The paranoid idea of “The Patriarchy” as a conspiracy of men, to supposedly oppress women, where did it come from? My guess: Evolution…..
Women tend to be more consensus oriented, men tend to be more competitive…and this can explain why an insane idea like men supposedly oppressing women, can be believed by some women, as a functioning idea of how the world actually works.
Consensus vs. Competition, the evolutionary roots: I think the reason the feminists came up with the idea of “The Patriarchy”…as a conspiracy of men, to supposedly oppress women, has to do with the evolved nature of females. Females humans are more vulnerable than males because of their smaller body size and because of child birth. A woman with a huge 9 month pregnant belly is almost defenseless. Human females handled this problem by making an evolutionary deal of sorts with men, and so men protected and provided for females, and risked his life for her…and she had the babies and she raised them when they were young, more than he did. Men have a maternal side as well as women, but it is more pronounced in women, than men. We would not have survived as a species, if that were not true.
So I think the communal life of the village, women in a group, was the place of women, for pretty much all of evolution…looking after young children, gathering local food sources with other women, cooperating with other women, working with other women, depending on their help and getting along with other women, and thinking about the interests of the group…..while being dependent on men to provide resources. Under this evolutionary scenario, of dependency of women as a group, to men as a group, it’s not surprising that female psychology evolved much more, looking after women ‘as a group’…Men did not need this as much, since men were more mobile, free as they were, from as much of the burden of looking after young ones. Men could venture more easily, to find food sources. Women required males as a group, to do that for females as a group. This meant a group based sense of vulnerability in women, more than in men.
So within the concept of women in a group, was that women as a group, depended on men as a group, to protect them. This dependency on males gave rise to the female perspective of looking after their group, and the female group being vulnerable…as a group. Since men as a group were never protected by females as a group, this tendency is not as pronounced in men.
Men, being free from the burden of pregnancy, were free to roam further from home, in search of food, often through hunting. And this evolutionary pressure produced a lot of brave males. You can actually measure this, and there are a lot more physically brave men, than physically brave women.
But a key piece of evidence with regard to the female past, and what women did in the past, is found in young babies. Researchers have noted, even at 1 day old, female babies spend a lot longer time looking at human faces, than do male babies, who tend to look at objects, more than faces…just the opposite of the female babies…..and these tendencies were shaped by past behavior patterns: men on the hunt and women looking after children, more often than men.
So what does this mean? Likely that females have been shaped by evolution, for social interaction and people interaction, more than males in general. Since females focused on babies, breast fed them, then looked after young children, more of their biology evolved for close personal social interaction. So I think that’s why females evolved a psychology more focused around consensus, because consensus is what works in terms of survival, in such a setting and set of conditions.
Being smaller, physically weaker, more dependent on the opposite gender, it shaped female psychology, to a more group oriented point of view. And so this has shaped how human females see the world. This is an odd thing for a man like myself, to realize, because I don’t think of the world, this way.
But this is literally how females see the world…group oriented, being “fair”…to everyone and looking after everyone’s needs, including emotional needs and that sort of thing, and it really is, a bit different than how males in general see the world. Women are collectivists by nature.
And so I think feminist theorists about “The Patriarchy”….are just projecting how they themselves see the world, how they see reality, onto men…..thinking men are exactly like women are: group oriented, looking out for the interests of the group, like women do. Women see themselves as a group, in competition with men, but men don’t really see it that way. In fact it’s pretty much a mind bender to think, that women see themselves as a group in competition with men, and that women actually tend to believe that men look after the interests of other men, and stick together, for other men within the group…because that’s what women do…look after women in the group.
Any man will know that’s crazy. Men don’t think like that.
But: That’s how women are wired…..not men. The notion that men look after the interests of only men is absurd. Human beings would never have survived, if that were true. Men didn’t look after men. Men look after women…perhaps so well, that feminists are not aware of the the degree to which men do this. They have a huge, huge blind spot, in how they see reality.
Men are simply different than women, as evolution shaped men to be less group and consensus oriented, at least in the way women are, which is vulnerable, and men are more about competition among individual men…..the hunt, getting resources to women, being a leader, all these things curry favor with females…and move men up the social ladder.
And this brings us to the source of men’s competitive nature, that most guys are quite aware of. If you are a male and have ever played a sport, you will see this coming, 5 miles away.
Here’s how men’s competitive nature arose: It’s women who get pregnant, and it’s women who decide who to have sex with. And men in general, want sex, a lot more times than women do. This basic dynamic sets up a competition among men, who compete with other men, to see who is top dog…because that has a lot to do with, which men get sex.
