Patriarchy and the Search for Identity and the Search for God

For me today patriarchy means the love of women, my duty to God, and the great heroic quest. Of course it wasn’t always this way. First I was a child with no particular thoughts about the wider world; what mattered to me was my family relationships and my relations with my teachers and the other students at school. I do remember being particularly interested in the news, stories from around the world as shown to me during class time, at age 10 in 5th grade. I remember the other students seemed to look around the room as if they were bored but I was riveted by what I saw on TV regarding the dramas and conflicts taking place in far off lands. I was a “teacher’s pet” in grade school up to 5th grade so oddly enough I was very popular in the classroom where the teacher controlled the social hierarchy among the students. On the playground however just among us kids I had a hard time making friends or entering into the different games I could play. My social status dropped dramatically in 6th grade when the “home room” was no longer so important and I went from one class to another for all the different subjects. Once the teachers were no longer in control of the social hierarchy my status dropped significantly.

At age 12 major fights started with my mom. Power struggles basically. My mom wanted me to “obey” her and I saw no reason why I should. I didn’t see any higher purpose or ideals my mom was aiming for when she “ordered” me to do something or “disciplined” me; I just saw her as power mongering and egotistical. Strangely I felt much more comfortable in obeying my dad and generally thought he was fair and reasonable both in his demands on me and in his discipline. My dad’s efforts to get me to “obey” him and his follow-up discipline never enraged me or led me to resent him or hold a grudge against him or anything like that. With my mom however the power struggle was intense and unrelenting. Unfortunately since my mom was the “boss” in the family it was my mother who was the one “telling me what to do” the great majority of the time.

At age 13 the fights with my mother ended as I decided “obeying her” was the best strategy to put an end to the constant fighting with her. However this also meant the end of my relationship with my mother at any kind of serious emotional level as there was no way I could both obey my mother and feel close to her at the same time. I was going to protect my identity from my mother’s interference so that my outward obedience to her didn’t mean anything to me internally or emotionally. It was just manipulation as I saw it; a practical way to avoid conflict and nothing more.

Age 13 is also when I became “radical.” It is when I sought identity and a sense of purpose based on conflict against the world around me, based on conflict against “the system” as it were. The outer social environment based on home and based on school was not able to provide me with any sense of purpose or identity. It was as if the world was a great empty void. I greatly admired Martin Luther King (the 1960s civil rights leader) and worshipped him as a kind of hero and saw him as someone I’d like to emulate in some way. A great hero who changed the world. In terms of ordinary attachments with the people around me however; I didn’t get any sense of “belonging” or having any kind of purpose or value by socially integrating myself to be like others or to pursue ordinary goals or interests. I instead got my sense of purpose from “heroic struggle” in an effort to “change the world” where the “status quo” was the enemy. At this time, I’m talking age 13 here, I wasn’t thinking about feminism or gender politics or anything; my “radicalism” was focused on economic issues.

From age 13 to age 17 I actually consciously rejected all attempts at forming relationships with women on principle. I figured that falling in love or being in a “relationship” was bad as it would distort my perceptions of the world and distract me from my great heroic “radical” mission. My radical identity however broke down at age 17; I lost my belief in the radical positions I previously held; and this led me to accept pursuing women romantically as a morally acceptable thing to do. In truth my “rule” that I was “not allowed to fall in love” didn’t really work in practice. I definitely was attracted to women and fell in love but I did so from afar and did not “pursue” any woman. I could restrict my behavior but I couldn’t restrict my feelings so I loved women but just didn’t do anything about it.

Age 17 is when I first started to develop a romantic identity and romantic sense of purpose. I finally pursued romantically openly the woman I had loved the most during my time of self-imposed rejection of all women. Through my pursuit of this woman I formed a new identity for myself as someone who loved women; this being my central identity at that time. It was a very primitive identity but it was the starting point of my love for women as something that had moral value in its own right, as something that gave me moral value and a sense of identity and purpose, that it was something that made me a “good person.”

