Second Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!

Well, this is the second anniversary of my blog, Secular Patriarchy! Comparing my second year blogging to my first year the biggest differences are that it is a lot quieter in these parts; not so many comments, not so much engaging in political conversations with people behind the scenes by email, and my pace of adding new articles to my website has slowed down quite a bit (I admit). On the other hand the traffic to my website has not slowed down and I have gotten some free publicity at Reddit and FSTDT (Fundies Say The Darndest Things). This is quite interesting. I would have assumed that less posts and fewer comments would have lead to fewer visits and less attention in general. To the contrary the interest in my site has remained steady with some extra big bursts of attention now and then. My site has gotten a total of 80,000 views so far in its first two years of operation (34,000 the first year and 46,000 views this second year).

I have been devoting more attention to my personal life and personal development; this being the reason for my slowdown in new posts and interacting with other sites. I want to keep “plugging away” with maintaining the upkeep of this site even though my mind is on other things the majority of the time. In the future maybe I will pick up the pace in adding new material or change my focus in what I talk about a bit but right now my first priority is to get my personal life functioning well. Maybe after my personal life is on track then I will revisit what I should be doing politically.

My purpose here is basically to lay out a model for how patriarchy can and should work in the “rational” secular sphere so that those not connected to religion can understand a healthy way to live their lives regarding family life and gender relations. Me being an atheist myself this is my natural area of comparative advantage; to explain patriarchy in secular terms so that people can understand the goodness and value of patriarchy as an objective truth and an objective reality that is true and right and good independent of religious teachings or advocacy on the matter. In other words patriarchy is a byproduct of the natural environment that all should adhere to; the religious and the non-religious alike.

It definitely seems like I am a pioneer in what I am trying to teach and what I am trying to advocate on this site. There are a huge number of MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) out there and some of them would claim they are in favor of patriarchy but MRAs are all opposed to unconditional Chivalry because in truth MRAs are simply male narcissists. This goes for the manosphere in general I would say; the defining uniting characteristic of the manosphere is male narcissism. Also there is a fair amount of advocacy for patriarchy expressed in largely secular terms among white supremacists in the Dark Enlightenment or Neo-Reactionary sphere. I however am not a white supremacist or particularly “conservative” in general and I think democracy works well as a political system and just basically I do not fit in well with the overall Dark Enlightenment frame of mind. In atheism there are a lot of anti-feminists but very very few social conservatives; the atheist anti-feminists being almost all libertarian MRA types. What I am the closest to regarding my beliefs are the Christian Complementarian and the Christian Patriarchy types. So my purpose is to advocate for what conservative Christianity teaches regarding the family and gender roles based on secular concepts and secular reasoning.

Another thing I will add. I do believe that organizing one’s beliefs around a God concept that one is obligated to obey is the right way to go and in particular patriarchy really is based on male authority; male authority in obedience to God to serve God’s purposes but male authority nonetheless. I have run across women claiming to support patriarchy and even advocating for “obeying men” at least in what they say but their overall orientation still seems to be based on “what’s best for women” according to what the woman herself “demands” or claims to have a right to. Among secular women claiming to support patriarchy there seems to be this idea that patriarchy is “good for women” and that this is what makes patriarchy good and that the feminists were just stupid in their crusade to get rid of patriarchy because of all the benefits that patriarchy gives to women. These supposed “pro-patriarchy” women however seem to think that patriarchy is only good to the extent that it benefits women and that women should be the ones to decide what patriarchy means and what patriarchy stands for; in other words that patriarchy should be under the control of women.

What this website seeks to advocate is patriarchy under the control of men in obedience to God or the Superior Power. Patriarchy is good for the community overall; for men and women and children; precisely because it is God’s design for the family and gender relations. The goodness of patriarchy is derived from its consistency with God’s plan as a result of the evolved inherited differences between men and women. In patriarchy God comes first; not men nor women.

What I hope for is that this website will provide a kind of ideological foundation for well ordered gender relations among secular people and will teach the right kind of mentality and sense of purpose one should have regarding their proper role as a man or a woman. There are many Christian Complementarian churches out there but gender complementarity based on male authority in service to women under God needs to be taught to secular people to.

 
Related article: First Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!

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 and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Second Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!

  1. Xena says:

    Still not making sense, glad you no long write, its the blind leading the blind, ask the women what they want!

  2. Sophia says:

    I think you talk from a very ideological perspective. In an ideal world, men would just ‘know’ what the best interests of women are and act in accordance with them. Men would always do the right thing and take responsibility for women and step in when there is injustice or abuse against them. But we don’t live in an ideal world.
    I have a few questions for you about the practical reality of it all. Feel free to direct me towards any posts where you might have addressed them because I haven’t read all of your posts.
    During my university studies I have written an extensive paper on women rights in Saudi Arabia. This society is by all means patriarchal: men have legal guardianship over women, men are in power politically, socially and legally, men can marry more than one wife while the opposite is not true, women need their guardian’s permission to travel, women are expected to be obedient towards their husbands and fathers, etc. First, I’d like to say that I’m sure there are women who live happy lives there because they have good men surrounding them who take their well-being to heart. However, the reality seems to be that legal protection of women is very shaky. There seems to be a consensus among many judges that it is ok for a husband to use violence against their wives if they are disobedient or spend too much money. Please note that a woman is legally not allowed to leave her husband’s house without his permission. So what happens in reality is that when a woman runs away because she is being physically abused by her husband, and the judge deems violence appropriate, he will often force her to return to her husband or face jail charges. So what happens in reality is that men in authority will choose the interests of other men over women’s well-being. This is not patriarchy in an ideal world, this is concrete reality about how such patriarchal concepts play out in the real world.

    Based on my experience researching patriarchal societies, I have a few questions for you which I hope you can answer.
    1) I think I have read in one of your posts that you think the punishment of disobedient wives depends on community standards, but that you also dislike physical violence. How would in your ideal society women be protected from such violence if the community evolves to deeming hitting women appropriate? Are women legally competent? Are they able to go to court without their guardian’s authority? If not, what can they do (in concrete ways) when their guardian abuses his power?
    2) Do women have a right to expect monogamy from their husbands? If so, what happens when their husbands cheat? Do they have a right to speak up about this? What if the men in authority choose the interests of the husband and force her to stay with him?
    3) You say you don’t believe in God, but would like to create a society based on the natural law of a higher power or ‘evolution’. What does this ‘natural law’ look like? Who has the authority to interpret this natural law? What if there are differences in opinion? Are women’s voices being heard or is the interpretation of this natural law firmly in the hands of men? How will women be protected from interpretations that are based on the self-interest of men?
    4) How will communication between husbands and wives look like? Do you trust the husband to just ‘know’ what’s best for his wife and family or is it realistic to expect that he will need to communicate with them and ask for how they feel about certain decisions?
    5) Do you believe that women are intellectually inferior to men and need to be protected from themselves? Do you believe that women are not capable of being in authority over their own lives? Do woman have a choice to not marry and choose alternate life paths or will there be considerable social pressure for women to marry and to ‘conform’?
    6) What would women’s education look like? Do they have the option to pursue higher education or will their knowledge be limited to the domestic domain? Do they have a right to knowledge and self-development? What happens when their husband dies or divorces them? Will women be maintained by the state or will they have the option to financially take care of their family?
    7) Are there modesty standards for women? Do they need to dress a certain way so the husband feels other men are not encroaching on his ‘property’? If so, what would those standards look like and how would they be enforced? What happens if a woman doesn’t want to follow these rules?
    8) What about women’s mobility? Can they travel without a male guardian? Do they need permission to go somewhere?

    These are just some of the questions I have for people supporting patriarchy. I realise my comment is quite long, but I would appreciate it very much if you could take the time to answer.

    Thank you and enjoy your day.

  3. First off you might find these previous articles I have written helpful:

    Why Patriarchy Protects Women better than Feminism
    https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/why-patriarchy-protects-women-better-than-feminism/

    The Protection of the Submissive Dependent Wife under Patriarchy
    https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/the-protection-of-the-submissive-dependent-wife-under-patriarchy/

    The social model of patriarchy I am most inclined to emulate is how patriarchy was in the United States around 1850 based on Christianity and coverture. I am not looking to Saudi Arabia as a model. Interestingly Saudi Arabia has some feminist indicators going on such as a divorce rate of around 30% and more women than men going to college. Realistically a future patriarchy in the United States will probably be based on Christian teachings that will have become popular and widespread at that future time.

    It should be remembered that the patriarchy of the past was highly religious; that society overall was highly religious back when patriarchy was still strong. This is not an accident as patriarchy is communitarian and highly idealistic; religion providing the structure of the patriarchal idealistic community ethic. Feminism is individualistic with an assumption of mutual selfishness that is to be “balanced” by gender equality. When imaging the “dominant male” of patriarchy you have to keep in mind that the patriarchal “dominant man” will be a Godly man in a strongly religious context.

    In real life feminism is much more dangerous for women than patriarchy because feminism means social disorder and high levels of divorce and high numbers of single mothers with the men being selfishly oriented and indeed often abusive in their attitudes and behaviors towards women. An environment where women are expected to “fend for themselves” is much worse for women than an environment where the support and protection of women comes first.

    • delta says:

      So you have no realistic plans and solutions for the issues of your belief system?
      My main worry is giving people space to get away from abuse, keeping them fed and watered, able to persue hobby’s, able to abort children. Women to have a choice in their life.

    • Sophia says:

      Thank you for your answer. Forgive me but I do not have a clear view on how the society in the US looked like in the 1850s since I’m from Europe. 🙂 The image I have of the US, however, is one of considerable religious plurality, not only different world religions being present there but also a plurality of christian denominations. It’s not hard to imagine that they have different interpretations about the role of men and women in society and in marriage. Even among more traditional congregations, there seems to be different opinions about the extent of men’s authority over women. I would think, for example, that they wouldn’t all agree with your theory that women have to be obedient to all men. I’m not sure if it’s realistic to expect that they will all grow to agree without difference in opinion about what the role of men and women will look like if a traditional patriarchy would return. Here, again, I am concerned about who has the authority to interpret religion. I’m not a specialist in Christianity, but for example I have heard the theory that patriarchy, the man ‘ruling’ over the woman is a punishment for disobeying God in the garden of Eden and not the ‘ideal’. The ideal would be to return to a state of equality and freedom, and some see this change with the coming of Jesus and Christianity. (Although some of the apostels, such as Paul, had a hellenistic background which considered women considerably inferior to men and this distorted the message).

      Personally, I am from a traditionally Catholic country, although the influence of religion has reduced greatly here. I come from a rather rural background, with my grandmother being born and raised on a farm. I don’t think the women of my family had the ‘luxury’ of staying home and not working and I rather think the whole concept of the stay-at-home wife is a rather upper middle class notion to begin with. My mother also told me that only 50 years ago if a man had a mistress this was considered a private issue and the wife was not supposed to speak about it in order to avoid creating a scandal. Basically she just had to suck it up. I’d like to know your notion of marital fidelity and how wives could be protected from cheating husbands if the community deems it a ‘private’ issue to be put at the discretion of the man.

      I also don’t see how women will be protected if consensus among the community is geared towards deeming using violence against women acceptable, since it seems from your posts that women would be completely dependent on the men around them, having no room to assert their will outside of men’s approval. You only have to look at the concept of Christian domestic discipline among more patriarchical minded Christians to know that this could be a realistic development. There also seems to be notion that it’s impossible for a husband to ‘rape’ his wife. All in all, I don’t see how being religious necessarily relates to being ethical. Surely IS consideres itself a pious and religious group. Surely the Inquisition burning all those women at the stake saw themselves as religious and doing the right thing. Religion is no guaranty for good and moral behaviour since it’s so open to all sorts of interpretations and so mixed up with culture and economical, social and political circumstances.

  4. Jojo says:

    Hey Jesse! Remember me? I don’t have anything to say about the actual post (sorry), but I just wanted to stop by and say hello!

  5. Sure I remember you, of course! 🙂 I see you have some new posts up at your website. That is good. If you want to talk with me privately about anything feel free to email me (click on “Contact” for the email address to use).

  6. Pingback: Third Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy! | Secular Patriarchy

  7. Pingback: Fourth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy! | Secular Patriarchy

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