How many times have I heard this remark from a man, that he broke up with a woman or had a relationship end because she just “went crazy?” If there is one thing readily observable to even the most uninformed layman- which needs no official “statistics” for its confirmation- it is that the prevalence of psychiatric problems, drug use/abuse and use of antidepressants and other psychiatric medications is on the rise. (see, eg., By the numbers: Antidepressant use on the risehttps://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/11/numbers ( Last Visited February 15, 2019); Astounding increase in antidepressant use by Americans https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624 (Last Visited February 15, 2019); Antidepressant use in U.S. soars by 65 percent in 15 years https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antidepressant-use-soars-65-percent-in-15-years/ (Last Visited February 15, 2019)) Attempts to explain away this phenomenon are always met with comments somewhere within the vicinity of the increase in the use of these meds as a good thing: As in, it is a good thing because society has become so “progressive” that individuals no longer need to fear the “stigma” of seeking treatment. But what cannot ever be said is that perhaps there is something much more fundamental involved here that cannot be talked about because it would violate egalitarian policies and beliefs.
Practically every man has a story about a woman going “crazy,” and in my own experience I hardly have ever known a woman one that hasn’t been on antidepressants or suffered psychological problems of some sort. And even I am no exception to this. There is something deeper that is going on here, in that modern men simply do not understand women nor know how to deal with women. They are taught to treat and see women as “equals” and have been raised wholly on egalitarian principles. But women are not men. Psychologically, physically, there is a world of difference. It is a world of difference that modern society simply refuses to acknowledge- no matter the consequences.
Contrary to the myths still prevalent in the mainstream, modern society goes to any lengths to actively push women out of the home and lock them out of their children’s lives. No legislative or judicial bias exists against fathers- quite the contrary, actually, as courts and relevant statutes are hostile against mothers (see, eg., Sessions v. Morales-Santana 582 U.S._ (2017) (“Relying on this Court’s post-1970 construction of the equal protection principle as it bears on gender-based classifications, the court held unconstitutional the differential treatment of unwed mothers and fathers…Sections 1401 and 1409 date from an era when the Nation’s lawbooks were rife with overbroad generalizations about the way men and women are…At the time § 1409 was enacted…In marriage husband is dominant, wife subordinate; unwed mother is the sole guardian of a non-marital child…For close to a half century, this Court has viewed with suspicion laws that rely on ‘overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females’…(Justice Ruth Ginsburg herself wrote the opinion for the majority in this last line of cases on the trail end of the ACLU’s “Women’s Rights Project.” Those interested can see for themselves the truth of women’s lib, borne out in the ACLU’s Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions on Women’s Rights https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/101917a-wrptimeline_0.pdf Though there were more legal issues involved, and the Court largely deferred to the power of the legislature, the decision revolved wholly around the “now-untenable assumption that an unwed mother is the ‘natural and sole guardian of non-marital children.” The obvious idea is that feminist goals have been 100% achieved up to the highest level, traversing through all ideological and partisan-party lines. Indeed, dare anyone dissent?) If bias does still exist anywhere in favor of women, then it is only because a sense of it still lingers on in the hearts and minds of the citizenry at large, not because of any institutionalized “discrimination.”
This point is an important one to make on two accounts. On the outset, it is important to emphasize this one point, that point being that “patriarchal” societies are not male supremacist societies; rather, patriarchal societies are male dominate societies (as all societies have been) in the way that men hold primary political and social power. Yet, in a true patriarchal society male dominance revolves around the welfare of women and children. True patriarchal societies are “gynocentric” at their core. The primary hallmarks of patriarchal societies are patrilineal descent, differentiation between legitimate and illegitimate born offspring, the financial support of and guardianship of women and children by father/husbands. Patriarchal societies are also- contrary to popular myth- nearly exclusively monogamous. Looking at the above timeline of “women’s rights” it becomes obvious that the goal of “equality” and ultimate aims of all “waves” of the feminist movement has been to obliterate all of the above (monogamy, legitimacy, and family stability with males as central providers).
The second point I would like to make is that popular beliefs in the mainstream oftentimes run counter to reality and fact- as can be seen in the differences between the common perceptions and beliefs about feminism and the real facts and truth about its history, legislative agenda, and continued prevalence in society. This also has implications for the political system as a whole- which hopefully will become obvious later in this article- and exemplifies the very real fears and concerns of the founding fathers, who- contrary to popular beliefs about the United States Constitution- distrusted democracy and popular sovereignty. Though holding to the principles that government exists to serve the people, the Constitution itself was meant to limit popular sovereignty- even though many of the protections the Founding Fathers embedded in the Constitution have already been washed away (eg., the election of Senators and electors during presidential elections were not originally subject to the popular vote; see U.S. Const. art. I,§3 (subsequently repealed by Amendment XVII in 1913); and see U.S. Const. art. II,§1, cl. 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…” (emphasis added) No subsequent amendments have repealed the right of the state legislatures to appoint electors in contravention of popular vote).