That’s because women choose men who are the highest socially that they can find, to have sex with. So this female selection process, of choosing which men to have sex with, based on a man’s social ranking, this process creates a hierarchy of men. Jordan Peterson calls it “The Dominance Hierarchy”. And it’s basically how men rank each other…and how women rank men…and women know this instinctively…how different men rate.
The interesting thing is, where does this come from? The Dominance Hierarchy is created by female choice in men, simple as that. It’s very similar to the concept of “Patriarchy”…which is men having power, competing with each other, for access to women. The higher up a man is in the Dominance Hierarchy, the more likely he is to get the sexual attention of a higher ranking female…one who is prettier and younger…that’s why men compete, with other men.
So the Dominance Hierarchy among men is basically the Patriarchy. But what feminists have not understood is that it is women themselves, who created this Dominance Hierarchy…or Patriarchy…by their sexual choices, of choosing men who are above the women, in the Dominance Hierarchy.
So if you understand that, you understand it’s pretty silly of feminists to complain about something women created!
How can women with a straight face complain about this sort of thing, when it is female behavior, which created it? I can only guess, that feminist theorists haven’t figured this out…..or maybe they have, and are lying for political reasons.
You see reflections of this all the time, in people around you. Generally speaking, women always “marry up” meaning they wont’ date or marry a man, unless he is at least her level economically, and preferable rates higher than her……this is female hyper-gamy, which is the female behavior which creates Dominance Hierarchies, and creates The Patriarchy.
As strange as it is for me to say, I don’t think feminists actually understand gender…..the very thing they claim authority and knowledge, over. They are wrong. Completely. They don’t even know how gender works in evolution, and the dynamics of evolutionary pressure, which shaped men and women in different ways, that simply don’t fit their theories. So their theories are based on a misunderstanding or perhaps simply no understanding, of how nature works.
Not surprising, “Women’s Studies” or “Gender Studies” at university have little to no academic requirements, for science based courses. This leads to massive ignorance on the part of feminists, on how biology and evolution and gender roles work. Remember, feminism was deeply influenced by post-modernism, which explicitly rejected science and scientific truth….as I explored in detail in my other post, on Sir Roger Scruton…
So to understand how women are, or how men are as biological beings, just look at evolution. Men are, as they are, because of some basic biological facts. And women are, as they are, for their own biological facts, which shaped them. The uneducated delusion of feminists is to think that biologically, men and women are the same, and have the same basic way of looking at the world. Not true.
Another blogger on a different video, Graham L. put it perfectly: “The set of humans that we call ‘men’ are not a set that are united in purpose or that share a common interest or common values or that are keen to be cooperative with each other, or that like to form a narrative built on the general consensus, or that tend to agree, by nature… So how anyone can present a worldview that requires us to first accept the premise that the group identity, ‘man’ acts as a single entity with its own agenda, in competition with every other group but united with itself…? It’s ridiculous.”
I think feminists are completely misconstruing the biological nature of men, and that’s why their theory is so bonky and obviously wrong. However, given this evolutionary history, and differences between the sexes, I guess we should not be too surprised that some women actually think there is a conspiracy of men, to oppress women.
That theory, while paranoid, unsupported by a broader view of evidence and reason, that feminist theory arises out of average female nature, which is more likely than male nature, to see the dynamics between men and women, in group terms. However, it’s time for feminists to take their blinders off…and see the world, as a man does. And men, for their part, can see the world through the eyes of women, which is indeed quite different than how males process reality.
So, feminists think they will “End the Patriarchy!!!!!”…..and “Smash the Patriarchy!!!!!”…to which I reply: Really? You will end of the thing at the heart of our evolved nature? You will stop evolution? You will stop the thing we evolved as? The end of Patriarchy, if it were to happen, would mean the end of evolved gender differences. And out of these natural biological differences between the genders, women played their central role, and women in fact, through sex selection and sexual choice, women created “The Patriarchy”….and now the feminists wish the end of the very thing females created?…..that sustained the human animal and helped us survive, till now? Really? That’s what you feminists think you will do? I don’t think so….
However, I think feminists are quite serious, even though they are paranoid and don’t understand evolutionary reality. They mean to end The Patriarchy. Jordan Peterson also thinks that….and he spent his professional life, surrounded by feminists at university.
Clarification on the use of the term “Patriarchy”….It’s a word used by different people, with different meanings. Feminists use it as a pejorative. They see all of history as being an oppression of women, by men. This is a perspective that filters reality through the lens of emotion, grievance, group identity and a wish to attack white men.
I have no such agenda, of attacking anyone. I disregard the whole feminist/post-modernist narrative of group identity, using emotion as the final arbiter to judge reality, as dangerous nonsense. I accept science and evidence. Feminists reject science and evidence. So I view feminism as more of a superstition or religion.
