Eighth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!

Today is the 8 year anniversary of this website here, Secular Patriarchy.

The biggest news I would say in this neck of the woods, in the part of the manosphere that I am closest to, is that Anthony Dream Johnson has made another significant move towards traditionalism, a move I highly approve of of course, and that is that Anthony Johnson has recently started to emphasize that women shouldn’t work, that women should place marriage and having children as their first priority when they are young, and an emphasis that mothers should stay at home and raise their children, not place their children in daycare.

This is highly significant because placing an emphasis on women not working is new to the manosphere and in general is not emphasized by anyone in the secular sphere, and even in the religious sphere I tend to think it is not emphasized or talked about enough.  The part of women not working that is particularly important is that women not working means the man is taking care of, financially supporting, the woman and this is a big responsibility for the man to take on.  Someone in the manopshere saying that women should not work very strongly implies that men have a DUTY to financially support women, in particular that a husband SHOULD support his wife, and this implied duty of a husband on behalf of his wife is very new in the manosphere, the manosphere traditionally being very opposed to the idea of men having any kind of duties or obligations to women whatsoever.  For Anthony Johnson to implicitly advocate for male responsibility on behalf of women in the form of implying that husbands should financially support their wives is very encouraging.

Even more so Anthony Johnson has advocated that a single woman should continue to live with her father until she gets married, that a woman should not be living independently in the time span from when she becomes an adult to when she actually gets married.  This meaning that Anthony Johnson is not simply saying that a husband should financially support his wife, he is furthermore saying that a father should financially support his daughter up until the time his daughter gets married.

If you look at traditional societies before feminism got started the most stark difference between men and women was that married men almost always worked and married women almost never worked; something like 97% of married men worked while 97% of married women didn’t work.  This can’t be an accident and it is something that requires a very strong commitment by men on behalf of women.  Men didn’t financially support their wives in the traditional past because it was an easy thing to do, they did it because it was an important thing to do.  I suspect that the number one benefit of patriarchy, the most important reason why patriarchy was established in the first place, was to get women out of the workforce, was to separate women from masculine duties so that women could focus themselves on feminine duties instead.

Regarding the manosphere, the manosphere has more clearly fragmented in the past year; in simple terms you could say there is the Anthony Johnson side and the Rollo Tomassi side though the Rollo Tomassi side is not really led by Rollo Tomassi anymore it seems, instead there are a couple a big personalities that like each other and associate with each other on the Rollo Tomassi side and then there is a barrier of mutual hostility that keeps the Anthony Johnson side and the Rollo Tomassi side apart from each other and distinctive from each other.  Anthony Johnson does indeed seem to be the clear leader of the Anthony Johnson side of the manosphere.

The Rollo Tomassi side of the manosphere is the more traditional part mainly focused on self-preservation and manipulation strategies to try to gain an advantage over women.  The Anthony Johnson side of the manosphere has a more socially constructive orientation, is more traditionalist, actively seeks to create positive and healthy relationships with women, and aligns itself with religious believers.  When I say that the Rollo Tomassi side is the “more traditional” part of the manosphere what I mean is that it is consistent with how the manosphere used to be, on the other hand the Anthony Johnson side is new and an advancement over where things were before.

In the wider conservative world there seems to be an ongoing fight against wokeness and gender ideology; not really against feminism.  The manosphere is focused on fighting against feminism but social conservatism more broadly is against gender ideology and doesn’t really address or pay attention to feminism more specifically.  At the same time manosphere thinking is showing up more and more among mainstream social conservatives, so a part of mainstream social conservatism is manosphere friendly and manosphere influenced.  The manosphere is still fringe I would say but not as fringe as it used to be.  Similarly within the manosphere itself traditionalism used to be thoroughly banished and excluded but now today traditionalism is officially accepted as part of the manopshere thanks to Anthony Dream Johnson.

Donald Trump lost the Presidency and the Republican Party is worryingly divided so now Joe Biden is in the White House with his Vice President Kamala Harris; Kamala Harris being likely to run for President herself in 2024 or 2028; Kamala Harris seeming to be the anointed intended successor to Joe Biden.  Also the Supreme Court which supposedly has a 6 to 3 conservative majority on it has made some rulings that are clearly on the liberal pro-gender ideology side of things.

