Single Fathers Are Better Than Single Mothers

My parents divorced when I was ten. For the first five years, I had the experience of living with a single mother, and the last five with a single father. My experiences are merely my own personal case study. Not every single mother or father is like my parents, but having experienced both, having also learned of the unequal nature of men and women, I’m left with the conclusion that if one had to choose to send their child to live with one parent that men would be the better chance of success, for reasons. I know this flies in the face of feminism and female empowerment, and the culture at large which supports single-motherhood, but when has that stopped me before? Alrighty, let’s do this.

 

The core of my argument comes down to this: there are things that only a mother can teach their daughter or son, and things only a father can teach. Second, what a daughter gets from her father/mother is strikingly different than what a son gets from his father/mother. The sexes send different lessons to their offspring and each sex has a psychological blind spot that they simply cannot overcome. While the ideal is to have both of these influences simultaneously, and single parenting makes the best of a less-ideal situation, there are advantages and disadvantages to which sex does the single parenting.

 

The benefits and drawbacks will all make much more sense by putting the dynamics into a matrix. Disclaimer: this analysis makes a lot more sense on the assumption that each family scenario started intact but ended with a divorce partway through the child’s development into adulthood. It doesn’t necessarily apply to single families at the start, with children being born into that situation.

 

Mother/Daughter

 

The obvious first: mothers teach their daughters about feminine gender roles from the most superficial like wearing makeup to more advanced lessons like social conduct. Mothers also teach their daughters how to navigate the female social matrix. The Red Pill Room did an extensive piece on the female social matrix that is definitely worth reading. In short, women deal with each other in a network that is overtly egalitarian but covertly hierarchal. In front of the group, they’re all equals, but behind each other’s backs there is a soft hierarchy that is determined by backroom alliances, underground consensus, and adherence to group rules. This is something that men just simply cannot grok and it is one of the things that only a mother can bestow.

 

With the family organized as a matriarchy, the daughter feels the full force of female power, which isn’t usually composed of outright displays of dominance but small jabs of passive-aggressiveness. If the mother understands and respects her power, the struggle between mother and daughter is relatively tame. However, the feminine imperative for safety and control can use that power to turn the matriarchy tyrannical, causing the daughter to feel the full force of feminine ostracism and shaming.

 

So while the power structure of the matriarchal family depends on the personality of its leader, a foundational problem of the single mother household is the lack of a father figure, or sometimes a chaotic father situation. Young women get their impressions of men from their interactions with their fathers. They see dad act a certain way and expect those qualities from their boyfriends and husbands. Good fathers leave a good imprint, while bad fathers leave a negative imprint. Some women in abusive relationships expect to be abused because their fathers did it, and they believe that that’s just what men do. It’s normal for them, and, unfortunately, they know of little else.

 

Without a father figure, there is no imprint, no expectation of what men should be. So how does a woman choose a mate without a filtering mechanism? Friends and family could show her the way, but there is large room for error. She could get the impression from mom’s boyfriends that transient men are the norm. If those men are scumbags then she could expect horrible things as a given. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and archetypal stripper with daddy issues exists for that reason.

 

This is probably the biggest hurdle that a single mother faces, and there is a little room for error and disastrous consequences if it happens.

 

Mother/Son

 

Just as fathers leave an imprint on daughters as to what their boyfriends should be, the mother leaves an imprint on their sons as to what women should be. Children who do not have a good attachment to their mothers tend to have psychological problems later in life, and this is especially true for sons. A son needs to have an adequate concept of the caring aspects of the feminine. You know the stereotype that woman-haters have mommy issues? Well…

 

However, even with a good mother to support her son, the mother’s knowledge of the female social matrix is totally lost on him. I’ll go out on a limb and say that men don’t have the mental wiring to see the innuendo inherent in female social networks. We just don’t get it, because we don’t have to get it. Thus, the main benefit of a mother figure to daughters is unnecessary to their sons.

 

The biggest disadvantage the mother/son association has is that there is simply no male role model to show the son how to become a man. TV is a poor substitute. The mother’s new boyfriends fair better, but there is a barrier of apprehension between a son and mom’s new boyfriend. The boyfriend doesn’t see the kid as “his”, and is less likely to get involved while the son cannot form an attachment to the new surrogate like he could with his father. And given that a boy imprints his expectations of women from his mother, what kind of psychological chaos does a new boyfriend bring to the arrangement? The new boyfriend is not only a stranger, but, in the mind of the son, he is also a new source of competition. (And if you were to ask Freud, he’d say a source of sexual competition.)

