Male dominance is like a primordial force; there is constant pressure on men to assert authority over women and constant pressure on women to obey men. This may not be so clear in the current feminist culture where male bashing and the denigration of men and masculinity goes on all the time but the drive for male dominance is even visible with feminism ascendant; the drive for male dominance being manifested by the family and social collapse that takes place as men cede control to women. You see, if there was no underlying drive for male dominance then the decline of male power would have no negative consequences and we would be living in feminist nirvana. Instead what happens in reality is that the greater women’s power becomes the worse family life becomes and the worse society overall functions. The family dysfunction under feminism is what is telling us that male dominance is necessary and desirable and good.
The great cry of feminism is “gender equality” but under patriarchy there was gender equality, a much healthier and more functional form of gender equality than what the feminists are promoting today. Patriarchy represents gender equality in the form of there being an area of female superiority (the domestic sphere) and an area of male superiority (the public sphere). In patriarchy there is female privilege in the form of men providing for and protecting women (Chivalry) and there is male privilege in the form of being respected and being admired and having women depend upon you and having women obey you; in other words a sense of importance and a powerful affirmation that you matter as a man. Patriarchy focuses on meeting the needs of both men and women giving privileges to women to help women fulfill the female role and giving privileges to men to help men fulfill the male role. This is gender equality in the sense of both sexes mattering, both sexes’ interests being protected, both sexes working together for a common cause as part of the greater whole; the equality of equal dignity, equal worth, equal contribution.
The whole idea of being “equal” to the opposite sex is rather strange to me. I don’t want to be like a woman and I don’t want to share any kind of “equality” with a woman. I want to be a man and I want to be admired and respected for being a man and I want the society around me to support me and encourage me in my purpose of being a man and I want women to love me and romantically desire me because I am so manly and masculine. I would assume that women want the same things in reverse with some adjustments for what the feminine role is versus the masculine role.
When feminists talk about “gender equality” though they mean something completely different. They mean men and women being equal in the masculine realm. More than that they have a strong tendency to denigrate or ignore entirely the feminine realm often seeing the feminine realm as insulting to women or degrading or “beneath them.” They also have this strange fixation on the idea that men and women are really the same deep down inside and that all gender differences are merely “social constructs” that presumably they can get rid of with a little social re-engineering of their own.
The core of feminist style “gender equality” however is the equality of men and women in the masculine realm. This is an important thing to take note of because in practice the claim of gender equality is straight female supremacy because women are superior in the feminine realm automatically so to claim equality in the masculine realm while superiority in the feminine realm remains a given is de facto to assert supremacy overall. The plain fact is the masculine realm belongs to men and women have no right to invade it or claim a territorial right over it. Women certainly have no right to “equality” in the masculine realm.
Women “taking over” or “invading” or usurping the masculine sphere causes a lot of problems. Women holding power or claiming authority is like an irritant that never goes away; the longer a woman’s claim to power goes unchallenged the worse things get and the greater the incentive is for the man to reassert his natural power and control over the situation to set things straight.
In the effort to escape from the pernicious effects of inappropriate female involvement in the masculine sphere many churches teaching a complementarian or patriarchal message have been springing up, many of them quite successful with large memberships and fast growth. What’s nice about a church setting is that it allows for a sub-culture to be developed with different rules and different values than the society outside the church follows. The setting of the church allows for enough protection and isolation from the wider community to allow for more healthy forms of family life to be advocated for and taught and practiced than what would be deemed acceptable on the outside. This provides a welcome opportunity to escape from feminism and female involvement and interference where it doesn’t belong and allows for the reassertion of male dominance both in terms of the leadership of the church community itself and in terms of the family life of the church members. Many people are hungry for this opportunity to be a part of a place where men are in charge and where healthy masculine identity is taught and encouraged. This is why the complementarian / patriarchal side of Christianity is growing fast and why so many churches have had great success in preaching the male dominance message to their congregations. I will add such churches are especially popular among young adults in their early to mid twenties; the crowd attending these churches is very young.
So the longing for a return to male dominance is a very real thing and no amount of totalitarian exhortations demanding gender equality and greater subservience and submission of men to women will change this because the need for male dominance is fundamental to the human condition; it is how men and women are built or how men and women are programmed.
There are four basic components or underlying factors that drive the need for male dominance in all spheres of life. These factors are the man’s competence, the man’s role, the man’s status, and the man’s social position.
First, the man’s competence. The man has greater inherited skills and abilities in the masculine realm. He has a greater ability for abstract logical thinking, creating models of how the world works, setting down rules to follow and enforcing rules fairly and consistently, depersonalization where he removes his own self-interest from the equation and tries to do what is best based on abstract principles or long terms goals. This makes the man more competent regarding judgment or making decisions as part of a dominant role.