Gender ideology; the more extreme declaration that there are no important biologically based differences between men and women; making the claim that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal to each other; making the claim that one can choose their gender rather than that one’s gender is an inherited biological fact; is trying to become the new feminism; it is trying to gain the same level of dominance and acceptance that the feminist idea of “gender equality” gained in the 1970s.

I certainly hope that gender ideology never becomes as broadly accepted as the feminist invented “gender equality” that came before it; that being what is at stake in the current cultural battle between the mainstream social conservatives and the left and the elite institutions that are currently taking the side of the left regarding cultural and gender issues.

Lastly, I will end things on a very positive note, a very encouraging sign; that is, it looks like marriage has finally stopped declining in the United States, or has almost stopped declining and will see its bottom soon.  Marriage as measured by the proportion of women of reproductive age 15 to 44 who are married has been declining steadily since 1955.  In 1960 71.1% of women 15 to 44 years old were married; by 2017 this had dropped all the way down to 41.5%.  Here’s the amazing part; in 2019 it was 41.6%; no decline in marriage was seen from 2017 to 2019.

In terms of views, this website has gotten 254,000 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, 24,000 the seventh year, and 19,000 this eighth year just ended.

Related articles:
Seventh Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!
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!

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.

10 Responses to Eighth Year Anniversary for Secular Patriarchy!

  1. Judy Campbell says:

    Congratulations on 8 years, Jesse 🙂 I am not sure what you mean when you say that patriarchy was established to keep women out of the workforce? Until very recently, it was pretty much impossible for women to do men’s work. Women could hunt or run a farm in a pinch, I suppose, but it would have been very obvious to everyone involved that men did it much better. Also, women’s work used to be far more consuming and difficult than it is now. Being a housewife takes on new meaning in a world without washing machines or even plumbing-and that is the world most Americans lived in not so long ago.

    Women started pushing themselves and each other into the workforce-and some men started pushing women into the workforce too- when things like plumbing and modern appliances made life so much easier for women. Before then, no one would have been able to argue that most women were doing nothing all day. Also, many jobs came open that women could actually do as well as men. Radical feminism is not possible in a society where 90% of people live on farms. It wasn’t that long ago that 90% of Americans lived on farms. But in our current society, it is possible.

    I know so many wonderful older people who forced their daughters into the workforce with the best of intentions. They did it for many reasons, but the main reason was, they didn’t want the girls to get lazy. They could not and would not tolerate a young woman who wasn’t busy all the time doing something. Feminism is puritanical. Feminists very much played on the idea that idle hands are the devil’s playthings, and they promised a world where no one would ever be idle.

    I very much hope that pushing women into the workforce is just a phase we went through. It’s a horrible idea. If their fathers support them, many young women will have a couple or several years where they don’t have to do much or anything. Some fear that this will cause female immorality. Are you kidding? Look around. What do we have to lose?

  2. Judy Campbell says:

    Anyone who knows even a little about farms knows that everybody on a family farm has to work more than hard all the time. Very few women in the past enjoyed a life of leisure. Most lived in a world where the work was never done and there was always more work to be done. In that world, idleness has to be very much looked down on, or else everyone will die. There was a short period of transition around the 1950s when people had moved off farms, and women were still staying home, but that was a transition, and I am not sure the people of that time really believed in what they were doing. If they had really believed in what they were doing, they would not have allowed modern feminism.

    We have the benefit, if you can call it that, of having lived through feminism and seen with our own eyes what the results are. Any society that experiences the radical economic changes we have experienced over the last 150 years is bound to have some problems adjusting, but hopefully we can figure it out.

  3. Judy Campbell says:

    Even now, many or most fathers would not be able to afford to totally support their adult daughters, especially if they have a lot of daughters, lol 🙂 But there is a huge difference between telling an adult daughter that she must get a job while she lives at home, and kicking an adult daughter out of the house. One of those things is not like the other. There is also a huge difference between a father who genuinely cannot afford to completely support his daughter, and a father who could do so easily but just doesn’t want to.

    Even now, most young single women would not enjoy a life a total leisure. Most would probably have to take on at least a part time job for their spending money, and maybe to help support the household. That’s ok. It’s ok that most people cannot afford to give their adult daughters a life of total leisure. The world won’t end if a 20 year old woman has to get a job, but she should still be living at home until she gets married. It’s one thing to tell a young woman that because of economic circumstances she must get a job. It is something else altogether to tell a young woman that she ought to be a feminist and kick her out of the house.

  4. Hello Judy Campbell, of all my readers you are one of the rare ones who was actually around from the very beginning 8 years ago now. 🙂

    The issue of women working is an interesting one. The idea of women not working like men is probably a strange idea to most people nowadays but go back to 1890 and 2.2% of white married women were in the labor force according to the 1890 Census; that being the first time there was a national tabulation regarding that issue. Also a farm laborer or a farmer were counted as being in the labor force and most importantly the definition of what a farm laborer was or what a farmer was was gender neutral; both men and women were counted as farm laborers if they took on the daily tasks of being a farm laborer. So it is not true that a husband and wife did much the same kind of working on the farm; the type of work that men did was very different than the type of work that women did. There was a masculine style of working and a feminine style of working even when most people lived on farms.

    Interestingly enough one of the biggest occupations for women in the past was domestic servant and a domestic servant was indeed counted as being part of the labor force even though what a domestic servant did was probably similar to what a housewife did for her husband but because the domestic servant was being paid money to work as a domestic servant being a domestic servant counted as being part of the labor force.

    In 1890 in the United States according to the 1890 Census 2.2% of white married women worked but 22.7% of black married women worked; this certainly being due to discrimination against blacks and black men in general making significantly less income than white men so that there was probably a greater economic necessity for black married women to work but even so only a minority of black married women worked. In 1950 20.7% of white married women worked; about the same proportion as it was for black married women in 1890.

    The interesting thing is, as incomes rose and material standards of living went up more and more married women entered the workforce so it cannot be true that women increased their labor force participation due to economic necessity.

    I have heard the argument before that the stay at home housewife was a 1950s invention and that the anomaly of women not working didn’t last long; that the housewife is artificial and married women working is the norm, that women have always worked. This seems to be a fairly standard feminist version of history. I think you explained this idea better than I have heard it explained before. Basically you are saying (I think) that before 1950 being a housewife was hard work because of the absence of labor saving devices in the home, therefore married women were kept busy even without having a regular job to go to. Then in 1950 or at least the 1950s labor saving devices were invented and became common place so that being a housewife became too easy for women and women got bored sitting around the house doing nothing. As a result of this women entered the workforce like men so that they wouldn’t be bored and useless anymore.

    I think the major flaw in this argument is that it acts like only masculine forms of contribution exist, that basically a woman is either masculine or useless and bored out of her mind because only masculine forms of contribution matter, indeed perhaps only masculine forms of contribution exist, that a woman is only valuable or doing something important if her activities mimic a male style of working. I think what is truer is that there is a male style of contribution and a female style of contribution and men are better at the male style of contribution while women are better at the female style of contribution. The male style of contribution makes money, it is tied to making money or formal work. The female style of contribution has more to do with maintaining relationships and doing a lot of little things, a variety of different things, to keep things going. The purpose of patriarchy then is primarily to remove women from masculine forms of contribution that women are not good at and redirect women’s efforts to the feminine styles of contribution that women excel in.

    I tend to see married women working and women working in general as a manifestation of men abandoning women; feminism overall I tend to see as men abandoning women; the woman is left to take care of herself because the man doesn’t want to take care of her anymore, this then being called women’s liberation or women’s empowerment. To say instead that women work because otherwise women will be bored out of their minds and have nothing to do implies that there is nothing for a woman to fill her time with other than masculine pursuits, making money being a masculine pursuit; that there is no alternative feminine form of contribution to others that a woman can engage in instead.

    Married women working increased relentlessly from 1890 to 1995 in the United States; then from 1995 to 2010 it stayed about the same, and since 2010 it has actually been decreasing. It is not historically true at all that the 1950s was a historical anomaly where married women didn’t work for a brief period of time. In 1890 2.2% of white married women worked; by 1950 this increased to 20.7%; and then by 1990 it increased to 57.7%.

