Bring Back the Patriarchy!
Definition of 'Patriarchy': A decent life for men.
Very well, but let us now reflect a bit on how a feminist would understand that word. For a feminist, this "patriarchy" is a thing that exists PARTLY in the objective world, and PARTLY in the world of imagination—the latter owing to creative interpretation or interpolation of objective-world data. But the bare fact that ANY of it exists in their imagination, is enough to discredit the entirety of it! If it were known to you that a bowl of soup contained some noxious ingredient, you would not be swayed by the assurance that nine-tenths of that soup was wholesome, would you? No, you would fling the entire bowl away!
So when the feminists babble about "patriarchy", we laugh! We know that they are discoursing rubbish, and we know it is dishonest on their part, not to say bloody ill-mannered, to impose upon us in this way with their pseudo-cognitional claptrap. We know that they are talking about something vacant, something which means too many different things to effectively mean anything at all! And meaning nothing at all, it could as well mean everything—which brings it back around once more, yes, to meaning anything at all which they might need it to mean in order to secure their advantage over us. Well it is poisonous of them to cook this poison soup in the first place, and doubly poisonous on their part to demand of us that we should spoon it down!
Given that "patriarchy" is something which the feminists are hell-bent upon destroying, and given that most of their efforts along that line are damaging to men and effective only to rob men of power in any form, we as men feel justifiably suspicious—with a suspicion bordering on certainty—of any use of this word by any feminist under any condition whatsoever! The word "patriarchy" is loaded with menticidal semantic baggage, and so we fling it away as we would fling away the poison soup which I have described above. We bristle when we hear this word, and we are deeply offended that we should be asked to take this word intellectually on board in any way. For in so doing we are admitting defeat, granting a right-of-way to the feminist worldview, and finally affixing our signature (by implication) to what they are saying about us.
Yes, the way I see it, if we accept any feminist meaning of "patriarchy", and agree to use that word according to their rules, then we are cooperating with their plans for us. So tell me, does that sound like a wise plan?
Now, if we repudiate out of hand the word "patriarchy", we are merely standing our ground. And that is very well, but do you suppose we could do better?
I believe we could. I believe that by CLAIMING that word and making it our own, we do better than merely standing our ground. In fact, we take our campaign to the next level because we advance into enemy territory and steal their very own ground from under their very own feet!
How does that idea grab you? ;)
Very well, but let us now reflect a bit on how a feminist would understand that word. For a feminist, this "patriarchy" is a thing that exists PARTLY in the objective world, and PARTLY in the world of imagination—the latter owing to creative interpretation or interpolation of objective-world data. But the bare fact that ANY of it exists in their imagination, is enough to discredit the entirety of it! If it were known to you that a bowl of soup contained some noxious ingredient, you would not be swayed by the assurance that nine-tenths of that soup was wholesome, would you? No, you would fling the entire bowl away!
So when the feminists babble about "patriarchy", we laugh! We know that they are discoursing rubbish, and we know it is dishonest on their part, not to say bloody ill-mannered, to impose upon us in this way with their pseudo-cognitional claptrap. We know that they are talking about something vacant, something which means too many different things to effectively mean anything at all! And meaning nothing at all, it could as well mean everything—which brings it back around once more, yes, to meaning anything at all which they might need it to mean in order to secure their advantage over us. Well it is poisonous of them to cook this poison soup in the first place, and doubly poisonous on their part to demand of us that we should spoon it down!
Given that "patriarchy" is something which the feminists are hell-bent upon destroying, and given that most of their efforts along that line are damaging to men and effective only to rob men of power in any form, we as men feel justifiably suspicious—with a suspicion bordering on certainty—of any use of this word by any feminist under any condition whatsoever! The word "patriarchy" is loaded with menticidal semantic baggage, and so we fling it away as we would fling away the poison soup which I have described above. We bristle when we hear this word, and we are deeply offended that we should be asked to take this word intellectually on board in any way. For in so doing we are admitting defeat, granting a right-of-way to the feminist worldview, and finally affixing our signature (by implication) to what they are saying about us.
Yes, the way I see it, if we accept any feminist meaning of "patriarchy", and agree to use that word according to their rules, then we are cooperating with their plans for us. So tell me, does that sound like a wise plan?
Now, if we repudiate out of hand the word "patriarchy", we are merely standing our ground. And that is very well, but do you suppose we could do better?
I believe we could. I believe that by CLAIMING that word and making it our own, we do better than merely standing our ground. In fact, we take our campaign to the next level because we advance into enemy territory and steal their very own ground from under their very own feet!
How does that idea grab you? ;)
posted by Fidelbogen at 1:20 PM
18 Comments:
Good news; another witch is dead.
Radical feminist Mary Daly dead at 81
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/mary_daly_pione.html
GOOD news you say?
The hell you say! That means I won't have Mary Daly to kick around any more! :(
(I wonder which circle of Dante's Inferno she goes to. ..)
Fidelbogen,
We can continue to kick around her corpse.
