Women Need the Benevolent Patriarchy

An insidious misogynistic movement has firmly usurped all of our major institutions in the United States and seemingly the West as a whole. The origins of this movement can likely be traced back a long time but strongly manifested itself with the rise of feminism in the 1960's. Modern feminism could not have come into existence without the development of the birth control pill. The suffrage movement that fought for voting rights for women had little in common with the bra-burning hippies of the 60's fighting for free love, but they were both feminists of their day. The former fought for equal representation through the ballot box, the latter for sexual equality. The first movement sought to recognize the dignity of the woman by honoring her value as a citizen. The second movement sought to level the differences between the sexes. The suffrage movement was in part led by a woman whose name is today borrowed by one of the most famous pro-life organizations in the U.S.; the Susan B. Anthony List. Margaret Sanger, the founder of what today is called Planned Parenthood and the most important promoter of sexual liberation of her day was a eugenicist and racist whose abortion clinics operate in predominantly black and minority communities.

As different as these two movements were, they had one thing in common: they were fighting against the real or perceived white patriarchy of their day. The women in the early suffrage movement wanted what black men had been given a few years earlier: a one-person one-vote representation (but women had to wait another 50 years for that to happen). In the sexual revolution, however, women sought to “liberate” themselves from what they perceived as the shackles of domestic life, a life limited to the role of a housewife, frustrated and bored (that only took a few years). The result of the suffrage movement was to elevate the dignity of women. The result of the sexual revolution was to decrease their dignity.

This occurred because of the consequences of so-called consequence-free sex. The pill, in theory, meant that women could now play the field just as men without the “threat” of pregnancy. In reality it didn't quite work out that way since contraceptive non-use or failure resulted in a need for expanded abortion “services”. Sexual access and autonomy not only trumped the precious lives of the most innocent and vulnerable among us, but it failed to deliver to women what it promised: empowerment. Conversely, the sexual revolution divorced women from their fertility and their femininity. Fertility is viewed as an evil or at least a demon to be bottled only to be released when seen fit – often after a woman is older and well-established in her career. Career women traded being a “slave” to the kitchen to being a slave to the corporation. It is no small wonder after the Supreme Court decision that returned to the states the ability to make their own abortion laws (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization), major corporations, in their 'beneficence', are paying their profit makers to get abortions in states that still advocate for this form of child sacrifice. It is not acceptable to allow women to leave the workforce (even temporarily) to nurture and raise the next generation when there are corporate profits to be made now. This is increasingly becoming more true daily since a majority of university students are women and that trend is growing. One of the problems with educated women is that they like their men to be at least as educated as they are and earn as much or more than they do. It's a problem because as women get older and more educated, it follows in an inverse relationship that fewer men who meet their criteria are available to get married and have children. And most women do want to have children when they are 30 or 35 despite what they might have said at 20 or 25. Sadly, the longer the career woman waits to have children the harder it becomes to naturally have them, and there is no shortage of women who have turned to technology to help them with their fertility issues.

To be fair, many women seem quite content to have their lives revolve around their employer, especially those women who have eschewed male companionship because this is the equality that feminists have demanded. Men have become exactly what feminists have shaped them to be: floor mats. They have emasculated themselves since just about everything that distinguishes them from women is “toxic” and must be eliminated...and there is nothing appealing about weak men subservient to women and constantly full of self doubt because they are uncertain of who they are and what their culture expects of them. Not only do their women not respect them, but there is little trust between them. There is no sticking it out in “good times and bad, until death do you part.” Instead, it's 'see ya' due to no-fault divorce (for the increasingly few who do get married) or for everyone else who is just living together, it's simply a matter of packing up and leaving. And to hell with the kid(s) because they are “resilient” anyway. The equality that has been achieved in these relationships is not one of dignity but of contract...and it is a contract that can be broken and reestablished with others at any time.

Women, like men, have a a different kind of contract with their employer than they do each other, a labor contract. The difference with the work contracts between the two sexes is that the job only requires of men their time and effort (and increasingly their willingness to abide by “woke” mandates), whereas it requires of women their children and family life. Being 'unburdened' of children not only means more women working for “the man” as opposed to being with their man, it also means that devotion is transferred from the man of the house to the man of the corporation. For the husband, children in the home creates a father who is responsible for his domestic kingdom, but for the employer, children are a distraction from the workplace and interferes with the productivity of the corporate kingdom. Therefore, men and corporate America are in direct competition for women.

Contrary to their slogan that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” the sexual revolution didn't help shape an independent woman. There is no such thing. What that era did help create was a shift from female dependence on a male provider to a dependence on the corporation and the state as providers. It is for this reason that young, single, and especially college educated women vote overwhelmingly for the political party who promises to take care of them through their social welfare programs. Perhaps nothings exemplifies this better than the famous (or infamous) campaign featuring “Julia” during the Obama years when the government was pushing their healthcare program (ACA). In this cartoon ad, the government was in Julia's life to help her from life until death – even when her child was born - with never a man to be seen. Women want protection and security, and if they don't trust men to give it to them, they will turn to someone – or rather something – that will. They are right not to trust the modern man that they have helped create. As much as possible, they try to manage everything equally in their households - especially regarding children if they have them - having both separate incomes, separate bank accounts, and in some ways, separate lives. This makes it easier to pull the plug when the relationship goes south.