 

The boy is left completely ignorant of the nature of women in ways many of us could once relate to. A mother isn’t going to give up the secrets of the feminine mystique to her son, that is if she even understands herself well enough to articulate them and, even if she did, what makes anyone think she’ll train him on finding the right woman, or more importantly defending yourself from the wrong one? What motivation does she have to throw her kind under the bus or reveal her deepest, darkest secrets to her son? The likelihood of a mother giving her son some real-talk is slim.

 

And finally, it’s incredibly difficult for a mother to keep order as the sole authority figure when, by the early teens, her son is far taller and stronger than she is. Authority without power is no authority at all, and it is why being raised by a single mother is a strong predictor for adolescent crime.

 

The mother/son scenario is probably the worst setup in the matrix because, aside from necessary parental attachment, a son has no male role model, no masculine identity, no insight into the nature of women, and no strong authority figure to instill a rigid set of ethical guidelines. He is the perfect vessel to become an omega male.

 

Father/Daughter

 

While women tend to assert their authority through passive means, males/fathers are more direct in establishing boundaries of acceptable behavior. They are the authority figure that sets up rules to contain the chaos. If these rules are reasonable then it conditions an ethical framework in the child, no matter the sex. The greatest benefit for daughters, however, is that with a good father she can form positive expectations of what future men should be. If he is a positive force in her life then she will not settle for less.

 

The downside to this arrangement is that, without female influence, the daughter is behind the curve in navigating the female social matrix or learning femininity. However, don’t write off the father/daughter setup yet. Women are adapt at building large social networks, so it’s possible to find that influence through her friends or her friend’s mothers, or even from her father’s girlfriend. Women are more open to female strangers than men are to male strangers, and I have no doubt that dad’s new girlfriend would be more accepting than mom’s new boyfriend. Obviously, exceptions exist but I believe that is the general rule.

 

Despite not ideal conditions, the father/daughter dynamic can still make it through better than the reverse mother/son situation.

 

Father/Son

 

To put it simply, this arrangement plays to everyone’s strengths. The son doesn’t need to navigate the female social matrix, so the missing lesson from his mother hurts no one. As long as he received the proper care from her early in life and the separation did not take place when he was a toddler, parental attachment shouldn’t take a heavy hit (though it could).

 

If his father holds sufficient wisdom then the son can learn how to be a man, or at least what it means to be masculine, and can potentially learn how to interact with woman as a man, learned from a man who has interacted with women. Such information could not possibly come from a single mother.

 

This is not without precedent. In many cultures, the idea of separating a young man from his mother to be led under his father was the norm rather than the exception. One could say that it is the natural course of manhood.

 

Also, dad bringing home a new girlfriend isn’t as traumatic for the son compared to his mom bringing home a new boyfriend, because a boyfriend for mom is competition while a girlfriend for dad is not. The feeling of ownership a son has for his mother, as a caregiver and prelude of female relations to come, is multitudes stronger than a son has for his father. Thus, a son can tolerate a dad’s new girlfriend or wife, making family formation easier.

 

The main downside, however, are the implications of severing the son’s ties with the mother figure. The first relationship a young boy has to the female sex is through his mother. Going even further, the first relationship any human has is to their mother. Breaking that bond too early can cause trauma for young boys. For adolescents and young teenagers, the problem with separation isn’t as pronounced. Again, this very thing was expected of young boys in many cultures as a rite of passage and historically isn’t beyond the pale.

 

Conclusion:

 

All of this, of course, depends on the quality of the parents and children involved. The best single mother could overcome the hurdles of raising a son with better results than the worst single father doing the same (and vice versa), but, all things being equal, some situations are better than others.

 

In summation,

 

Mother/daughter – moderate success, depending on quality of parent

  • Good: has necessary female influence for development as a woman.
  • Bad: lacks a stable father figure to base expectations of future men

Mother/son – poor chance of success unless purposeful strategy is involved

  • Good: baseline caregiving
  • Bad: no male role model

Father/daughter – moderate success, depending on quality of parent

  • Good: can form expectations of future men
  • Bad: disadvantaged at learning to navigate female peer interaction

Father/son – high chance of success, depending on age of the son

  • Good: can learn masculine virtues and the nature of women
  • Bad: severing ties with the mother can cause problems for young boys

 

The single father setup is the most advantageous for boys, while a boy being with his mother carries no real advantages and many more hurdles. Young girls can potentially do well in either situation, even with their fathers, because the particular disadvantages a young girl faces without a mother can be overcome by the networking with other women. So, in my view, if both parents are of equal caliber, then there’s less chance of failure by siding with the father.

 

I know that this will never happen since it goes against our cultural and legal framework, and is apt to hurt some feels, but it is the conclusion that my experience and intuition point me to. Feel free to comment if your experiences align with my assessment, or even if they go against. Let me know if I’m missing something, whether what I’ve said is wrong or incomplete.