Odd, but as much as I despised Mary Daly, I never had the least desire to inflict any physical injury upon her.
And now that she is rotting meat, the prospect is merely ghoulish! :(
Here is a tribute to the feminazis who died;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5xNI4y56E8
I do not miss Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French or, Mary Daly.
NEXT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdyBl_-3h9I&feature=related
Well, I was speaking metaphorically. ;)
She remains ammunition for the MRM.
Though, I would still put my boot in the old hag. Just to make a point: I will always be one to kick feminists when they're down!
Ah, not an erroneous idea fidelbogen, but it will be arduous. Seeing that patriarchy often times is employed in any situation even implying male power, we must exhibit how men having agency is not inherently insidious. As to have power is to be able to control, and therefore requires the aptitude to adduce one's own agency, whether consciously or intuitively. However, Feminism has tainted male agency and volition as innately evil and nefarious, and hence any exercise of such agency will according to the mendacious premise (that male agency is a priori execrable) be a bad thing. So we cannot simply show ways in which men ascribe this power for good through pure induction, or display with a doughty spirit the image of the actions as a weathered wreath would show the inner triumph of a general, or by witnessing men engage in intersubjective activities of good will towards other subjects. Since people have been ubiquitously inculcated with the notion that the grand narrative of male agency as a priori evil, it will always be juxtaposed to any induction of good will we do with this power. We are simply deceptive scum who like Leander (not bashing Leander; I, in fact, adore him, I'm only saying what feminists would purport) use their lascivious corporeality to rend the crystal virginity of the female. All male action is inherently blemished with a mark as that of a leper, and is hence an incessant miscreant out to shatter the mystical, glossy window-glass of innocence. Ironically, we also ostensibly construct disingenuous "glass-ceilings" that are only privy to us. Amusing how the feminists do not espy this as females shattering the virginity of the male soul! But the narrative of the female soul cannot inscribe any damaging mark to their inner soul no matter how swarthy the declaration is.
At any rate about the male spirit; this extension people unconsciously gravitate to must be excoriated with much ferocity. My mind is too soporific to conjure up a way to display this false derivative of maleness that people all too often rest their unscrupulous heads.
@transMort:
Thank you VERY much for your weighted ruminations - which surpass the norm!
In fact, you have given me food for thought that will fuel my production. Hopefully not too long from now. . .
Better yet:
Definition of Patriarchy: A decent life for men and women.
Starting in 2006, I did "women's studies" of my own. I met over 60 women. I got so sick of meeting women that were overweight, on drugs, alcoholic, unhappy, taking head medication for panic attacks, extreme stress, psychotic episodes etc...
These women were not trailer trash either - they were middle to upper-middle class Americans.
The one common theme I ALWAYS encountered: "It's all about me". Each date I felt like I was being interviewed for a job, where instead of getting paid, I would do the paying. They were basically interviewing me to see if I was good enough to pay their bills, debts, support their children etc... I NEVER got the impression any of them were asking themselves, "what do I have to offer him?".
We live in a feminist society. It has erroneously put women on pedestals - to such an extent that they are not scrutinized (even by themselves).
It has made women miserable (or at least the majority of them). They are the fattest in the world. They take the most head-medication in the world. Women consume twice the head-meds as men do (66% to 33%). They have become selfish, egocentric, childish, irrational, and mentally/emotionally dysfunctional.
If patriarchy is so detestable to feminists - let's give it a try.
Let's make life better for men and women.
@ScareCrow:
I would say that your updated definition follows as a logical and natural consequence of my original. :)
Very good idea. I believe we should also claim words like "misogynist", "sexist","chauvinist", and all such words used to discredit and silence men.
When feminists can no longer silence debate with a slur, then men win.
It is a natural consequence, as we are the only side with an argument based on facts, rather than feelings.
Once we have disarmed their emotion-based "arguments" by making words such as "chauvinist", sexist", or "misogynist" into whimisical or even desirable labels, our side wins by default.
The great thing is that they will do this for us. By adopting labels such as "man-hater" or "ball-buster" of their own volition,and by attempting to "reclaim" words such as "cunt", they then free us up to adopt "misogynist" or "chauvinist".
Checkmate.
In accordance with my previous comment, I declare that the new definition of the word "misogynist" should be:
1. A man who makes arguments based on logic that women find upsetting.
2. Any person who says things that may or may not be controversial or disputed, but which, any woman may choose on any particular occasion to take issue with.
"Male chauvinist" should be redefined as:
1.A man who does not automatically put a woman's or women's concerns over his own, or his fellow man.
2. Someone seen by women as selfish for a failure on his part to immediately and unquestioningly acquiesce to any and all demands made on behalf of a woman/women.
Any comments or suggestions on these definitions are welcome,but I think these would serve our purpose as rudimentary definitions.
To transcend:
I like the way you write. It's nice to see words in a post that I should look up (although at this point I am so tired I am hedging at their meaning from the context :/ ). Thanks
To F:
That was an eye opener. I had no idea that men would or could take offense at the use of the word patriarchy. I always thought, it is what it is, but in a good way. Kind of like the word, government. And it never occurred to me that their definition of it might be different than mine, but just that they rejected it. Doesn't patriarchy mean a world run by males (along the lines of "the man is the head of the household")? And that's a good thing, a scenario which makes the most sense given how emotional and nurturing women are.
