I learned something interesting in the process of writing my last post; something I had not expected to encounter when I started writing. The key line: “… even feminism is an operation of patriarchy.”

Apart from radical intervention in the human genome, there is no getting around the plain fact that men are physically more powerful than women – that, i.e., men just are more powerful than women, simpliciter. Because they are capable of deploying more lethal violence per moral agent, men have more power – in the real world, and no matter what our public discourse or laws, or our civil cult, have to say about it. It follows that women have power at all only to the extent that men grant it to them. Women do indeed have power, but only because, in their heart of hearts, men want them to have it. When you boil it down that’s just another way of saying that men love women, want women to be part of their lives as women. They don’t want mannish women, don’t want faux men – who needs ersatz men when the supply of real men is so plentiful? Men want from women, and love in women, what they cannot provide to each other. And it is to women who can provide womanliness that men will grant power – not because they think that they ought to, but because such women move their very guts.

Conversely, it is to men who can deploy the greatest lethal force that women will (in general, and ceteris paribus) find their viscera are most inclined. Toward such men, women will most want to be womanly. Thus it is the power of the male that is the fount and foundation of social order; for it is men who grant power to all beings less naturally lethal than they, so that in the final analysis it is always men who determine and underwrite the form of social relations (even if only by their formal abdication from such determinations).

We have heard ad nauseam from well-meaning (sic) disinterested (sic) intellectuals (sic) how viciously evil is patriarchy, for the last 150 years. Yet lo, we find that patriarchal society is not wholly and straightforwardly a bloody chaotic wilderness, as it would be if ruled by moral monsters, but rather an advanced and exquisitely refined civilization – yes, even in these latter, dissolute days – of high technology, law, learning, production, and customs. And in this civilization, women thrive. Men who could all be wife-beaters or rapists if they felt like it overwhelmingly abhor such abuses of power. And these facts testify to the basic magnanimity of men.

Patriarchy, then, is just a fact of nature, like the greater gravitational force exerted by the sun than by the moon. We can pretend that the moon is more important or powerful than the sun, but that does not change their relative influence upon the concrete history of the universe outside the realm of our pretenses. Where we get into big trouble is when we begin to take our fancies about the sun and moon more seriously than the concrete sun and moon.

As a fact of nature, patriarchy always operates, and will do so until the species is genetically altered to the point where men are no longer recognizable as such (at which point, women will no longer be recognizable, either, and feminism will have become obsolete together with the patriarchy upon which it supervenes, and feeds). When it comes to the relations of the sexes, everything else is froth on the surface of the river.

18 thoughts on “Lethality:Power::Mass:Gravity

  1. It is also a fact that construction workers as a class are probably physically stronger than investment bankers as a class. Does that mean that they also just are more powerful, and that all the women will gravitate to them?

    Your argument might apply to a tribe of chimpanzees, but even there the females have significant social power that does not depend on physical strength. I somehow thought that the people here would be less inclined to simplistic reductions to nature rather than more so. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger rather than the Pope should be alpha male of your church?

    • Your counterexample fails, because it is inapt: it depends on the differences between men, rather than those between men and women. It is not therefore a counterexample.

      Except for extreme outliers from either group, any man is going to be able to deploy more physical power than any woman. The physical existence of women, then, is within the control of men, and not vice versa. If they wanted to, men could totally enslave women. The merely mechanical facts of human biology make patriarchy basic to human society.

      The fact that men do not totally enslave women, or even want to, means that there is more at work among humans than mere physical power. And I point that out in the post. So this does not fall into the category of reductive theories.

      All I did in the post was indicate an overlooked and inescapable factor of relations between the sexes, which is overlooked precisely because it is so basic. To say that x is a factor of y is not to say that x is the only factor of y.

      • And even to the extent it is reductionist, it is not an absurd or overly simplistic reduction. It is a simple observation of the world. In the same way, a man can never become pregnant.

      • The reason we men don’t totally enslave women, even though we could, is that that would totally conflict with our psychological need to protect them.

        The reason the leftists have been able to push feminism so far is because they figured out how to use our innate need to protet women as a weapon against us … and women.

  2. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Patriarchy and Nature

  3. Much of the “liberal” project/agenda, such as Politcal Correctness and Affirmative Action, can be fruitfully understood as the class-warfare of wealthy white “liberals” against non-wealthy and non-“liberal” whites (especially if they are Christian). Similarly, feminism can be fruitfully understood as the class-warfare of wealthy white “liberal” men against non-wealthy and non-“liberal” men *especially if they are white and Christian).

    • Reminds me of a remark by commenter “Bill”, here: http://orthosphere.org/2012/08/13/the-error-of-deinstitutionalization/#comment-5894

      It’s a theme, though. Easy divorce makes upper class adults’ lives easier and more pleasant. Getting rid of blue laws makes the lives of us rich suburbanites a lot easier. Hook up culture is fun if you’re a responsible adult with plenty of disposable income (or child of same). Employment equality for women makes your life better if you are a bored, upper class housewife like Betty Friedan. In general, if you have the smarts, self-control, and money to take advantage of freedom, it produces lots of hedonic benefits. The only people who lose are the dumbasses, lunatics, losers, Walmart clerks, and the poor. And who gives a [Ed: expletive deleted] about them?

  4. Eons ago, the feminist Susan Brownmiller offended a lot of people when she wrote: “Rape is the conscious process of intimidation by which ALL men keep ALL women in a state of fear.” Now, feminists have good instincts but bad theories, so it’s important to read through Brownmiller’s overt (nonsensical) words to the underlying instinctual emotive truth they contain and conceal. To begin: rape is not a “process”. All men do not KEEP all women in fear. But…and here’s the grain of truth: all women are afraid of all men. And they are right to be. In any conflict between a man and a woman in which violence or the threat of violence is a contributing factor to the resolution of that conflict, the woman will always lose. This means that a world full of violence, even the threat of it, is a world in which women cannot prosper. A world in which women do prosper must therefore be a world in which they can live their lives in the certainty that the men with whom they interact will not use violence against them, and just as importantly, not even engage in pantomimes of violence.

    The men of such a society must therefore deeply internalize a taboo against violence directed at women. The more deeply internalized the taboo, the more women can relax, trust their men, and live the kind of lives they want. This taboo is imperfectly internalized in even the most civilized society, but it is present in them. However, to the extent that a society’s women are protected from male violence by being physically isolated from men (e.g., purdah), that society has not successfully inculcated the taboo. And a society in which men must physically protect or avenge violence against women (via police protection for example) does not have this taboo.

    Societies that have women walking freely about, interacting with men not their husbands or family, must be a society in which men carry deeply within themselves the desire to protect women, not only from violence, but from even being subjected to threats, no matter how implicit, of violence.

    Women’s liberation is entirely the gift of men to women. It is a fundamental aspect of a civilized society. Purdah societies are inherently barbaric. And so are those in which women must be directly protected or avenged by men. Our society is civilized because our men have internalized the taboo against violence, and instead have strengthened and reinforced the (at least partly) innate desire of men to protect (their) women and universalized that desire, directing it toward all women.

    All women are right to fear all men. But they should be grateful too. Because fear does not have to dominate their relationships with men.

    • Women have achieved parity with men when it comes to physical violence, thanks to technology. They are still lacking in physical strength, but modern weaponry has made this much less relevant. Firearms are the great equalizer in this regard, as the girls have more than sufficient agility to operate them. (Men are still better at digging trenches and loading MBT guns, of course.)
      Those who doubt the truth of this should investigate the combat record of Major Lyudmilla “Lady Death” Pavlichenko. Over 300 German soldiers learned the hard way that having three times the upper body strength doesn’t help very much when the lady in question need merely squeeze the trigger.
      Closer to home, I feel obligated to remind everyone that You Have To Sleep Sometime, and that when you are in bed with any woman the only thing saving you from a grisly death is her lack of desire for such.

      • If it were true that guns conferred parity of lethality on women, women would have been 50% or so of all civilized militaries for 500 years and there would be as many female murderers as male.

        Exceptions prove the rule.

  5. Hence the term “gentleman.” A gentleman is a strong man who freely chooses the path of kindness, as opposed to a weakling who has no strength and therefore does not have the freedom to choose gentleness.

  6. Pingback: Feminism Inverting Itself: Just Another Illustrative Story | Resting in Apricity

  7. Pingback: The Disastrous Recusal of the Western Patriarchate | The Orthosphere


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