It has now been 7 years since I launched this website here Secular Patriarchy.
In terms of views, this website has gotten 235,000 views in its history; 34,000 the first year, 46,000 the second year, 38,000 the third year, 33,000 the fourth year, 33,000 the fifth year, 27,000 the sixth year, and 24,000 this seventh year just ended.
I guess I view the purpose of this website as primarily teaching traditional patriarchy moral values in particular as it relates to family life and gender relations to a secular audience. I hope I am promoting a kind of traditionalist sub-culture among secular people, in particular the formation of traditionalist minded romantic relationships. I also hope I am moving the manosphere in a more traditionalist direction, real traditionalism that emphasizes both male responsibility and male power.
The purpose of male power is to enable and promote and incentivize male responsibility; this should not be forgotten. The purpose of male power is not to “be fair” to men, it is not to reward men either for their contributions to others; it is to facilitate men’s contributions to others because it is men’s contributions to others that has moral value.
I will further add that traditional patriarchy is necessarily collectivist, not individualistic, because the purpose of traditional patriarchy is to serve God or the natural order and all of us are under God or the natural order collectively together. Someone can choose for themselves what they believe their individual role or purpose is within the collective whole but the purpose needs to be to serve that collective whole or be part of that collective whole nonetheless because we are all necessarily under God.
As far as where I fit in in the broader cultural landscape I see myself as being part of the manosphere, the manosphere representing the reemergence of patriarchy in the secular realm; I think, I hope. I then would be a traditionalist; in the traditionalist camp, in the traditionalist part of the manosphere. Now when I think of myself I view myself as being a traditionalist, a traditionalist advocate of patriarchy, patriarchy as it was viewed and practiced in the past, traditionally. Others might view me as a TradCon or the wider group I might be seen as being a part of would be a TradCon; TradCon being a contraction of Traditionalist Conservative. The thing is when I think of a “TradCon” I think of a fairly mainstream social conservative of the 1990s; someone who wants to go back to the 1950s style of family life. I don’t see a “TradCon” as being radical however and I see myself as being radical. My ultimate goal is to return things to how they were before feminism got started, like 1850s being the ideal. The “TradCon” is like on the conservative side of the 1990s; I don’t see a TradCon as saying that a wife should obey her husband, that would be too radical for a TradCon. I don’t see a TradCon as saying that married women should not work, again that would be too radical for a TradCon. As a traditionalist however definitely a wife should obey her husband and definitely married women should not work because those were indeed the expectations and the beliefs in the past traditionally.
It is probably reasonable for others to view me as a TradCon, to put me into the broader category of TradCon, but I suppose the important main difference between myself and a TradCon is that I am rebelling against feminism as a foundational sin, sinful from the beginning of when feminism got started, while a TradCon is just an aging conservative from the relatively recent past still loyal to feminism and the conservative side of mainstream culture they remember from the 1990s.
The manosphere in general is interesting; it is highly libertarian, highly rebellious against modern feminism, highly sexually promiscuous, highly against rules to follow of any kind, and in favor of self-chosen male identity and male purpose, and in favor of male dominance over women, and is willing to embrace positive aspects or stereotypes of what it means to be male, and in large part is willing to accept traditional femininity and traditional feminine roles as being a positive thing.
What about modern feminism? Modern feminism is highly libertarian, highly sexually promiscuous, highly against rules to follow of any kind, wants to define for men what male identity and male purpose should be, wants women to be dominant over men or at least “equal” to men, and is stridently against “gender stereotypes.”
What about a traditionalist such as myself? A traditionalist is collectivist, definitely against feminism, sexually restricted and disciplined outside of marriage, very much into obedience to God and following rules, is in favor of the male identity and male purpose consistent with traditional gender roles, definitely is in favor of male dominance over women, strongly supports the positive aspects of being male and the positive aspects of being female consistent with traditional gender stereotypes.
So, both feminists and the manosphere are libertarian, sexually promiscuous, and against following externally imposed rules. Feminists want women to define male identity and purpose and want dominance over men in general. The manosphere wants men, individual men themselves, to define male identity and purpose and wants men to be dominant over women. Interestingly feminists are opposed to gender stereotypes while the manosphere is in favor of gender stereotypes; however this may be derivative of traditional gender stereotypes promoting male dominance over women.
This is consistent with a general theme; feminists want individual freedom and female dominance over men, manospherians want individual freedom and male dominance over women. What does a traditionalist want? A traditionalist wants obedience to God from both men and women; male dominance over women on the assumption that the man is in obedience to God first.
My identity as being part of the manosphere is based on the assumption that the manosphere represents the first stage of traditionalism, the return to traditionalism, in the secular sphere. Traditionalism however is first and foremost obedience to God, obedience to the natural order of things. Obedience to God comes first, male dominance over women is then derivative of obedience to God. Yes the manosphere seems to be in favor of male dominance over women; the question is is this just a mirror of the feminists’ desire for female dominance over men, just male self-centeredness the reciprocal opposite of feminist female self-centeredness?
There definitely seems to be a political alliance between the manosphere and traditional Christianity. President Trump seems to be a manosphere type in many ways and Evangelical Christians are part of President Trump’s strongest political support base. Both the manosphere and traditional Christianity are in favor of male dominance; I wonder, is that the basis for this political alliance?
I guess what is bothering me is that I fear I am being manipulated by the manosphere in a way, that the manosphere is using traditionalism to give itself a moral legitimacy that it hasn’t earned. Patriarchy is good and honorable and patriarchy does indeed include male dominance but patriarchy is first and foremost obedience to God and from what I can tell the manosphere overall in general is still a long ways away from accepting obedience to God as a moral principle; that men’s right to dominance over women requires the man to be obedient to God first.
Sixth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!
Fifth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!
Fourth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!
Third Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!
Second Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!
First Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!