Woman = soft edges, curves, flowery, gentleness, emotionalism (if that's a word), inner steel, etc... not exactly the kind of stuff that could win wars, or should. Men = clear thinking, categorical, competitive, strong, leader, provider, hard, rugged etc... capable of going for weeks without baths! Can you imagine a regiment of women soldiers at Normandy beach on D-day? I think not! And not just because it wasn't allowed at the time, but because it's a stupid idea! Consider how every SS Nazi female prison guard during WWII mimicked the antics of a male with the hardness, the non-emotional outbursts, the good (male) soldier.
Maybe I just have a really old school idea of patriarchy though.
Why that idea of patriarchy should be such an insult to women (much less men) is beyond me. It's not as if because men are in charge, women are slaves or should be (although I can't say I'm not grateful for having been raised in a time where my voice did count for something with my spouse). We are just as valuable and necessary to society, but not in the same sphere as men are. Patriarchy, according to my definition, recognizes that. I don't even see the point in claiming that there is an equality between the sexes, or (this is so ridiculous) that we should have a matriarchy.
Oh and my definitions for
misogynist: someone who categorically hates all women (regardless of their reasons for it)
Male chauvinist: a male who believes that they are more valuable to society than a woman, and likes to let it be known (to women especially)
It's terribly inappropriate, ignorant and immature to throw out those words, as feminists do, every time someone disagrees with their thesis. It's very telling with regards to proving my point that women couldn't run the world - I mean, seriously, if they can't manage to keep a simple debate free of emotionally driven misuse of words....
@Trent13:
"I had no idea that men would or could take offense at the use of the word patriarchy. "
Yes, they can and do take offense at this word when it issues from the mouth of a feminist.
Actually, if it hadn't been for the feminists, most men would not even be aware of this somewhat obscure and mostly anthropological term at all.
As for "misogyny", my own ironic and "pragmatic" definition of that term is:
misogynist, n. a person who believes that women are responsible adults, and holds them accountable when they fail to act so.
As given HERE::
.. .Link. .
I say "pragmatic" because anybody who fits the given description will sooner later (and probably sooner) be called a 'misogynist' by a large number of feminists. So, when I proffer this definition, what I am really doing is shining a light on 'femspeak'.
My "straightforward" definition of the term would be about the same, Trent, as yours.
Your definition of 'male chauvinist' also sounds about right, however, I hesitate to give this word any traffic at all because it is a pure feminist invention from the get-go. "Male chauvinist" as a vocabulary item didn't even exist before the 1960s. Feminism injected it into the language in the first place, it is linguistically "tainted" by its origin no matter HOW it gets used, and that is why I don't feel so great about acknowledging or perpetuating the term in any way.
@Anon 4:40-5:00:
"Very good idea. I believe we should also claim words like "misogynist", "sexist","chauvinist", and all such words used to discredit and silence men."
"Claiming" all of those words would be a big project, an uphill battle, an upstream boat ride, and require a lot of hard, taxing work to make it grab hold effectively. We ought to consider if this would be cost-effective; if the game would be worth the candle. If we were to undertake such a thing, it should only be undertaken offhandedly, unofficially, non-chalantly. It should be tongue-in-cheek, as per which, see the following:
". . .whimsical or even desirable labels. ."
Yes. Whimsical sounds like the ticket here. Keep it in the realm of t-shirt memes, pop sensibilities, et al.
"By adopting labels such as "man-hater" or "ball-buster" of their own volition,and by attempting to "reclaim" words such as "cunt", they then free us up to adopt "misogynist" or "chauvinist".
More broadly, ANY trick which the feminists use against us, or license women-at-large to use against us, is (in theory) fair grist for such reversal techniques.
As much as the word male chauvinist might have been created by feminists, I can't say that it doesn't come into appropriate use by me, for certain men I know - and that isn't in a feminist sense at all. I see no problem with using a word in its appropriate use, regardless of who created it.
Really, what else does one call it when a man literally expects women to be "barefoot in the kitchen," with all the full connotations of the phrase in operation?
"Asshole" is just a bit too general when describing someone like that, but when talking to others, especially women (and all the women I know have the same mind as I do with regards to the roles of men and women) if you say male chauvinist, they say, "OOOHH...that sucks. Hopefully, he'll have a change of heart someday and not think we are all doormats....his poor wife..." (<---- and trust me, you should feel sorry for his wife.)
I don't like "genderism," either for men or for women. Women should respect men, and men should respect women. There shouldn't be a competitive power struggle between them, and to my way of thinking, a man who thinks he has to throw his weight around with regards to women by treating them like they are worthless, is just exposing some underlying inferiority complex. So, yeah, I'll use the word "male chauvinist," but not to a feminist, as I know that it would get taken way the hell out of context.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home