Second, the man’s role. The man’s role is as provider and protector to the woman. The man gives to the woman and the woman receives. The man is the protector and the woman is the protected. The man’s role takes up a large part if not most of his energies. The man providing for and protecting the woman is a big deal, it represents a large investment of resources and time and sometimes physical danger on the part of the man in service to the woman. The man is highly vulnerable to theft from the woman; theft in this sense meaning the woman receiving the benefit of what the man is providing to the woman but the woman using what is given to her for a selfish purpose or a wasteful purpose or simply for a purpose the man did not intend.
Think of the employer / employee relationship where the employer pays the employee money and in return the employee performs work. What if the employee didn’t have to do what the employer told him to do but the employer was guaranteed to pay the employee his wages anyways? That would be insane. Maybe the employee would simply not show up for work because he doesn’t think the job is that fun. Maybe at work the employee would invent his own routine of how the work should be done thereby messing up the employer’s overall plan of how work flows through his company. If the employee could do whatever he wants and not have to “obey” his boss but his boss could never fire him and he would receive his pay no matter what then that would be an impossible situation for the employer and the company would soon go bankrupt because of the employee’s effective theft from the employer.
The same general situation holds true in a man’s relationship with a woman. The man’s role involves a very high investment in the woman and if the woman can do whatever she wants with the resource transfer the man gives her the woman is highly likely to divert the resources given to her for a selfish purpose or a wasteful purpose or a purpose otherwise contrary to the purpose the man had in mind when giving her the resources in the first place. The woman obeying the man is then the means by which the man protects himself from the theft of his resources due to the woman diverting his resources towards an unintended purpose. The woman’s disobedience is then highly likely to constitute an attempted theft or diversion of the man’s investment in her contrary to the man’s idealistic purpose and goal in giving the woman the resources in the first place. If the woman succeeds in her disobedience then the man will stop providing resources to her because they will just be wasted or stolen anyways. This then leads to major harm and breakdown in the relationship between the man and the woman.
Third, the man’s status. The man’s status as authority figure and dominant is important to uphold and maintain in its own right because when the woman is disobeying the man she is highly likely to either be acting incompetently and / or to be engaging in an act of theft or diversion of the man’s resources away from their intended purpose. Occasionally a woman’s disobedience might be good or right regarding a specific episode or subject matter of conflict because the man is not going to be right in his decision making all the time but most of the time the woman will be wrong and the man will be right because of the woman’s tendency towards incompetence and the woman’s tendency towards the misallocation of the resources provided to her for selfish gain. So because the woman is usually in the wrong when she challenges the man and because the woman has a potential for receiving a selfish gain at the man’s expense if she does “win” an argument against him the man is not going to want to be challenged even if he is in the wrong regarding a particular issue because there is a cost to him “giving in” that might cause more harm than him sticking to a faulty decision; the cost of him “giving in” being that he will face more challenges from the woman in the future if the woman sees that arguing pays. So the man has to protect his status as the authority and as dominant as a general rule to prevent the woman from getting into the habit of challenging him and fighting him.
Fourth, the man’s social position. The man’s social position is an additional factor motivating him to be dominant because people respond well to a man who is showing dominance and they respond poorly to a man appearing weak. Regarding the romantic relationship the man’s dominance is important because dominance is attractive and desirable to women. Women are hardwired to like dominant men because dominance means strength and strength means the man will be a better provider and protector for the woman. Dominance also means the man will do a good job at the establishing order and enforcing rules part of the relationship. People respond well to a dominant man universally however; it’s not just women in the romantic sense that like dominant men. A dominant man will be better as a boss at work, a dominant man is good as the leader in a religious setting, a dominant man will draw support to himself in a political cause; people want to see a man in any kind of situation where they are looking to a leader to obey or follow and of course a dominant man is more reassuring and inspires more confidence than a weak man unsure of himself and afraid to assert himself.
So the pressures on men to assert themselves in their relationships with women are very strong and very real and the pressures on women to obey the men they are in relationships with is also very real. Feminism has corrupted things quite a bit in relations between men and women and distorted things severely in terms of how people perceive the strong man and the strong woman. Feminism has caused a distortion where the strong man is feared and reviled while the strong woman is fawned over and glorified. This is a distortion however; it is not the underlying reality of what strength in men means and what strength in women means. The underlying reality is completely opposite of what the artificial feminist distortion teaches us or imposes upon us. It is the strong man that inspires a feeling of safety and confidence and the strong woman that people fear and recoil from.
The artificial feminist narrative is crumbling and people more and more are consciously aware of their desire to be under male authority again (or to assert authority if one is a man). This expression for the desire for male dominance at this point is most visible in Christianity, particularly in the newly emerging and growing complementarian / patriarchal part of Christianity. Another good sign, women have been leaving the workforce since the year 2000 after 130 years of continuous gains in women working from 1870 to 2000 (in the United States). The feminist lie can’t last forever; male dominance is coming back.