From age 17 to mid-20s then I had for myself a romantic identity and I actively pursued women but I also had various other identities and “causes” that I was interested in. My romantic identity was not my central identity until my conversion to patriarchy where my romantic political identity became merged with my romantic personal identity; when patriarchy became both a heroic crusade to save the world and also my strategy for bringing a woman into my life.

There is the question however, how did I go from being a feminist like everyone else to becoming a pro-patriarchy radical and crusader? Some have questioned whether I was “truly a feminist” like I claimed to be in the first place. This is an interesting thing to think about. I converted to patriarchy very quickly and easily after having developed myself moderately in terms of my romantic abilities. At age 17 during my senior year in high school during the time I was just initiating my romantic identity by pursuing my main romantic interest in high school I really had no gender politics identity at all. I simply knew I loved that woman with all my heart and I wanted her to know that. My goal and identity was very basic; I loved her and I wanted her to know that I loved her. That was it; that was all that mattered and that was all I understood at that time.

After high school, immediately after high school, I started to form a real gender identity and I started to form opinions regarding the gender politics issue. I actually went in a feminist gender bending direction as my first impulse. I saw myself as a “sensitive man” interested in things stereotypically female and I tended to identify with the feminist camp politically. Looking back this is rather strange to me but it is true. Trying to explain this starting bias I had towards being “feminine” and feminist, more ideologically and politically feminist than most at that time, I think the reason was because I was weak and passive and a bit on the manipulative side trying to appear to women as something that I wasn’t; pretending to be “sensitive” as a kind of ploy to be accepted by the women around me socially at that time. I wasn’t really “sensitive,” I was more awkward afraid of being assertive and wanting to appear “nice” and not threatening.

After a couple of years of drifting in this gender bending feminist direction a kind of transition took place where I started to become more conservative politically and socially. I started to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show and think of myself as being a “conservative.” I think this transition in a conservative direction came because I was starting to get disgusted with myself; disgusted with my passivity and weakness. I wanted to give myself some drive and ambition and to identify with “success” and “self-reliance” and I wanted to identify with people who seemed to be more functional and successful in their lives. I think the other part of the transition was me feeling ashamed of my emotional distance from women. When imaging a relationship with a woman at the tail end of my period of becoming more liberal and gender bending and feminist I started to become aware that from the woman’s point of view I didn’t have much to offer, I didn’t really see myself as being involved in the woman’s life very much or wanting to support her very much. I was disturbed by the fact that in my vision of myself in a relationship with a woman I was really on the sidelines not wanting to be involved and not wanting to be responsible for much. I had a feeling this was wrong, that there was something “wrong with me” with my inclination to “not get too close” and that at the core I really didn’t love women very much or care about women very much deep down.

During my time being a “sensitive man” I did get approval from women that I was a “good guy” and that I was “one of them” in terms of being accepted in their social group but I only got a few flickers of actual romantic approval or actual romantic interest. My level of social acceptance was significantly and noticeably higher than the level of romantic acceptance or romantic interest directed my way. There was something wrong with that in my mind; girls’ weak romantic interest in me was telling me there was something wrong with what I was doing or something wrong with the person I was trying to be.

There was also the memory of the girl from high school. I suspected the reason why she rejected me was because I was too weak; that I didn’t have enough to offer her. Now here I was a few years later and I was continuing to not do well with women. Worse I was starting to realize that I wasn’t even trying to be of value to women, that I was strangely indifferent to women and stingy with women in a way; that I was “looking out for number one” and thinking that was good enough. I was feeling that I was betraying the woman from high school that I loved the most, that she would be ashamed of me if she saw me in that state and rightfully so. If a woman like her came around again I wouldn’t want to lose her again because of my inability to care about her enough.

So after a couple of years drifting towards gender bending and a self-conscious feminist identity I started to feel like there was something “wrong with me.” I wanted a stronger drive and sense of ambition, I wanted to identify with more successful more high functioning people, I wanted to care about women more and have more to offer women, I wanted to get out of the rut and aimless wandering I had slid into. This is what led me to shift gears and start to become more conservative, listening to the Rush Limbaugh show being a major vehicle for developing my political and cultural orientation in a conservative direction.

