How to bring back Patriarchy.

minuteman

The simple truth.

The respect society gives to men, in general, is regulated and set by two factors:

  1. Society’s beliefs about men and what they deserve.
  2. What men have been conditioned to expect, and what they willingly endure.

The second factor, what men expect and tolerate, adjusts with and is set by the first factor, which makes the first factor ultimately the determinant factor.

How it was.

Men have historically been understood to be superior to women and children in Patriarchal societies.  This unquestioned belief in male superiority, kept those societies Patriarchal and wanting all male leadership for everyone’s benefit.

How it works.

Beliefs regarding the sexes relative superiority and inferiority leads to society becoming correspondingly Patriarchal, Egalitarian, or Matriarchal.

What went wrong.

It was the gradual introduction of the belief in equality of the sexes that led women to clamor for men’s rights, for men’s positions, and to despise men’s dominion over them.  Furthermore it was the belief in equality of the sexes that led men to give women the rights held by men, to allow women to take men’s former positions, and to share responsibilities, like voting, that belonged to men.   The false notion that men and women were created equal, even interchangeable, has made our families fall into chaos.  You can’t have a democracy of two.  In marriage, equality is a recipe for conflict.

What must change.

Any intended return to a society that respects male dominated leadership and respects men in general, must be preceded by a societal return to the belief in male superiority.   That belief is necessary to put back into effect and keep in effect the desired change in civil society.  If men are not believed to be superior, then male dominated leadership is considered corrupt, arrogant, usurping, and missing half of the best talent.  Every Patriarchal society is of necessity built on the foundational truth that men are superior, and are therefore deserving of the superior role, and superior regard.  The ancients clearly knew that men were superior.  Aristotle states, “as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject”.  Once upon a time the church unanimously believed that men were created first, and only men were created in the image of God.  Men were therefore known to be superior, known to be due greater respect, and expected to rule over women.   Men must reclaim their superiority, the image of God, and the divine right to rule that comes with it.

20 thoughts on “How to bring back Patriarchy.

  1. It was female envy of men that undid the system. Women weren’t content to be servile, even during luxurious times, and men have a chink in our psychological armor (the missing rib?) that leaves us vulnerable to doing anything to make her happy. Including tearing down other men, which explains a great deal about oppressive government through the ages.

    Reining in female behavior appears to be so difficult for most men that it’s one of religion’s God-given purposes.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Gunner Q,
    I totally agree with all you just wrote. Part of it reminds me of Sharkly’s first generality:
    1. Men will never be respected by society while they refuse to respect each other.

    Like

  3. The Christian Patriarchy movement seems to include wife spanking (- R.C. Sproul et al.) Do you agree with this? Not beating wives up, but spanking them. Much as one would a child.

    Like

  4. Ace,
    I believe everybody needs correction at times. Husbands are to be the heads and lords of their wives. Yes I believe a husband is sometimes forced by a wife’s poor behavior, to treat her like a child, when she hasn’t been acting like a responsible adult. I personally have never hit or spanked my wife. Perhaps that is a mistake on my part. However, due to the state of our laws and society, I think I’d have been thrown under the bus for it, if I had. Nobody would back me up. Nobody!
    I grew up knowing as a child, that I dare not do certain things, lest my father kill me. It was quite effective, and kept me on the straight and narrow way. Apparently he knocked my mom upside the head a few times during the 50+ years they were married. I believe it was quite effective in keeping my mom, who was quite disrespectful of others, respectful of him. We are repeatedly told and encouraged to fear our heavenly Father, and having feared my earthly father, I get how that works. You obey very exactingly out of fear, even when you don’t understand why you’ve been told to do things a certain way. I find very very few people today who actually fear God more than they fear other people. Like with female head covering, people don’t fear to defy God, and even the slightest bit of confusion gives them enough excuse to not follow the commands of a God they do not fear. I feel perhaps I learned my fear of God from my father who also feared no man, but feared God enough to live his whole life devoted to God in Christian ministry, as a radio engineer for Christian broadcasting networks. In the 43 years I knew my father, I never saw him scared. It was obvious he wasn’t afraid to die. In my entire life, I never ever heard him tell a lie or even anybody claim he had lied. He didn’t feel like he had to lie to anybody. My Father was an incredible genius with a photographic memory who amazed his fellow physicists and the radio engineers he worked with and managed. He was self-controlled and calculated, and he lived out all the beliefs he professed devoutly, whether in public or in private. Although my father was always well liked, being predictable, exceedingly manly, and having an endless repertoire of jokes, he also improved his people skills and had grown great in wisdom by the time he died. My mom on the other hand was not well liked, quite manipulative, and had a lot of other issues. Reverencing my father the way I do, I can only assume that if he backhanded my mom with his huge mitts, then she must have deserved it. And it must have been discouraging for such an intelligent, wise, godly, and self-controlled man like him to finally conclude that no possible reasoning or treatment would be as effective as a backhand, to restore his love to righteous behavior.
    I think God made men generally bigger and stronger then women for a reason. Logic says: if the reason was to fight off lions and tigers and bears, God would have made men a little bigger and stronger than those animals, not just than women. I think it was so that men would generally have the ability to physically overrule their wives, if it ever has to come to that. To foolishly set up a nations legal system to prevent our loving creator’s safeguard, leaves wives free to disrespect, disregard, and disobey their husbands with no repercussions except the destruction of their marriages and their children’s homes. And fools left uncorrected have now created a culture of disrespect for men. You make a good point; how are men to reclaim all of their superiority when men exercising much of their natural superiority is against the law. Spanking is now only allowed for unrighteousness and adulterous relationships like in ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’, while spanking ones own wife for the sake of righteousness will get you sent to jail. We should repent as a society of constantly inverting how God set things up.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I question if we aren’t about to enter another ’40 years of wilderness’ stage of human history. I bemoan this, as I wish with decreasing hope (mid-30s) to know a family of my own, with progeny to bring up honoring God and knowing His commandments. But I don’t wonder if the good of the gander needs to take place at the deficit of the good of the singular goose here. It’s needed, even if my loss is His gain.

