I am an atheist man living in the
United States
and I support patriarchy, I support traditional gender roles, in particular I
support the traditional non-working wife. To many in the West today
“patriarchy” is a scary word; in particular among those not in a religious
setting (such as myself) the idea of supporting patriarchy is just plain
bizarre. Still I am who I am; an atheist man in the West supporting
patriarchy. So why have I come to this point; how did I arrive at this radical
counter-cultural perspective?
Going into a bit of my personal history; I found that the
feminism I was raised in, that I was immersed in since birth, prepared me for
the adult world, particularly my romantic purpose as a man, very poorly.
Basically as a feminist man I had no drive to offer support to women or
contribute anything substantial to a woman’s life. This led women to not be
interested in me romantically so that a great barrier between me and women
developed; a barrier I desperately wanted to overcome but didn’t know how to
overcome. So finally I came to the conclusion that it was my feminism and the
inertia and apathy towards women my feminism led to that was causing my failure
in the romantic sphere. With this realization my attachment to feminism ended
once and for all and I embraced patriarchy.
That is the personal side of how I came to support patriarchy
but in addition to this there was also the social developments in my country
that led me to the realization that I was not alone in my troubles; that
difficulties between men and women were widespread and that they had grown
tremendously over time. My rejection of feminism came around 1995 and at that
time in my country there was a great concern going on about rising
out-of-wedlock births, rising crime and a drug epidemic among the black
population, growing welfare dependency among single mothers, and social
breakdown in general. I was able to see that my personal troubles were part of
a much broader breakdown in the family and in relations between men and women.
The cause of this breakdown I saw to be feminism as it was feminism that told me
to not be a man; to shun and feel ashamed of my natural manly characteristics
and drives and sense of purpose; that in effect told me I had no special purpose
in women’s lives which is what led me to not seek an important role in a woman’s
life in the first place thereby causing my romantic failure with women.
Family breakdown problems are happening all throughout the
Western World (and actually globally if one looks carefully). For example in
the Netherlands,
home of the author of this blog, the out-of-wedlock birth ratio was only 2.2% in
1975; this ratio rising to 15.5% in 1995 and up to 44.3% in 2010. Looking at
the divorce rate in the
Netherlands it
was 5.7% in 1965, 20.1% in 1975, 41.9% in 1995, and 44.7% in 2010. Additionally
the fertility rate in the
Netherlands went
below replacement level in 1973 and has been continuously below replacement
level ever since.
Feminists will try to tell you this disaster in family life
is simply women’s liberation; women free at long last to pursue their dreams no
longer being “forced” to be only good wives and mothers as if being “only” a
good wife and a good mother is beneath them. Feminists further claim that
patriarchy, the social system that existed when divorce and out-of-wedlock
births were shockingly low by today’s standards, was a time of brutal and
unending oppression of women and women should be oh so glad those dark days of
the past are behind them. Don’t be fooled by these lies and distortions.
Keep in mind here what patriarchy actually is. Patriarchy is
Chivalry; Chivalry defined as the male duty to provide for and protect women
according to the collective judgment of men as a community and according to the
conscience and sense of purpose of each individual man ultimately under the
authority of God. Yes patriarchy does have male domination as a component but
the male domination serves a purpose; to protect the man’s investment in the
woman so that the man will feel secure and motivated to invest in the woman.
Without male domination there cannot be high male investment in women as a man
will not invest in a woman who uses the man’s investment in her in a way he does
not intend. If you look at feminism in practice you will see that as women
become “empowered” and “more equal to” men male investment in women disappears
as can be seen by soaring births outside marriage, soaring divorce, and soaring
numbers of married women working. No more male power means no more male
support.
Also it should be remembered that in a patriarchal social
system each individual man is always under men collectively; under the law; and
that the man always is considered to be under God, obligated to use his
authority for the Godly purpose of supporting and guiding his family overall.
Patriarchy has never been based on male selfishness; it has always been based on
male sacrifice and male service.
So I am not ashamed to openly advocate for patriarchy.
Patriarchy is exactly what society needs to undue the great damage feminism has
done. I am part of a group called the TWRAs or Traditional Women’s Rights
Activists. My blog is at Secular Patriarchy. In particular I recommend the following article at my blog exploring some of
the themes mentioned in this essay:
The statistics mentioned regarding the
Netherlands come
from Eurostat.
Thank you for this post, Jesse. Feminists definitely give bad advice to men on how to deal with women! As for patriarchy giving men power, I would argue that patriarchy simply recognizes the power that men have over women, a power that in most cases feminism cannot take away. So many women these days are consenting to things that they don't really want-premarital sex, abortion, working motherhood, because the men in their lives are pressuring them into it. And because feminists are claiming that the patriarchy has been overthrown, the irresponsible men who pressure women into destructive behaviors cannot be held to account: they supposedly have no power, and everything is supposedly totally up to the woman. Which means, in reality, that women have been abandoned by men, at the behest of feminists.
ReplyDeleteThat was a very interesting post, Jesse, thanks for writing it.