It was about 2 years from the time I first shifted in a conservative direction until my conversion to patriarchy episode. There was about a 6 month period before my conversion to patriarchy where I started to turn significantly anti-feminist during which time I started to notice and think about the exploding problem of out-of-wedlock births and what that meant, I was starting to become suspicious about the morality of women putting their children in day care as they went off to work, and I was hearing about some of the crazy rape hysteria that was being promoted by more radical feminists on college campuses that made me think there was something wrong with the social environment feminism had created. I’m talking about the time around 1995 here when concerns about family breakdown were being talked about a lot on the conservative side.

At a more fundamental level it must be said that I was probably proto-patriarchal in my style of thinking all the way back to the beginning; as far back as age 17 and even as far back as age 13. What I mean by this is that I had an orientation towards absolute truth or objective truth right from the beginning and I also had a fundamental mistrust of majority opinion and the status quo. As early as age 13 I was no longer socially integrated with others in terms of thinking like they thought or being invested with “fitting in.” My identity was based on conflict against the world around me as early as age 13 because the status quo that was imposed upon me in terms of my family situation and in terms of my school environment and in terms of whatever I picked up from the wider culture; this status quo had nothing to offer me and was hostile against me. It was not possible for me to create any sense of moral value or moral purpose for my life based on what was told to me or what was given to me by my environment.

What strikes me most about my thinking at age 17 regarding the romantic realm was that my beliefs were totally feminist but that my way of thinking was not feminist at all. My style of thinking was religious fundamentalist or proto-patriarchal even though the content of what I believed was 100% feminist. I believed in objective reality and objective truth and definitely saw myself as “serving the good” which is equivalent to “obeying God” in religious language terms. Most of all even at age 17 the idea that truth or morality is simply what a woman wants or what a woman demands would have seemed completely absurd to me. Feminism seems to have this very perverted idea that women are entitled to get what they want simply because they want it. This idea of women choosing to be a stay-at-home mother or not according to whatever the woman’s preference is is a perfect example of this kind of thinking. It is completely illogical to think the morality of a woman being a stay-at-home mother is dependent upon whether or not the woman desires to be a stay-at-home mother. Even at age 17 I would never have believed something so absurd.

My belief in feminism collapsed immediately after I started to think about and encountered actual evidence regarding how feminism worked in real life as it related to my own personal experiences and after studying up on the history of various social statistics which show nothing but huge increases in various pathological indicators after feminism got started especially after 1960. My belief in feminism shattered immediately after being challenged by reality even though I had been programmed to believe in feminism my whole life since birth. I believed in feminism intellectually based on an endless stream of lies I had been told my whole life by everyone around me with me never questioning or even thinking about the issue in a serious skeptical way but after only a very short time of investigating the issue and thinking about the issue critically I found that feminism really made no sense at all and was obviously blatantly disastrous in terms of what it means in real life. My belief in feminism proved to be a mile wide and an inch thick.

After I finally escaped the insanity of feminism it was then time to build a new identity and develop a view of gender relations that actually works. This process of building a new identity that actually works especially in the hostile feminist climate that is today’s reality took a long long time. Escaping from feminism was the easy part for me; building the new patriarchal future is the part that is hard and took a lot of time for me and will take a lot of time for the culture as a whole. I am hoping that this website will help those a generation younger than me to learn a functional view of gender relations a lot easier and a lot quicker than what I was able to do on my own by myself.