Patriarchy Pt 3: Women’s Contribution to Patriarchy

 

Dammit, I thought I was done with this topic by now. Oh well.

 

My last two posts on the Patriarchy subject dealt with what men do to contribute to society and Patriarchy itself. This post will talk about the ladies.

 

In my original post on the subject, I stated that.

 

for a society to continue, it needs men’s labor. To get their labor, it needs their consent.

 

But just as modern society needs men’s consent, every society needs women’s consent. What is even more fundamental than men’s technology is women’s investment to keep the species going. We might live a primitive existence if men went on strike, but we would see a Children of Men scenario if women went on strike.

 

But they never have gone on strike.

 

The feminist historical narrative says that women have been oppressed throughout history due to Patriarchy and its social norms. However there was no revolution, no feminist movement, for those thousands and thousands of years up until the white, rich European women read some Marx. Until our recent century, women never found their system so oppressive that they needed to use their power against it. Why is that? Why didn’t they just rise up?

 

Because women were the ones who maintained it.

 

While state and law is the realm of men, tradition and social custom is the realm of women. They communicate with the women of their group and develop a consensus of what behavior is acceptable or not. They ostracize those who do not adhere to those norms and they give social approval to those that do. Having access to their children, women then teach these norms to the next generation who continue the cycle. For thousands of years, while men have engaged in building civilization, women have engaged in perpetuating the social memes that keep civilized people together.

 

At one time, a Spartan woman gave birth to a Spartan son and a Spartan daughter. For the few years while she has her son, she taught what will be expected of him as a Spartan man. The first ideas of manhood were not only given to him by his father but also by his mother. The Spartan woman showed her daughter what it meant to be a Spartan woman and taught her the obligations that she must uphold when she came of age. The Spartan mother not only had the power of giving birth to the next generation of Spartans, but she had the power to teach her children the Spartan customs and traditions that they would eventually adhere to. If ancient Sparta was considered a Patriarchy, then this Spartan woman has contributed to it. But why? Well, there could have been many reasons. Perhaps the Spartan mother thought that these social arrangements were for the good of her society, or maybe she, and others like her, benefited personally.

 

However, one thing that would be difficult to conclude is that this Spartan woman had been oppressed by her own social institutions. What reason would she have to continue these norms if they had been truly oppressive? She certainly wouldn’t have taught her daughters to be Spartan women if she thought they were going to be crushed by the system. 

 

As I said before regarding men:

 

Any society which does not meet men’s needs will quickly fall as men see no reason to work in its favor and actively work toward its destruction.

 

And likewise, any society which does not meet women’s needs will quickly fall as women see no reason to uphold tradition or reproduce. Looking back, women continued to reproduce and consistently upheld the cultural norms of Patriarchy across cultures and for thousand of years. So what does this tell us about Patriarchy or its supposed oppression?

 

At the end of the day, in contrary to feminist ideology, you cannot “oppress” women through culture, for they are the masters of its craft. Given that they upheld Patriarchy for so long, something tells me that women weren’t nearly as oppressed as our modern women’s studies professors say they were.

Patriarchy Pt 2: What if Men Disappeared?

 

I’ve been thinking about this post for a long time now, way before judgybitch made a similar post on the subject. Hers is a good read and I highly recommend it. Hat tip to her for motivating me to write mine.

 

She asked the question: what would happen if men didn’t show up to work today? Time to give that idea some steroids.

 

Let’s have a thought experiment.

 

One day a wizard comes down to Earth. Or maybe it’s aliens. Or wizard aliens.

 

They cast a spell/raygun on the Earth which splits Earth into two different dimensions. All men go to Dimension 1 and all women go to Dimension 2. For two years, men and women will live on their respective, completely mirrored Earths with the same infrastructure, same technology, same resources, same climate, etc etc. Let’s just see what happens. All data for this by the way can be found here.

 

1: Food, water, and electricity.

 

Given that Earth’s housing is still intact on both worlds and half the population has been spirited away, shelter won’t be a problem. What will be a problem, however, is food, water and electricity.

 

First, food:

 

Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers: 75.5% men, 24.5% women.

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations: 77.3% men, 22.7% women.

Buyers and purchasing agents, farm products: 100% men, 0% women.

Agricultural engineers: 100% men, 0% women.

Agricultural and food scientists: 100% men, 0% women.

Agricultural inspectors: 100% men, 0% women.

Miscellaneous agricultural workers: 81.1% men, 18.9% women.

Graders and sorters, agricultural products: 40.2% men, 59.8% women.

 

So Earth 1, Man-Earth, despite having half the mouths to feed, still has all the farms in working order. If something ends up happening to Earth’s food surplus, more can certainly be farmed. Perhaps some farmers would be in some financial trouble for consumption being cut in half, but at least the population would be fed. Heck, if anything, the extra food might be sent to the starving men in Africa.

