sex and women in need of rare or hard to get resources, in both the patriarchy and the matriarchy, this trade takes place.

Marriage was a trade of sex (and access to one’s children) for male work (less limited work).  In the matriarchy that same trade occurs (minus access to one’s children) but on a short term basis. The traditional system is a much more social system because it shares the sex and male work equally, while the matriarchal does not. I think the majority of people can actually benefit from the traditional system. There are some who will do better in the matriarchal system, but the majority does better in the patriarchy. So we need to maintain that balance and so we need to fight for the patriarchy to stay.

Humans are social beings. The social part of us causes most of us to follow the crowd and to fit into whatever we identify as the pattern (whether that pattern is to be weird, to be liberal, to be odd, or to fit in). The social part of our psychology causes society to trend either to traditionalism in an extreme form or to liberalism in an extreme form. We have to fight so that society does not end up on the extremely liberal side, so that we have balance.

The picture below shows how I think the cycle between the matriarchy and the patriarchy works, I do not mean to imply that any one society is fully matriarchal or fully patriarchal, because in fact I think there are layers from both sides in every society. The idea of a central government and taxes for example is a social system and it exists in many capitalist settings. I think society takes the parts from the self-centered society that it can, while using the parts of the society-centered society that are necessary.

patriarchymatriarchy2xs

What I do mean to imply is that many parts of the traditional way of structuring society are beneficial to the majority of society, and so I think we should hold on to them. The patriarchy has been successful for many reasons, and we have to be careful not to ignore some of these reasons. Male investment and access to their offspring both in the form of being a role model who would love, guide, and seek the best interests of their children and through their economic contributions benefited society enormously. Allowing women the freedom to focus on producing and caring for children also benefited society.

The patriarchy as we know it was not perfect, but neither is a matriarchy, and so I think we as a society need to start sifting through both systems, and it is important that as we do this we keep the parts of the patriarchal ways of structuring society that were, and can still be, beneficial to individuals and society.

The above was also posted at Return of the Kings Blog.

OLD SUMMARY

The definition of feminism is

fem·i·nism  /ˈfeməˌnizəm/: The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

The problem with this idea is that women and men are biologically different. Essentially without science we can define women and men by saying women make babies and feed infants and men do not make babies or feed infants freeing them up to do other things with their time. Because of these biological differences we generally do different things socially, politically and economically and that should be okay because it is great for individuals and great for society on many levels.

Even though science now blurs these differences and one day we may evolve out of these differences at present we are still very different. The feminist idea of equality harms society because it deprives society of the structure needed for children to find role models and children are the future society. Using the feminist definition of equality children are taught that men and women can be interchangeable, this is inefficient and since children naturally seek role models along sexist lines this provides a platform for biology structure society; it takes us back to a hunter gatherer type of society where males are marginalized.

The feminist model of equality can easily end the same way a lack of traditional values in black post-slavery communities ended. Boys will be unable to find proper male role models in their homes and will seek role models in society only to find companies or people that wish to use them and encourage them to do things that do not benefit them or society.

The traditional model of society is also better than the liberal model that feminist encourage because while both models allow us to find individual happiness the traditional model leads to a more productive society(this is false read this change of view post). The liberal model causes people to be potentially more happy as it is fully compatible with our biology unlike the traditional model which encourages fidelity, however society gains much more with the traditional model and individuals benefit from that as well.

But it really depends on the person. For many people the traditional model will work better than the liberal model though; it benefits women because they can focus on their children, it benefits children because they get lots of attention and benefit from the investments that fathers make to their children and from having male role-models who love them, and it benefits men through making them a part of the family unit and giving them access to their kids, it also means that they do not have to compete as much to get sex.

Hope-

50/50 custody would change all of what I am saying. So if we cannot save marriage can we please PLEASE introduce 50/50 custody. It is the most important thing worth campaigning for in our time. Men need to start taking equal responsibility for children. Even if women do not want it. Even if we have to create a genetic bank to find the fathers of children. Speak out and campaign for 50/50 custody!

or Maybe we needed a female independence movement to get women to establish their place in the working world only to later change the working world? Maybe feminism is a part of societal evolution. Women will have less and less kids until we start to value motherhood and parenthood and then some will start too have kids again, and to prioritize them and to work only part time. Maybe all this consumerism and societies ”hatred” of children will lead us to a society that values children more.

Boys fail without the traditional family or community

I think males do worse in a non-traditional setting because they lack a male role-model to show them what their purpose in family life is. I cannot find the study at the moment but I once read a study that showed that males do worse in households without father figures and in houses where their mother worked when compared to households with stay at home mothers. My opinion is that this is the case because they do not have a role-model within their family and cannot properly identify their role in family life.

This affects how they plan their lives and I think it is doubly harsh on them because children naturally seek role-models and if the cannot find role-models in the home they seek it in their communities. This can lead to boys joining gangs in the worst case  and in the best case them being easily influenced by people who simply do not have their best interest at heart. So fathers, stay close to your boys. I will look for that study and add it when I find it.

This link mentions the study: http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Hoffman/Hoffman.html

On a side note: It is my personal opinion that biology intended for males to be marginalized in settings where resources are abundant and the survival of their children is not directly dependent on their presence within the family unit.  Like I said before biology does not support life long faithfulness between one man and one woman under these conditions. I think the most natural society is one in which women care for kids alone, men do not know who is their child from who isn’t because they sleep with all women and all women sleep with them (more so when they can provide food, or if they seem like the type of male who will be able to provide food). So female headed families are natural to humans and males are naturally meant to be marginalized. This helped societies in the past because it meant that males would easily join gangs to raid other villages and be more willing to do dangerous things to protect their tribes. It also aided societies in by promoting male competitiveness causing males to bring in larger quantities of prey.