The open secret is that the sexual revolution was not about empowering women. The feminists who led the way toward sexual liberation were unwittingly being played by exploitative men, and they still are. Women have historically been important as a civilizing force for men. They had to be discriminating as to sexual partners since they had much to gain or lose by becoming pregnant with and raising the offspring of a particular man. A woman's decision as to who, when, and where to have sexual relations could mean the difference between prosperity or poverty for the rest of her and her children's lives. Young men might play the field, but when it came time to settle down, they wanted the girl who stayed on home base. She let him know that to win her he had to be willing to commit, and that meant putting a ring on her finger, and the ring meant he could no longer play ball with others (or for those who did, it had to be clandestine). He needed to know that any children he fathered with her was indeed his, and a good girl was a much better bet than the girl around town. In short, women needed to be more virtuous then men because they had more to lose in having sex. They had to say no to the wrong men so they could say yes to the right man at the right time. As Professor Mark Regneres points out in his book Cheap Sex, sex was expensive for men looking for a respectable woman. Today, sex is cheap because it's abundant, and a virtuous woman is looking at a deserted landscape in trying to find a man of integrity that she thinks would make a good husband and father. This system has not empowered women but men, especially exploitative men. The pill gave men greater sexual access to women than ever before in history with the false promise that women could likewise indulge more-or-less consequence-free, but the dark side was never revealed: the rise of infidelity, the breakdown of trust, the constant severing of the sexual and emotional bound that is inherent to women with their partner, the rise of sexually transmitted diseases, the exploitation of Big Pharma and others in making billions by using women's bodies as experimental grounds for testing oral and invasive contraceptives, and, of course, the expansion of abortion.

Progressive women today aren't empowered but embittered. They need good men to keep them from going off the deep end, and good men not overly infected with our cultural disease are hard to find. Confusion reigns, and that's how the exploiters are continuing to not only hold onto power but are seemingly increasing it. For clarity, I did not say that women need men to keep them in line. I am saying that women need good men to keep them in line. Bad men are destroying women and only good men can save them. Women cannot save themselves from the misogyny that they helped create and are fueling. I am not referring to all women, of course, just as I am not saying that all men are responsible for their current degradation, but I am referring to those who adhere to the pathological ideology whose latest iteration leads them to claim that people born with XY chromosomes can actually become someone born with XX chromosomes: in other words, that males can become females and vice versa. The idea that a mental state (or claim) trumps biological reality is absurd in the extreme, and a culture hell bent on forcing such an insane idea as normal can only come from a diseased political philosophy and orientation. The only reason such a perverse concept has taken root is due to the majority of people not taking it seriously as a threat until after our political and institutional leaders embraced it, but by then, people were too afraid to speak up since it could bring down the wrath of social media on their heads and even jeopardize their careers. One would think that feminists would lead the charge to challenge policies that allow men into their bathrooms or in their sports arenas, but only the so-called TERFS (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) have, and they have have been mostly cowed into silence (but occasionally JK Rowling pops her head up from the foxhole). In other words, the TERFS (named by their “trans” detractors) and all feminists that aren't onboard with this form of female exploitation, are intimidated and threatened by men to shut up and go away. And that shouldn't be a surprise, because the only thing that radical feminists of all stripes have shown themselves to actually care about are not women's rights at all but the killing of the child in the womb.

This is where the good man comes in. A good man marries a good gal, stays faithful to her, and raises their children. She knows he will stand by her despite whatever adversities come their way because he is a man of integrity and honor. Together they will defend their children from harm; he from a speeding car and her from school board members pushing graphic sexual education. They know that their children are the future and take their responsibilities seriously in passing down the values that foster gratitude and love for truth, beauty, and goodness.

As Phyllis Schlafly understood, the much-maligned housewife need not be in any way a passive wallflower but could be a force to be reckoned with for positive societal change. Schafly was the anti-feminist who successfully fought against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970's and is exactly the kind of leader women need today to fight what may be the greatest threat to women the West has ever experienced: the misogynistic movement of transgenderism. Not only are women not fighting this brutal corporate and governmental attack on them, they are often the main culprits in promoting it. Woke mothers are on TV or TikTok making videos of their “trans” kids while the father is absent or just part of the background. These proud women banter on and on about how their child “knew” he was a she at two years because “she” played with Barbie instead of GI Joe. As Jordan Peterson has eloquently pointed out numerous times, this is child abuse perpetrated by narcissistic women who are using their children to get attention. These narcissists are buttressed by an army of like-minded medical and other professionals – many if not most who are women – who encourage and promote this contagion by affirming either the child's distorted (and peer-driven) perception or the parent's manipulative behavior. Our society's eagerness to medically drug and surgically mutilate our children due to “affirmation” of their self image will ultimately be seen with horror by future generations and our era will be scrutinized for how it went off the rails.

This is why the patriarchy is needed: to put in their place hysterical and deluded women. Women are always going to be dominated by men. Always. We have testosterone to thank or condemn for this since it makes men stronger, more competitive, more assertive, and more aggressive than women (estrogen has no such affect). This is why “trans women” (i.e. men) will always competitively crush actual women. Women are simply weaker than men. They may be just as intelligent, clever, and creative as their counterparts – and not infrequently are more so – but women can not dominate men physically in any way (there will always be unusually strong women just as there are weaker-than-average men, but I am referring to the sexes as a whole). So the question remains as to which men they want to be dominated by, a benevolent patriarchy or a malevolent one. If men love their wives and children and seek God's guidance in their actions, then it bodes well for these women, their families, and greater society. If men see women as sex objects to to exploited in porn fantasies or random hook ups, vulnerable weaklings to be crushed in sports competitions, or warm bodies to increase corporate profits, then it will bode badly for women and society. Both patriarchies exist today side-by-side, but the former is marginalized and mocked whereas the latter holds the keys to power, is honored and celebrated...and is accelerating headlong toward a cultural abyss.