The Evil Patriarchy

You will hear feminists wherever you encounter them bleating naively about fighting to dismantle the patriarchy. To a feminist, the patriarchy is an evil system which oppressed women while at the same time privileged men. They are never able to actually back this up with any real evidence, but then feminism is an ideology. It is not a science. Ideologies are based on repeated chants and slogans. Facts just get in the way. Followers of ideologies are required to bleat like sheep to the beat of the doctrines drums. To question is blasphemy.

The patriarchy was a system which insured the survival and advancement of the species specifically through the protection of women. Though not a concept invented by feminists, it is a history that has been deliberately distorted and misrepresented by every feminist theorist you care to mention. This deliberate re-writing of history was most definitely a feminist attempt to lionize women and demonize men and it has been broadly successful.

So lets for a moment do something which feminists never do. Lets look at the facts. For most of history the people at the very top were men, which make sense in view of the fact that rulers were often required to protect their positions in combat. Before the advent of modern technology men had massive physical advantages. You can’t really blame them for that. Patriarchy did not have the power to influence human biology. The fact that the strongest rose to the top was not the result of some sinister patriarchal conspiracy; any more than the fact that most stone-masons and miners and soldiers were men and still are today. In fact it’s fair to say that while most of the tiny minority at the very top were men, the majority of those at the very bottom of the heap were also men.

There were also many absolutist female rulers throughout history and there is no evidence that they were any less patriarchal in their outlook to male ones.

Patriarchy was a system that discriminated against almost everybody. For most of human history, people were oppressed to a greater or lesser extent. Mostly it was the vast majority of poor men and women being exploited by a tiny minority of rich men and women. That’s patriarchy, and they won’t tell you this in women’s studies, but although the system discriminated against both men and women, it was women who also benefited most from it. Women were not expected to shoulder the same burdens or face the same dangers as men. Women were generally spared the worst excesses of those much harsher times because men were obliged to protect them.

It is no surprise to anyone except feminists that ordinary working-class women all over Europe opposed the concept of equal rights as proposed by groups like the suffragettes when they fist appeared. Remember that feminism took root among the most privileged women in the world first. That’s not a mystery either. Most working-class women depended upon the traditional protections offered by the patriarchy for their survival. Women did not want to go down the mines or fight in the wars or haul iron on the railways.

It’s very easy for pampered modern-day feminist “academics.” to sit in their air-conditioned offices spewing out this infantile piffle about how women were oppressed throughout history by the patriarchy. Would these same feminists have been doing this a century ago when the reality of equal rights would have meant a lifetime of back-breaking labour and a life-expectancy of about forty years? Please don’t kid yourself.

On planet feminist, men should have worked and struggled and bled and sacrificed and even died for women in return for absolutely nothing. That would have been equality according to feminists. Men shouldered all the responsibilities and did almost all the heavy lifting. They led harder shorter lives than women right throughout history. Pre-feminist women were thankfully smart enough to understand that these men were entitled to expect some respect and special consideration in return. Post feminist women are increasingly left wondering where all the good men have gone! Well done sisters.

Walk down the street outside your house. Everything you see around you was built by men. Every modern convenience that you take for granted every day was conceived of, designed, developed and built by men. Did you use a computer today? Did you use a bus or take a train or a plane? Are you using contraceptives? Did you cook dinner using an electric oven? Have you ever required hospital treatment? Do you have central heating and electric lighting and running water? ….. All invented by men. If you hear a noise at night that frightens you, you might call the police on a phone invented by men and they will arrive in a car invented by men, on roads built by men. That’s the patriarchy.

If your country is invaded by a foreign enemy, the men of your country will sign up in their hundreds of thousands to put their lives on the line to protect you. That’s the patriarchy.

So sisters. Maybe a little gratitude once in a while might be appreciated, because if it weren’t for the patriarchy we would be living in a cave, naked, cold and hungry and wishing there were some men around to hunt for food and protect us from wild animals.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “The Evil Patriarchy

  1. Greetings from the evil patriarchy. I love your stuff Svetlana. Nothing hurts feminists like the truth, especially when it is put so well. Where have you been hiding?

  2. Это настолько верно, но мы не можем сказать. Это смелый из вас сделать это.

    • Yawn. I make it quite clear all through my blog that I believe in equality for women, I just don’t believe that equality for women and demonising men are the same thing.

      • The issue is not over demonizing men, the concern is over patriarchies, that is, self-appointed men having autocratic control over groups of people. How can the “rulers” of the Catholic or Mormon church have a claim to use their manly strength to make us safe, as you claim? Clearly those institutions are discriminatory towards women, who are allowed no formal institutional power and who often control women through strict moral sanctions on reproductive and sexual conduct. It’s not just religions however, most dictatorial states and many corporations are also patriarchal, and have fomented harassment of women, discriminatory pay and advancement, and other traditional attacks on women’s, which restrict access to a governing voice, education and social choices. Pedophilia is a recurrent problem in these patriarchal institutions. Really, you justify this by saying, ‘O’ daddy protect me’ and thank you?

        • Shut up you pathetic white knight beta virgin. Sympathizing with feminists won’t get you any pussy, just stop you self loathing waste of matter.

  3. UKJane. I think Svetlana has made it clear that she does believe in equality. Maybe you should think about what she is saying before you lash out.

    “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

    Mahatma Gandhi

  4. “Half a truth is often a great lie.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    Women were oppressed all through history. That’s half a truth. Women and men were oppressed all through history. That’s a complete truth.

  5. I thinks so many people understand this but so many are afraid to say so its good for you to put it in words

  6. I am a man who believes in equality for women. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you have any respect for the brave women who suffered so that you can sit at your computer and post this crap. Try reading up on the suffragettes who were tortured and beaten so that you could vote.

    • I am very well read when it comes to modern European history. Suffragettes were only arrested when they committed crimes for which any other person would also have been arrested. Police were far more reluctant to use their batons on Suffragette demonstrations than they would have been against men. I have no knowledge of any Suffragette ever being tortured but if you have any source for this astonishing assertion then I would appreciate it if you could provide it.

      Just for the record, I am a Russian citizen. My right to vote was won by the Bolsheviks not the Suffragettes. The vote in Britain on the other hand, was largely won by the efforts of the Labour Party and finally the reaction of European governments, rattled by the revolution in Russia. The Suffragettes, by the time of the first franchise bill in 1918, were already discredited and even despised in the eyes of many in Britain. I suggest a little reading on your part might be in order.

  7. Oh My God. Pure logic. Well written and thought out. This kind of thing can get you in trouble Svetlana. People don’t like hearing the truth. Keep it up.

  8. This is great writing Svetlana. I am Dublin based too, I like women but I am tired of being around people who despise me because I am male. Nobody talks about this stuff and it is obvious but everybody is afraid to talk about it. Thank you Svetlana. Don’t know if you’re new in Ireland or not but if you are then here’s a big cead mille failte to you.

  9. Hi there manwithoutaplan. I have been in Dublin for some time now but thanks for the cead mille failte anyway.

    Actually there are a lot of people who are talking about this repression of freedom of expression all the time. There is a website called antimasandry.com that maybe you would be interested in. It is a UK based site, mostly British members but with a good scattering of people from Ireland, USA and other countries too. They will give you a good welcome and you can express your views freely.

  10. “It is no surprise to anyone except feminists that ordinary working-class women all over Europe opposed the concept of equal rights as proposed by groups like the suffragettes when they fist appeared. Remember that feminism took root among the most privileged women in the world first. That’s not a mystery either.”

    You might find this of interest lana, the suffragettes have a much darker, less altruistic history than feminists like to acknowledge or admit.

    http://viceandvirtueblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/suffragette-outrages-the-terrorist-argument/

    In fact they were considered terrorists at the time:

    “Militant violence in it’s own time was condemned both by those within the wider suffragette movement and those outside of it, but modern feminists are often surprised to discover that the suffragettes were referred to as terrorists by their contemporaries. For modern scholars, reattaching this construct runs the risk of accusations of patriarchy agency, and feminism bashing. It’s a serious flaw in the scholarship, and a prejudice that needs to be corrected.”

    One of the most ignoble of campaigns organised by these “brave heroines” was The White Feather Campaign, see here http://www.angryharry.com/Men-Are-Worthless.html

    Which is now being echoed by the despicable White Ribbon Campaign – which aims to perpetuate the myth that it only men who commit violence in intimate relationships, when the truth is women are equally, if not MORE violent than men in those relationships which feature such violence, and of course serves to fuel the domestic violence industry, which keeps all those “gender studies” graduates in cushy jobs – if you can’t find violence – manufacture it – and feminists are past masters, or should that be mistresses at manufacturing “statistics” and fairy tales, known as “feminist studies”

    Anja

    • Thanks for the comment. I suppose it’s always the same. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. I remember the terrorists who slaughtered innocent commuters in the Moscow underground, hailed as freedom fighters at the time in the western media while the Russian media equally lionised those who committed atrocities against western countries. The word terrorism has become meaningless. A terrorist is now anyone who uses violence but is not in favour with the dogma of the day. Another group using the same methods can escape being so categorised by being “on our side.”

      I think the constant feminist revision of history is facilitated by weak politicians constantly pandering to the female electorate. No politician would be stupid enough to risk the ire of the female electorate by allowing anyone any excuse to attach an anti-woman label, and that’s exactly what the feminist will do to anyone who doesn’t sing their tune.

