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.

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.

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.

This was also posted at Return of the Kings blog.


An important picture and great documentary about feminism!

This short documentary was probably made by a racist but it sums up very, very well what is going on.

Feminism is HORRIBLE for women and children and society! Towards the end this documentary there is an Islamic slant. You do not need to be Muslim to understand that what Muslims have is traditionalism. In the west we do not need to have something as extreme, but it is worth keeping a lot of what they have. There is a lot of truth in this documentary. Do not let the Islamic slant distract from the point that gender roles work!

Also please note that I think that extreme Traditionalism like what takes place in many Muslim countries is also HORRIBLE, and bad. We have come from such a situation in the west so I understand that that is where feminism comes from but we are approaching balance and so feminism needs to stop before we end up in an unbalanced world. Extreme liberalism is also not good for women, children, men and society.

This video below is Islam in an extreme form. The west is pretty far from there.

The traditional MRA supporter.

I feel like there is no space in the manosphere for traditionalist. I get that Men’s Rights are more about laws that need to be changed and that it does not matter if you are traditional thinking or liberal thinking but I cannot support a group that openly bashes marriage and seeks to separate men from women in the same way that feminism sought to separate women from men.

The same things I have always hated in feminism are the same things I see and hate in MRM. I agree with them fully when it comes to the laws they seek to gain. Legally men and women should have equal rights so that people will have a certain amount of freedom. I agree that men are the ‘’unequally’’ treated sex.

But I do not agree that men and women are the same and should be treated by society as identical. It is obvious to even babies that men and women are different. My 2 year old child can spot the difference between a man and a woman so how can feminists and MRAs be so blind?

‘’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.”

I am a traditionalist! I do not want a form of equality which means interchangeability. As a woman I do not want to become a man and I do not want men to become women. But I also support Men’s Rights in a legal sense. Are there other’s like me out there?! Are there other traditional MRA supporters? Women and men are different. Different does not mean unequal, different in this case means compatible. We have had different focuses for most of our existence why should we change that now?

What is the benefit of having men and women become interchangeable?

Biology is my religion: for the meek shall inherit the earth!

I am not religious, but I think that a lot can be learnt from religion. The bible says “Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”. And this seems to be true.

Meek people are humble people, and humble people are okay with putting the needs of others and the needs of society above their own needs. In this case the bible meant that people who were not self-serving, self-centered, or selfish will inherit the earth and that seems to be very true.

Meek people do very well in traditional setting because they are okay with accepting guidance from the past or from “God” (if they believe). Meek people are better at co-operation, they are more inclined to have more children (since having children take a lot of self-sacrifice), and their children are more inclined to survive (because they follow a system or culture that prioritizes the lives of children).

It is the genetics of the meek that shall make it in to the future and so, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.

Self-centered people also make it into the future (or it would not be encoded so well into our genetics), but in recent history it is the meek that have built larger and more successful societies. Self-centered societies simply could not compete with traditional societies.

Change of view:

There is a cycle between two types of societies, between two things. A self-centered society and a society-centered society. The meek are the society centered and during hard times yes they do inherit the earth but during good times they do not, during good times nature does not want us to just survive, during good times nature wants us to compete and have only the very best survive. So both the meek and the self-centered inherit the earth and if I am to judge things by my internal selfishness vs. my internal socialness it would seem that more often than not the self-centered inherit the earth!

How Islam and Gender roles LIBERATES women!

I cannot share this video enough. I come from a Muslim family and this is TRUE! Men in Islam take care of their women, we are free of financial obligations and MOTHERHOOD is respected. That is female liberation. It embraces what a female is, it embraces the capabilities of females. It liberates females to be mothers and to serve society in that way. Yes men are the head of the household but that is not a bad thing and that does not mean that women are not equal to men in this system. Both sexes are valued and their strengths are used to make society function. Both sexes are equal in this system.

That being said extreme gender roles is also not ideal; it’s about balance. But Islamic culture is a form of liberation for many, many women!

Women against feminism: SPEAK UP!

I wrote this a very long time ago: I am posting it just to put it out there.. Women against feminism need to speak up, traditional women need to speak up.

We need to form a group. We need to speak up and fight feminism.This is the link to a group http://seculartraditionalism.webs.com/ and this is my rant:

I am a women and I am NOT a feminist.

Yes I agree that women’s rights need to be address in several parts of the world but in 1st world western societies… for the most part women have enough rights.


I totally understand people who are fighting for the rights of women where they are really being oppressed and killed simply because they are women but in none of the places that I have ever lived are women being oppressed.

So modern-day feminist in 1st world western societies who claim that things are unfair towards women make no sense to me.

If anything, things are unfair towards MEN.

Another thing that annoys me about feminist is that regardless of the movements intentions (which I am sure are/were good), the movement as it is today is a contradiction.

Feminist say MEN and WOMEN are equal. Well please define equal???

Is equal the same? Or is equal the same in value.

Women and men are not the same, we are physically different, if we were the same then the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ and ‘feminist’ would not exist.

Women and men are equal in value, society in no way treats women as less equal than men.

-Just because we are not treated the same does not mean that we are not equally valued!

-Just because you as a feminist see NO value in motherhood and praise being a fortune 500 CEO does not mean that all women have to see it that way.

FEMINISM needs to start respecting and VALUING womanhood!

I am not a feminist because the feminist model is based on a the idea that women need to become men. It devalues everything unique to women and asks women to push and fight to become as ‘valuable’ as men.

Nonsense! Women need to understand that  they are as valuable and men and they do not need to fight for it, they simply need to accept it.

We are the mothers of society, they are the fathers and those roles may be different but they are equally as valuable.

If you as a woman want to be a CEO of some great company, or the Prime Minister of your country or whatever, yes you have the feminist movements of the past to thank for the fact that it is now possible for you to do these things.

But on the other hand, if you as a woman want to be a mother and to make that your priority the feminist movement of today will do nothing to even try to get society to respect your choice, instead many career oriented feminists will say ‘what a waste of a woman’, or  ‘Let’s see what she does when her man decides to up and leave ha ha.. she will have no skills’

Feminism needs to become more balanced if they value members from the mothering community. Cause from what I have seen feminists respect women like me a lot less than men do. So men are not the problem.

Also these are old videos that I made:

How the war between feminists and traditionalist is a war between self and society.

Feminists are fighting for women to be free of the patriarchy. They want to be able to sleep around freely, have children without fathers, be equal to men in the sense that they control their own lives and answer to no one but themselves. To me feminism is a part of the extremely individualistic and capitalistic culture that we have today. Everything we hear today is about self. ‘’You must love yourself, or no one else will’’, “Sex is just sex”, “You only live once”, “Live for yourself”, “Live everyday like it is your last” ‘’Have sex for yourself”, “Be independent and support yourself”.

Our culture is telling us to seek instant gratification. They say do not have children because they are too much work, they say to enjoy your youth, to live in the moment; yet in every human the drive to satisfy ourselves is greater than the drive to satisfy society. So when you tell people to live in the now and to life free of obligations and future and society they really WILL do what is best for themselves. This to me is horrible. We are naturally inclined to seek what is best for ourselves so why should our culture promote this type of behavior so much more than it is needed?

Our culture should remind people to think of others, to do what is best for society, to think of the future. To have kids for the future and to create a world where your grandkids and their grandkids can be happy and live a balanced fulfilling life. Everything that we are taught today about how to live and about loving oneself seems very unnecessary to teach because people naturally do love themselves more than society. People also naturally love society, but since that love is less than one’s love for self it would make more sense for our culture to promote love of others.

Women should not seek to simply do what is best for themselves, and how do you even define self? Self to me is a reflection of the world around you. Society is in a huge way a part of yourself. People should not feel ashamed to love others more so than themselves, and others ARE a part of self. People do not need to love themselves in order to find love, and although you do only live once life continues once you are gone and caring about future generations should not be shamed. Creating a world that is not about self but is rather about society and things which in actually make up ‘’self’’ is the approach of traditionalist.

Traditionalism to me seeks to create a world of trading and a world that considers the future and future generations. Traditionalism says that sex is simply not sex because it can result in children who should be considered before sex happens. It says that children need guidance and attention and that women and men can come together and trade skills to create an optimal environment for children. It says that when these children grow into productive adults then society and therefore ‘’self’’ will benefit from their actions. It is a delayed gratification method of structuring one’s life and it is a social (rather than self) oriented method of structuring society.

