Do Women Really Want to Smash the Patriarchy?

“Most women are neither cowards nor impotent victims. When society tells them that the rank conferred by a career is all important and that maternal child-nurturing must be sacrificed to it, many will defy society if they believe this not to be so. It has been my experience both as a market producer and mother at home that determined women in our society are very successful at getting what they want.If women want to destroy the remnants of patriarchy and become virtually fungible with men, I believe that- unless a significant number of our effete, attenuated, androgynous males undergo a rapid metamorphosis- women can do so. But before they do, I would have women consider whether their acquiescence in the feminist ideology our culture promotes does not rest solely on an intellectual evaluation of its message. If women do not defy that ideology, it is partly because they do not feel it is wrong. And they do not feel it is wrong because many of them are responding with the constricted emotions of a spiritual virgin.”[1]

Is smashing the patriarchy really what we desire to do? Has it honestly been good for women? The feminists believed that patriarchy was the cause of all their problems and even today they campaign, delivering the same message to women and the public that they were delivering 40 years ago. The revolution swept through Western society and there are no signs that feminists want to turn back now. Yes, they call crisis (conveniently forgetting and refusing to acknowledge that their movement was responsible for creating it) but still hang onto the same ideology that has put women into crisis situations. Before patriarchy forever becomes a thing of the past, maybe today’s women should take a closer look at the harm feminism has brought them. If women listen to the feminists, they will forever feel beaten down and victimized. But, if we set aside the feminist revisionist history and belief system, I believe women might finally come to see things in a different light. Maybe women should give patriarchy another chance.

Feminists’ first fatal mistake was to ignore the inherent differences between men and women- differences that are a part of our biology and cannot be changed. Ignoring these differences had done immense harm to women. Feminists deny female preciousness. They advocate putting women in combat and mothers returning to work as soon as possible after giving birth. They advocate doing away with “the rape culture” by wiping out patriarchy anywhere it can be seen. They advocate that a woman should live with her boyfriend and split the bills 50/50 and that if a woman feels like having casual sex or thinks it could be fun that she should go for it. After all, they insist, men do it so why can’t women? How unfair that there would be a double standard upon women.

Perhaps, if feminists want to get rid of the “rape culture” and the double standard upon women it would be wise to look at some matrilineal societies. In most matrilineal societies the women do all the work. In most of these societies the women may marry who they wish, including more than one man and divorce him as she wishes. Consequently, sex is not taken seriously and in some cases rape is not even a crime. Such as the Mosuos in China, who cannot understand why women in other cultures could ever see anything wrong with such a beautiful thing as sex:

“Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don’t seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them ‘How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?’

Otherwise, in the Mosuo language doesn’t exist the word ‘rape’ – even if rape does exist – but is less common than in other cultures.

The woman is clearly the center of this culture.”[2]

Yes, clearly. Though this is just one example, matrilineal societies have been quite common throughout human history. Most of the societies that feminists exclaim that women were equal in were not equal societies at all. In Iroquois society, for example, the women might have farmed, participated in politics and controlled their families, but there was no gender equality at all. Well defined gender roles still prevailed. There is quite a distinction between these matrilineal societies and our modern day free-for-all society where the law is blind to gender.

It is not a good thing for women at all if the law is blind to gender because this means that our laws do not protect women. It means all the protections that the law once gave to the female sex are now gone- but all in the name of “equality” and “fairness,” of course. And even when the feminists see that it doesn’t work, they still press forward with their agenda by lying to women and telling women that, if it wasn’t for them, they would be worth less than cattle and go straight back to “second-class” citizenship.

“Like the Soviet reformers, the American family law reformers of the 1960s are now reaping the economic and social consequences of their revolution. But unlike the old Bolsheviks they show no sign of turning back. The revolution in divorce law and in the culture of marriage are perhaps the best example of their intransigence. Feminist thinkers and activists in the women’s movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s assured women that the enactment of no-fault divorce laws would mean their liberation from bad marriages and their economic independence. No-fault laws were passed by nearly every state in the nation soon after 1970, largely at the instigation of feminist organizations. Although there is some dispute about their precise effect on the divorce rate due to the timing of the implementation of no-fault theory, there is now little doubt that they accelerated the cultural trend towards divorce, which only peaked in the early 1980s and has stayed at record levels ever since. What is beyond question is that no-fault has made divorce considerably easier to obtain for the spouse that wants out of a marriage, without regard for the wishes of the other spouse. It essentially transferred the right to decide when divorce is justified from society to the individual, leaving the marriage contract gutted and legally meaningless. After the institution of no-fault divorce laws, says Maggie Gallagher, marriage has turned into ‘something best described as cohabitation with insurance benefits.’