Patriarchy is my salvation in a spiritual and moral sense. It is how I express my love for women and it is how I serve God. It is my great heroic mission. I was right to rebel against the “status quo” at age 13 as clearly “something was wrong” in my environment at that time. I however did not understand that feminism was the root cause of the moral void I had been thrown into. Not until I was a young adult (in my mid 20s) was I able to see things in broader perspective and to understand that it was the social system and family system that was “messed up” specifically due to feminism. Things worked good in the patriarchal era; particularly during the time of coverture before 1850. The social statistics prove it. During the primary era of feminist induced social deterioration from 1870 to 1995 the pathologies of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and married women working (in the white population in the United States) all increased about 20 fold. All of these pathological family behaviors went from being virtually non-existent to being practically the norm as a result of feminism. Fortunately I was able to see that feminism was the root cause of the problems around me and in my own life in particular at an early enough age to be able to “do something about it” and make my contribution to restoring society to its proper foundations based on patriarchy; the social system based on men taking care of women where male authority comes first and women’s interests as defined by men come first all under obedience to God. Patriarchy is service to children through service to women based on obedience to the Superior Power or God by means of male authority and I am proud as a man to do my part in bringing patriarchy back; it is my central identity and purpose as a man.

 
Related Article:

Why I am not a Men’s Rights Activist

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

7 Responses to Patriarchy and the Search for Identity and the Search for God

  1. mongopanda says:

    Great website!

    About two or tree months ago I realized that the ideas I had had in my head for over a year, about men being in charge of women, actually had a name: patriarchy. Since I realized that, I have been extremely excited about patriarchy, having a feeling in my gut that this is the truth, which has given me an urge to read anything I can about it. I have read many Christian books on the subject, like “Family Man, Family Leader” and “Man of Steel and Velvet” (which are books on the man’s role in a marriage). I even made my sister read the book “Fascinating Womenhood” which is about womens role in marriage.

    This reading of Christian books has been very beneficial to me. I have increased my understanding of what my role as a man is, as the provider and protector of women, but I have felt sorry for the atheists out there. As a former atheist I have realized that atheists does not have any direction like Christians do about leading a good life. The Bible is full of precepts for Christians to live by, but atheists has nothing besides some study here and some study there about what is psychologically beneficial. So when I found your website I was very pleased and excited. Finally I would read about patriarchy from an atheist perspective!

    I have had plenty of discussions at work about patriarchy. I live in Sweden which is one of the most feminist infected nations in the world (Stockholm, Sweden’s capital, is the capital with most single households in the world. Feminism is really killing the family here) and also one of the countries with most atheists. So talking about patriarchy from a godly, Biblical, perspective is out of the question. Therefore I have been walking around thinking about how I can translate the Biblical teachings of authority; God being in authority over husbands, who in turn are in authority over their wives, to an atheistic language. I have been struggeling and that is why I was so happy to find this website. Finally I could get some arguments from an atheistic point of view, a view much more appealing to my fellow co-workers. That was my expectation for this website.

    And thus far I have read some of the statistics you presented, for instance about children growing up in a patriarchal home being usually more healthy than single-parent children. And your arguments from an evolutionary perspective about children being the focus for the continuation of the species, and therefore the importance of a solid family life. I never thought about it that way. Interesting idea, and food for thought.

    These were interesting statistics and thoughts you taught me, and very important too. So after today I will use them in debates to hopefully get more people, specifically men, into the patriarchal mindset and thus sow a seed for a better Swedish future. I thank you for that.

    So again, I want to praise you for this website. Great initiative! Keep up the good work.

  2. Welcome, I am very very glad you found my website! You are exactly the kind of person I had hoped to reach and influence with my website. Indeed, atheists definitely seem to be at a disadvantage when it comes to healthy family behaviors and an understanding of gender roles. Atheists have to figure it all out by themselves it seems while the religious can fall back on the cultural traditions embodied in their religious teachings; cultural wisdom developed over hundreds of years.

    Many atheists seem to think that because there is no God that means that humans can invent any kind of social system they like and that it will work simply based on assertion or will. Atheists fully understand that animals have genetic programs or tendencies that direct and influence behavior that is necessary for the animals’ survival and reproduction but with humans they imagine humans to be a blank slate that can behave however they want and have it all work out based on “reason.” It is quite odd really; no atheist would deny that animals have instincts but somehow humans don’t have instincts or else human instincts that guide behavior are trivial and unimportant and can be overruled without any kind of serious negative consequences. Likewise atheists will readily acknowledge that in the animal kingdom the male of the species is very often different in important ways from the female of the species and that the male and the female of the species have different roles and different abilities but when it comes to humans suddenly male and female must be interchangeable with the differences being only trivial unimportant physical differences that are so obvious they cannot be denied.