ReplyDeleteJudithann, welcome to the blog!
Thank you, Sanne, it is nice to meet you :)
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to meet you, too!
DeleteChivalry on the part of all men, without simultaneous submissiveness on the part of all women, is unworkable, and irrational; moreover, men being chivalrous towards all women, whether deserving or not, just makes you a chump; a social contract requires both parties to adhere to the terms; one side holding up their side of a broken contract while the other side has broken it and doesn't abide by the terms of their side in the least, just makes you an idiot, a doormat to be trampled upon in life by the other side, which will hold you in contempt for being so 'noble' and 'old-fashioned'.
ReplyDeleteMight as well instead 'enjoy the decline', as they say. Watch the fireworks, as the young women who support feminism get what they deserve, good and hard, as they deserve, for stupidly buying into the lies they were taught.
How can you appeal to 'duty', when as an atheist, you have no transcendent frame of reference to appeal to, in terms of rational support for moral absolutes? With no god - and evolution is not god, merely, if real, a process - there are no moral absolutes, and one is free to do whatever one wishes; how can you expect to appeal to fellow atheists to act sacrificially (which one-sided chivalry certainly is, BTW), against what they perceive, rightly or not, are their own interests? You cannot, and will not.
Jesse must speak for himself, I'll just say that he seems to also support default father custody in the case of divorce, and coverture. In the light of this, his chivalry ideas make sense
ReplyDeleteI prefer default father custody, but I have an even better idea (in my humble opinion): the choice of the wronged party, whether the man or woman, whichever was cheated upon, as to what kind of custody arrangement they wish for: either complete custody, or shared custody, or zero custody. That way, a would-be cheater can't be guaranteed that they'll not have to look after the kids if they break up their marriage thru infidelity, and so can't know that to count on it, and be able to even abuse that to run away from marriage without the children.
ReplyDeleteNo; the problem with default father custody is precisely that it is abusable by a wife who just wants to run away and end her responsibilities.
By giving the decision entirely to the wronged party, this disincentivizes anyone from potentially abusing a default custody scenario to their perceived advantage.
It's true that the children can be seen as pawns in this scenario. But what it really does is disincentivize both parents from cheating, since they can't guarantee they'll either get the kids at all OR be burdened with complete custody. Only way to prevent either scenario is for both to not cheat, because if one does, the other gets all the cards.
Thus the superiority of my system, if I say so myself. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePost inspired, here.
DeleteWill, I have read your post and it was very interesting but I don't have time for reply right now, I'll try to write my thoughts on the issue tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI had a very hectic weekend, after a very hectic week, so it took me some time to get to your comment. I have read your post and I see your point, and to say the truth, I'm undecided on default father custody; however, this being said, I see rationale behind it, inside the system which Jesse seems to propose. BTW, I doubt he is still following this thread, so if you want to debate him, you'll have to do it on his blog.
ReplyDeleteNow back to the custody topic, you wrote on your blog about the guilty party paying child support to the innocent party. This is a thoroughly modern view, as for the woman to pay child support to the man, she has to have a job. Under coverture laws, which Jesse apparently wants to restore, a woman was not supposed to support herself, she was to be provided for by her husband or male relatives. In this situation, in the case of divorce, even adulterous wives got alimony (a small one), so that they wouldn't starve, as mentioned in one of Jane Austen's books (Sense And Sensibility), to be precise.
Of course, in old times there still were woman in the workforce, mostly driven by necessity, but it was hardly considered ideal. I think Thomas Fleming of Chronicles had a series of articles on this topic, I'll try to find the relevant one. It was a totally different world from now and some people seek to restore it. It's just how far in the past you want to go, that's all. I hope it makes sense.
There were indeed women working; only middle class to wealthy families could afford to have only one breadwinner.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, I think in our remembrances of the past, we can fail to remember such things, and think that women didn't work, in general.
I don't think it was right that adulterous women received alimony; there should be consequences for wicked behaviour, and if starvation is a potential result, that prospect can be used to motivate to NOT engage in the behaviour in the first place.
I do think it best for an unmarried woman to stay at home, and be supported by her family.
was a housewife for close to three years. absolutely LOVED it. as soon as i had left the workforce, i lost 10% of my body weight and kept it off for the whole time i was home cooking and keeping house. when i went back to work (had to, no money) those lost pounds found me - and brought along their friends.
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear about your problems
DeleteWell, according to the statistics I read, in the year 1870 in USA only 2.2.% of married (white) women worked. Unless 97.8% of the population qualified as middle and upper class, we can draw the conclusion that even a working class family could generally afford for the wife to stay home. Working class women usually worked before they married, but not afterwards unless the husband was disabled, or a good-for-nothing, and many widows were supported by their families.
ReplyDeleteAlso about alimony, if the husband didn't pay it, it simply meant that her male relatives would provide for her as no father or brother would want to see his daughter starve, even if she was adulterous. Probably male relatives (and their wives, imagine your husband having to provide for his sister as well till death do us part), found the alimony laws just and proper.
That above in answer to Will
Delete