Also this article suggest that marriage may actually motive men to earn more/ work harder.

Although science gives us more options it has not changed our biology YET

With science women no longer need to nurse their kids or stay home or even have kids. We now have options so where is the problem? Well the problem is that our biology has not changed as fast as science giving us these options has, and although one day it may very well change we are not there yet. Our brains still respond to the same things they did before these options arose and so a world designed to make us genuinely happy and fulfilled does not actually require these options. We are designed for a world without options, and we are designed to find happiness in that world.

Now I am in no way saying options are bad and we should not use them, I am simply saying that when deciding which of the options we should pick if we are searching for fulfillment and happiness we should keep in mind that we were designed to find happiness in the world that existed before the options feminism glorifies even existed.

A note on how the options feminism glorifies only exist through science and would not be found in nature or our evolutionary history:

Feminist and MRA seek male-female equality. Equal pay, do not open the door for me if you would not open it for a man, equal number of stay at home dads and the list goes on. But this idea directly contradicts our biology, and in fact can only exist if propped up by science. Biology has tailored men and women for different roles and although I am sure evolution can make it such that one day we will all be the same sex and men will no longer be stronger than women and women will no longer be the only ones capable of getting pregnant; or rather with the use of artificial wombs women will lose their ability to get pregnant completely, at this moment in time evolution has not reached there.

Without birth-control for example, women would be getting pregnant far more often and without formula she would be tied to her offspring for at least the first 2 years of its life. During that time, someone would need to go out into the world and bring her back food/money. Birth control though, allows women not to get pregnant and to stay out in the world for longer and formula or the science of freezing one’s expressed milk allows anyone to parent children; fathers/daycare/grandmothers. Take away these things and in my opinion women will only be left with two choices; attach to and depend upon one male, or whore oneself out to many males. So it is back to the very natural choice between getting married or being a whore. I do not mean to make one sound better than the other; all I mean to say is that feminism does not work without science.

But with science it seems to work and all of a sudden, with science we have a new option. Women no longer need to nurse their kids or stay home or even have kids. Women can go find their own food and let others care for her kids while she is at it. We now have more options so where is the problem? Well the problem is that our biology has not changed as fast as the science giving us these options has. Our brains still respond to the same things they did before this option arose and so a world designed to make us genuinely happy and fulfilled does not actually require this third option. This third option is a great thing to have, but again only when we appreciate the fact that we were not designed with this option in mind can we actually use it to tap into our psychology and find happiness.

Additional thoughts:

Although in theory we could have a more biologically compatible society by changing every single thing about this society and starting fresh, it is not very practical for the individual and doing things like breastfeeding and being near your child are only really possible if the individual decides to work with the ”patriarchy”. Working with the system as it is will give most people a much better chance at an organic lifestyle. Working with the system as it is will allow most people to have children and to care for their children in a way that brings joy. That does not mean that we should not try to change anything about the system that we have today but it does mean that we should seek to identify problems with the system and change those problems rather than imagining an entirely new world where everything is different. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water!

 

Biology is the mystical Patriarchy

In a time before birth-control, sex and children had a very strong correlation. And since biologically women were the ones who got pregnant it made sense for society to put a heavy importance on female purity. What a man did was less of a concern because he could not get pregnant and there was no way to prove that he got a woman pregnant or not. Females therefore became the natural gatekeepers to sex; because females paid the heaviest consequences of sex (babies).

Please understand that this is why women were expected to be virgins before marriage; after all before marriage no one could be pointed to as the father, no one could be pointed to to help her raise the child. And believe me in a time when you cannot control how often you get pregnant or when you cannot drop your infant off at a dare care because you actually have to breastfeed your child for it to stay alive, you as a woman would need help dealing with the produce from the sex you are having.

Similarly every single thing that feminism claims is a result of patriarchy can be seen to have biological roots.  Biological roots that have only now been blurred by scientific advancements like birth-control, formula and safe working conditions. The patriarchy does not exist; we are biologically different. Women were in the kitchen because it was the safest place for their children and because it made most sense and worked best for society; men could not breastfeed and there was a whole lot of work to do in that kitchen (someone had to do it). The other work, the work that men did was time consuming and dangerous and since women were busy getting pregnant, caring for babies and doing work that they could actually do with babies around they left it to the men.

Patriarchy is our biology uninfluenced by birth-control, formula and other forms of science like freezing and pumping breast milk and stopping one’s period. This does not mean that the matricentered societies were unnatural and not a result of biology (they in many ways are MORE natural to humans simply because they were a part of our evolutionary history for longer). But the patriarchy is also a part or stage in our evolution, many parts of the patriarchy were biological realities and the in the survival of the fittest sense the patriarchal society is simply more fit than the matricentered one because society is no longer dependent on the strongest most risk taking, most competitive males, but now we are also dependent on technology, how smart people are and how well we work together.

The Patriarchy is a social system where men and women generally come together and get into long lasting relationships. It is a child centered system and under past conditions it made sense for men to have more control over resources and therefore more power in these societies. This was the case because women were very busy taking care of children and doing jobs compatible with that. Men who were more free therefore took control of more of the resources, and this made sense because women needed to breastfeed and be in a safe enough position while pregnant. So male leadership was just a natural outcome of having a male/female relationship based society.

In matriarchies male/female relationships are not the standard. Males and females do not commit and so both control their own economic resources. Women are less dependent on a personal level on men in matriarchies, though still not independent of them. Both of these situations are natural and largely the result of nature, and human psychology.