Moreover, making marriages subject to unilateral dissolution resulted in none of the economic benefits predicted by its feminist advocates. On the contrary, numerous studies have shown that divorce usually impoverishes women while enriching men. From 1970 to 1983, just as the divorce rate was going through the roof, so was the number of children living in poverty; 65 percent of that increase occurred in the fast-growing number of female-headed families. And because ‘women’s advocates’ have effectively demolished all remaining protections for women in the law on the theory that the principle of ‘equal treatment’ is essential for women’s advancement, courts are less likely to award custody of children to the wife in a divorce proceeding, which makes women more likely to agree to a reduced settlement in order to retain custody.

As the economic damage that divorce inflicts on women has become more apparent, feminists have stressed that women need divorce-on-demand so that battered wives can escape abusive husbands. The correlation of domestic violence and marriage is simply asserted. In fact, spousal abuse accounts for just 9 percent of all domestic violence. A full two-thirds of male abusers are either boyfriends or ex-husbands. Such data should lead us to strengthen the bonds of marriage, not to weaken them. Of course, the argument that legal obstacles to divorce might result in a wife’s being forced to remain in an abusive marriage is used primarily for its emotional impact. In reality, divorce for reasons of abusive conduct on the part of a spouse was easily obtainable- and was commonly granted- long before the advent of no-fault laws.” [3]

True patriarchies generally protect women greatly. When the husband is the authority figure within the family, he is given the power to protect his wife and children and provide for them. Such a system benefits women well. Women are naturally smaller and weaker than men (the average women is 5 inches- nearly half a foot- shorter than the average man and only has about 60% of the strength of the average man) and therefore are vulnerable to being taken advantage of by men. There are numerous biological differences beyond size and strength that put women at a sever disadvantage when they act and compete the same as men (fertility (including woman’s limited fertility), ability to handle alcohol and vulnerability to STDs and AIDS). Therefore a system in which women do not compete to be equal to men but instead are bound to one man who will protect and support her is a system that works the best for women.

“…Libby Anne is acting as if the concept of men protecting women from other men is an absurdity since if a man is dangerous by virtue of being a man then nothing is gained from an inherently dangerous man “protecting” women from other inherently dangerous men since the so called male “protector” is just as likely to turn around and attack the woman himself once he is given the trusted status of being the woman’s ‘protector.’ The problem with this line of thinking is that some men are more dangerous than other men. The minority sociopath man is more dangerous than the majority socially well adjusted man. The man who has made a high commitment and investment in a woman is less dangerous than the man who only has a casual relationship with a woman. A man who can act as a neutral third party whose primary interest is the well being of the woman, such as a woman’s father, is more trustworthy than a potential suitor who has the obvious self-interest of trying to gain a relationship with the woman. Women are most protected when the most trustworthy and least dangerous categories of men are empowered over the least trustworthy and most dangerous categories of men. The whole point of empowering fathers to protect their daughters from potentially harmful boyfriends and empowering husbands to protect their wives from potentially harmful relationships with other men is so that the men who are the most trustworthy and protective of women’s interests will be in charge.”[4]

When it comes to sex, should women really want to forever be done with the “double standard?” Perhaps the double standard might be a good thing for women. Part of the marriage contract in a patriarchal society is that a woman will only sleep with the man who protects and provides for her and only have children with him. Men also strongly dislike when their partner has many other men to compare his performance to. Generally, the more sexually liberated a woman is, the less interest a man will have in forming a long-term relationship with her. And the more partners she has, the less likely the woman is to have a successful marriage. Men also suffer from sexual jealousy that can, and does, lead to violence against the woman.

“On the basis of his studies of human mating behavior, David Buss concludes that American men ‘view the lack of sexual experience as desirable in a spouse.’ This is so because men ‘place a premium on fidelity’ and the single best predictor of extramarital sex is premarital sexual permissiveness.’ Men rank ‘faithfulness and sexual loyalty’ as a wife’s ‘most highly valued traits’ and ‘abhor promiscuity and infidelity in their wives.’ When a sexual relationship is threatened, claims Buss, women are more likely to feel sad and abandoned, and men to experience rage. ‘Male sexual jealousy is the single most frequent cause of all types of violence directed at wives,’ and most spousal homicide is ‘precipitated by male accusations of adultery or by the woman’s leaving or threatening to leave the husband.’

