I intend to rewrite this in a more organized and palatable form. Until then, here it is in a condensed form:
At heart, this blog is dedicated to one subject: the later stages of the transition away from patriarchy and towards a female-oriented society. By virtue of the fact that you are reading this right now, it is the single greatest historical trend in your lifetime, and it fundamentally colors the society you will inhabit for the duration of your existence. In itself, this should come as no surprise – with each passing day, American feminism adds legions of yapping fembots to its Army, screeching in unison about invented privileges, shifting the focus of national debate to the mystique of the Cougar, ending the careers of those base enough to employ gender-specific pronouns in casual conversation, and frantically petitioning the justice system to serve American Apparel’s PR department with rape charges and forcible castration.
Yet if the dismantling of patriarchy has been wo-manhandled into the popular narrative, the foreseeable consequences certainly haven’t, and it is these that lead the mind to suspend its unwavering support for these stalwarts of reason and beauty – to extinguish the national bra and slutwalk home for an honest reappraisal of values. Indeed, upon closer inspection, we find that changes in gender relations affect legitimate changes in the nature of society. That history shows patriarchy and civilization are effectively indivisible. That the hierarchical power structures that facilitate complex societies grow logically from the nature of the male brain, and that shifts in the gender-orientation of a society rework not only its basic order, but its scale. In brief, that matriarchy and civilization are wholly incompatible.
I will endeavor to describe this in greater detail below.
As I’ve written before, the primary determinant of a society’s gender orientation is who plays the role of responsibility within inter-gender relationships, and within families, who serves as the fulcrum of family life. Few relationships are perfectly equal, and in the overwhelming majority, either the man or the woman fills the dominant role over the other. One takes greater care of the other; one has greater autonomy, and one sets the rules by which the relationship operates. Put simply, some societies pick the man and some the woman, with varying levels of equality or power distance.
In a patriarchal society, there are men and girls; in matriarchy, women and boys. I’ve stated my belief that civilization is predicated on an arrangement where men are providers, women are dependents, and sex is a play wherein the father/daughter relationship is lived out in adulthood – where paternal dominance is the essence of attraction. Logically, this power exchange was most total at the high water mark of patriarchy, when agrarianism was most widespread and complex – probably around the turn of the 17th Century, if the enclosure movements and advent of liberalism serve as any guide.
Moreover, historians and anthropologists have begun to date the arrival of patriarchy with the origin of agriculture and privatized property relations. Rightly so, and it’s only their commentary that conflicts with reality. The truth is that this bodes poorly for both the men of today and all others who prefer civilization to savagery, abundance to scarcity, and meaning to nothingness. If patriarchy is indeed linked to an agrarian system of land ownership and hierarchical power structure, any move away from agriculture will inevitably reduce the relative power of men and thereby dilute the male values that powered the rise of civilization in the first place. When the farms disappear, the men start slipping.
With this established, if it’s true that parental role-taking shifts between genders depending on the cultures they inhabit, it may be helpful to examine how women and men take on the role differently, in order to better understand what these societies look like. Across all cultures, with no exceptions whatsoever, women are the more nurturing parent. They release oxytocin and other bonding hormones with greater ease, their brains hold a staggering amount of the white matter that facilitates social cohesion, and they retain a stronger and more physiological bond with their children than a father could dream of. Research shows that infants take two or three months after birth to even become aware that they are biologically separate from their mothers.
Men, on the other hand, excel in different capacities. The substantially higher levels of gray matter in the male brain make them far better disposed to logical, rational, and systematic thought. Their contributions to society have typically taken the form of sprawling and impersonal human networks (e.g. governments, churches, and corporate business entities) and technological or intellectual innovation. Even in the equalist climate of the 21st Century, the list of female mathematicians, business executives, engineers, and philosophers is a short read, while many other, less left-brained professions have integrated at the drop of a hat. Personally, I reject the too-common belief that these achievements are intrinsically more valuable to society than the qualities women bring to the table. The facts, however, remain.
What this illustrates is that the basic quality of the male brain is systematic thinking, and more specifically that their thought functions through the creation and application of demonstrable rules or principles. It’s no coincidence that the scientific method emerged from the European nobility at peak patriarchy, as defined above. What this suggests is that a male value system is essentially rules-oriented, while female values are essentially interpersonal. Male rules relate back to an implacable code of objective right and wrong; female rules relate back to the actual well-being and cohesion of the people they apply to.
Emile Durkheim, the great prophet of societal evolution, described two types of social order when he wrote in the late 19th Century: the primitive Mechanical Solidarity, in which order is enforced socially by the immediate demands of ones peers; and modern Organic Solidarity, in which order is maintained through the codification of law and the abstract interdependence of disconnected masses of people. Few in Durkheim’s time could have conceived of a society without male-dominance, but were he able, he may well have made the connection between the Mechanical matriarchy and the Organic patriarchy. The matriarchs, with their superior abilities of interpersonal processing and social cohesion, make far better overlords in an immediate society. But in a complex one, evolved beyond the 50-person bands of pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, only abstract law can maintain order, and male values must ascend.
Today, we live in a complex society in which the gender orientation is shifting away from patriarchy — as I’ve written below, the feminist and pickup movements represent, in very different ways, a recalibration of women and men towards a society in which female sensibilities are catered to. It’s a strange time, where women are moving into positions of dominance within a male world, accepting the male hierarchical power structures, assuming domineering roles in relationships, and even playing the family disciplinarian in larger numbers. This only represents women taking over a man’s world, though, and a world operated by women will be a woman’s world before long — where male institutions cease to exist altogether, and the scale of society is brought back to its biological, animal norm. The feminists are right, because women are being handed the torch. What nobody is pointing out, however, is the total certainty that they will drop it.