    Even before the discipline of woman can occur, the white knights need to go. Even before these men can be disciplined, the lukewarm theologians need to go. Even before these can be disciplined, our pagan-dominated society needs to return in full earnestness to Christ, reverence for the Father. It’s a fortress surrounded by a moat, protected by a wall, across a sea of quicksand.

    Man has allowed woman to become unruly. Can Man bring order back to God’s Creation, or does God need to purge the dissenters then correct the waywardness?

    I just don’t see how Western Society is saved from death from within. We can (and should) remain faithful executors of His commandments (and thus, His will) but IF this is something to be fixed before Christ’s return, I see it happening only after the perverted generations of Baby Boomers and Millenials have both died off. Gen X is largely grounded, but pagan. Gen Z is based, but do they know God?

    The men of Gen Star Wars thru Gen Z have begun to forgo marriage and even sex outside of marriage, pursuing instead either mind-numbing activities (video games, drinking etc) or developing hobbies and talents. I see less white knights in the future, but that does not mean the men are God-fearing. I don’t exactly see Berean theologians being brought up here. I see a lot of young men with no sense of self-identity (fatherless homes) nor identity in Christ. They pursue self-interest, albeit less the avenue of vagina worship than in previous decades. We need hardcore, conservative, salty men of God. How does one achieve this en masse in Society when motivation can only ever come from within, and these men are not choosing Christ?

    Obviously, the stubborn heart of Eve is still alive and well. These women need to live through old age, reaping each and every stage of what they have sown: rebellion of parents, sexual promiscuity, educational achievements, career advancement, loneliness, stillbirth after sperm donation, dried up eggs, anger, despair, destitution, misery .. then maybe?, at the end of their lives?, they can know humility, be quiet and gentle spirits, become teachable? Then and only then would they be marriage-material, but far past the age of reproduction. I do not say these things out of spite, but with a heart of mild sorrow. I say these things because they are necessary to know humility. Good for the soul while bitter to the flesh.

    We can draft a constitution that outlaws the study of any religion other than Christianity using the Geneva Bible. We can establish a legal system recognizing only men within Society, with all women and children both subject to (Eph 5:22, Eph 6:1), and under the protection of (no government nor other man may reproach another man’s family), singular men. We can institute ‘earned citizenship’ whereby all men seeking must demonstrate ability of Scripture apologetics, to provide for self and family fiscally, to protect sanctity of life and marriage from any intruder, foreign and domestic. We can capitally punish sexual immorality in all its forms.
    I just don’t see how we get from ‘here’ to ‘there’, and that’s the rub. And once we get ‘there’, how do we stay ‘there’ without finding ourselves right back where we are now?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Sharkly – Thank you for your reply. Personally, I have no problem with wife spanking (although I draw the line at actual abuse, such as punching her in the face). I was just curious as to your thoughts. And, personally, being a woman, there’s nothing I love more than a dominant, masculine man who isn’t afraid to stand up and take charge. It’s pretty near impossible to be submissive to a limp dishrag who refuses to lead.

