||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
"The Patriarchy" gets bandied about a lot by feminists. I'll try to figure out here what this means - to mansplain it, if you will. Or even if you won't. Take that much up with Google.
Feminists object to "The Patriarchy". It keeps women down; it keeps them silenced, if not physically then at least by dint of male voices "being privileged". And as evidence for the existence of male power having a private-law, they might point to the parallel-polygamy of Brigham Young, or to the series-polygamy of Donald Trump. There is a passive voice in "privilege" - so, privileged by whom? Since we cannot point to any one man - it isn't Young and it isn't Trump, and it certainly ain't me - then it must be The Patriarchy.
The way feminists describe "The Patriarchy" corresponds exactly to how the Dark Enlightenment describes "The Cathedral". It is not like how the subjects of Cameroon would describe the government of Cameroon. It is more like how an intelligent tribesman of Cameroon's jungle might describe the world of spirits, jinn, and/or angels. It is the common assumption of one's fellow man, which assumption that one does not personally entertain. And such a skeptic, whether black or white, who recognises the common milieu as untrue, must assume of this milieu that it is being held up artificially by those in power. It is, in short, The Matrix.
The problem of patriarchy taken to its root is that it just means male rule. Unlike Cameroonian demons, and unlike Agent Smith for that matter, patriarchy is natural. When all matrices are destroyed, the strong prey upon the weak. Men are stronger than women; and they always will be, assuming that, I don't know, a genetic virus is not introduced to force the Y chromosome to behave otherwise.
Filmer, whose link I provided just now, proposed a Patriarchy that the English Crown could defend. It would be a Patriarchy guided by the Christian principle: one family union, one husband and one wife behind him, to bring forth good English children. There would be no polygamy-in-parallel. There would be no divorce, so no polygamy-in-series. And there would be no adultery, so no cheating on this deal.
So I posit that the polygamy of Young and of Trump - and we can add of the visitors to Epstein's pedobear isle - is not the result of The Patriarchy. These events happen between the cracks. Young had moved himself to the outer limits of the New World. Trump is so rich and powerful that many social-mores cannot touch him. Epstein and his clients were a mix of both. What has happened in all these cases has happened because Christian Patriarchia failed.
So I do accept that The Patriarchy exists, from a Western standpoint. But I say it exists precisely to protect women - and to protect weaker men - from standing in line or, rather, kneeling in line before the current natural Alpha. It doesn't always work. But then, bridges don't always work. They still need support.
I can certainly appreciate women who object to specific thuggish males, or to specific thuggish governments and religions. But those who object to The Patriarchy as such are not my friends - and are not under my protection. Hey dragon; you can have her.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved