Power Dynamics in Relation to Patriarchy

even as late as 1933, Romania retained Patriarchal
family structure among the peasantry

Feminism has been a primary driver that delivers people to a Reactionary political stance, especially in the last three years. Whether it’s ‘men going their own way’ sick to death of the artificial ‘equality’ imposed to give women unlimited power at the expense men, or religious Conservatives who are tired of seeing women yell about their ‘abortion rights’, the sapping of true virility in both sexes because of this egalitarian and decadent movement has had a profound effect where perhaps other issues didn’t. It is one of Modernity’s most blatant lies.

With this in mind, I want to give the subject of Patriarchy a proper treatment. You’ll remember that I did address the nature of man’s true virility in a previous article. I want to expand this beyond the personal scope and discuss why the relationship between the virile natures of men and women naturally tends towards Patriarchy.

The first thing I want to go over is the question of time-preference, that is the tendency to consume resources for short term benefit, or save them for long term benefit (known respectively as high and low time-preference). In his exposition of how time-preference relates to Patriarchy, Bryce Laliberte asserts the following:

“Patriarchalism is a response to the extremely high time-preference set into women, which upsets the natural order that sees men providing for material production and women household production. Such a division of labor allowed for the low time-preference manifest in estate planning.”

High time-preference, according to Laliberte, is an immutable trait of the fairer sex. This means that they base many decisions on immediate or short-term gratification or utility, and fail to be forward-thinking in their outlook. This is most obviously manifest in the historical reputation of women as devious and manipulative, a sex to be kept at arms length when it concerns power, the idea being that women will more often than men act deviously to achieve personal aims, with no eye towards what consequences their actions may have to themselves and the holders of their supposed loyalty later on.

The existence of Patriarchy combats this by keeping women, naturally predisposed to maladaptive high time-preference from the halls of political power on which depends the good health of society to a large degree.

One might look at this analysis and say it is unfair to women and that it fails to take account of the failings of men as well. This is a valid point that I will try to address by looking at the nature of man’s virility. The true virility of manhood is measured by two independent virtues (independent used here in contrast to dependent or contingent upon others): heroism and asceticism. These virtues are indicative of a low time-preference, for rather than being direct and clear in their means of genesis and execution, as is the case with the twin virtues of womanhood (lover and mother), they tend towards the abstract, that which serves a higher calling approached by men in the singular, bearing their souls to principles for which they will sacrifice. They serve long-term objectives and require more effort in more ways than one.

I propose that it is precisely because these virtues are noble on a more esoteric level than those virtues of womanhood, that men are not only better suited to hold power, but without it lose a grounding in reality and the organic world which lies fallen from the heroism and asceticism that all men must pursue. Giving men power and responsibility in the here and now maximizes their usefulness. They can channel their sense of duty to greater purposes into concrete utilities such as sound governance and familial legacy building, both of which find Patriarchy as their essential cornerstone.

Political Patriarchy at its height
Michael I of Russia was better than almost all of his successors
he strengthened the greatest Russian institutions

There is also the question of sex drive. Men, being the bearers of a higher sex drive are prone to sexual non-exclusivity, compounded by the relative difference in reproductive roles between men and women, the relative difference in sexual potency over time between men and women, etc. Rather than being indicative of a high time-preference hedonism, this is more commonly a natural biological inclination to maximize the chances of reproductive success over nurture success, a concern for genesis over development that is exemplified beautifully in the insect and animal kingdoms. On this score, our engineering has in it an annoying friction. As a species of society-builders it is necessary for us to provide the best nurturing environment for our offspring, but men are hobbled by a carnal itch that while useful in many respects, can easily become a negative if the societal conditions are not fit for purpose. Patriarchy, in short, gives men a good reason to stay.

Men need purpose. Lacking good enough purpose, they will wander and drift in search of purpose, whether or not they even realize this is what they are doing. The establishment of a Patriarchal system which encompasses not only political life but family life, endows men with a clear set of duties and responsibilities. They must draw the sword before the enemy. They must put their every muscle under strain in mines and on farms. They must be the sound arbiters of their familial life and direction, as well as its spiritual divining rod. They must make the hard decisions that require sacrifice in resources, mind, time, and blood. In companionship, women may bring out the best in men as they fulfill their own roles, and in turn men must bring out the best in women, guide them, shelter them, and discipline them. It may be said that in his look towards the infinity in the heavens, man is closer to the innocence of angels than woman, and in her look towards the finite treasures of the fleeting day woman is closer to the innocence of children than man.

Does the Patriarchal structure in society give men privilege? Certainly no privilege that is not accrued solely on the basis of how the virile natures of men and women work together in an organic power dynamic. Patriarchy is inevitable in the absence of Modern ideology or environmentally-determined primitivism (both of which come to a horseshoe-head in matriarchal ‘lunar’ modes of society). Due to the elemental preferences and leanings of both sexes, they will, if unhindered, settle into some kind of Patriarchy. This is not due to a hidden cabal of men conspiring against female interests, but rather the natural safeguards that keep human society functional, that balance the unique aspects of each sex into a working whole. The Feminist ideologues can call this gender privilege and misogynistic prejudice all they like, but even they can never shake the puppet strings of their innermost spirit. For every hammer blow to Patriarchy that they gleefully swing, they are not destroying a conspiracy, but destroying the foundation of human civilization. And for what purpose? To escape the inescapable? As with almost every facet of Modernity, the mark of this beast is its opposition to reality, its struggle against nature both physical and metaphysical. That men hold considerable power as compared to women is integral to our ability to co-operate with each other in civilization. It is not arbitrary nor is it a result of male malevolence. Instead, it reflects the realities of sex difference that if denied, dissolve society like a slow acid.

Soon, the proponents of the Feminist dogma will come to realize that we cannot run from what we are. No matter how twisted the cultural milieu and its institutions become, and no matter how weak and infirm both sexes become as it concerns the pursuit of true virility, eventually truth wins out in a land blasted by cultural suicide. Men must lead. Women must follow.

home sweet home!

2 thoughts on “Power Dynamics in Relation to Patriarchy

  1. You are of course entirely correct. For some reason, I had thought that the first wave of Modernity had hit Russia after Peter, but yes, it was indeed during Peter's reign and in large part due to his envy of the West. My mistake. I will replace him with a more deserving monarch when I get a few minutes, probably one from a few hundred years before.


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