    Like

  7. Ace,
    I’m not associated with or even aware of the movement that you previously mentioned. I have however heard some folks who seemed to think that the late R.C. Sproul was super duper great. But every time I read any of R.C. Sproul’s supposedly great writings, or heard his messages, I was underwhelmed and couldn’t see why they thought him so much better than average.
    I also think that punching somebody in the face would generally be an act of combat, more than an act of correction. However, we need to be careful, how we respond. The term “abuse” has been abused. Everything anybody doesn’t like is suddenly abuse now. If I quote the Bible against someone’s sins, they say I’m guilty of “Spiritual Abuse”. There is also emotional abuse, psychic abuse, mental abuse, Etc., Etc. The latter half of 1 Peter 2 tells us that we are to endure “abuse” for the cause of Christ, and 1 Peter 3 follows, beginning with the words “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands…”
    If you don’t have to endure abuse, and you get to define abuse, then you pretty much get to make your own rules, and have given yourself permission to be your own god/goddess. We need to operate off of God’s word, otherwise we are all just going astray, each of us unto our own way. I don’t give out the “abuse” exception, hopefully, for the same reason God doesn’t feel the need to ever give it. People are generally going to justify their own rebellion, even without my giving them an “abuse” excuse to quote, so that they can throw my words in their overlord’s face. I say, endure it, even unto death like Jesus Christ, that the gospel be not blasphemed.
    1 Peter 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

    Like

  8. ikr,
    The White Knights just need to be red-pilled. However some won’t come out from under their delusion, until, they’ve been through the Feminist grinder. Sadly enough, that is usually what it takes. The lukewarm theologians don’t need to go, so much as we just need to be able to discredit their foolishness thoroughly. The problem isn’t the fools, it is that their foolish ideas are being adopted as dogma.

    I just don’t see how Western Society is saved from death from within.

    With God, nothing is impossible, but unless God chooses to intervene, Satan’s rebellion marches forward leaving destruction in its wake. And no revival ever began without repentance first. We need to repent and preach repentance. Our churches are corrupt, and people seem blind to the false teaching and rampant sin in the churches.
    If we did capitally punish adultery, I think the purifying effect on society would be profound! That would really slow the reemergence of moral decay if we ever got back to that point. However, as humans, we will always be susceptible to moral degeneracy. But, certain death for degenerates, is a powerful deterrent and a godly filter. I greatly appreciate you sharing your good ideas. If we could get a great many more men to think like you do, we’d prevail against our churches, which are bankrupt of God, and the corrupted culture they have spawned.

    Like

  9. Ace,
    And, personally, being a woman, there’s nothing I love more than a dominant, masculine man who isn’t afraid to stand up and take charge. It’s pretty near impossible to be submissive to a limp dishrag who refuses to lead.

    Ace, help me wrap my head around that last part. So, if a man, let’s say your husband, is easy going, and doesn’t really ask a lot of you, or even expect much, do I understand that makes it more difficult for you to even do the very little that he expects from you? While I think I can understand the emotional discontent component, The logic escapes me, unless you are saying that your emotion overrides your reason and you therefore find great emotional difficulty in what should be an easy task. Because I think I have also heard women say the opposite: “if only my husband wasn’t so overbearing and demanding, then I would find it easy to submit to him.” Which makes me wonder if some women aren’t just seeing the submission grass as being greener on somebody else’s side of the fence.

    Like

  10. Pingback: Moon Day Review – A return to normal | Σ Frame

  11. Sharkly – I’ll try to answer your question. My husband is pretty easy-going, and he doesn’t ask a lot of me. He is not overbearing and demanding at all. If he was an overbearing, demanding bully, I would not have been attracted to him in the first place and certainly wouldn’t have married him. And yes, it would be difficult, I think, to be submissive to a man like that, as the natural reaction to overbearing bullies is to shut down and rebel.

    A “dominant, masculine man who isn’t afraid to stand up and take charge” is a quality that’s ingrained in certain men. It’s not an arrogance or even a bossy personality, but a quiet, steady confidence, a reliable, steadfast man who has strong values and upholds them.

    You know how some men seem to be afraid of their wives? How they come home from a day at work to get started on the to-do list their wife left them? How they let their wives rule? How their wives seem to be completely in charge, of everything? How the wife is completely in charge of the finances (no matter who earns the money) and gives her husband an allowance? This is the type of man I mean who would be really difficult to submit to. He is what my husband would describe as a “pansy”.

