Kyle Rowland writes: Men are instinctively predisposed towards providing for and protecting women.
This means that women will get as much as men can give them, in terms of luxury and freedom.
‘Patriarchies’ are poor or insecure, and cannot afford to let women do ridiculous things. Every single place and time where people have reason to think that they can afford to let women do whatever they want, women get to do whatever they want.
Let us examine ‘patriarchies.’ Generally these places offer a deal to women that is approximately equitable: men must provide for the household, and in return for upholding this obligation they are given authority over the household. The notion that this places far more onerous restrictions on women is nonsensical.
Sometimes men being forced to provide means that their bodies are gradually destroyed until they die an agonizing death. Sometimes women having to obey means that they are trapped with a monster who tortures them constantly. Most of the time, though, it’s basically fine for both parties. It’s a balanced arrangement. Feminist screeching about how terrible it is, is simply the result of women following their instincts and asking for more at every turn. Just as men are instinctively predisposed to provide, women are instinctively predisposed to demand. Men hunted, women needed to somehow get the meat. Their fundamental outlook must be that of hatchlings in the nest:
(An aside: often people who speak this way are resentful of women. I do not resent human females their role any more than I resent ant queens for their place in a colony. I also don’t have any more reverence for human sexual dynamics than I do for those of the ant. It’s all biology, and one through-line in biology is that it tramples on any sense of holiness. Biology is profoundly offensive and undignified, and when you look at it enough eventually you stop being offended and start finding it amusing and interesting.)
The realities of human sexual dynamics essentially dictate that women will get what they ask for, if it can be given. Human men will no more systematically deprive women than mother birds will systematically deprive their hatchlings. This has political implications. If your political plan relies on men systematically depriving women of something without an obvious and pressing requirement, it is unlikely to succeed.
People on the far right want to restore the old ‘patriarchal’ order. They point out that the deal being given to women is totally absurd: they retain their right to the resources of the men they marry, without reciprocally granting authority to said man. Fundamentally this evokes an image of a child playing a game of Monopoly and refusing to pay when they land on your hotel, while eagerly grabbing at your pile of cash when you land on theirs.
Absurd as this obviously is, there is no reason to think this arrangement is unstable absent a collapse in per-capita wealth. We can now afford to provide this deal – so it shall be provided. ‘Patriarchal’ places ‘round the world approach this situation as they gain the stability and wealth that allows them to provide it. It’s not necessarily catastrophic, either, as long as the implications are recognized and accounted for.
The principal problem that arises from this new arrangement is the new power dynamic it produces. Women hold more cards, men have to be more frightened of a partner turning hostile than they used to be. This causes problems, as women instinctively seek relationships with powerful men. Women, being weaker and less courageous, require an advocate and protector within a community to avoid being preyed upon in ways large and small. They instinctively seek this out in a mate. Weakness is fundamentally worrying and unsatisfying.
I claim that this issue can be remedied straightforwardly – men have a natural and tremendous advantage over women, in that they are men, dealing with women. The new social arrangement gives women more cards to play, but they are still women. When they are alone with a man, they are at that man’s mercy. If a man recognizes that he is weak and that this is causing a problem, he can move his stance from 99.9% nonthreatening to 98% nonthreatening, and shift the power dynamic completely over to his side again.
The problem is that men don’t recognize that their weakness is problematic. They view their weakness – their fundamental unwillingness to be at all threatening – as being righteous and straightforwardly good. Feminism is only a problem because of this delusion. Take it away, make men understand the nature and role of masculinity in social and sexual dynamics, and the problems melt away like fog in the sun. You can give women all the ‘rights’ that conceivably can be given to them, but their sexuality still demands that they be alone with men. This means that they are at the mercy of men, and must step as carefully as men make them step.
The far right should stop trying to accomplish the politically impossible, and recognize that the problem is at once trivial and impossible to overcome. It is impossible to avoid women getting everything men can afford to give them, and it is trivial to restore their respect and deference towards the men they deal with face to face. All it requires is that men re-learn what their forebears instinctively knew – that men who are incapable of violence instinctively inspire contempt and revulsion, and men simply must be capable of being credibly threatening (note: this almost never means explicit threats) to get a square deal from other people.
This applies to more than people’s relationships with women. Many absurd and tortuous social relations arise from men deciding to systematically make themselves completely nonthreatening. Very simple steps taken to move from 99.9% nonthreatening to 98% nonthreatening likely cut out the vast majority of the emasculating disrespect that many men complain about.
