"The Case for Patriarchy" - Timothy Gordon's upcoming book presales from Sophia Press have begun

Terms like patriarchy and feminism are so broad and all encompassing.

They cease to have consistent meaning.

Feminism as its practiced today is the complete opposite of previous versions of feminism. The patriarchy is no more clearly defined or documented. Rather than clarify or improve circumstances, most publications on these topics only further confuse and muddle the issues.

Anything involving feminism or patriarchy is usually a quagmire of new age speak that ignores past precedent and history.

It would be nice if someone made an effort to rectify this, although I'm not holding my breath waiting.

Fenwick said:

I've been looking forward to this book for well over a year. Initially it was to be titled "No Christian Feminism" and co-authored by Tim and his brother Dave. The book was perpetually delayed both by covid and also issues with their publisher. Eventually they decided to split their respective contributions into two books. I haven't heard much about Dave's book but Tim's is the one I'm talking about here.

He's talked about it a bunch before in his podcast, mentioning that it has hundreds of footnotes and references. So it sounds incredibly well researched. In essence, I believe his (well-backed) argument is that feminism is actually the original sin. I trust he makes a good argument for that and I look forward to reading it and find out for sure when the book drops in September.

I think it could inspire some compelling discussion here in a bit.

Check it out!

The Case for Patriarchy

Click to expand...

I'll give it a look at some point.

Honestly tho, women's suffrage is the bedrock of feminism. If you believe women should have the right to vote, you are a feminist.

I am not a feminist.

thecolorsblend said:

I'll give it a look at some point.

Honestly tho, women's suffrage is the bedrock of feminism. If you believe women should have the right to vote, you are a feminist.

I am not a feminist.

Click to expand...

I get into trouble for my take on feminism and the women, but I believe what I'm about to say to he true and I don't mean it in a derogatory way whatsoever.

In my view, women have the power and rights that we allow them to have, and allowing this has lead to the, for a lack of a better word, castration of men and the rise of the effeminate male. I say this because, as history has shown us, when a men have been wronged or sought something, they went to war for it. Women haven't gone to war. They didn't wage war against the male because it would be a battle that was over upon starting. They relied on weak men to get what they sought, and have since, in this day and age, owned men politically and in society by feminist, sexist propaganda and accusations. They have exactly what we allow them to have through law and societal pressure. One day the feminist is going to go too far and learn her place, although I figured it would have already happened.

This guy, this guy. I’ve yet to lurk a comment from @thecolorsblend that wasn’t amusing or witty or just right on.

Watching trends in how ladies vote does give me real pause for thought about how much good the group does by voting.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Terms like patriarchy and feminism are so broad and all encompassing.

They cease to have consistent meaning.

Feminism as its practiced today is the complete opposite of previous versions of feminism. The patriarchy is no more clearly defined or documented. Rather than clarify or improve circumstances, most publications on these topics only further confuse and muddle the issues.

Anything involving feminism or patriarchy is usually a quagmire of new age speak that ignores past precedent and history.

It would be nice if someone made an effort to rectify this, although I'm not holding my breath waiting.

Click to expand...

Feminism arose a s political movement against the corruption of secular Europe which had adopted the old pagan sexual ethics (or lack thereof.) Feminism was a reaction against violations of the human dignity of women and children, and the domestic and sexual abuses that were the material substance of that violation. Feminism brought this cultural sexual corruption and made it a political issue. The feminists were the driving force behind the ban of child inappropriate contentography in America. Prior to that, large smut peddlers like Playboy engaged in the production of child inappropriate contentography. Celebrity Nicole Kidman, for example, was a featured in Playboy's inappropriate contentographic centerfold at age 12, and as such child sex abuse was rather normative and culturally and legally acceptable.

Now the current feminism goes the other way and pushes for every perversity.

But if we wish to push blame, let's remember that feminism wouldn't have found need yo exist or gain traction if the so-called men of society controlled themselves instead of giving way to bestial passions and did their obligated diligence in protecting those under their charge. Let's not forget that the fall did not occur until after Adam allowed, accepted, and submitted to Eve's trespass, instead of correcting her and offering himself to God as recompense, instead hiding behind his wife before God as a coward. Adam, rather used his wife to test God in an attempt at usurping the divine authority.

The Church has always been strongly stances against these abuses. The early council of Elvira (309 AD), for example, placed the burden of permanent excommunication on the corrupters and abusers of children. And the Church recognized the innocence of the victim children in these matters, noting that the child is the victim and not a participant of the sin.

Why then was this clear stance lost for a time and made legally and culturally acceptable.

And this cycle of the spiral of history, the abuses are coming back with a greater vengeance than what provoked feminism to rise in the first place.

If not for women, men would have killed themselves through physical combat, disputes will be settled through fighting and killing, there would be anarchy. Nations where women are denied civil rights are among the poorest in the world, quality of life is low, etc. Think of how backward your lives would be in a society that denies women rights

Joined2krist said:

If not for women, men would have killed themselves through physical combat, disputes will be settled through fighting and killing, there would be anarchy. Nations where women are denied civil rights are among the poorest in the world, quality of life is low, etc. Think of how backward your lives would be in a society that denies women rights

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem true at all. As if women prevent the 93% gender death gap in war. It was the feminists of WW1 who shamed any man who didn't go out to his certain death.

Joined2krist said:

If not for women, men would have killed themselves through physical combat, disputes will be settled through fighting and killing, there would be anarchy. Nations where women are denied civil rights are among the poorest in the world, quality of life is low, etc. Think of how backward your lives would be in a society that denies women rights

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, that totally explains why humanity is alive and well today despite centuries upon centuries of men going to war.

