Patriarchy

The last time patriarchy knew its own name unabashed and giving a clear self-knowing account of itself in the Western nations was more than 300 years ago. And the deep practice of it was written as male right in Roman law well over three millennia ago and in direct contrast to how things are taken today. As we can see with the word rape which stems from rapere meaning grab; such as the theft of a man’s dignity through the touching of male genitals by a woman. Barbarian rules of male right reigned as ‘politically correct’ cultural signifiers and registers nuancing Neanderthal life since pre history lasted for millennia; with few female bones missing hands. The right extended in power sufficient to stem the challenge to male authority.

Proud Roman Patrician patriarchy then would have cut off a woman’s hands, even by the husband, if she grabbed his opponent’s genitals. This is given elsewhere at the time in Deuteronomy 25:12 written also well over three thousand years ago. This is the true Hebrew patriarchy as recommended by God (apparently). So we need to take some notice-by at least assuming it is meant to be an absolute, complete and lasting statement on the matter of human governance and management. Of which this section is a compact statement of the importance of the male view of things. Do not argue with me. Argue the point with god. This section is merely a dramatic highlighting of the integrity of the male role as leaders of society from a Hebrew patriarchal discourse. Their dignity then is not to be impugned. Definitely not. Today Christians arising from the root of Jess, and by the light of the Lion of Judah have a much better covenant.

Looking at this distant past we can see the severity of their view. Deuteronomy 25 states that he is to cut off the woman’s hand-even that of his own wife-'without pity or mercy'-so this is directly an appeal to the woman's husband who might otherwise be presumed to have had some pity, so as -not to have it, to crush it within himself, over his own wife, and in behalf of another man presumably his assailant, though his own wife was attempting to assist her husband in the fight. This clearly demonstrates that male right took absolute complete precedence over marital right or even family rights or household rights. The forbiddance to violate, grab and rape men is so forbidden, even if the hand missing woman could no longer assist her household or her husband in wifely duties within the kitchen or for their children-she could no longer care for them, cook, clean, wash, clothe or dress or be useful in any way; for her crime of rape-violating another man’s dignity, honour and sexuality, just by taking a thieving grab at his private organs-she was completely, totally and utterly condemned to virtual slavery, pauperism, divorce, and uttermost loss. An absolute judgment without peer. Certainly the ancients knew what man’s dignity was worth in Patriarchy. The nearly ultimate punishment, a punishment worse than death. Truly woman’s rape of men's sexual dignity was a fate worse than death for her. She lived, only to die of her own horror at what she had done for this was her society’s judgment on her. She could not judge society. Society judged her. rape is a crime against men. False accusation today rapes a man the same way. The ancient patriarchy would have ripped out her tongue for that. Do we do that today? Yet man's voice has been silenced. And, all too frequently the glans, and even the penis entire, chopped off to evil feminists’ amusement. Is not that absolute proof positive of our age being a matriarchal tyranny insufferable to any man with intelligence of politically aware gender consciousness? Current Christian societies advocate nothing anywhere so drastic; though Islamic ones do, following that exact law to the letter around the issue of theft; more drastically around the tissue of cuckoldry or adultery. As also Hindu ones in their patriarchal society. Also Chinese military governments act in a decisive political way in regard to false rape accusations; they do not tolerate it in their patriarchy. False accusers in China risk jail for as long terms of imprisonment as that which they accuse of. A thing men may very welcome here. False accuser students denied access to University campus, cancellation of their degrees, and imprisonment for multiple accusations cumulatively as sometimes handed down in America. This is the Chinese view on false rape accusations. Women should watch out to preserve the West by breeding for we are surrounded by fundamentalist patriarchal societies that many men may find it ideologically more comfortable to work with than today’s feminist matriarchy democracy continuing. What can feminism offer to alleviate men's concern over such issues? If nothing then let us dispossess ourselves of such cruel feminists.