 

On Woman-Earth, however, most of the farmers have disappeared. When 4am runs around, the farm equipment is still sitting in the barn. There are still crops in the field, ready to be watered, fertilized, and harvested, but most women don’t know how to run the farming equipment needed to process them. So would there be famines, starvation, children and mothers dying from malnutrition? Well, no. Critical thinking caps on for a second. The amount of food we have right now, given half the population, might last those two years if rationed effectively. Of course, all fresh fruit and vegetables would become a rarity and canned spam would probably be the norm, but mass starvation would probably be avoided. The girls would live on. Maybe.

 

Next is water:

 

Water and wastewater treatment plant and system operators: 95.5% men, 4.5% women.

 

Okay, maybe not.

 

At 3:30, a man on Man-Earth wakes up, brushes his teeth, shits, showers and shaves as usual, then goes down to work his shit-kicker job at the municipal water works. It’s tough, it’s not glamorous, but it’s a living, and thank goodness for him because all the other men on the grid will be able to shit, shower and shave as well. Water, the most vital thing to humans, except for maybe air, will still pour from the faucets, clean and drinkable. Industrial plants would still be able to run, so would every business that requires water. But most of all, there would be no water riots in the streets. Nobody slitting someone else’s throat for a bottle of Dasani.

 

On Woman-Earth however, I wouldn’t flush the toilet. Whereas food might be taken care of for women due to surpluses of processed food, water is not. When water stops coming out of the pipes, when you can’t safely dispose of your waste, you get sickness. Oh, but it gets worse.

 

Electricity:

 

Electrical and electronics engineers: 91% men, 9% women.

Electrical power-line installers and repairers: 97.6% men, 2.4% women.

Electrical and electronics repairers, industrial and utility: 100% men, 0% women.

Power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers: 100% men, 0% women.

 

Man-Earth not only has water, but they also have power, ensuring a nice, hot cup of coffee to start the day. Not only that, but streetlights and traffic lights, convenience stores and computers all still work. Men could probably even turn on their TVs and surf the internet. In our modern world, nothing works without electricity, and Man-Earth has it.

 

On Woman-Earth, unfortunately, whole cities go dark as every aspect of their modern lives grinds to a halt. Traffic lights no longer function. Women can’t get to their bank accounts to pay for the remaining food, not that their credit cards, or even the cash registers, would work anymore. Frozen food and dairy would spoil within only a few days without refrigeration, and, without electrical ovens to cook anything, women are left eating cold, canned food. One probably couldn’t imagine what life would be like if all electricity suddenly disappeared across the planet. Not even electrical generators would be a usable secondary option, as we shall see.

 

2: Transportation and oil.

 

People underestimate how vital land, air, and sea logistics are in our modern age. There’s no point in having massive stores of food and water if they sit unused in remote warehouses. Getting them to people is just as important as manufacturing them in the first place. Once again, the difference between Man-Earth and Woman-Earth is striking.

 

Driver/sales workers and truck drivers: 94.6% men, 5.4% women.

Industrial truck and tractor operators: 92.6% men, 7.4% women.

Material moving workers, all other: 100% men, 0% women.

Aircraft pilots and flight engineers: 95.9% men, 4.1% women.

Air traffic controllers and airfield operations specialists: 100% men, 0% women.

Avionics technicians: 100% men, 0% women.

Ship and boat captains and operators: 100% men, 0% women.

Ship engineers: 100% men, 0% women.

Locomotive engineers and operators: 100% men, 0% women.

Railroad brake, signal, and switch operators: 100% men, 0% women.

Railroad conductors and yardmasters: 94.4% men, 5.6% women.

Transportation inspectors: 100% men, 0% women.

 

It’s pretty clear that Man-Earth has all the truck drivers, pilots, ship captains, railroad workers and their respective assistants needed to transport goods around the globe. Men will be able to buy and consume the crops that the farmers have made. Materials needed for construction will cross the seas and continents as they always have, allowing life to continue far differently than before, but nonetheless uninterrupted. Perhaps missing half the species will cause a drop in consumption, causing an economic recession, but the capital and the labor needed to run society will still be there, waiting for the resurgence.

 

On Woman-Earth however, trucks, trains, planes and ships will sit unused, for most women don’t have the expertise to run them. The large quantities of preserved and canned food will remain in the warehouses around the country. Grocery store shelves will dwindle quickly and new shipments will not come. On Woman-Earth, there is no water, electricity, and, for many, no food. But even moving from place to place will be a problem, because transportation is entwined with the prevalence of fossil fuels.

 

Oil, Gas and Coal:

 

Derrick, rotary drill, and service unit operators, oil, gas, and mining: 100% men, 0% women.

Mining machine operators: 99.7% men, 0.3% women.

Roustabouts, oil and gas: 100% men, 0% women.

Petroleum engineers: 100% men, 0% women.

 

Transportation is entirely linked to fossil fuels, and since men by far are the drillers and miners and processors of those fuels, Man-Earth is having a pretty significant gas surplus. A man can get in his car and drive wherever he wants. Populations can consolidate into cities if resources need to be centralized, or men can leave for the countryside and live on their own until women return.

 

That freedom is not afforded to those on Woman-Earth. As the pumps run dry because fuel isn’t being transported and no new fuel is being made, women will have a hard time going anywhere without gas. Cars and motorcycles, being the last remaining form of motorized transportation, will become useless once the gas reserves are eliminated. There will be little to no trade and almost no communication. Going from place to place will be left to walking or biking, the latter of course being dependent on bike mechanics. By this time, whatever electrical generators women have would be useless.

 

3: Resources, Maintenance and Construction.

 

Even if one has the ability to maintain something, the skill alone is not enough if you don’t have raw materials for replacement parts. To get those things, you need to have the knowledge and capital to take resources from the environment.

 

Resources:

 

Logging workers: 100% men, 0% women.

Earth drillers, except oil and gas: 100% men, 0% women.

Mining machine operators: 99.7% men, 0.3% women.

Explosives workers, ordnance handling experts, and blasters: 100% men, 0% women.

 

So not only does Man-Earth have the labor and knowledge needed to repair the infrastructure, but also has the tools and workers to be able to mine, cultivate, cut, and process the raw materials needed to continue that endeavor. Without that, no construction can follow.

 

Unfortunately, Woman-Earth is greatly lacking in that capacity. However such a thing isn’t really worried about on Woman-Earth, given the lack of water and food and electricity. I’m sure there are some women who are able to live more or less unchained from modernity, off the grid as it were, but without maintenance their personal solar panels and wind generators would begin to break down.

 

Maintenance:

 

Electric motor, power tool, and related repairers: 100% men, 0% women.

Electrical and electronics installers and repairers, transportation equipment: 100% men, 0% women.

Electrical and electronics repairers, industrial and utility: 100% men, 0% women.

Maintenance and repair workers, general: 97.8% men, 2.2% women.

Maintenance workers, machinery: 100% men, 0% women.

Electrical power-line installers and repairers: 97.6% men, 2.4% women.

Highway maintenance workers: 98.5% men, 1.5% women.

 

Both Earths have the infrastructure, but it is Man-Earth that has the means to repair it and keep it maintained. Power lines, highways, and plumbing will continue to run, leaving men with business as usual, more or less, albeit with far less city traffic.

 

Without anyone to repair the infrastructure on Woman-Earth, things would begin to deteriorate. Though, repairing those things makes little sense when essential services need to be focused on. I have no doubt then that women would find a far better use for their time and adapt in their own way. However, their life will be a far cry from what they’re used to.

 

Construction:

 

Electricians: 98.2% men, 1.8% women.

Construction laborers: 97.1% men, 2.9% women.

Brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons: 99.9% men, 0.1% women.

Carpenters: 98.4% men, 1.6% women.

Roofers: 98.5% men, 1.5% women.

Hazardous materials removal workers: 100% men, 0% women.

Septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners: 100% men, 0% women.

 

The trend by now should be obvious.

 

Man-Earth has the manpower (pun intended) to not only run the current infrastructure, maintain it, but also to keep building. It has power, water, transportation and the majority of engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. Who’s to say men wouldn’t build more and better bridges, or even devote these vast surpluses of time and resources to something else, like perhaps going to space?

 

Women-Earth… Well, do I need to say it?

 

4: Communications:

 

Radio and telecommunications equipment installers and repairers: 94.2% men, 5.8% women.

Telecommunications line installers and repairers: 95.2% men, 4.8% women.

Electronic home entertainment equipment installers and repairers: 99.5% men, 0.5% women.

 

You’d think that Man-Earth would be in chaos with women gone. But with internet, TV, video games, music and phones still around, there would be plenty to keep men relaxed and distracted. Sure, there might not be any new porn coming out, but the archives and servers will still be up, thanks to the work of men. National and international communications would still be connected, which means that Man-Earth has the networks needed to coordinate vast logistics lines. Or they could just watch porn.

 

On Woman-Earth, the power is still out. But even if the power weren’t out, there wouldn’t be enough women communications engineers keeping the entire internet running, or the TV shows going, or the satellites in contact. Even if the lights were on, the cell phones and TV wouldn’t work. There would be no way to contact women on a continental scale. The fastest way to spread information in a world without electricity or gas would be by horse or bicycle. To coordinate efforts by government or any other authority would be near impossible.

 

5: Government and Security

 

Police and sheriff’s patrol officers: 87.4% men, 12.6% women.

Security guards and gaming surveillance officers: 81.5% men, 18.5% women.

Firefighters: 96.6% men, 3.4% women.

Emergency medical technicians and paramedics: 68.8% men, 31.2% women.

 

At first glance, one would think that Man-Earth would be a more violent place, given that men would be all sexually frustrated and whatnot. At least, that’s the intuitive conclusion. But considering that Man-Earth contains the majority of police officers, security guards, firefighters, EMT’s, and soldiers, it might actually be a safer place.

 

That’s because Woman-Earth would be largely defenseless. Mass power outages and food/water shortages without police would lead to chaos and violence. No lights and electricity means that candles would be in use, greatly increasing the risk of fire. Without water and firefighters to put out those fires, you might see whole cities burn to the ground. If one had the choice to live in the brawny, testosterone-fueled Man-Earth or the dark, anarchist Woman-Earth, which is probably on fire, I know what I would pick.

 

Government:

 

It’s difficult to know what government would be like between the two Earths, but I can infer a few things.

 

The tax base of Man-Earth will probably remain intact, since modern commerce and manufacturing would still be present, while at the same time government expenditure through social and health programs, which women take a disproportionate amount, would decrease, leaving, most likely, a tax surplus. However it’s important to consider how big of a power vacuum would be left on Man-Earth with women gone. Given this source, stating that men make up the majority of politicians, it doesn’t seem there would be a very big one. Government would probably remain intact and functional, though probably unstable due to these new changes.

 

On Woman-Earth, you’d see a majority of politicians simply evaporating. Horrible, I know, but consider that without them there would be a much larger power vacuum that women would have to contend with. But given the state of the nation at that point, without power, water or communication, a government would not be able to function anyways. Even if it could remain and stay functional, the tax base would be gone. There would be no commerce of which to tax. The government wouldn’t even be able to do anything.

 

6: Going Nuclear

 

Nuclear engineers: 100% men, 0% women.

 

On Man-Earth, a man gets up, has his coffee, reads the paper, and has some microwaved waffles that have been delivered halfway across the country by men, from farms tended by men. He then brushes his teeth with clean water from the sink and takes his daily shower. His car is still gassed up in the driveway, and he heads off to work with very little morning traffic. He arrives at work at the local nuclear power plant and begins his day with keeping track of the reactor. He talks with his buddies, meets some of the newly hired Human Resources guys and tells a dirty joke he heard on the radio while driving in. He eats his lunch, a sandwich, which only cost him a few cents thanks to the food surplus. When the day is done, he goes out to grab a few beers and watch football. The only thing that is really all that different from old Earth are the disappointing lack of cheerleaders. He goes home and finds his house still intact, turns the lights down low, gets on the internet for you know what, then goes to sleep.

 

On Woman-Earth, society continues as it always had since men left. Without alarm clocks, there is no way to wake the women up except for the morning sun. Without cars, there is no way to quickly get to the local nuclear power plant and check on it. Without power, there is no way to get into the building, as the gates remain in lockdown. Thus, when the reactor finally melts down and begins releasing radiation, there is no one there to notice and no way to get the word out. The slow leaking of radiation goes unnoticed to the local population, and to the rest of the world.

 

Conclusion:

 

Women aren’t going to like this realization, but, ask yourself, who in this little thought experiment was better off? Which sex contributes more to our modern civilization?

 

The answer is pretty clear to me.

 

It is men who give us power, and men who give us water. Men pave our roads, they drive our products along those roads, they even mine the raw materials that were used to make those products. They defend us, put out our fires, and generally save our asses when we need it.That’s not to say that women don’t contribute in their own way, because they certainly do, but men; poor men, blue collar men, hard working men, make up the backbone of our civilization. They are the essential piece to our modern society that keeps everything else working.

 

However the endeavor of those men has been overlooked because their work is low status and behind the scenes. That is a problem in and of itself, but it goes even further. The more egregious offense is that men, as a whole, are actually attacked for all they do.

 

The concept of Privilege is used as a bludgeon to shame all men into submission, while the society that men have built and maintained is attacked by the slander of Patriarchy.

 

Those who use privilege and Patriarchy as academic insults against men have not worked the jobs that men have worked. Those who take men’s efforts for granted have no clue how their decadent, modern existence is made possible. It is insulting for those people to call for “fairness” and “equality” from their papered station because they are already the recipients of everything men have worked for.

 

If men have privilege it is because men have earned their privilege through long nights and overtime. If there is a Patriarchy, it is because men have worked to build it, one rivet, one gallon of gas, and one line of code at a time.