Joined2krist said:

If not for women, men would have killed themselves through physical combat, disputes will be settled through fighting and killing, there would be anarchy. Nations where women are denied civil rights are among the poorest in the world, quality of life is low, etc. Think of how backward your lives would be in a society that denies women rights

Click to expand...

Historically, the principal role that women played in promulgating peace was when royal women were sent off in arranged marriages to a neighboring kingdom’s royal family. The thinking went that the two kingdoms would be less likely to go to war with each other if they each had some of their own in the other kingdom’s royal family.

As to relatively more modern times, I would think that the reign of Queen Victoria argues against the idea that women are peace-seeking utopians. My takeaway lesson from her reign is that people can say whatever they want about the supposed bloodthirsty tendencies of male leaders; at least we’re good at fighting and winning wars.

Joined2krist said:

If not for women, men would have killed themselves through physical combat, disputes will be settled through fighting and killing

Click to expand...

That's what a lot of these pseudo-men think that they want, but they don't realize that in a world like this, that men like me & my friends would gladly take what we want from them by force and that they would be absolutely powerless to do a blessed thing about it.

The one benefit is that you wouldn't have groups like Antifa or BLM to worry about, we would take care of them first and probably satiate our propensity to violence by dealing with them and taking their resources for ourselves, so in the end the men hooting and hollering for how they want to settle everything by violence would most likely find themselves protected by those of us who could easily victimize them.

Men who cheer for violence and think that they have to "protect their honor" by using it, have never before used it or have had it used against them. In their ideal world, they would be the ones that men like us select because they go out of their way to paint targets on their back. They do not want a world like this, trust me.

The book you mention in the OP sounds really good, and I have to check it out, but an equally well researched book, written by a PhD woman is The Anti-Mary exposed: rescuing the culture from toxic femininity. Its also an audio book and worth listening,

The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity

BrAndreyu said:

Men who cheer for violence and think that they have to "protect their honor" by using it, have never before used it or have had it used against them. In their ideal world, they would be the ones that men like us select because they go out of their way to paint targets on their back. They do not want a world like this, trust me.

Click to expand...

Thousands of years of history didn't happen I guess.

ironbjorn said:

Thousands of years of history didn't happen I guess

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about the present. "Men" who think that they have to constantly fist-fight to "pruh-serve thair honor" tend to cry like babies when you put them in a headlock & ram a pistol barrel into their teeth and tell them that you aren't playing their stupid Southern redneck boogie "honor culture" games, and have no problem putting a hole in their head the size of a half dollar unless they calm down and leave you alone immediately, because you have every right to be occupying that space as they do.

There are a lot of tough guys out there who turn out to not be so tough the minute the gun comes out, that's all I'm saying. When you've been a victim of violence repeatedly, you gradually lose the fear of using violence against others to be left alone.

BrAndreyu said:

I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about the present. "Men" who think that they have to constantly fist-fight to "pruh-serve thair honor" tend to cry like babies when you put them in a headlock & ram a pistol barrel into their teeth and tell them that you aren't playing their stupid Southern redneck boogie "honor culture" games, and have no problem putting a hole in their head the size of a half dollar unless they calm down and leave you alone immediately, because you have every right to be occupying that space as they do.

There are a lot of tough guys out there who turn out to not be so tough the minute the gun comes out, that's all I'm saying.

Click to expand...

Maybe there's a disconnect in what you're saying and how I'm interpreting it. The kind of man you're describing is the loud mouth fool who tricks everyone into fearing him but nobody can say they've ever seen him raise a fist, just stories and barking.

BrAndreyu said:

I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about the present. "Men" who think that they have to constantly fist-fight to "pruh-serve thair honor" tend to cry like babies when you put them in a headlock & ram a pistol barrel into their teeth and tell them that you aren't playing their stupid Southern redneck boogie "honor culture" games, and have no problem putting a hole in their head the size of a half dollar unless they calm down and leave you alone immediately, because you have every right to be occupying that space as they do.

There are a lot of tough guys out there who turn out to not be so tough the minute the gun comes out, that's all I'm saying. When you've been a victim of violence repeatedly, you gradually lose the fear of using violence against others to be left alone.

Click to expand...

And then there's the ghetto type who fit what you're describing as well. Always looking to fight for honor they don't even have but can't fight a real man.

The redneck type is the loud mouth who never has fought but has stories about his triumphs and the thug is the one who fights for anything and everything but is actually very weak.

ironbjorn said:

The kind of man you're describing is the loud mouth fool who tricks everyone into fearing him but nobody can say they've ever seen him raise a fist, just stories and barking.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the type I am talking about, and there are thousands of them around where I am, because I live in a relatively comfortable area. The problem is, that I have not had a relatively comfortable life. I've been mugged, beaten & robbed, assaulted with deadly weapons before and it wasn't fun. As a matter of fact, I hated every second of it and eventually I got to the point where I swore that nobody was going to victimize me again, so I've had a few run ins with guys that think that threatening and shoving people or doing the "Jesus pose" (walking up to you with their arms out and bumping you with their chest) is some sort of way to preserve their precious Redneck honor.

Usually these types prey on each other, but they've made the dumb decision to attempt to prey on me before just because I'm small. Scared people are among the first to hurt people, and I've been scared enough in the past when I was having my head split open with weapons and had to get 45 staples to close it.

I want to make something abundantly clear: I absolutely hate having to get violent. It is the most terrifying feeling in the world knowing that you might be forced to kill someone who is trying to hurt you. As a matter of fact, I hate it so much that I've stopped doing the things I used to (going to bars, using drugs, etc) in order to avoid it. I now generally just stay at home, I don't go out much because it seems like, at least around here, I can't go out without someone trying to start something because they don't like how I dress, how I look, something I said, so on and so forth. It's better for me to just stay inside than potentially be put in a self-defense scenario.