This is in response to the video at the 21 Studios youtube channel “Patriarchy In Peril.”
The culture is in peril, fatherhood is in peril, respect for male authority is in peril, but that doesn’t quite mean that patriarchy is in peril; I suppose that depends on what one’s definition of patriarchy is. You might draw a distinction between practiced male dominance or asserted male dominance and actual male dominance or fundamental underlying male dominance; the difference between men exercising authority on a routine day to day basis to keep family life and society going and the question of whether how society is operating is how men want society to be operating. Male authority in day to day ordinary life is weak but that is how men want it to be; it is men’s choice to withdraw from the responsibilities connected to day to day practical authority assertion and that is why practiced male authority is so weak today. This absence of asserted male authority is then why family life and relationships between men and women are so weak and continuing to decline.
You can view it as the difference between delegated authority and intrinsic or natural authority; intrinsically or naturally men are dominant over women, gender equality can then only be approximated based on an artificial decision by men to delegate authority to women that women shouldn’t possess in the first place. Feminism being the effort to guilt and manipulate men into giving to women power that women shouldn’t have, power that contradicts and undermines women’s natural role and natural strengths in the family. The reward for the man in delegating this power to women is that the man doesn’t have to be responsible for the woman’s well being or indeed the family’s well being anymore.
Men getting their way living in the kind of society they want to live in is not in peril, what is in peril is men’s role and purpose in society, the male role in the family is very much in peril.
Is society hostile towards fatherhood? Definitely, absolutely. Society is hostile to male achievement and male initiative and men desiring to play a strong role in women’s and children’s lives; society is hostile towards these things because all of these things are connected to male power, they lead towards men becoming powerful and being powerful. The problem is, what good is a man that doesn’t strive towards achievement, that doesn’t take initiative, that doesn’t want to get entangled with the responsibilities of being a husband or father? A weak man is what society wants, it’s what feminism wants, but it’s not what God wants; it’s not what or who men are supposed to be.
Men face the dangers of divorce, the dangers of the family court system, and they certainly face social condemnation and social stigma in seeking to get married and become a good husband and a good father but these are not reasons to forsake marriage and family life because the marital roles of husband and father is what God wants men to pursue and claim in their lives for themselves, for their higher purpose and their higher calling as men. What God wants comes before what society wants or what the culture wants. Virtue being difficult and a struggle does not mean virtue is not a worthwhile goal to pursue; virtue and a sense of higher purpose and a goal to strive towards is rewarding in its own right.
There is a common refrain in the manosphere, at least on the Rollo Tomassi anti-traditionalist side of the manosphere, that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. This is viewing relationships with women as a consumption item, not as a higher moral purpose to pursue that the woman is a part of. The purpose of relationships with women is not to get an emotional reward from the woman that you seek or that you choose, the purpose is to build and create a moral project that you and the woman cooperate on together that achieves a greater benefit to society than what the man and woman would be able to achieve on their own simply as individual isolated men and women. The reward of being with a woman is love but the purpose is family; fatherhood and motherhood; contributing as a husband and contributing as a wife.
Marriage was never based on the self-interest of men in the past, traditionally. It is a misconception that marriage was designed to represent male self-interest in the past and that that was why marriage worked in the past, because marriage was a logical self-serving thing for a man to choose back in the traditional patriarchal past. This view of what marriage was in the past is wrong. Marriage has always been an idealistic undertaking to serve a higher moral purpose greater than oneself; it was never designed to serve the rational self-interest of men.
The difference, in the past, is that men were taught and encouraged and praised in taking on their dominant idealistic role as men; and men were shamed and shunned when they failed to rise up to the expectations society placed upon them. Now it is reversed; today under modern feminism it is the weak and timid man who is praised for “respecting women” and the strong assertive man, especially a dominant man, who is shamed and shunned for being a misogynist or “controlling.”
According to God however, according to objective truth and morality, a man should always be assertive and dominant and pursue his higher moral purpose as a man simply because it is the right thing to do. What is true and what works and what is moral and good always remains the same regardless of what the wider society around you has to say about it. A society that obeys and follows God’s law will work and be successful; a society that goes against God’s law will get worse and worse over time and eventually fail.
As an individual man or woman however obedience to God is always the right choice.
Related article: Whose Fault is Feminism?