Feminism is Nihilism, Only Patriarchy Can Return Us to Normalcy

"Indeed, it is only patriarchy that can bring back a sense of normalcy to the wildly chaotic environment that is operational today."

Originally appeared at: Monomakhos

Much news comes my way which provides further evidence that we are in an end-stage of a corrupt, incompetent and malevolent social structure. And that what we are experiencing as a culture is nothing less than nihilism.

In the hyperlink below, you can read for yourself (and I highly recommend that you do so) that one of the underpinnings of nihilism is feminism. What you will discover is that not only is feminism a lie, it is a tissue of lies and it cannot sustain itself without the strong arm of the state. In this sense, it is much like the cult of Political Correctness, but unlike that totalitarian regime, it receives government subsidies in order to sustain itself. 


Now, please understand, I am not against women’s suffrage or equal rights and such for women. Nor do I want them to be confined to the kitchen and the bedroom. Indeed, I have never encountered such a happenstance or met such a creature and I have traveled widely in my time.

So spare me the grief of my supposed male chauvinism.

Now, where was I? Ah yes, the sexual disparities brought upon by feminism which has left countless thousands of young men and women without marital prospects. It’s really simple: women, as a rule, are hypergamous. If you don’t believe me, then you didn’t read the above article.

What this means is that in the normal course of nature, the top 20 percent of men have sexual access to 80 percent of the women at any given time. That means that the bottom 80 percent of men are left with the bottom 20 percent of women. We see this played out for instance in Islamic societies where a well-to-do man can have up to four legal wives at one time. Since the ratio of men to women ordinarily is roughly one to one, this means that there are three Moslem males who don’t have or will ever be able to get, wives of their own.

This is by no means a critique of Islamic culture. The same socioeconomic forces which Islam recognizes as a natural given (because it is), is operative in other non-Christian societies as well. However, in Christian societies, the theological equality of men and women is derived from Scripture itself. The inability to divorce in pre-Protestant times actually elevated the status of women even more. One has only to crack open a history book and read about the marital difficulties of Christian kings such as Leo VI of Byzantium or Henry VIII of England to begin to grasp the importance of women in the social structure. In the final analysis, this forced suppression of the natural inequality of the sexes meant was that even a bottom-tier male of meager prospects could acquire a wife because polygamy was illegal as neither the Church nor the state would sanction it.

This enforced religious equality between the sexes had social and political repercussions that benefited Western Civilization in many ways, not the least of which was the ability to form democratic institutions. If “every man’s home was his castle” then no matter how mean his occupation, he was as much entitled to a wife as was the nearest duke. Nor could the duke take his wife for his own harem, since he was not allowed by law to even have a harem. And because he had no harem, he couldn’t take the tradesman’s daughters either. Because of this, the ratio of single men to single women remained stable. Such a regime, which is today derided as “patriarchy” was in fact as beneficial to women as it was to men.

Feminism pretty much destroyed that equilibrium. Under the new regime of “sexual liberation”, women were allowed to support themselves in the workforce without having to rely on the labor of men. Therefore men became superfluous. In time, certain professions became female-dominated. Many, if not most universities and colleges now are female-dominated as well. Unfortunately, the average college degree has become debased and not cost-effective (as we can tell by the student loan crisis). In any event, men for whatever reason, have opted out of getting college degrees. Worse, they have opted out of marriage, as well.

And this is where it gets sticky: the women who “have it all” found out that because they dominated the upper rungs of many social and economic hierarchies, there was no longer an equal number of men in those same cohorts. Indeed, the men in those cohorts were invariably already married.

But none of this should matter according to the tenets of feminism. Specifically, the traditional sex roles were artificial constructs, engineered to suppress women and keep them out of the workforce. If this was indeed true, then men and women were equivalent and that the traditional duties of men and women were thus interchangeable. Moreover, if we follow this fallacious argument, all those high-achieving women who constantly complain about the dearth of men would have no complaint at all. After all, the normal sexual ratio is almost always an absolutely stable one-to-one.

As such, these high-achieving women could look to the local plumber, mechanic, technician or grocery bag-boy for marital prospects. But they don’t. And this fact lays bare the fundamental lie of feminism and egalitarianism that we have been force-fed for several decades now. The idea that hierarchy is likewise a construct is fallacious as well.

Dogma be damned, biology matters: women would rather marry a man of higher status than themselves. Even highly educated women. This is what hypergamy means. It all comes down to this: “nine minutes for a man, nine months for a woman”. (I think you all are smart enough that I don’t have to draw a picture.)

We have seen this scenario play itself out in the African-American community. Ever since 1965 when Daniel P Moynihan wrote his seminal monograph on the black family, the statistics for the African-American family have only gotten worse. In the 1950s (before Welfare), the illegitimacy rate for blacks was 15 percent. When Moynihan sounded the alarm in 1965 it was 26 percent. Today it approaches 80 percent. This datum alone is proof of the lack of marital prospects for black women. While they will mate with unemployable rogue males to acquire a child (which, thanks to Welfare will be their only source of income), the last thing they need is to get married.

The reason should be obvious by now: if a poor, pregnant woman gets married, she won’t be eligible for AFDC, WIC, SNAP, EBT and the other alphabet-soup stipends that operate under the rubric known as “Welfare”. It is, in fact, the state which is their husband. Incidentally, this why the black woman vote for any particular GOP presidential candidate never breaks the 4 percent mark, since the Democrat Party is perceived as the party of the Welfare State; they are literally voting for their economic interests.

We are now seeing this same pathological phenomenon gain ground in white and Latino communities as well. Charles Murray recently wrote Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980, in which he cataloged in excruciating detail the loss of traditional American manhood among the white working class. In popular culture we have seen this devolution as well; compare the father figures of hit TV shows like Father Knows Best from the 1950s and The Simpsons (which began in the late 1980s). It’s so stark that we might as well be talking about two different species of animals. Indeed, because of his lower status, the modern, working-class American husband has become such an economic liability that 70 percent of all divorces in America today are initiated by the woman.

To be sure, the pathology which was evident in the African-American community to Moynihan five decades ago was largely ameliorated by the relative prosperity of the white majority. It was mostly contained to the inner city and with the beginning of the Great Society programs, a Calcutta-like scenario of starvation and homelessness was averted. Nor had the same pathology which had so exercised Moynihan taken hold among the white majority.

Of course, this stratification paid political dividends for both Democrats as well as Republicans. The resentment of the white working and middle classes at having their wages garnished to fund the Great Society was exploited by Republican office-seekers who talked about “Welfare Queens” and “Welfare Cadillacs”. On the other hand, the equally real degeneracy in living standards brought upon by the destruction of the black family under the Great Society regime was likewise exploited by Democrats seeking office. Because black and white Americans had resegregated themselves into a black/urban and white/suburban divide, things more-or-less remained in a stand-off for about forty years.

Murray’s present thesis, however, is that this tenuous modus vivendi is no longer economically possible. Mainly because the living standards of the white working and middle classes have eroded significantly in the interim. Their prosperity not only allowed them to maintain a family and decent neighborhoods but gave the Welfare State the necessary funds to function.

To put not-too-fine a point on it, Moynihan’s original observation is now starting to become more preponderant in the white majority. The illegitimacy rate for white women for example, is now approaching 40 percent; that is one-and-a-half times higher as it was for black women in 1965 and three times higher than it was for black women in the pre-Welfare 1950s.

It’s hard to say what is the exact number for illegitimacy rates would have to be to demarcate the point of no return for any particular society or any of its demographic subsets. But in the ten years between 1955 and 1965, the illegitimacy rate for African-American women doubled from 15 to twenty-six percent. Perhaps for the sake of convenience, we can peg that percentage at twenty percent, or one out of five live births. Regardless of the actual number, the fact remains that feminism as a concomitant of the sexual revolution made that number achievable.

Ironically, legalized contraception and abortion –both of which are inviolate sacraments of the feminist agenda–did nothing to ameliorate this pathology. All things being equal, they should have. Instead, they may have made it worse. Consider: fertile black women make up only 4 percent of the American population (out of 12 percent of the fertile female population as a whole). Yet they account for 36 percent of all abortions at any given time. In other words, black women are three times as likely to have an abortion as white women. Yet the poverty rate for African-Americans remains intractable; we still talk about “the Underclass”. The pathology remains.

Clearly, there have to be other reasons for this phenomenon. It’s one thing to say that feminism is the only culprit, however, the loss of traditional American manhood must take its share of the blame as well. Both were driven by the sexual revolution and both must be held accountable. In any event, feminism must accept its share of the blame. This is not possible in today’s politically correct culture. Not by a long shot. As such, it would be wrong to indict only the male half of the equation. It didn’t work for the black Underclass and it won’t work by criticizing the “patriarchy” as well.

Indeed, it is only patriarchy that can bring back a sense of normalcy to the wildly chaotic environment that is operational today.

In almost all particulars, feminism has failed the overwhelming majority of women of all races and all but the highest economic strata. And the irony of course is this: although it has opened up economic avenues for all women (at least in theory), it has mainly benefited those women at the top of the social hierarchy; women who in fact, have had no trouble finding “suitable” marital prospects, that is to say, men of higher achievement than themselves. Think of your typical news hostess on any of the cable channels, or Hollywood actresses, or academics who majored in the humanities who sit on the boards of directors the various corporations or think-tanks. Not one of them are married to handymen or construction workers. In the words of the old Virginia Slims commercial, they are the only ones “who have it all”.

In the very near future, I intend to catalog in more detail the economic forces which drove much of this phenomenon over the last several decades. For now, I want to simply address the issue of the natural hypergamy of women and why it is incompatible with the foolish nostrums of feminism. And that is because, in the end, nature always wins. As such, going from this point forward, we would be better off ignoring the ideological fads which have driven much of our civilization to ruin.

So, how close are we to a civilizational reset? To a return to Leave it Beaver normalcy? Not close in my opinion but definitely somewhere on the horizon. It won’t happen until the normal sexual relations that have always obtained throughout history become financially viable. At the very least that would have to entail a rearrangement of the tax code to make it desirable.

An example was the “living wage”. When that was first introduced, it was done so with the full understanding that housewives should never have to work outside the home. Hence, the wages of working men were calculated to reward the married man for his labor as well as his wife’s. Usually, this meant that he was paid one-and-a-half times his total wages: 100 percent for himself and an additional 50 percent for his wife.

The financial incentives are tantalizing to say the least but they are beyond the scope of this particular essay. And that is this: all social arrangments not based on reality have significant Achilles’ heels. Some have more than one such defect: one of the Achilles’ heels of feminism is biology –nature itself. The ontological differences between men and women cannot ever be overcome (the present fad of “women with a penis” will be among the first to fall).

Ironically, we see the reemergence of this stark difference in the workplace, courtesy of the #metoo movement. Remember two or so years ago when Vice President Mike Pence let it be known that he would never dine alone with a woman who was not his wife? The howls of outrage in the media were immediate and loud. That alone should have alerted us to what was at stake for the feminazis because they knew exactly where that would lead. Among other things, it meant that they would be deprived of the same business opportunities as their male counterparts. And they were right.

Since then, the #metoo movement has intensified into a very real and very dangerous moral panic. It has even taken down prominent liberal men in politics, the media, and the corporate world. No one has been spared. And men of all political persuasions have done the prudent thing, they have restricted any and all private access to women and have even gone so far as to not hire them. And women are complaining because the so-called glass ceiling has now lowered itself even further. Many of the jobs that were theirs’ for the taking are now going to men. Even men who may not be as qualified.

All women are now viewed as potential honeytraps. Whether it’s deserved or not is immaterial. Such a view is prejudicial, it’s presumptuous and it’s by no means fair but that doesn’t matter. Why? Because in the business world, an arena of limited resources, it’s the only prudent decision there is. To be sure, moral panics tend to burn themselves out but until they do, innocent people suffer. First, men suffered from baseless accusations (think Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford). Now the worm has turned and it is now qualified, young women who will never be given the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder.

Because of all this, I am hopeful that society will reorder itself in a generation or two. Yes, I realize that things were never perfect in Mayfield (the hometown of Ward and June Cleaver). But they are certainly not perfect now. Far from it.

At any rate, the present chaotic atmosphere cannot last forever. Eventually, the government receipts that sustain the present moral anarchy will dry up. They always do. We will know when that point arrives when President Occasional-Cortex has to make the decision as to whether to fund Drag Queen Reading Hour or send Grandma her Social Security check. I’m putting my money on Grandma receiving her pension. As for the twenty-something single mother struggling to make ends meet, well, the less said the better.

  • Shqip
  • English
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Portuguese, International
  • Русский
  • Español