    In this way even atheists who believe in evolution see humans as “set apart.” The only animal whose instinctual behavioral drives are unimportant, the only animal that can “choose” its destiny simply as an act of will and reason, the only animal where the male of the species is interchangeable with the female regarding function and abilities.

    I made a guest post at The Thinking Housewife that would probably be of particular interest to you where I specifically address the problems in Sweden:

    In Sweden, Feminist Utopianism Falters
    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/09/in-sweden-feminist-utopianism-falters/

    I also recommend the post at this website:

    The Atheist Case for Patriarchy
    https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-atheist-case-for-patriarchy/

    As for statistical evidence I suggest my post:

    The Feminist Explosion 1960 to 1995
    https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/the-feminist-explosion-1960-to-1995/

    Explaining and advocating for patriarchy from an atheist point of view, without reference to religious based teachings, is the whole point of this website. I figured people not connected to religion needed a source of moral instruction regarding gender relations and the family that didn’t require an already existing belief in religion beforehand. I wanted to create a body of knowledge and understanding where the “religious part” wouldn’t be a barrier to the acceptance of patriarchy. I wanted people to have direct access to patriarchy without having to “believe” in a religion first. Patriarchy is fully justifiable and explainable through reason alone and there is a ton of statistical evidence in support of patriarchy.

    At its most basic patriarchy is how resources get transferred from men to women and then from women to children. Feminism kills the transfer of resources from men to women so that women can no longer fully support children because the woman herself is no longer being supported by the man. This then means under feminism adults no longer fully invest in children leading the children to be deprived and therefore worse off than their parents. Feminism is a form of theft where adults steal from children. So under feminism the children are worse off than their parents leading to progressive social deterioration and decline. As children are undervalued the result is less children (lower fertility) and the children not being taken care of as well (children being put in daycare and being born outside of marriage and their parents divorcing and things like that).

    Male authority is necessary for the man to protect his investment in the woman and by extension his investment in children. No male authority therefore means no male investment in women and no male investment in women then leads to a total breakdown of the functioning and maintenance of society. Of course the man must be idealistic and have a noble purpose in his assertion and exercise of authority so the man must be in obedience to God. God therefore being the top of the hierarchy. The man being under God and the woman being under the man who is under God. God being the natural order of things derived from the evolved inherited characteristics of men and women according to my understanding as an atheist.

    The radical decline of male investment in women is best shown by the huge drop of husbands’ investment in their wives as indicated by the huge increase in married women working since 1890 in the United States. This deterioration of marriage with accompanying statistics and graphs is best described in my post:

    Marriage is Masculinity and Coverture
    https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/marriage-is-masculinity-and-coverture/

    So, welcome to my website! Glad you found me. 🙂

  3. mongopanda says:

    Thank you for your reply. There is so much to say about this subject.

    I am turning more and more towards religion as an answer to the question on how to live my life. As a former hardcore atheist watching Youtube shows like “The Atheist Experience” and laughing at stupid Christians, I just saw religion, and Christianity specifically, as an alternative view of how the world was created and not as a way of living. From an atheist viewpoint, with the big bang theory and quantum physics and relativity in the back of my head, the Christian view of a creation in seven days seemed ridiculously stupid. But then, over time due to different circumstances, I became more and more interested in the Bible and its teachings. Said and done, I started reading it, and now one year later I am almost finished with it, and as a consequence I want to live more and more like a Christian. I want to marry a girl and live with her for the rest of my life. I want to pray to God and submit to his authority, do his will, instead of going about doing things my way. I am sure submitting to God will lead to more happiness for me and this makes me excited about life.

    Looking at the non-religious country that I live in, I cannot help to notice the lack of direction in life that I see among people. People work Monday to Friday and then go out to night clubs, getting themselves hammered, on Friday and Saturday nights, and then it is back to work again on Monday. No governmental institution is really approving this but they are not giving people any direction neither. It is just “do not smoke”, “do not drink” and other “do not”s like that, with no direction on what to do instead.

    Everybody is talking about relationships. We all need relationships. A man needs a woman to be with and vice verse. But not many has a clue on how to pursue this, not the government, not the newspapers. Shallow advice like, “you need to communicate with each other” are espoused here and there on how to have a succesful relationship, but nothing is ever said about the different roles a man and a woman must fulfill. I see around me in Sweden the destruction of gender roles. Men becoming more effeminate, and females becoming more masculine. Men being very interested in clothing and appearance, and women doing men’s work like being policemen and doing other kinds of physical labor. Men are not attracted to masculine women and women are not attracted to feminine men.

    Therefore since nobody knows how to act like a man nor how to act like a woman, we see today the horrible statistics we have here in Sweden on for instance, divorce rates. Nowadays people change partners very often. One couple may consist of the man and the woman and their children, but also their respective children from former relationships. It is a mess. We need the ideas of patriarchy to bring order and happiness into this.

    That is why I applaud your initiative. Hopefully you can change some non-religious people’s view on relationships and families with what you have to say. And then they will change the world slowly by raising children who hold the same patriarchal views. I would like to believe that a change towards patriarchy is able to happen quickly, but it is hard, not impossible though, to change all of the effeminate men out there who cannot say “no” to women, into more masculine men, into leaders of their households.

    /End

    Thank you for the links and I am thinking about your evolutionary arguments, trying to “grook” them, understand them.

  4. As far as how atheists view Christianity, there is a fixation on the “God in the sky as creator” part and then the atheist laughs and mocks Christians for how stupid they are and then enjoy themselves about how smart they are and how superior they are with their “intelligence” and their “rationality.” In reality however the Christian is far far superior in understanding the nature of life and in particular how to lead a moral life with meaning than the atheist is because the Christian at least understands what I call the “God concept” that one is to obey while the atheist deludes themselves that no literal supernatural God means no order to the universe and no external structure for life and that therefore the atheist can simply make up any moral code they want and proclaim it to be true seeming to think that because they declare it to be true that means it is true in reality. The Christian understands there is something “above them” while the atheist proclaims that their self declarations and self assertions is all that there is. This makes the Christian much more wise than the atheist in practice. Basically the atheist is all by themselves making things up while they go along while the Christian is part of a community with collective wisdom to draw upon developed over hundreds of years.

    I myself advocate for what I call the “Superior Power” and then I often refer to this Superior Power as “God.” In my view the Superior Power is derived from the consequences of evolution but from a moral functional point of view my “God” or Superior Power and the Christian God of Jesus Christ function the same way so that I have an atheist theory of origin combined with a Christian equivalent moral system with “obedience to God” as the moral foundation.

    Evolution functions perfectly well as a “creator” and “grand designer” in particular creating men and women differently for different roles. Patriarchy then being the social system humans in particular are adapted for due to evolution. Patriarchy being the means by which men and women both jointly fully invest in children; maximizing investment in children making perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view since passing on ones genes is the whole point of evolutionary success.

    As far as “gender equality” messing up relations between the sexes and making it harder for men and women to form relationships with each other, this is obviously true. A man doesn’t want a masculine woman and a woman doesn’t want a feminine man. A masculine woman will not perform her role as a woman well and a feminine man will not perform his role as a man well. Both the masculine woman and the feminine man are “defective” in terms of their desirability as a romantic partner. Of course both the masculine man and the feminine woman are enemies of feminism and so will be attacked for their gender appropriate strengths and behaviors.

    Obedience to God definitely provides purpose and direction to ones life; it is also moral and supportive of the community overall. The selfish orientation of “doing what’s right for me” is not only personally destructive and aimless it is also socially destructive and in particular is destructive of family and personal relationships where duty to ones spouse or ones children is of particular importance. It is not true that everyone being selfish and looking out for “number one” leads to the common good.