These facts of life, which are now documented by evolutionary psychologists, were always part of our cultural knowledge. They are facts that feminist sexual revolutionaries chose to ignore. While they and the women who followed their lead obtained what they viewed as sexual freedom- that is, the freedom to imitate male tom cat behavior- they jeopardized their chances of marrying and, once married, of remaining so…[5]

For some feminists, the sex act itself was a reaffirmation of “the patriarchy” as it was seen as an expression of male domination over a woman. Andrea Dworkin presented society with a rather shocking view of the subject:

“This is nihilism; or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied- physically, internally, in her privacy.”[6]

Some feminists responded to this view of sex by forgoing heterosexuality all together. Still some other feminists thought that simply pursing equality and sex on the same terms as men would alleviate it.Germaine Greer taught women that,

“…They must not scurry about from bed to bed in a self-deluding and pitiable search for love, but must do what they do deliberately, without false modesty, shame or emotional blackmail.”[7]

Even though insisting on sexual promiscuity to gain more respect for women, Germaine Greer went on to speak of men’s perverted sexual views of women as “cunt hatred” and insisted that:

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them. Any boy who has grown up in an English industrial town can describe how the boys used to go to the local dance halls and stand around all night until the pressure of the simplest kind of sexual urge prompted them to score a chick. The easier this was the more they loathed them and identified them with the guilt that their squalid sexual release left them.”[8]

To the feminists sex was to be seen as a casual thing. Illegitimacy was to be de-stigmatized and divorce was to be made easily available. The patriarchy had to crumble. And in so crumbling that patriarchy came many unforeseen consequences.The laws that protected women and favored women were abolished. These laws were necessary protections for women but the feminists campaigned them all away. The consequences of their movement are grave.

Mothers, wives, widows and rape victims have all been harmed by the feminist movement. Running wild has given women no greater freedom or respect. In fact, it has had quite the opposite effect. While campaigning about how much men hated women and viewed women as sexual objects, feminists at the same time insisted that women must join men and accord men sex on male terms. It has never turned out the way they promised for women.

“Not all stallions can be kept in harness, but the feminist response was to abandon the attempt and run wild with the stallions. For women to run wild, however, can be very costly, as many have learned to their regret.”[9]

Perhaps male dominance is not a bad thing when it is directed in a way that protects women. The feminists would rather have women giving their preciousness away to just any man. To carry children casually for just any man whether he has proven himself worthy to be the father of her children or not. Modern women allow just any man to enter her most private space even when he has not proven himself worthy of being her provider and protector- whether he has proven his commitment to her or not. Even the most conservative women have adopted the feminist perspective when it comes to work, sex and motherhood. While Dworkin, in the view of a traditional woman, reaches the wrong conclusion about sex, she does, however, capture the intensity of the moment from the woman’s perspective.

“Dworkin depicts sexual intercourse as a much more momentous experience for a woman than a man…Her depiction might be considered an outrageous exaggeration (many of Dworkin’s critics so characterize it), but I find it a dramatic portrayal-from the woman’s, but not necessarily from the man’s perspective- of sexual intercourse at its best. Dworkin describes an overwhelmingly personal, a truly awe-inspiring, event in which a woman should shrink in horror from participating on any basis even remotely casual. One might think that in her lifetime a woman would meet few men that she considers worthy of exercising such power over her. This may explain why women often invest their romantic relationships with a meaning the facts do not support, endeavoring to convince themselves that the man is what he is not and that the woman means much more to him than she truly does.”[10]

There are few facts in this life that can be changed by a social revolution. When a woman loves one man and devotes herself to him, Dworkin’s descriptions actually become a positive thing for women, as does patriarchy. For, as described above, the patriarchal system at its best allows only one man who has proven himself worthy to be with the woman and guard her to have any control over her. In our world today, women allow many men (live in boyfriends, casual sex partners, bosses and the government) to have control over them. The feminists insist this is freedom and independence for women, but the facts simply do no support their assertions.

Notes:
[1] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 328. Spence, 1998.
[2] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml
[3] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family.” Spence, 2002
[4] http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/mark-driscoll-explains-patriarchy/
[5] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 240.
[6] Dworkin, A. “Intercourse,” p.122. Secker &Warburg, 1987.
[7] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 300. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971
[8] Ibid., p. 279.
[9] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility, p. 241.
[10] Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” p. 173.

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements