How Patriarchy Works and Why Feminism Undermines Social Order

What does “masculine authority” mean in American society today? You almost never hear the term “masculine authority” spoken in polite society, surely it would turn people’s stomachs, it sounds very sexist and chauvinistic, only someone very much out of the mainstream would use the term “masculine authority” in a favorable way, in a natural and comfortable way, as a way of describing how the world should be or what the natural order of life is based on. “Masculine authority” is oppressive, it’s selfish, it’s arrogant.

Look at the opposite term, “women’s empowerment.” Women’s empowerment is totally different from masculine authority. Women’s empowerment is wonderful, it’s freeing, it’s overcoming the oppression and weight of history, it’s the new era and the new world, it’s what is fair and right and just, it’s what women are entitled to as full and equal human beings!

What is the difference between “masculine authority” and “women’s empowerment” besides the sex of the person asserting themselves? Masculine authority is about rule enforcement and the authority figure, the man, imposing rules upon others. Women’s empowerment is about freedom from rules, it is about ignoring rules or openly flouting rules, it is about the woman doing whatever it is she wants to do.

When a man asserts authority he is doing so to create or impose the overall social system he thinks is best. When a woman asserts authority she is doing so to escape from the rules of the social system she is putatively under. Masculine authority therefore creates order while women’s empowerment creates disorder. Masculine authority sets the rules and women’s empowerment breaks them.

There is something that should be understood about masculine authority; that is that male power does not mean women are powerless. Even if in a system of male authority women are theoretically powerless as independent actors women will not be powerless in practice both because of women’s intrinsic free will capacity and because men will always delegate power to women in order to enable the woman to serve her social function in support of men’s overall goals.

In a patriarchal social model men as a collective body theoretically hold all formal power; men then delegate authority to women within certain realms within certain constraints. Men collectively decide what authority to delegate to women under what rules so that formal authority is theoretically completely under men but men will always in practice delegate significant authority to women so that women will be able to serve the social role men think it is best for women to serve.

Even today in feminist America this rule of men delegating authority to women to enable women to play the social role men collectively want women to serve still operates. Women were initially given the right to vote in 1920 based entirely on the votes of men as only men served in the legal bodies that decided upon the issue. Women’s right to abortion without the husband’s consent was decided upon by the Supreme Court in 1976 (Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri vs. Danforth); all 9 Supreme Court justices being men. Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 was the first woman Supreme Court justice. If one looks at opinion surveys men consistently favor women’s rights positions more than women do. It should be understood that even modern feminism is in reality men delegating authority to women for the purpose of enabling women to serve the social function men collectively think women should serve.

If men collectively come to the conclusion that this modern experiment in feminism turned out to be a big mistake could men unilaterally, without women’s consent in the matter, reestablish patriarchy in the way patriarchy was practiced before modern feminism? The answer is yes. As a practical matter men collectively can indeed overpower women collectively. Considering that “women’s rights” in practice are based on authority men have delegated to women even modern feminism is just another variation of patriarchy; an outcome of what is still at base a patriarchal social system. Feminists may wish to overturn “the patriarchy” even at this most fundamental level but this is completely impossible because the fundamental source of the power advantage of the man is inherited.

In a healthy patriarchal social system, in a traditional patriarchal social system, men delegate power to women consistent with women’s social role as women; men delegate power to women to enable women’s feminine strengths. A man acting as a competent authority will assign himself rights consistent with his masculine role as a man and he will assign the woman rights consistent with her feminine role as a woman and most importantly he will make sure that the authority he delegates to the woman does not conflict with his rights and his role as a man. It would be completely stupid for a man to claim all authority for himself because he cannot perform the functions of the woman as well as the woman can and the woman cannot perform her role as a woman unless the woman is delegated the right to do so first.

The great problem with feminism is that under feminism men delegate authority to women that then conflicts with the man’s role as a man. The feminist man undermines his own capacity as a man to “empower” women in the process disabling himself. This is completely wrong. The man needs to assign to the woman authority over the feminine sphere and assign to himself authority over the masculine sphere so that the man can do his job as a man and the woman can do her job as a woman at the same time. Power conflicts between men and women should be eliminated by the man being wise enough to not give the woman rights in the masculine sphere; to not give the woman rights that undermine the man’s ability to perform his role as a man.

Of course, I am suspicious. I don’t think the feminist man’s decision to assign to women rights in the masculine sphere thereby undermining the man’s capacity as a man is a mistake. I think the feminist man is intentionally disabling himself so that he can’t perform his role as a man so that he won’t be responsible for performing his role as a man. Women’s empowerment (feminist style) and male abandonment of women is the same thing. Men “empower” women so that men can then abandon women; that is the motivation for “empowering women” from the man’s point of view in the first place.

In addition to it being incumbent upon the man to delegate authority to women in the feminine sphere to enable the woman to perform her feminine functions as a woman; it should be kept in mind that the feminine sphere also needs material protection and support from the man. The man must not only delegate to women authority consistent with the feminine function, he must also protect and support the woman while she performs her feminine function as the feminine function is dependent upon male support and protection in addition to needing male permission to enable the decision making aspect of the feminine role.

Lastly, a patriarchal social system is always based on God; or in a secular sense the “Superior Power.” An individual man is never “the law” under any patriarchal social system. The reason for this is very simple; men collectively do not want men individually undermining the social system men collectively think is best. In the same way men collectively under patriarchy delegate to women rights associated with the female role to allow the woman to perform her female role men collectively also restrict male authority at the individual level so that men will perform their masculine role in accordance with the overall social system men collectively wish to create. Men collectively will not tolerate individual men undermining them just like they will not tolerate individual women undermining them. In fact, since men are in the greater authority position as a rule men collectively will attack a man undermining them more aggressively than a woman likewise undermining them because male disobedience is a greater threat to the social order than female disobedience.

Men collectively, the male governing structure, is what sets the social rules for society in a day to day practical sense. However God is above the male governing structure or men collectively. A sound patriarchal social system will always try to be obedient to God in the rules it sets for society and in the roles and duties it assigns to men and women. God also has an enforcement mechanism or a punishment mechanism for those male governing structures that choose disobedience to God’s will or natural law; that is that a society with bad social rules will fall apart or devour itself. This is clearly being seen with the current feminist social order. A male tyranny however would also fall apart and devour itself if it placed men’s interests above the interests of the women and children men are meant to serve.

It is the beneficent power of God that leads to patriarchal social systems being overall good and moral most of the time. The feminist mutation that the current underlying patriarchal social system has produced is clearly disordered, clearly dysfunctional, clearly “not right.” What is needed is a return to “true patriarchy” or traditional patriarchy where men only delegate to women the authority women need to play their feminine role within the overall male designed social system and where most importantly women’s authority is kept out of the man’s sphere so that men will be enabled to fully perform their functions and role as men.

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Gender Hierarchy, Patriarchy, Philosophy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to How Patriarchy Works and Why Feminism Undermines Social Order

  1. kqduane says:

    You are absolutely on the right track. As God’s greatest creation, man was placed on earth, imbued with many directives from God Himself, whereby He specifically defined man’s authority or “dominion” over the earth. It is the natural order. And, there is no doubt about this natural order intended by God on earth. It is clearly written in the first few pages of the Bible. Man is patriarch and women and the remainder of life on earth are beholding to man’s God-given authority. To deny this requires twisted thinking, which perfectly defines radical, second-wave feminism’s ideology. I’m glad to note that despite the title of your blog, you are beginning to see the need to recognize the ultimate patriarchal authority, over man – God. God defines nearly every aspect of human travail in the Bible with laws to avoid the pain and suffering brought about by human sin. Deuteronomy contains most of God’s extended laws, beyond the 10 Commandments. God has given man all of the answers to living a good life on earth in the Bible and only men are capable of imposing those laws on the remainder of the life on earth, including women. And when the natural order is disturbed, as in the case of radical feminism, the laws created by man (woman) alone, without God’s authority, breeds disaster for everyone. Bring back daily Bible reading and school prayer!.

  2. farah says:

    funny how your god given law was already in practice long before god decided to pass it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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