I received a most illuminating reply to a post I made on Relationships Blog
Nordicvs gave his full reply under oneof my previous posts “The Goddess of the Israelites”
As his reply encompasses many issues I have decided to break it down into parts and answer each part separately.
What’s difficult is how matriarchy and patriarchy are defined (and indeed, who is, and who has been, defining both). For 90% of us (men), “patriarchy” is as applicable as “fire” is to a fish. What frustrates men so much is that we never say, “It’s a man’s world.” Why? Because we know deep down it isn’t—for men, sometimes it seems like it, but it never feels like it. We don’t really know what a “man’s world” would look like exactly…(because a “man’s world” was actually “native man’s world,” and that world is just about extinct). The masculine is just about extinct.
Today’s Westernized society, for instance—is it matriarchal or patriarchal? (Was the Victorian era patriarchal or matriarchal?) If “patriarchy” means “men ruling,” in the sense of politics and business, then no, it’s not: most men don’t rule—most men don’t even know any men in power, and women are not our slaves. If patriarchy is men at the heads of households ruling collectively—then absolutely not; this would not even be a masculine construct, not in design and not in nature, because the masculine strives for independence, less; there are at best patriarchal aspects existing in socities—basically anything team-based: sports, police, military…but how can these be viewed as evidence of a “male nature” since they developed along with and as a result of civilization? Nomadic man did not have such sports because his life satisfied his masculine drives—his life was a sport. Nor did free man need all the little secret men’s clubs that have popped up through the ages. He hunted; he chased down prey and climbed trees and defend the tribe against thieves and raiders—he didn’t need simulated activities, because he got all that in his everyday life. A puppy plays to prepare itself for a rough adult life, whether that’s a domesticated dog or a wolf cub; a boy used to play for the same reason…now, the boy has not grown up (or is simply far too feminine, mentally) and plays all the time.
Feminists say men are privileged; in what way? Women control, for example, at least 86% of America’s wealth, and 85% of the homeless are men; boys are far more likely to develop ‘learning disorders’ (in a feminized schooling system, this is not a shock), and they will be five times as likely to commit suicide as compared to young women. If this were patriarchal, 85% of the homeless would be the oppressed—women—but they’re not. No rich mangina in a position of power cares about his “brothers” and would never admit it even if he did (imagine a congressman daring to talk about “men’s issues!”). He cares about money; status, making a guilded nest that he can trade in for love or sex some day.
Women would be opening doors for men, working the coal mines, coming home on the bus aching and covered in grease, but they’re not. Men are the disposable gender—we die in the wars and work the most dangerous jobs, the shit jobs—all the work women are too clean or too precious to do, serve twice the time for the same crime as women, have no reproductive rights or rights as fathers; no rational person can view men as a class that is “privileged.” A disposable gender cannot be “in power;” a few rich corrupt war mongers (Gilgamesh types) do not comprise a patriarchal social structure, especially if the men in power are pussy-whipped momma’s boys; the only thing men “rule” collectively is our own delusion of Power and all the silly games we invent to make civilized homelife and worklife, our captivity, less intolerable (not to mention the alcohol and drugs, both painkillers and escapes). We don’t search for meaning anymore…we turn the channels and drink, and want quick comedy fixes to keep distracting ourselves from the horrible emptiness inside—the painful place man has inside, the need for freedom.
If women make up the majority of the population, have the largest voter base of any “minority,” and live 8 years longer than men, then one can only reason that not only do women have power collectively, as a social matriarchy (they make the rules in relationships, families, and, through them, society), but they also possess over half the political power now.
Women have control over sex, social codes (political correctness), control of the media, TV, courts, education, and are often the heads of the family; even back in the 1950s, during this alleged patriarchal period, Pater was just a figurehead—in all meaningful ways, Mater had the last word. (Mater, of course, is latin for Mother; as in Matri-mony, Mater-ialism, and Matri-archy. Most men know women rule the world, yet most are too scared or delusional or prideful to say anything, and only a few are brave and honest enough to admit it—Dylan knew: “Women rule the world . . . no man has ever done anything that a woman either hasn’t allowed him to do or encouraged him to do.” This is why most men get pissed off when they’re told by feminists, “it’s a man’s world,” because that’s not the pot calling the kettle black…it’s the pot launching into orbit a satellite that flashes “BLACK” every few seconds….)
If there is any truth to the expression, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” we need to look at “ruler” differently and define “whatever-archy” differently, rather than pointing at a king or priest (or some other dress-wearing nabob) and saying, “That’s patriarchy,” or pointing to a queen and saying, “That’s matriarchy.” If all power is about sex, and control over sex ultimately determines he root of all power, then sexual consent is woman’s “key to the city.” Once she gets the kids and the house, she has it all. There’s approaching 7 billion people in the world; and women have control of sex; therefore, population rates might be an indication of the illusion of patriarchy (which would be in reality a very small, conservative, minimalist society). It might be the most logical way to arrive at what a ‘patriarchy’ is and what a ‘patriarchal counter-movement’ is. Currently, it exists fragmentedly; a civilized version of it can be observed in things like a submarine crew or a hockey team—a tiny patriarchy gets established for tasks and jobs, and, except in the military, it gets dissolved as the men leave that and blend back into (feminized) society. Evidence of patriarchy today is like searching for true male nature—we can see it in sports, but that’s just an adaptation…it’s like viewing the behaviour of men doing hard time in prison and seeing that as a model for base male behaviour (any self-respecting biologist will know that the environment means everything—such as, chimp behaviour differs in zoos compared to in the wild).
Anyway, I’d be interested in reading some of your theories.
Nordicvs, I am most grateful for your comments and am deeply touched. Your honest remarks of how you see the world, is the clearest explanation I have yet come across in stating the modern masculine dilemma. Through your words I can clearly feel your pain and frustration, and my heart goes out to you. Through the honesty of your words I can now see why so many men feel such anger, pain and powerlessness. I think one of the most important aspects your words brought to me is that of empathy. Human beings are incapable of feeling empathy for someone whom they regard as having a lesser or higher status than them. Humans can only relate empathetically with those whom they feel have equal status to them. Now most women still feel victimized by the past and as such still see that men have a higher status than they do in society, regardless of facts, right or wrong, and because of that find it difficult if not impossible to empathize with the dilemma men feels themselves facing, or the pain that men feels. Only if they feel themselves of equal power can they truly empathize. Most women are unaware of the power they actually wield, rather they see themselves using their power from a self defense point of view, thus they actually use their power in an unconscious way from a victim mentality, rather than with full ownership of it. Typically the way the shadow operates which brings me to how I would define matriarchal and patriarchal rule.
It is true that ultimately the feminine holds the ultimate power that of sex, death and regeneration. As death is a feminine aspects and nature itself. We may destroy nature but we will also destroy ourselves in the process as we can already see so clearly, but once we have destroyed all of nature and ourselves nature will restore herself, even if it takes millions of years. Under matriarchal rule the power of the feminine is openly acknowledged, just as in so-called primitive societies the power of nature over mankind was regarded in awe. Under patriarchal rule the power of the feminine operates through the shadow as you so clearly illustrated. In the modern world we thought we could invent ways to control and exploit the power of nature but it was an illusion. More and more we realize that you cannot control nature but you have to work with nature. We are as much part of nature as men are part of women and women part of men. Men has to own the feminine power in themselves as women has to own the masculine qualities in themselves then we will not be be ruled by our shadows, and fear each other no longer, and truly be able to empathize with each other. Truly have meaningful and creative relationships.