Opinion Three Cheers for the Patriarchy - Feminists rage against the male-dominated world while enjoying all the wonders and security it has provided

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
theamericanconservative.com / archive

Three Cheers for the Patriarchy​

Feminists rage against the male-dominated world while enjoying all the wonders and security it has provided.

Casey Chalk
Jul 26, 202212:01 AM

No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men, by Anthony Esolen, (Regnery: May 2022), 204 pages.

My second grade teacher, Mrs. Heron, once called me a sexist. I had claimed that boys were better than girls at all the sports I knew: baseball, football, and kickball, dodgeball, basketball, and soccer. And that opinion, I was told in front of twenty-five fellow classmates, was verboten.

But even to an eight-year-old in 1991, wasn’t it undeniable? The boys were bigger and more aggressive. They ran faster. They threw harder and could kick the ball farther. I saw it everyday on the playground. What was wrong with stating the obvious? It wasn’t like I was saying all girls were worse at everything. I even knew some girls were more athletic than many boys. But any fool could see that if the best boys faced the best girls at any of those sports, it would be a rout.

Nevertheless, even then, with the Cold War winding down in the latter years of George H.W. Bush’s presidential term, an irrational gender ideology that told little boys and girls to ignore, if not deny, the realities of biology was seeping into American public schools. Little did I know it had already affected an entire generation of college graduates. Thirty years later, it now dominates all of America’s elite institutions. Indeed, questioning it could even get you fired. Millions of Americans are told, nay coerced, to refute the testimony of their eyes.

Anthony Esolen, author and writer-in-residence at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts, wants America to regain its eyesight. He attempts this project in his No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men by means of setting scenes. He is, after all, a former English professor and a commended translator of Dante. Esolen sets scenes from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer’s Odyssey, Milton’s Paradise Lost, and a wide swath of other literature that has informed the Western tradition and its conception of the sexes. Perhaps provoking our imagination is an effective if underemployed strategy for bringing us to our senses.

Not that Esolen’s treatise is short on reason, appealing in particular to our common sense. Rather than having me ham-handedly attempt to summarize his scenes, let us instead consider his arguments. “Look around you,” he exhorts us. “Every road you see was laid by men. Every house, church, every school, every factory, every public building was raised by the hands of men.” He cites simple biological realities: a man's heart is twice as big as a woman’s and fills his blood with more oxygen; that man sweats much more freely than a woman does. Or, put simply:

You can have your own politics or your own social theories—perhaps. But try as you may—and these days a lot of people are trying very hard—you cannot have your own biology. You cannot have your own physics. That block of stone does not care for democratic or egalitarian ideology.

The U.S. women’s national soccer team were confronted with that reality when they lost to an under-15 boys squad (who, according to a photo-op, were taller and bigger than the women).

Of course, to observe such things is to be labeled a perpetuator of toxic masculinity and the patriarchy. Esolen refers to these ideologically-motivated ad hominems as akin to “someone sprinkling a bit of strychnine in the soup—not enough to kill, but certainly enough to make the diner sick.” Boys are told they are bad if they are aggressive, if they exhibit the kinds of traits males have manifested for thousands of years. “Telling boys these things is poisonous, and I daresay it is intended to be so: those who speak this way want the boys to be weaklings, to despise their own sex, to doubt their natural and healthy inclinations.”

It’s also a recipe for societal disaster. The more males are castigated and punished for being themselves, the more we will descend into a nation of weaklings. Boys in particular are being overmedicated, a worrying trend in a society in which testosterone levels are in precipitous decline. And it’s not just the medication and conformist anti-male pressures placed upon boys in grade schools. It’s the fact that more than a quarter of children are raised in a home without a father. And porn addiction, which weakens male libidos and undermines healthy male-female relations, is still on the rise. “No such nation is long for this world,” Esolen warns.

In one sense, it’s self-defeating. The more feminist elites try to throw off the “shackle” of patriarchal norms, the worse things end up getting for women. Esolen explains:

Patriarchy—government by fathers—is a victory over the male domination and the male irresponsibility you inevitably get when women attempt to take over male executive roles. When the patriarchs are missing, what you get from the boys is either aggressive disobedience or underachievement and waste. And then you get unhappy girls who despise the boys they have helped to form. The girls, too, go bad, because the sexes are made for each other, and you cannot corrupt one without corrupting both.

Look at any contemporary or historical society that has broken down into violent chaos, and you will typically see a society with large numbers of young men from broken or unstable families, with few opportunities to divert their testosterone towards familial or productive vocational obligations: Somalia, Mexico, Yemen, El Salvador, Congo, Afghanistan.

Critics of the patriarchy and the attendant sin of “toxic masculinity” are typically oblivious of this. For example, Esolen cites author Margaret Atwood, who imagines a patriarchal dystopia while writing from the safety of her own in Canada—a land carved out of the wilderness by the very men she despises. And he identifies an infantilizing woke culture that believes in magic: there is the “bad magic” of amorphous demons like sexism, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity that must be exorcized for societal “progress”; and there is the good magic of wishful thinking, assuming all modern amenities we enjoy will simply continue—electricity, running water, and the global shipment of goods via trucks and ships. What unites the two is a damning ignorance of the fact that it is precisely the kinds of men they censure for “toxic masculinity” who make this world run.

“Men and women are made for one another,” notes Esolen. “I believe it, because it is in front of my nose, and I will not let any ideology compel me to pretend that I do not see what is right there to see.” My second-grade self would have agreed. Boys and girls are different, but they also need each other, both for their own happiness, and their own propagation. As much as that is true, we must consequently recognize that the more we corrupt one sex, the more we will corrupt the other. “Male and female stand and fall together.”

Esolen’s book is then a sobering warning: the more women fail to see men as they truly are, the less they will be able to see themselves. Or, by extension, the less they will be able to preserve the gifts won for them by generations of patriarchy.

Casey Chalk writes about religion and culture issues for The American Conservative and is a contributing editor for the New Oxford Review. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands (Sophia Institute Press).
 
Morgan Freeman? The HollyWeird Elite? 'Cause I know you aren't trying to invoke religion to appeal to me. Hell, I bet you don't even believe. You're probably agnostic at best. Can you recite the rosary to me?
Invoking the concept of God (and a very specific God, one of which a good percentage of the world doesn't even believe in) is weak.

Men are on average better st sport’

brute strength are still overwhelmingly male
I have no problem acknowledging the physical differences between men and women. If I did, I would have fully embraced the gender cult a long time ago.
However, physical strength does not translate into overall superiority. Construction isn't just being able to lift heavy stuff. It's spatial awareness, math skills, time management. These skills are not exclusive to men. And as you mentioned, your architectural plaster acquaintance knows women who are skilled in trades that favor dexterity. Fine motor skills can be translated into a wide range of fields, from surgery to computer repair to needlepoint.
Just because our strengths are different, doesn't mean they are inferior.
 
Bring me some actual numbers and then I might consider listening to you.
I shouldn't bother, since you're a feminazi and will stick your fingers in your ears, but sure, have some stats from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Chart 5, on page 7 of the 2020 report (the most recent for which I could find data) has the breakdown by gender of broad categories of employment. Women at most are maybe 1.5% of workers in the "Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations" category. They're roughly 6.5% of the "Production, transportation, and material moving occupations" category. The only category where they're at parity with men is in fucking sales. They're over represented in every other field.

Workplace fatalities in 2020 were 91.9% male and 8.1% female.

Now, given the breakdowns above, which seems the more likely explanation to you? That women eschew dangerous jobs, or that they're 11x more cautious than men and companies should exclusively hire women to avoid workers comp/wrongful death/etc. expenses?

Feminists only ever wanted 'equal opportunity' for boardroom seats and high status, high-paying, low-risk jobs. That's why they agitate for special treatment and special access to STEM fields, spit hellfire and damnation about male managers being scared of mentoring female coworkers, etc., but make nary a peep about trades. Trades are dirty, dangerous, low-status (but sometimes high paying) occupations with high rates of significant injury or death compared to the paper cuts and mean tweets of the corporate boardroom or research lab.
 
Tradcucks always try to appeal to women with reasoned arguments. In some cases it works, but usually that's because they're going to vote for the candidate on the right anyway.

I view their attempts as an attack on men. We need to control porn = we want to control male sexuality and force them into a relationshit where they'll lose half their net worth. In their zeal they also forget that when you've set up your online porn access ID system the left will just extend that to destroy online anonymity.

Men need women. For what exactly? Reproduction yes. Everything else? No. Its up to you to find that meaning and purpose in life. Abdicating that responsibility you owe yourself to another usually won't end well. To be fair that's true for women but I think overcoming that biological imperative for safety and security is a much larger hurdle.
 
A good example of this issue in action is with pro-choice advocates who try to frame abortion as a matter of "bodily autonomy" that shouldn't be "policed by men"... while they rely on men to get abortions, maintain the institution of abortion, gain abortion "rights", and fluff their egos for getting abortions.

I don't want to frame it as a matter of "patriarchy". Rather, feminists don't know who they're asking to butter their bread. They act like being a man is an unambiguously great thing teeming with power and devoid of yokes, and sometimes it's to the point that they even hate being women and/or not being men (the former's how you get many of the FtMs, as they ascribe all manner of negativities to femininity). It's staggering how much they fail to even observe men, much less understand them-- even though they've repeatedly gotten their allowances and "rights" from nagging men nonstop.

This is much more than the quasi-necessary everpresent argument between men and women, and it's more than ignorance. It's even more than lack of empathy in its most literal sense-- it's outright blindness, up to the nose. You can't claim to be oppressed by a patriarchy to whom you expectantly supplicate. That's absurd.


Too bad women can't actually be (sexually) dominant, and that the men hankering for this are moreso starved for any attention from a woman.

Those men are the ones in power though. No one is relying on men to make abortion laws stick because they are men. It just happens to be who got voted in. Mass voting a candidate merely because she has a vagina is stupid so I'm not advocating that to change things. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but your statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. No woman is getting an ego boost from abortion unless she's kookoo in the head. Nutjob SJW level feminists for example. They should probably be getting psychiatric care instead of getting knocked up. Don't stick your dick in crazy. Learn the red flag signs and stay away.

There are obvious differences between men and women. But the troon ideology tries to erase this. Or at least try to make youth think it's all magically changeable with medical procedures. I'm just glad to see there is finally some pushback. Too bad so many people already mutilated their bodies.

Many women will use their feminine wiles to get some advantages. What goes on in their heads can be totally different from the exclamations of "Oh Buck Manquads! Please save me!"

The clever women just know how to play the game. I'm not saying it's right or fair. Especially if you have true feelings and find out you were used. But it's a tough ass world out there and it's only getting worse. You might see a return or more traditional feminine roles merely for the advantages. Doesn't mean your tradwife is trad in anything but name only. Women aren't automatons.
 
Those men are the ones in power though. No one is relying on men to make abortion laws stick because they are men. It just happens to be who got voted in.
"It just happens" that, in a governmental system where we vote for our representatives, men and women alike deliberately vote for men?

"It just happens" that, in a governmental system where nearly anyone can become a representative, nearly all of the people in the running-- to begin with-- end up being men?

No, that's a choice that everybody made. Women, in this case, delegate power to men and then supplicate them to represent their interests wherever the levers of power are, essentially because they mostly have no interest in wielding said power themselves. Hardly any of them so much as try grasping at those same levers. In terms of financing, they have no issue with relying on men's tax dollars and endowments to maintain the institution of abortion. They have no problem with male OB/GYNs as long as they can perform the procedure.

In all, they have no problem with male contribution inasmuch as it facilitates their desires.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but your statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. No woman is getting an ego boost from abortion unless she's kookoo in the head.
Putting aside that the reaction to Dobbs has demonstrated that there's a lot of women that are kookoo in the head, what I meant exactly is that pro-choice advocates oftentimes insist that abortion is a conversation that men ought to keep their noses out of... but have absolutely no problem with men having a voice in the conversation as long as they agree with said women.
 
Morgan Freeman? The HollyWeird Elite? 'Cause I know you aren't trying to invoke religion to appeal to me. Hell, I bet you don't even believe. You're probably agnostic at best. Can you recite the rosary to me?
Invoking the concept of God (and a very specific God, one of which a good percentage of the world doesn't even believe in) is weak.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I merely posted a picture of a negro wearing a suit. 🤔
 
That's nice and all but who the hell asked? Really not understanding what so-called ""trad"'" women think they're getting at when they get on the podium and blabber whatever contrived 2 braincell count bullshit everyone already knows about when they should be a home instead taking care of the kids. Isn't that what they're supposedly proud of doing??
 
That's nice and all but who the hell asked? Really not understanding what so-called ""trad"'" women think they're getting at when they get on the podium and blabber whatever contrived 2 braincell count bullshit everyone already knows about when they should be a home instead taking care of the kids. Isn't that what they're supposedly proud of doing??
It's okay, you can say "get back in the kitchen".
 
Bring me some actual numbers and then I might consider listening to you.
Here you go, petal.

Like others itt, I've worked on building sites, done manual labour, spent time in wagie-cagie temperature-controlled environments, and a bunch more uncomfortable, physically demanding jobs where, luckily, about the only qualification required was retard strength. Only women I ever interacted with were payroll/HR. On the phone. I'm sure they do exist, somewhere, but fake photo-op bitches wearing hardhats and hi-vis aside, I've never seen one on-site. Ever.

Not even going to say that wahmen can't do these jobs, they just don't want to. And I don't blame them.
 
Back
Top Bottom