    Women did not enter the workforce as a result of 1960s style women’s liberation; instead looking at the statistics it seems more true to say that 1960s style women’s liberation was a result of women entering the workforce; there being a huge increase of white married women working from 1940 to 1960 before the 1960s started; going from 12.5% in 1940 to 29.8% in 1960.

  5. Judy Campbell says:

    Jesse, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but do you really have no clue what life was like 200 years ago? THERE WERE NO JOBS FOR WOMEN TO WORK AT. And there were also very few jobs for men. The vast, vast majority of people lived on family farms. The work women did on these farms was very different from the work that men did on the farms, but that doesn’t mean that women were not working. If you don’t believe me, read Little House on the Prairie or some other historical account of what life was like back then. Maybe if you were able to put all of your statistics into context, the rise of feminism wouldn’t be such a mystery to you. I totally disagree with feminism. If you would like to end feminism, then you must understand why and how it started to begin with.

  6. Married women in the workforce started to be tabulated by the Census in 1890 and then was updated with every new Census every 10 years so that we can actually see how married women working increased over time.

    In 1900 in the United States among those 35 to 44 years old 96.6% of the men worked and 15.6% of the women worked. This means that almost all men worked. When you talk about there being no jobs for women to work and very few jobs for men either 200 years ago you must be suggesting that most people 200 years ago were separated from the monetary economy; they lived on farms and did not use money to buy or sell things in the ordinary course of life. “Working” in how I am using the term here specifically relates to earning money so if money is not used in maintaining the household neither the man nor the woman is “working” as neither are being paid money for what they are doing. However in 1900 almost all men “worked” meaning they did things for which they were paid money since earning money is the definition of what “working” means. This means by 1900 at least being part of the monetary economy was universal or almost universal and so being separated from the monetary economy cannot explain why so few (3.0%) white married women worked in 1900.

    Also in 1900 34% of all occupations were in agricultural pursuits; 38% of all the jobs men did were in agricultural pursuits and 16% of all the jobs women did were in agricultural pursuits; so by 1900 at least it was not true that everybody worked on farms, only 1/3rd of people worked on farms. Yet the rule that married women should not work was still strongly in place in 1900; and by “work” I mean earning money.

    You might suggest that the reason why so few married women worked long ago was because maintaining the household was harder and took more time without washing machines and vacuum cleaners and such but it should also be kept in mind that men too got an advantage in their productivity due to new inventions and devices and indeed were consistently paid more and more in the jobs they did so that being the breadwinner for the family became easier and easier for the man just like the duties of the housewife became easier and easier for the woman.

    I tend to think increased married women working is pretty much entirely cultural from 1890 on due to men abandoning women.

    It seems pretty obvious that feminism got started due to urbanization and the Industrial Revolution but why would people getting richer lead to more women working and all the different family troubles? I see it as a kind of great disruption where people didn’t know what to do anymore since the old habits and rules were broken by greater material abundance and the anonymity of the city so people became selfish by default; they became selfish because they didn’t know how else to handle the new foreign situation they were in and also the prior means of social regulation and social pressure probably weakened as well. So the man becoming selfish abandons his responsibilities to the woman and the woman becoming selfish becomes power mongering and wants everything her way; hence feminism.

    That’s my theory, at least.

    As far as how to end feminism? Return to responsibility, return to duty, return to obedience to God; men take care of women and women obey men. Get women, particularly married women, out of the workforce. The division of labor; men doing masculine things like making money and women doing feminine things more geared to the support and maintenance of family relationships is vital to returning the family to health again. There is too much emphasis on masculine things, materialism, in modern feminist culture and too little emphasis on feminine things, personal family relationships and children.

  7. Judy Campbell says:

    “There is too much emphasis on masculine things, materialism, in modern feminist culture and too little emphasis on feminine things, personal family relationships and children.”


  8. Sanne says:

    Congratulations, Jesse!

  9. Thanks, Sanne. 🙂 Glad to see your website is still going!

  10. Morgan says:

    For a secularist, you’re spending a lot of time trying to resurrect something that’s more than three days dead.

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 )

Connecting to %s