I try to see the male role in evolution and history, free from emotional bias, and as much as I can, using fact, reason, logic and evidence. My belief is that the male role in evolution and history was essentially neutral, because it arises out of natural processes. I see Patriarchy as naturally arising out of evolution, shaping our world.
I seek to understand, then make moral judgements. Far as I can tell, feminism is about making moral judgements, based on solipsism and emotional narrative. That feminist way, I believe, lies in the direction of Hell.
For instance: There is a very serious problem with attacks on “The Patriarchy”… The Patriarchy in European based culture, it expressed themselves as men competing with each other, and as a byproduct of that male competition, men created Western Civilization….which enormously benefited women, kept them alive, with a security of life never before found in nature. “The Patriarchy”….male competition, pushed by female sexual choice…created science and modern life and modern medicine, which had the effect of extending the lifespan of men and women. But make no mistake, “The Patriarchy” is what created Western Civilization…which feminists intend to undermine and destroy. If they are successful in their efforts, women will suffer enormously. If the whole thing comes unraveled, women will feel the pain.
Men created all the order you see around you. That’s what “The Patriarchy” really means: female sexual choice propelled men to eventually create modern civilization, which kept women safe. And that is exactly what feminists are up to: destroying men, destroying the natural patriarchal tendencies, which kept women safe. Destroy that Patriarchal order, destroy men….. and women will suffer. Make no mistake about that. Men created religion, philosophy, civilization, science and technology….modern life. In the West, men created Logos, turning chaos into order. Without men doing what they evolved for, there is no civilization….and women die. Without women doing what they evolved for….making babies….there is no civilization.
As Camille Paglia put it, “If it were up to women, we would all still be living in grass huts”
No, the pattern of history, with men leading, men creating, was not an accident. Nor was it some sort of conspiracy, of men “oppressing women”. It was instead, a naturally occurring pattern that arose out of evolution and human biology……and what were then, the levels of technology, which set restraints on the shape of gender roles and social patterns. Now that men have created technology, we have some flexibility to play around with gender roles, see what works, but we have to keep in mind, what works, what is functional in evolution, or we are headed for trouble. Maybe the stupidest, most destructive things the feminists did, was insist that young women spend their prime biological years in school or on the job, instead of bearing young, as evolution wants them to do. Ignoring biological reality, feminists tried to construct a new society, based on women ignoring their biological impulses, feminism has become, about denigrating the natural evolved role of women, to create a gender-neutral society, where gender doesn’t matter. This won’t work. Evolution says so. Societies that embrace current feminism, those societies die off. Feminism in it’s current form, won’t work: nature has other ideas, and in the end, Mother Nature will always win.
Perhaps that’s why the feminists have waged a decades long war on femininity: They don’t like men, so they don’t like the male role and how it has shaped our world. Nor do feminists like the role that nature itself, has carved out for women. Feminism is about resenting nature itself. So feminists turned on women by waging war on things that traditionally keep women happy…..like family….while pretending to be women’s allies. Feminists especially turned on feminine women, especially conservative women. The future of feminism is a fight between conservative women, and radical left-wing feminist women. That will decide our fate as a civilization. Women have to decide, how women wish to be in the world. The future is conservative, or radical liberal. It’s women that have to decide this, fight it out, for if men butt into the fight too much, other than as allies, that won’t work, for political reasons. What is at stake in the fight, is a wish to continue or die as a civilization. Women have the deciding vote. Feminists have already turned on men, but men didn’t really evolve to fight with women. It’s undignified. This is a fight between groups of women, for our future. There is basically no one, that feminists like. They wish to end it all, for the West. Maybe at it’s core, feminism is a suicidal impulse in humans…
However, some of the stupider feminists think they can embrace the radical feminist agenda, destroy men, supplant men in the social hierarchy, and society and civilization will keep humming along, trouble free, women will continue to benefit from the male input into the world, with males willingly working to keep the system going, to women’s benefit. I believe this is an insane proposition, that will not work.
And in our current social context, this Patriarchy in The West includes free speech, which feminists hate….because it makes them feel “unsafe”…..again, biology rears it’s head: women evolved to be protected, but when you let women rule the tribe, then untested female tendencies take over. Listen to feminists and free speech ends. Trouble is: Destroy free speech, keep supporting Political Correctness, as feminists want you to, you end Western Civilization, as Jordan Peterson points out in video below…..and go back to a brutal age for women. The alternative to free speech is violence. Feminists have to decide if they want free speech, or they want violence. Those are the only real choices.
Jordan Peterson understands this perfectly: