In Defence of Reformed ‘Patriarchy’.


The following is the beginnings of an essay which I will continue to write based on feedback and questions I get. It is a living essay.

To begin I am setting out the fundamental reasons why I, as an evolutionary scholar,  fight feminism as briefly as possible in the hope everyone reading will immediately grasp the thesis. It’s all about patriarchy – what it is and what it is not.

As I have written elsewhere feminism is not the battle for equality between the sexes but a movement to “smash patriarchy”. This might have been a noble endeavour had feminists ever hit upon a theory of patriarchy that could begin to be falsified. The following are the starting premises for an evolutionary model of patriarchy, with this in mind. The feminist conception of patriarchy is woefully lacking (see a previous essay here). Examining patriarchy via evolutionary theory, which includes but is not limited to ecology, biology, anthropology and psychology, reveals a much more fascinating and complex picture. Through this lens, ‘patriarchy’ is our fitness landscape. It differs from place to place depending on ecological constraints. These constraints are myriad, but not infinite and so can be plotted. Neither are these differences arbitrary, they dance around a constant, evolutionary, fire.

I assert that ‘patriarchy’ exists on a continuum from malign to benign. Strong (malign) patriarchies appear in areas of ecological duress and appear to constrain female choice because competition between men is so fierce and women are often caught in the crossfire though they are rarely the primary target: this is what I call unreformed patriarchy. Unreformed patriarchies are dangerous places to live in for both men and women – but especially men. Unreformed patriarchies often practice institutional polygyny which contributes to male intrasexual competition as the operational sex ratio (OSR) is skewed (high-status men have more wives, low-status men have none.) We recognise these cultures in the world’s strict theocracies.

In the Western cultures, we live mostly in ecological release through both geographical luck and human technological innovation. Competition between men is not so fierce (though in some poor enclaves it is). Men generally cooperate and society is stable and safe – as safe as it has ever been in human history. Institutional monogamy helps this stability and the OSR is in equilibrium most of the time (again, except in high crime/high male mortality enclaves) though some mate switching still occurs.  These western, benign societies appear to facilitate female choice under what I call reformed patriarchy. In both these societies ‘patriarchy’ appears to manifest itself in men over-represented in positions of power but this is not true, they are overrepresented in positions of the most fierce competition which has the result of elevating them up the dominance or (as Jordan B. Peterson correctly parses) competence hierarchy. Men want power and resources not to dominate women but to attract them.

Women take part in the creation and maintenance of these systems for reasons of their own ultimate fitness. They are not victims of it. They compete with other women as fiercely as men compete with other men for the resources they need to stay alive, find the best partners and successfully reproduce. They do this in very different ways than men however and this will be the subject of another essay (but which is touched upon here).

Crucially for my thesis in defence of reformed patriarchy is that reformed patriarchy protects against unreformed patriarchy. Should feminism ever succeed in its stated goal of “smashing patriarchy” in the West, unreformed patriarchy will inevitably rush in to fill the void it leaves and western civilization will fall.

Therefore, it is vital we fight feminism. In defence of reformed patriarchy.

Please leave your comments below, on Facebook and Twitter.


5 thoughts on “In Defence of Reformed ‘Patriarchy’.

  1. Great piece and looking forward to seeing it evolve.

    The only thing that springs to mind for me is that while there are good reasons for men to be more willing to make the sacrifices involved in attaining positions of power, Jo Williams makes a good point in her book Women vs Feminism; that reaching those positions takes years of experience and the (older) men there now did reach them at a time when there were various institutional barriers to women. So, now that there are not, the likelihood is that (from their basis as more qualified and more numerous in many traditionally male dominated occupations) in the future we may well see the number of women swelling the female representation in these power-roles.

    • @elizabethkhobson: the trouble with more women in power roles is that it leaves men out in cold.

      Men, as Paula mentioned “want power and resources not to dominate women but to attract them”. Men with power and status and money have attracted women since time immemorial, and in return men have shared that power and status and money.

      That simply hasn’t changed just because a bunch of hirsute hippies fifty years ago passed the bong around and said we could flip this upside down.

      Men in positions of power naturally, instinctively share that with women. Men instinctively care for women – in exchange, let’s be frank, for access to sex – but there’s no natural desire for women to do the same.

      Ask any guy who’s tried to date a woman who out-earns him. Men, regardless of political climate or social mores, are still seen by women as provider-protectors. A man who needs providing-for and protection *by a woman* is seen as a pathetic and not only not worth helping, but someone who must be discarded.

      Putting women in power doesn’t change our biological imperatives. Rather than a reversal of roles which feminist insist we believe happen (“Hey, trust us!”), it will just mean that not only the standards men must adhere become higher, it also means that there’s not only less chance for men to attain those standards (since women are now fulfilling the positions that make men attractive to them), and men’s survival is now dependent on those who are driven to to discard them.

      • ‘Putting women in power’ – If a woman has worked hard and hasnt used any privileges to get this power and it is as meritocratic as possible, then why shouldn’t she be there? I think that there is always a tiny portion of high T women who will want these kinds of roles and be good at them. Probably less than 1% of the population, but exceptions always exist.

      • Erin: I say “putting women in power” because that seems to be what modern feminists want – men to establish a power structure, then hand it over to women.

        It’s not that women want to earn the same privileges the privileged men they envy (and let’s be clear: the vast, vast majority of men are not billionaires or presidents or celebrities) any more. That ideal has been thoroughly rejected by third-wave feminists.

        In fact, that’s what most of the discourse seems to be these days. Women need to be part of, (for example), company boards, because company boards are male-dominated and always have been…so we must drop women in there. But if those boards have always been male-made and male-run – well, then why should any women have any claim to it? And, of course, they don’t expect to do the same work as men: the big argument at the moment for things like CEO positions is that they’re inherently sexist because they don’t allow time to raise a family, and thus aren’t “suitable” or “accessible” to women. (The idea that male CEOs might want to spend some time with their kids is never spoken of.)

        That’s the irony, I suppose, a deliciously gender-oriented Catch-22: women should be able to do the same things as men because to deny them that would be misogynist, but women doing the same things as men would be denying their femininity and that’s also misogynist.

        Same goes for most any other male-dominated field. Female soldiers want all the rank and glory as male ones (just as long as they’re not held to as stringent a standard as the men – like carrying less gear, and being able to opt out of combat if need be).

        The meritocracy, as third-wave feminists put it, is misogynists. Asking women to work like men is sexist, it turns out, because it denies what they believe is an inherent feminine trait: that men should do things for you. To work for your privileges is sexist against women, because working for yourself is masculine, but having others work for it is feminine. (Look at the insane arguments about the “wage gap”.)

        I think it was Warren Farrell who said that in the absence of traditional marriage, the welfare state (government) took over the role of “husband” as provider/protector: they provided money, protection, everything a woman expected from a husband.

        Now, as such states are being dismantled, and women’s prominence is expanding, it’s gone from simply being able to expect not just the government to act as a husband, but now
        all of society at large, from individuals to businesses to global corporations. Every man is now responsible for a woman’s comfort, security, and provision.

        Rather than act like men, women just seem to want to act like…housewives with bigger house. It’s all strangely traditionalist.

        It used to be that “equal opportunity” was the gold standard for gender relations. Now – that’s sexist. It’s now “equality of outcome”.

        A woman who wants to work as hard as a man is expected to is no longer a hero among her gender, but rather an Uncle Tom figure to be pitied – someone who’s “internalised the patriarchy”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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