    • mongopanda says:

      I have nothing to add. As far as my understanding goes you just stated it as it is. I agree with everything you wrote. It always gives me a feeling of pleasure to see someone else think exactly like myself.

      But I especially like your “God concept”. You say that there are absolutes and that morals and the way people act should not be arbitrary and that there is no relativism. You speak of God but in an atheistic sense.

      I consider myself a Christian now, although I still have some doubt about God, whether he exists or not, but even before I was a Christian I remember how I started to slowly realize that the world is actually a good place. That certain good behaviour leads to good things for myself; like happiness, and appreciation from other people. I had a selfish interest in being charismatic to attract girls, and what I found on the journey was that good behaviour was the most charismatic. Taking good care of ones body by eating healthy food is good for you, and other people will find it attractive. Helping other people who are in need is more attractive than not caring at all. A sober guy is in the long run much more fun to be around than a drunkard. And being sober is objectively better for your health than being drunk. I have a billion other examples and this realization was in sharp contrast with what the media was telling me. For example I watched a movie called “The hangover” which depicted some guys waking up, after being super drunk the night before and not remembering anything, as something cool and fun. It may be in movies. But in reality it is just depressing.

      So I liked where I was heading in my thinking that the world is an inherently good place. Be a good man and good things will happen to you. So when I started reading the Bible I realized that it said the same thing. God was punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous. Just in line with my ideas. So I decided that reading the Bible which has been around for over 2000 years must be the more wise decision, instead of trying to figure out what the so called good behaviour is all by myself. Said and done, I read it, and I am turning more and more Christian every day, and I feel happy and excited about it. It is the beginning of another chapter in my life and I do not know where it will lead. How interesting!

  5. I want to emphasize here, I am not promoting atheism, I am promoting patriarchy that is consistent with atheism. In most places patriarchy is tied with religion giving the impression that patriarchy can only be justified based on religious assertion. I am here to say that religion does not have a monopoly on patriarchy, that secular people can embrace and support patriarchy to based on “rational” non-religious reasons. I am not going to discourage anyone from becoming a Christian here; Christianity is good whether it is true or not. I would however say that belief in a “God concept” is necessary for a moral life and religion based on obedience to God certainly contains a “God concept” as part of the teachings of the religion. It is precisely the “God concept” that religion contains that makes religion work, that makes religion socially functional. The important thing is that belief in a “God concept” does not require belief in a literal supernatural God and that therefore the reality and truth of a “God concept” does not contradict atheism. There are alternative means by which a central organizing power can come into existence; evolution being such an alternative means through which a central organizing force can arise.

    How I would frame things; evolution leads to the externally imposed moral order; the externally imposed moral order being based on the will of the Superior Power; God and the Superior Power being the same thing or two different names for the same entity. Morality is then based on obedience to the Superior Power or God. Patriarchy is then the will of the Superior Power.

    As far as relations between men and women it is very important to understand that a romantic relationship between a man and a woman is not something that is just between the man and the woman. A romantic relationship is based on both the man and the woman together serving God and obeying and fulfilling their respective God defined gender roles. A romantic relationship is not about what the man wants and it is not about what the woman wants and it is not even about what the man and woman jointly want together; instead the romantic relationship is about what God wants for the purpose of serving those God intended as the beneficiaries of the romantic relationship.

  6. ceebarks says:

    What do you make of the Gothard/Phillips/Driscoll dramas? I was an army wife and hung with some fairly conservative people, as you sometimes do in that world, so I have often shared your admiration for what I see out of some of the religious traditional families I’ve met along the way. They seem so organized and loving and committed. Yet there seems to be so much hidden dysfunction going on as well, especially among families that take it all very seriously and among the guys who reach the top of those worlds. No one is going to take patriarchy seriously if so many of its biggest, loudest proponents can’t or won’t control themselves– obviously they know that, but then they focus not on controlling themselves but on hiding their dysfunction and deflecting criticism. It’s like there’s a point at which the patriarchy schtick becomes deforming instead of organizing and protective, sort of like the difference between normal shoes and ancient Chinese foot binding.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s