 

There should be no shame in that.

On Patriarchy

 

When I came across the notion of Patriarchy in my more egalitarian days, I would vehemently deny that such a system ever existed. However, I can no longer deny that the feminists were exactly right in their assessment.

 

There indeed was a Patriarchy, many, in fact, all across the Earth in all ages. Most high-cultures had men in a place of dominance and women in a place of submission. Where I disagree with feminists is in the claim that such a system is, or was, bad. Consider for a moment that if Patriarchy is the natural organization of our species, then it is no more good or bad than a baboon’s patriarchy or a hyena’s matriarchy, for nature is valueless.

 

There are several reasons which, I believe, caused the emergence of Patriarchy as a social system. As a disclaimer, I make no prescriptive statements on whether this is good or bad, only that it is.

 

1: Sexual Asymmetry.

 

The foundation of Patriarchy is the natural, asymmetric features of men and women. The necessity of survival required men and women to take on different roles because fundamentally men and women were built for different things – women to bear and raise children, and men to ensure their survival. Over time, men and women adapted physically and mentally to better complete these roles. This had a strong influence on who will be dominant and who will be submissive.

 

For men, the hostile environment crafted them to be stronger, faster, and have a greater endurance than women. This is just basic, biological fact. Yes, a female bodybuilder is stronger than some men, but when talking about averages, men are indeed physically stronger, faster, and have greater endurance. The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women. Average men are stronger than average women. Even weak men are stronger than weak women.

 

When it comes to attaining power, the strong have the advantage and thus men have the advantage over women. If anyone has witnessed, or been part of, a family argument between a mother and her teenage son, then you see the one-sided nature of physical force between the sexes. If the mother didn’t have the leverage of money and resources that she could deny her child, or the father/police to step in when she needed it, then a physical altercation between them would not be in her favor. Ask, then, how stable is her authority if her son can usurp her power through violence? Such is the tenuous hold of a Matriarchy or any egalitarian sociopolitical setup.

 

Again, I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, only that a male’s innately greater physical capability puts them in a place of dominance, and thus power. For women to overcome this handicap, they would need to become stronger, or have some mechanism to equalize the field.

 

2: Male Expendability/Female Security

 

Biologically speaking, males are the more expendable sex. This is because 1: the number of females determines how fast the species can potentially grow, not the number of males, and 2: women can only become pregnant from one man and carry one child at a time, whereas one men can impregnate many women at once.

 

Thus, if a tribe goes to war and sends out all of its men and half come back alive, then each woman in the tribe can still become pregnant and the tribe can still grow, just as it had before. If the tribe sends out all its female Amazonian warriors to fight, and half come back, then the tribe’s growth potential is cut in half. It is thus necessary to keep women secure while also necessary for men to take risks and perhaps die doing so.

 

If the human males greater innate strength wasn’t enough to advantage Patriarchy over other systems, then male expendability puts them in the necessary position to become hunters, warriors, scouts, or any other role that comes with a greater amount of danger. And it is precisely those warriors, hunters, etc. that hold a significant amount of power.

 

Imagine a tribe, led by group of women, who decreed that they would go to war with another tribe for resources. Despite the women being in charge in a formal context, it is the male warriors who ultimately choose whether to follow those directions. If they choose not to, then there is little recourse from the female leadership.

 

It is the mother/teenage son analogy once again, but now at a larger scale.

 

The other side of the coin is that women, who are essential to the continuation of the tribe/society/species, need to be under protection from danger, and are thus put in a place of submission, rather than dominance.

 

It is this dynamic of male expendability and female security that further tips the balance in favor of a Patriarchy.

 

But it’s important to note that the strength of this dynamic depends on the degree of danger in the local environment. In an environment where warriors and hunters are not needed, their power will be limited, even nonexistent. If little danger is present then there is less need for protection for women, and the advantage of Patriarchy starts to wane. It is in a placid, resource-rich setting that we see the world’s few tribal matriarchies. In these environments, men’s advantages in physical force pale in comparison to a woman’s power over reproduction. In most places across the world, however, male power and male conquest led to expansion of the society, and it is why male-dominated societies became so successful.

 

3: Experience

 

As time went on in our early past, the necessity of men taking on dangerous roles also allowed them to diversify those roles.

 

A man of the tribe might have started as a scout, then warrior once he became strong and experienced enough, but once the tribe made contact with others on a friendly basis the role of warrior changed to peacemaker, negotiator, and what would later become the statesman. Hunters learned to domesticate animals while gatherers became farmers. The male’s strength allowed them to become builders and craftsmen.

 

The early roles of males (the scout, the gatherer, the warrior) were a perfect springboard into more complex and diverse roles as society advanced. Thus, when it came to who would rule, men, who had the widest breadth of experience and the greatest expertise, were put at a greater advantage than women who did not. The scales were tipped even further to Patriarchy’s favor.