Both feminism and traditionalism are dangerous if practiced in extreme ways. Another perspective on traditionalism in relation to socialism is quoted below:

Traditionalism is the socialist model of structuring families. It is model of co-dependence that does not rely on competition to drive it. It promotes monogamy so that everyone gets a piece of the pie. Everyone gets access to sex. Everyone gets a spouse and can get access to ‘’work/the profits of male work’’ and access to sex and children. It is socialist at its heart.

Liberalism is the capitalist way of structuring society. We sleep around and there is no commitment. Sex or work is not guaranteed. In these societies many people go without being able to have children and many children do not get access to male work. The men who are richest or compete and end up successful with the biggest prey etc. get the most sex. This is the most natural way and it is the way we spent most of our existence.

We as a society have to be careful not to let either side completely win the war between self and society, because once one side wins we all lose!

A case for the TWRA; the traditionalist’s path to male-female equality and happy co-dependence.

I am a Traditional Woman’s Rights Activist. Like feminists, MRAs and Egalitarians; the TWRAs simply want equality for men and women. The difference between our approach and the approach of feminists, MRAs and Egalitarians is that we acknowledge and embrace that in general there are differences between the two sexes.

We think that the traditional model was equality. Women had children and did work that was compatible with raising children while men did the jobs that were incompatible with raising children. In general they both contributed equally to the family unit and to society. Women contributed childcare and work that could be done while caring for children. The type of work women could do was therefore more limited than the type of work men could do and because half of the population was available to do this type of work; ‘’woman’s work’’ became undervalued.

So TWRA hope to change the way traditionally female work is seen by society and hope to make ‘’woman’s work’’ as equally valued by society as ‘’man’s work’’. Woman’s work is work that is compatible with raising children. In the very recent past that was homemaking; and being a homemaker at that time was a very real economic contribution because if housewives did not do house work someone would have to be paid to do it. Today, because of technology ‘’women’s work’’ has changed. Homemaking (like cooking, cleaning and general housework) has become a lot easier than it once was, at the same time though childcare has become a lot harder since mothers can no longer depend on extended family/neighbors to be present.

Women today who want to settle down with males who want to be the main breadwinner and who want to stay at home and primarily take care of the house-work and children are generally seen as lazy or gold diggers and this is simply not true. The issue is with the fact that society refuses to acknowledge their contributions to the family and society as real contributions. To the men who say that they do not want to settle down with a traditional woman, would you have a problem settling down with a nanny? Or with someone who has a minimum wage job? What is the difference between a mother who takes care of her children all day and a nanny? Why is the mother seen as lazy when the nanny is not? What is the difference in economic contributions between a woman who makes minimum wage and a mother whose economic contribution is not sending her kids to daycare which often cost more than a minimum wage job pays?

We as a society have to start acknowledging that woman’s work is real work. It may not be as valuable as work that was traditionally male work because it is limited to easier work or work that could be done while caring for children but it is still very real work. And if it is equality that we seek between men and women part of the equation is giving equal value to both type of work (regardless of how common or unavoidable women’s work is and has historically been). TWRAs think that 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.

The lock and they key are however, not interchange able. If you have a lock you need a key and another lock just will not do and vice versa. When feminists and MRA say equality what they really mean in interchangeability, and for most men and women this is not ideal. You see 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 an evolutionary history with such a reality would have prepared women more so than men to care for children. In general men and women naturally have different focuses and that does not mean that men should not take part in childcare activities or that women should make no economic contributions but it does mean that for most men and women it makes sense to embrace having different focuses.

Also in defense of housewives who do not have children, if you would not condemn a waitress for marrying a millionaire, then you cannot condemn a housewife for marrying a working man. Housewives who do not have children DO contribute to the household in an economic sense; they just contribute less than their husbands.

In conclusion TWRA do want equality, we just would also like society to acknowledge that there is a difference between men and women and that two people do not need to act exactly the same or to have the same types of jobs or to be equally represented in parliament in order to be considered equals. Equality should be defined by how we value each other, the amount of respect that we pay to each other, our overall contributions to society, and should be independent of how much money a person makes.

Can liberals and conservatives unite?

As far as I can tell, both sides do their damage.