    Men are meant to be manly. It’s how God designed them. Weak men are not attractive at all, and they’re certainly not going to earn our respect and submission.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Ace,
    Thanks for your reply, That makes a lot of sense, and I was probably taking your previous comment slightly differently from how you intended it. I do however advise people to operate based upon God’s word and what they should do, as opposed to what they feel like doing. I would not advise any woman to marry a man they do not respect, that would be a horrible situation for both of them. However once you are married to a man, The Bible commands you to reverence/respect him in Ephesian 5:33. While it would be great if he “earned” it, it is already due him, because of your vow to honor him, because of his position over you, and his intrinsic qualities, even if you choose not to acknowledge them and only see his weaknesses. Similarly the husband is commanded to love his wife. Although it would be great if she “earned” it, she is due his love in accordance with his vow, and her intrinsic quality of being God’s creation and specifically God’s gift to him.

    Like

  13. Sharkly – Just to clarify, I do not know very much at all about R.C. Sproul, his beliefs, or his teachings. His name came up on a Google search when I typed in “Christian Patriarchy”. From the little I could gather from what I read, he taught and endorsed a very distorted view of what a Christian marriage should be and is a hypocrite of the highest degree.
    I only mentioned his name because I was curious as to how you, personally, defined Patriarchy. Especially Christian Patriarchy. Because there are (at least) two versions of it: the distorted, twisted, dangerous, sinful version, and there is the way God intended it.

    Like

  14. I’ll just add that I don’t know too much about R.C. Sproul either, but, I recall I wasn’t impressed with what I heard over 20 years ago.

    Like

  15. Pingback: The Image of God (the first & last men’s only club) | Laughing at Feminism

  16. I’d love to see any of these blog posts backed up with a shred of correctly cited evidence. Using anecdotal arguments to support your outdated and ignorant opinions on gender inequality is harmful to your readers. May I suggest watching a few videos on the YouTube channel “God is Grey” for a demonstration of the correct use of scientifically and biblically backed statements? Perhaps you may learn a few valuable lessons about God’s feminism from that lovely woman at the same time.
    Also, please consider improving your grammar. As a publicly educated seventeen-year-old girl, my grammar being vastly superior to yours does not look good, considering the purpose of your writing is to degrade women. I should not be seeing multiple errors in a blog that is meant to convince others of your intellect and viability as a leader.
    Have a lovely day, I look forward to your response.

    Like

  17. Thank you Bella Doll. I am having another lovely day in the image of God!

    The best evidence I can bring to this situation is the Bible, the eternal word of our omniscient Creator, who decided and laid down the rules that govern our universe, who wrote the language by which our unfathomably complex DNA is interpreted and applied, and who is aware of the number of hairs on my head. As you grow older and gain awareness, you’ll come to find that most all of the “correctly cited evidence” that you believe, is actually highly conflicted, biased, and usually contains falsifications and fabricated data to fill in the gaps and show the trend that the author is trying to establish. Most published peer reviewed double blind placebo controlled studies, are just self-serving, bought and paid for, BS. And when you build upon nonsense as a foundation, you wind up with self-destructive stuff like the Feminism that is currently imploding our society. I prefer to build upon the Rock, the Word of God.

    Feel free to submit all the grammar errors you have found via my contact form, and I’ll correct them, so that together we can teach pretentious females their place, using God’s word and your razor sharp grammar skills. I’ll consider improving my grammar like you recommend, but at my age, it is not likely to improve much. I don’t even really know where commas go, I just sprinkle ‘em around. I don’t know the real difference between a colon and a semicolon. The semicolon is just to make the winking smiley face as far as I know. 😉 I also think it is more important that I get the message out than that I be overly concerned with the perfection of the presentation. If God wanted me to do it perfectly, He would have made me perfect. Well, He made me a man, so, He must want it just pretty darn close to perfection. LOL

    I don’t intend to degrade women. They do that to themselves already. I intend to promote God’s ways, and respect for men forasmuch as they are God’s image and glory. And relatively women need a demotion, back to their rightful and intended place. They should be far more shamefaced, as God tells them to be, considering themselves. They certainly don’t need more deluded self-esteem.

    Like

  18. Sharkly,
    I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye here, but thanks for your reply. As I grow up, I’m looking forward to researching the viability of science versus a book written by a bunch of horny old dudes two thousand years ago.

    Like

  19. Pingback: A Ring of Gold in a Swine’s Snout | Σ Frame

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s