 

4: Pregnancy and Opportunity Cost.

 

Even if women eventually caught up with men in terms of experience, pregnancy put women at a disadvantage when gaining power and influence.

 

If a man and a woman chose the same career path and had the exact same ability, the man would be at a comparative advantage if his female counterpart decided to have children. In the past, a child usually set women on the path of full-time motherhood and took her out of influence. Today, leave from work can range from a few weeks for just the delivery and recovery, to several months if a mother wishes to take off work to care for the child. This creates an opportunity cost associated with pregnancy, for if the woman is taken out of work then she misses the gains she would have achieved by continuing to work.

 

The degree of the opportunity cost depends on the length of time off and the field the woman works. Women in higher positions of power would see a higher opportunity cost than women at mid or low level positions. Men, however, rarely face that opportunity cost. They have nothing to distract them when seeking higher positions of leadership, further advantaging Patriarchy.

 

If highly-intelligent women did not choose to reproduce and instead focused primarily on gaining power and influence, then their innate abilities and intelligence would be completely removed from the gene pool, creating a dysgenic effect. This creates a catch-22. If women reproduce, the opportunity cost places them at a disadvantage in gaining power, but if they choose not to reproduce then the decline in population and the dysgenic effect would contribute to a decline in that society. Correcting for these effects requires a myriad of institutions all working together to promote it, as well as a paradigm shift in cultural beliefs, creating an ever more complicated, and ever more fragile, societal Rube-Goldberg machine which goes against natural dynamics.

 

Patriarchy, however, avoids these problems by focusing on a more efficient sexual division of labor.

 

5: Female Attraction to Male Power

 

In our early ancestry, women needed resources and security to survive. The men of the tribe, the hunters and warriors, ensured that women would get those necessities. Thus, the association between male power and continued survival became linked through a woman’s attraction to men.

 

Today, that trend still remains in women’s mate preferences. Women generally don’t prefer to attach themselves to males that are weaker than them, less intelligent, and, most importantly, lower in status than they are. They do prefer to the opposite: strong, intelligent men with great power, wealth, and status. Female mate preference generally strives to be with men at the highest echelons of power and influence so that women themselves can be lifted into those circles, thus providing her with her own status and resource security for far less effort than obtaining it on her own.

 

Taken as a whole, it seems that women unconsciously advocate for Patriarchy in their mate preferences, since Patriarchy puts men in stations of power and provides women their ideal mate choices. If women are at the top, say in a Matriarchy, then they have no choice but to “date down” to males of lower status, which does not generally suit their mating preferences.

 

6: The Nuclear Option.

 

Men’s work and experiences led to whole societies being created across the Earth and throughout the ages, societies which are still largely maintained by men. This means that, for a society to continue, it needs men’s labor. To get their labor, it needs their consent. Any society which does not meet men’s needs will quickly fall as men see no reason to work in its favor and actively work toward its destruction. If the teenage son does not respect his mother’s authority, and she cannot win through violence, then the only recourse is to appease him. If the warriors of the tribe are going to continue defending and hunting for it, then they too need appeasement. The easiest way placate men is to simply allow them to control that which they build and maintain, which is essentially what Patriarchy does. It gives men an incentive to keep working and creating.

 

Given how much men work to further their society, a Matriarchy or egalitarian society would only come about if men allowed it, and it would only remain if men tolerated it. The continuation of that society, however, would still rest in the hands of the men who could end it, if they wanted to.

 

Conclusion:

 

The social order which best reflects and capitalizes on the innate characteristics of mankind is going to be more stable and survive better than one that tries to go against the grain.

 

Patriarchy itself was not designed, but rather emerged organically and evolved over the millennia from the natural inequalities and unique circumstances between human male and human female. All these effects, added together, give strength to the Patriarchal social order over other systems, and it explains why so many cultures, nations, and societies all across the Earth have been Patriarchal, and why we still have it today. No other system, as of yet devised, has capitalized on the dynamics outlined above to such a degree as Patriarchy. Any system that does try to divert simple mechanics with complex, artificial institutions will become as unworkable as the equations for a geocentric universe.

 

Thus, I do not believe that Patriarchy should be avoided or dismantled. Once we accept what our species naturally gravitates toward, then we can start asking questions about justice, fairness, and our society’s direction. Until we accept that one piece of the puzzle, we can only experiment in the dark.

________

Thank you for reading. If you like what you’ve read here, feel free to share with those who might appreciate it. If you feel that something wasn’t adequately explained or that I’m missing something, leave a comment and I’ll amend this post. If you think I’m absolutely wrong, I’m definitely open to reasons why.