Patriarchy and Fatherhood

Novaseeker recently left a comment in this post over at Dalrock’s that is so good it clearly deserves its own post. Here it is in its entirety:

By saying that children don’t need fathers and women don’t need them to raise children successfully, you cut the legs out from under the arguments for child support.

Well, the thing is that in some places donors can actually be successfully sued for child support. It isn’t universal but there have been cases where sperm donors have been made to pay child support precisely because they are the biological fathers. It certainly isn’t 10% airtight for sperm donors, although it does vary by state.

On the broader issue, it really makes plain what everyone here already knows: fatherhood, in the era of feminist matriarchy, is solely dependent on whether the mother wants it to exist. A mother can choose full fatherhood (i.e., married to the bio dad), reduced, or semi-, fatherhood (divorced with “visitation” or “shared parenting” arrangements), or no practical fatherhood but financial, or no fatherhood at all. It’s a menu for mothers, now, and they can switch between different menu items at any time without cost to themselves. Fathers have precisely as much of a role in their children’s lives as the mother, at any point in time, wants and is willing to accept.

Of course, anyone who has been paying attention should not be surprised by this. You can’t really retain a meaningful fatherhood on a mass scale when you ditch patriarchy. More than anything else, patriarchy was about securing fatherhood — securing paternity, which is the basis of fatherhood. When you get rid of it, you ipso facto undermine fatherhood in a way that motherhood can never be undermined because fatherhood is simply more tenuous than motherhood is. And so we shouldn’t be surprised that in a society which has loudly and triumphantly and enthusiastically discarded patriarchy, that fatherhood is amorphous, tenuous, uncertain and in many ways simply failing.

A society can’t have this both ways, really. Either you support fatherhood institutionally, and get more fathers and less fatherlessness, or you undermine fatherhood institutionally in the name of equality and empowering women and their reproductive and romantic freedoms, and you get less fathers and more fatherlessness. It isn’t rocket science. But our society is so “all in” committed to burying all aspects of patriarchy under the banner of female liberation and empowerment that it will choose, again and again and again, every manner of artificial and nonsensical support mechanism to prop up fatherlessness, rather than simply admitting that it was a bad idea to get rid of patriarchy. In other words, as between less freedom/empowerment for women and more fathers, on the one hand, and more freedom/empowerment for women and less fathers (and more fatherlessness), our society will happily choose the latter, and with gusto and enthusiasm, and will simply find more props to support fatherless families.

The main point which can be taken from this comment is simple:

Patriarchy = Fatherhood

Or perhaps better stated…

A = Patriarchy

B = Fatherhood

If A, then B; if not A, then not B

(or something like that; its been way too long since I took a logic class)

In order to have effective Fatherhood, you need at least some form of structural Patriarchy (in a general sense of the term). Without it fatherhood, as an institution, cannot be sustained against the ravages of time + human nature. In terms of Dominoes, the domino of Fatherhood can only be placed upright after, or perhaps at the same time as, Patriarchy. Contra what most of society believes and states, Patriarchy is progress; our current social path is actually regression. The structural benefits of a strong institution of fatherhood, secured only by Patriarchy, are petering out now in the West. We can see the consequences all around us.

Fatherhood, as an institution, is only going to get worse as time passes. The West has pretty much dismantled/destroyed the foundation of Patriarchy, and put (in Novaseeker’s words) a feminist Matriarchy in its place. Of course, I don’t think the two are really separate, but that doesn’t matter in the context of this post. What does matter is that Fatherhood cannot be fixed until we rebuild a solid foundation for it. Simply reversing bad laws isn’t enough. A complete social reorganization will be necessary. And I just don’t see that happening voluntarily. There are simply too many who are invested in this system, man and woman alike, for peaceful change to happen on any meaningful time scale. The whole system would collapse before then. Which is to say that the whole system will collapse. Or at least, that is what I’m seeing from my vantage point right now. I’d love to be wrong, but I don’t think that I am.

With that in mind, the Benedict Option is something that Christians should be considering right now. I know that I am. Novaseeker has some thoughts of his own about the Benedict Option.

Also worth reading: this comment by Dalrock.

Advertisements

33 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Civilization, Fatherhood, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, The Church, Women

33 responses to “Patriarchy and Fatherhood

  1. Thank you for the link DG. I’m all for the Benedict Option so long as I’m not stuck in the same cloister as Rod Dreher.

    Bonald had a good entry on this topic the other day. Basically, we need to become much more tribal.

  2. infowarrior1

    Equality fundamentally undermines and destroys patriarchy. We should discard egalitarianism to ensue that patriarchy works.

  3. infowarrior1

    ”Either you support fatherhood institutionally, and get more fathers and less fatherlessness, or you undermine fatherhood institutionally in the name of equality ”

    Its not like this sort of destruction is because of a misunderstanding of equality. It is the result of equality. You cannot have a hierarchical relationship between husband and wife as it is between Christ and the church by making them equal partners, its like making the Church equal with Christ which will not do considering that that marriage is the image of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

  4. Matthew Rose

    Well for most modern “Christians” and most “churches,” there is t best an equal relationship between Christ and a (not-divinely ordained) “Church,” such that this church can instruct Christ about new doctrines, new interpretations of dogma, new pastoral approaches, and the like.

  5. @ infowarrior

    The comment that I featured from Dalrock was a response to a comment by Slumlord. In his comment Slumlord demonstrated that the ideal of equality/egalitarianism had deeply rooted itself in his psyche, such that he couldn’t see how it was blinding him to what was going on around him.

  6. Thanks, Donal.

    I think Slumlord has some very interesting perspectives in general, but I think, to the extent he believes that the current situation is anything like a “level playing field”, he’s overlooking the fact that it has been engineered and tipped very specifically in favor of women – in education, in the law around relationships and maternity, in abortion and so on. It’s all been tipped specifically to counter the otherwise apparent male dominance in institutions that are set up explicitly based on competition, unlike the current educational system which largely rewards following orders and ass kissing more than it does raw brainpower. The educational system was substantially changed in the 1990s with the specific goal of promoting women, and not much thought at all was given to boys and young men other than “they’re just going to have to learn to deal”, and we now see the results. That is what he overlooks.

    The other problem I have with his perspective is that while it certainly is good for spouses to remain attracted to each other and do their best to maintain a sexual and romantic spark between them, in no way is this a proper basis for marriage. Today our problem is not that the society does not emphasize the importance of a sexual and romantic spark, but rather the reverse – the society endorses ending marriages which do not possess that, and that is the main driver of the divorce rate. He comes dangerously close to endorsing this in his approach to marriage. He can avoid the divorce issue somewhat due to his Catholicism, whereby he can say “I am locked in anyway, so I am not advocating divorce if this is not present in a marriage” — but, in effect, applied to the broader culture, placing a huge emphasis on the presence of a strong romantic and sexual spark between the spouses as the core of marriage is a driver of marital dissatisfaction and divorce both because it sets the bar too high AND because it misunderstands the core meaning of marriage, which is commitment and self-emptying, which leads to growth in holiness together.

  7. Novaseeker

    Re: the Benedict Option, I posted about it here.

    Dreher isn’t all bad, by the way, BL. His heart is in the right place, I think, despite other things.

  8. @ Novaseeker

    Somehow I missed that post of yours Novaseeker. I will include a link to it in this post.

  9. Slumlord has ideas that are rather bizarre and frankly dangerous.

    Such as:

    One of the factors which may be correlated to the preference of Danish women for Germans may reside in the fact that the Germans had far more martial spirit. The Danish Army lost 16 killed trying to defend Denmark. Guess their women didn’t really find them that sexy after that performance.

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.hu/2013/06/herman-is-hottie-whilst-dagfin-is-dud.html

    If you know anything about the military circumstances of Denmark’s invasion in 1940, you’ll realize that this had nothing to do with fighting spirit, and that the proposition he clearly makes, yet doesn’t clearly put in words, is something only a deluded misandrist and fool would come up with.

    Be wary of him and his ilk.

  10. Novaseeker

    Those kinds of things need to be discounted because Croatian.

  11. Novaseeker

    He is, yes. Do you know any? One of my best friends in HS was, and one of my ex-W’s best friends ex-H was, as well.

  12. Why should that be discounted due to his nationality? No matter how we slice it, what he said about Denmark is moronic.

  13. Novaseeker

    Just based on my experience 🙂

  14. mdavid

    Nova, On the broader issue, it really makes plain what everyone here already knows: fatherhood, in the era of feminist matriarchy, is solely dependent on whether the mother wants it to exist.

    I’m always perplexed by this sort of thinking. Here’s why:

    1) Mothers don’t define family in any non-modern religious communities; fathers always do. And any man who depends upon law to define his marriage authority has already lost. Fatherhood is a cultural construct (Homer: It is a wise child that knows his own father).

    2) If you doubt the above point, note that the dreaded “feminist matriarchy” doesn’t exist among the trads I know. They all live under current marriage laws yet lack divorces, child support injustices, etc. Why? Because these men follow doctrinal authority above themselves. They still fill the patriarchal role of “father”. They do the work. They have large families. They still follow their bishops and religious leaders. They do what nobody else wants to do.

    3) The Benedict Option (meaning withdrawing from the broader culture to me) is the only reasonable option for traditional people today. And trads have been living this philosophy long before Dreher coined that phrase; I certainly was. Yet few men are willing to abide by what trad life demands. Dreher himself is a modern religious individualist type (he’s switched religions three times, has a small family, consumes large amounts of media, and only recently canceled his subscription to the NYT, and supported the Iraq War). Dreher is the broader culture. Please.

  15. mdavid

    Nova, Either you support fatherhood institutionally, and get more fathers and less fatherlessness, or you undermine fatherhood institutionally in the name of equality…

    Modern men have decided, en mass, to embrace individualism. That is, to reject organized religion, children, and extended family in favor of the “pursuit of happiness”. Ergo, they have rejected fatherhood and the patriarchy, which, being a construct, defines itself. Society (the state) simply responds.

  16. Donal, with all due respect, my own father did not let society define fatherhood for him and my own husband never let feminism define him either. This constant obsession with feminism, with the world, that I often find on red pill blogs really runs contrary to what Christ taught. Are we to answer to the world? Are we to let the world define us?

    There is truth to David’s words above, “modern men have decided, en mass, to embrace individualism.” Men benefit hugely from feminism, lots of commitment free sex and no responsibility. Like it or not, it is men that must relinquish the benefits of feminism, not women.

    Masculinity, femininity, marriage, patriarchy, these are mindsets, attitudes, ideals we hold, not concepts we must have validated and enforced by the world around us. To embrace this continuous bemoaning of how the world “just is,” is really to dis-empower our own selves.

  17. Tradcons are just hilarious.

  18. mdavid

    IB, There is truth to David’s words above, “modern men have decided, en mass, to embrace individualism.” Men benefit hugely from feminism

    I never said that men benefit from feminism. We completely disagree. In fact, men suffer greatly from it, and women are the far worse today than men, and far more individualistic. My point: men are reaping the individualistic seed they have sown since the Reformation. Sin leads to suffering.

    I wanted to comment on Dalrock’s linked comment: Feminism doesn’t exist without massive and constant effort on every level of society. Everything, everything had to be radically reworked to get to where we are.

    I say: exactly. But this happened a long time ago because of individualistic guys like Dalrock, who can’t see the connection between the canard of “biblical marriage” (which always disagrees with the historical Church’s view) and what happens to marriage when everyone “agrees to disagree”. Solution: Find a tribe that you answer to. Avoid the State. Stop being surprised when individualistic philosophy bites back.

  19. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/06/21) | The Reactivity Place

  20. For those that want to take the benedict option literally, theres always Oklahoma. Let me know if you come.

    Also, there’s talk of a new one opening in new Mexico, for those who are crazy and would rather deal with deserts nd scorpions than ticks, chiggers, and humidity.

  21. Chad, give me a dry heat any day of the week.

  22. Yeah, I agree, but you get used to it. Think of it as extra penance while still getting the benefits of being in a traditional community

  23. infowarrior1

    ”This constant obsession with feminism, with the world, that I often find on red pill blogs really runs contrary to what Christ taught.”

    Likewise are you faulting the early church for being obsessed with Gnostics and the Arian heresy?

    The reason for this is that the church failed to stand up to the challenges of our time and suffered for it. We must put an end to this madness and evil within the churches within which this poison has insinuated itself and cloaked itself in virtue. And that of which laid waste to families and fathers without considerable opposition.

  24. infowarrior1

    ”My point: men are reaping the individualistic seed they have sown since the Reformation. Sin leads to suffering.”

    Are you sure that it is not correlation rather than causation? That the reformation happened to coincide with the enlightenment?

  25. mdavid

    info, Are you sure that it is not correlation rather than causation? That the reformation happened to coincide with the enlightenment?

    Perhaps you miss my point. Secular men could care less about feminism; they just plow through women like a dolphin through waves. It’s religious men who have all the angst about modern sex and marriage and how the culture abandoned them.

    The Reformation was a single Church splitting into “churches”. Hence the cultural framework the RCC struggled to build for 1,000 years using law and religion (no divorce, no cousin marriage or birth control, e.g. PATRIARCHY) was undone. Sure, cultural memory limped for awhile but the West has gone from 30% to 10% (and falling) of world population. Patriarchy done.

    Which is why it’s so wild for Christians to complain how nobody is following (their version) of “marriage”. If everyone gets to create their own church and define their own “biblical marriage”, what did they expect? They just undid 2,000 years of marriage tradition. It’s fairly laughable.

  26. Hey Donal;
    Just wanted to give you a heads up that I’m moving all my old stuff to my new blog, so I reposted my “Is Life Fair” piece, again with links to you. Thanks.

  27. The Reformation was what set the stage for the Enlightenment. It’s endlessly entertaining to see Protestants foisted on their own petard by hating the system THAT THEY THEMSELVES CREATED.

    Sources:

    Brad Gregory “The Unintended Reformation” http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Reformation-Religious-Revolution-Secularized/dp/0674045637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435093435&sr=8-1&keywords=brad+gregory+reformation

    Charles Taylor “A Secular Age” http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Age-Charles-Taylor/dp/0674026764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435093512&sr=8-1&keywords=a+secular+age

  28. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/06/24 | Free Northerner

  29. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/06/24 | Neoreactive

  30. Exfernal

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if – well, reality is not so clear-cut as logic.

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