  11. Lana , I do have a theory that “feminism” is a misguided attempt by women to hold mating value when technology is taking it away from their traditional gender role.

    I believe that the traditional “respect for women”, that “the patriarchy” enforces, has it’s limitations…

    I mean, look at the middle class family of any village here – where there isn’t much technology . If the women there go on strike , in their traditional gender roles, the husbands would have nothing to even eat. And if the husbands wanted to do their own housework, chances are they wouldn’t have any time left for their day jobs either – and the whole economy would crumble.

    But when we look at the same scenario in a middle class home in a nice big city, Laundry = 20 minute chore with a washing machine. Cooking? definitely won’t take you the same time, when you can get half the ingredients you need ready made. A woman going on a strike => A frustrated husband. But Not much would stop. ( Think of Peggy Bundy from Married with Children – if you watched that tv show )

    As much as we respect the idea of a traditional family, I do think women did not have a safety net in this system, and that drastically decreased their “mating value”. Add to this the elements of poverty, marital traditions, inheritance and stuff, then you’d see all kinds of abominations like sex selective abortions(where unborn girls = burden on wallet, unborn boys = pension plan), dowry harassment(when men become gold diggers) and what not. Don’t you think? There was even a funny quote “The feminist movement was created to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society”.

    The way I see it, people make mistakes and people learn from them, and I think people are soon getting tired of the victim narrative and are learning how this hurts both sides.( This may be my confirmation bias though…. )

    Would really love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

  12. I work in a field of historical research in which I see the structure of families in the nineteenth and earlier centuries.

    In the nineteenth century and in fact at all times prior to the twentieth century young women were very frequently pregnant. That is down to biology. A woman’s body is specifically designed for the care of infants both prior to birth and also for a period of months after birth. Most women who married around the age of twenty (a high percentage of women) and who remained healthy into middle age would have had around fifteen pregnancies, the majority of which would go to term and their children would then require to be breastfed and kept under close supervision while very small.

    This naturally means that the average woman was going to spend a lot of her time at home. She was also going to spend a lot of the time preparing meals for her older children and mending and cleaning their clothes. It is not men that were keeping women at home, but biology.

    A woman in such a situation is not going to be able to spend a lot of her time working alongside her husband. For the average man in the nineteenth century that would involve some sort of labouring. Perhaps spending twelve hours a day a sawing wood at a sawmill, or a similar amount of time working underground in a mine. (Privileges were reserved for those tiny percentage of moneyed aristocratic men and women who had money and power.) You might consider it sexist, I don’t know, but a heavily pregnant and breastfeeding woman cannot in my view spend twelve hours a day hewing coal in a mine. And, as I have said, the average Victorian women spent much of her time either pregnant or breastfeeding.

    In the twentieth century contraception gave men and women the option of having smaller families. The man could still engage in his role of funds provider, but contraception robbed women of their biological role as mothers to large numbers of children. Inevitably this led to boredom, frustration and depression for many women who found themselves at home alone with time on their hands.

    For many of these women, the target of their frustration was inevitably their husbands. The daughters of some of these women grew up with a sense that their mothers had been getting a raw deal. But it was not men that had been keeping women at home, but their vitally important biological role as mothers to large numbers of children.

    • Not to mention that salary depends of productivity. Before, post industrial age, in 90% of jobs available women were a _lot_ less productive than men. Be it at cutting trees or hewing coal a man could bring far more money for his employer than a women. And no employer would pay 300 hundred to a moan when the coal she has hewed is worth only 100.

  13. Reminds me this sentence: “There are very few feminists who claim for access equality to such job as sewer worker or mine worker”. More generally, hard, dangerous, unhealthy jobs have ever been the province of men. For good reasons: women are precious, we, men, are expendable. It is our fate, in fact the fate of males in most mammal species. Now if a job is hard, dangerous, or unhealthy it is quite logical it is paid more than one requiring comparable qualifications that isn’t. Not because of any sense of “social justice” but to convince people to take it. If a job requires to study “unpleasant” (read maths) disciplines it is quite logical it is paid more than one that doesn’t. If an employee is more concerned about money than about “quality of life” for the job he is applying to it is logical he is paid more. If an employee invests himself in his job to the point he says until 9am then it is logical he is paid more. But it is and has ever been men not women, who took the dangerous jobs, who studied maths and engineering, men who cared more about money than about “quality of life” and men who stayed until 9am. That is why when feminists point at statistical differences between women and men salaries they are quite simply cheating the audience. And some men just because of “retarded leftism”, demagogics(to bed women or for elections) or because they haven’t thought about it repeat this mantra.

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