Cutting off ones limb-though it is the very singular signifier of old style male right or patriarchy it is nowhere highlighted in post-modern critical theory. Since only one Mr. Karl Marx a University drop out, is recognised as the genius in all matters; toilet training, picking up women, family life, economics (he never studied or qualified in either economics, accountancy or book-keeping) and is the final word for every little thing to his fans and fanatics alike. This to us is crazy: math, science of 1850 or so has vastly moved on, he did not know derivatives, globalisation, the rise of the Asian nations, Time magazine or celebrities. There are a thousand and one important economic and financial things he has no idea of at all. He classes turnover as profit and makes too many loony mistakes that autodidacts in all fields are prone to because they have never humbled themselves sufficiently to see that a survey of the entire field is extremely useful before one begins. Thus there are nearly always glaring gaps in the knowledge of most self-taught men; of which he is one, hardworking and assiduous in the writing as he is. Though he attempts to cover a whole field, the whole field of human endeavor is bigger than he; that is why real genius focuses in a concentrated manner in some detail before they are led to draw vast and important inferences from it. Not Marx he breaks wind on over a dozen topics at once so that his sentences are so confusing (almost all other contributors to the human race bring light and clarity) that many mistake his muddle for profundity.

Thus Marxist attacks on Patriarchal men is based on straw man arguments from the ancient purloined past. If not hesitating from outright plagiarism. One might sigh in deep resignation and come out in favour of sharia law and be done with it in exasperated sympathy with the Abrahamic patriarchy that Islam still represents. In New Zealand one might also beg to have real total Maori governance as long as it floods over to rejuvenate male pride within the remnants of European society; for that maoritanga is a society of patriarchal order. Yet it demonstrates that we can in no way be described as a patriarchal society when women voters outnumber men and vote in several election more than men because they outlive them and widows hold the vast extent of our wealth. Women undoubtedly rule our matriarchal world. Cries regularly go out to cut off a man’s genitalia: so he can still work presumably, yet often based on unproven accusations upon men eager to abstain from such money rape sucking parasitic marriages.

No one suggests in a western context to cut off a females hands for molesting a boys penis, or touching in a morally polluted fashion a man’s genitalia: after all he’s asking for it, right-a direct reversal of the situation if it were a woman who’s ‘honour’ or ‘dignity’ were at stake: -so it is a proven matriarchy then by that token.

Men wear dresses in a matriarchy, for that is where the unearned respect gets delivered in a matriarchy. In an older patriarchy rapidly going out of fashion George Sand wore men's clothing to signify her desire to contain within herself the source of political and personal power thought obtainable only as if a man amoung patriarchs-or their like: that was then; this is now, so we have indirect proof of our current state that it is a matriarchy. Men are regularly arrested, tried, convicted and punished solely on the say-so of women, this is a matriarchy: the injustices rampant in our vile courts always discriminates against men in favour of women. When then will men abandon unfair matriarchal laws for some kind of masculine lawlessness? If only to retain illegal vestiges of dignity. Shade of playground bigotry “puppy dogs tails and snails, that’s what little boys are made of”. What happens if law is so unjust that men cease to answer to it and silently refuse to testify against any man as a protest upon so great a set of injustices? As the law today unfairly awards women credibility, children, custody: and if guilty, lesser penalties in almost every level of anti-male ‘justice’. If a false accusation carried the same penalty, as in China (where fewer accusations result) so if proven malicious, the accuser arrested and similarly punished, there could be far fewer unfair accusations, as they nevertheless destroy men’s dignity even if he is innocent: and thus also perpetrating a slur on all other men by feminist driven media extensions. Yet the feminist literature itself shows that under male right remnants of just one hundred years ago there was far less violence against women-Kiwi Blokes article in Genders online magazine-than is claimed by merely asking for its acceptance!-the absurd tip-of-the-iceberg argument. It is men now who are the victims of this deliberate misrepresentation and this knowledge of it is oppressed, suppressed and repressed.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!