Neoconservative emphasis on the nuclear family cuts people off from natural extended family ties and makes the unit much more geographically mobile, much more socially isolated, and consequently much more easily exploited by industry and commerce.

Liberal detraction from the importance of personal role models, father figures, structure, and order tends to destabilize the natural structures in which healthy families develop, and the liberal keenness to defend the status of single mothers, homosexuals, transsexuals (etc) blows those issues out of all proportion to their actual importance and distracts from the importance of the relationships that most people form and most people rely on (ie: monogamous heterosexuality).

Neither of the two sides which prevail in US politics can claim the family for their own. In their own ways, they are both enemies of the family.

—Random quote from the internet that I like. It was a comment.

I could kiss whoever made this post, I agree with it so much. Yes gays need to have marriage legalized, single mothers need support, polygamous people should be able to marry and we need to change all the laws to start respecting minority groups; BUT they are minority groups. And a system in which they remain ‘’minority’’ groups is (as bigoted as it sounds) ideal. Gay people, trans people, polygamous people and all the rest should remain a minority. They can be a large minority making up 50% of the population or so but the marriage concept should ideally be the largest unified majority group.

When you kill the concept of marriage to give minority groups their rights you simply create new minority groups who suffer. And a system where 50% of the people’s issues are given no attention is not ideal. We have to strive for a balanced system. Liberals and Conservatives have to unite under the recondition that they each have to respect the behaviors of the opposite side and they each have to be careful not to demonize the core of what the opposing side values.

— second opinion

First of all I have to say that I am not an American and have never even been to America, but still I find myself fascinated by the different ideologies between liberals and conservatives. As far as I see I am a liberal conservative. And so I want to ask liberals and conservatives this question; why can’t you all unite?

Okay so I think that everyone should be equal under the law and be awarded the same rights regardless of how they think or act. So yes gay people should be able to get married and adopt children. Abortions should be legal. Daycare should be provided by the state. Welfare should exist. HOWEVER, and this is where the conservative in me comes out, society should not encourage people to do things that are clearly destructive to both the individual and to society on a whole.

Therefore while gays should have the right to adopt, it would be in the best interest of society that gay people do not make up the majority of people parenting children. While abortion should be legal it would be in the best interest of society to make sure that the majority of pregnancies do not end in abortion. While daycare and welfare should be provided by the state it would be in the best interest of society to make sure that the majority of people do not need to use either publicly funded daycare or welfare.

My point is that society benefits when the majority of people act conservatively. So encouraging and enabling conservative behavior is a good thing. At the same time laws and people need to respect and enable the non-conservative members of society. So what I really want to say to the liberals is that we can benefit from many conservative values and therefore we should hold on to them, respect them and admit that they have value. And to the conservatives, you are often correct but since there is variation and we are all different and the government and state should represent us all and not just some or the majority the liberals are correct when it comes to legal stuff.

Quotes and images that I love!

As far as I can tell, both sides do their damage.

Neoconservative emphasis on the nuclear family cuts people off from natural extended family ties and makes the unit much more geographically mobile, much more socially isolated, and consequently much more easily exploited by industry and commerce.

Liberal detraction from the importance of personal role models, father figures, structure, and order tends to destabilise the natural structures in which healthy families develop, and the liberal keenness to defend the status of single mothers, homosexuals, transsexuals (etc) blows those issues out of all proportion to their actual importance and distracts from the importance of the relationships that most people form and most people rely on (ie: monogamous heterosexuality).

Neither of the two sides which prevail in US politics can claim the family for their own. In their own ways, they are both enemies of the family.

men are attracted to weakness.
women are attracted to strength.

the last quote is not true but I will explain why I like it soon.

I’m going to let you in on something that will truly shock you….
Happiness isn’t a result of driving a nice car, drinking expensive champagne, or smoking Cuban cigars.
There have been plenty of extremely rich people commit suicide and plenty of impoverished people who were very happy.

The things that cause one to be happy are: Mental health, healthy relationships, basic physical needs being met, purpose or drive to accomplish something.

Those things are what make someone happy or not. Take 1 trillion dollars but have none of those and you will be miserable.
Become a homeless man and have all of them and you will be happy.

Money can help with some of them, but in general it just serves as a distraction.