One of my more common criticisms of the Christian (or Dalrockian) Manospherian commentariat is the relative popularity of, what I’ve termed, weak patriarchy. Patriarchy proper involves strong gender roles built upon male dominance and female submission. But in a non-patriarchal culture, one with egalitarian laws, patriarchy just isn’t possible, even theoretically within a marriage where both partners consent to it. Thus, the inevitable compromise is weak.
Part of the problem is that Manospherian men have no idea what an actual patriarchal system is. They just see patriarchy in the cultures of the Bible and say “I want that!” without any idea what this actually entails. This is why you don’t see them converting to Islam, despite their claim to want deeply want patriarchy.
Ultimately, when true patriarchy is implemented in the historical mode, modern men find it horrifying.
Yatta, near Hebron
Reports say a young Palestinian boy with special needs was tied to a wall by his Palestinian relatives over a small theft.
They then beat him with rubber cables as he bled and begged them to stop — while neighbors and family laughed and filmed
So, some cultural context for this. Westerners may be asking themselves: sure, abuse of special needs children by their own families happens everywhere, but what’s the deal with filming it like this?
Well, let me introduce you to intensive patrilineal kinship! Or “tribal cultures” for short.
In Palestinian society – and similar tribal cultures – all extended paternal kin within a family (AKA: the clan) are treated as a corporate entity. That is: if one member commits a crime, all members are responsible for it. And the only way to purge this corporate guilt is by publicly and viciously punishing members who have stepped out of line.
In such societies, the reputation of one’s clan (AKA: its honor) is absolutely everything. A well-regarded clan is one who other clans will do business with, cooperate with, and respect.
If the clan’s reputation is tarnished, however, then the entire clan serves to lose because of it. This can have serious financial implications, as clan members lose contracts and customers, and can even result in violence if the infraction is deemed severe enough.
So, what these men are doing is purging the “shame” of the boy’s petty theft by sadistically punishing him and recording it for their community to see. To Western eyes, this looks like an act of pure evil.
But to “tribal” eyes, this looks like justice. By treating their own kin this way – and doing so with gusto – these men are proving their sincere commitment to upholding community norms.
It’s the exact same logic that leads to “honor killings” of female kin who are believed to have defied these norms. (I say “believed”, because actual “guilt” is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is a rumor being spread widely enough.)
In other words, it’s a cultural framework that incentivizes horrifying acts of abuse and evil, while making the evildoers feel righteous.
Here are some of the features common to a patriarchal system.
First, the patriarch is responsible—has full agency—for whatever occurs within his domain of authority. This includes his wife, children, sons, daughters, servants, slaves, his animals, and even his property. It doesn’t matter at all if they do it. So, for example, if a wife does something terrible, you’ll hear no whining about female agency from the patriarch, nor will you see him throwing up his hands by blaming her for it. Whatever she does, he is fully, 100% responsible for dealing with as if he had committed the infraction himself.
The modern Manosphere is full of men who (1) shift the blame for the women under their domain away from themselves; and (2) complain about—and try to take responsibility for—women outside of their domain. This ceding of agency to underlings and women is a common symptom of weak patriarchy.
Second, the role of the patriarch transcends secular government law. Real patriarchs do what needs to be done regardless of any laws that might stand in their way. This is why you can’t pass laws to ban honor killings and expect the behavior to cease.
By contrast, while a very small fraction of men in the Manosphere will risk bring up corporal punishment of wives, the vast majority will never actually do it. A number of bloggers explicitly banned the discussion. So while the Manosphere will preach a good sermon on the subject of submission of wives to husbands, when it comes down to it, modern weak patriarchal men won’t risk facing the power of the State by enforcing it. Weak patriarchy means men submit.
For example, when a man is confronted with a Karen, the man must back down. If he strikes her, he’ll go to jail and his life will be ruined. So much for patriarchy!
Third, patriarchal men are identifiable. The whole point is that you know who they are and you know what their domain is. It’s flashy and reputation-based. In patriarchal systems, one’s name is one’s power.
By contrast, proponents of weak patriarchy are almost all anonymous. Fear of persecution is the most commonly cited reason.
Fourth, patriarchal systems often involve harsh and extreme punishments. The purpose is to strictly enforce boundaries. Even the slightest infraction against the social norms must be punished severely. Shame plays a huge role too. But, notably, it’s not about justice. It’s about making the patriarch feel righteous. His duty is ultimately towards his own reputation (and that of his family), not an objective right or wrong.
In this, patriarchy resembles leftism which is extremely tribal. The biggest sin of leftism is disagreement with the established norm. Right and wrong don’t factor into it. This is why the Manosphere bears so many similarities to leftism, for it employs the same tribal tactics as the left. But, unlike the left where tribalism is intended to crush the opposition, right-wing tribalism invariably leaks to cucking to “lower the temperature” and “find common ground.” This is one more reason it is weak patriarchy. The greatest irony is that modern leftist feminists are stronger, more effective “patriarchs” than those who preach patriarchy.
Fifth, patriarchal systems are inherently community-based and tribal. They are group-oriented. There is no room for the individual in a patriarchal system.
At the core of the patriarchal Manosphere are individual men who have been isolated from community supports. They lack a common geography, religion (including, among Christians a common denomination or bible translation), culture, ethnicity, etc. Not only do they share little in common, but most proponents are anonymous, preventing any sort of meaningful human bond. In short, the Manosphere is a fully non-tribal, egalitarian group of individual men coming together under common cause to support a single ideology.
Patriarchy, as a pure ideology, is incredibly weak. By contrast, practical patriarchy is incredibly strong. Despite only making up a minority of the population, Islamists have essentially taken over in the UK. Muslims in the UK didn’t stand around talking about patriarchal ideology, rather, they banded together as a community and acted. The Manosphere will never be able to do this because it’s stuctured around the individual man.
Weak patriarchy differs from patriarchy in that the latter is a complete way of life. You can’t simply buy in to patriarchy with an ideology. You have to conquer, marry into, or submit to the patriarchal life. The weak patriarchy of the Manosphere does none of these. Each Manosphere man thinks that he’s supposed to be the leader of his own tribe, rather than merely one of the patriarch’s men (or harem boys). Once I demanded that some of these men submit to my leadership, to fall under my patriarchal domain, but they declined. They’ll decline every real opportunity to be part of a patriarchal system.
Last year, there was a discussion about the expectation that a man’s girlfriend would submit to his authority and only his authority. If she didn’t submit to his frame, he’d dump her. How manly! High-five! I pointed out that in a real patriarchy, a boyfriend would not demand that she submit to him, but rather would demand that she submit to her father as a precondition to date her. Absent that, he should have nothing to do with her. Unsurprisingly, nobody admitted that their weak patriarchy was self-refuting LARPing. One person couldn’t even understand what the problem was! Another’s response is discussed here:
If you don’t think that it is necessary for her to be under her father’s authority, then you don’t think father rule is essential. You don’t believe in patriarchy.
Weak patriarchy is the implicit denial of real patriarchy. It is the belief that father (husband) rule is not essential. That’s the bottom line.
First, the patriarch is responsible—has full agency—for whatever occurs within his domain of authority. This includes his wife, children, sons, daughters, servants, slaves, his animals, and even his property. It doesn’t matter at all if they do it. So, for example, if a wife does something terrible, you’ll hear no whining about female agency from the patriarch, nor will you see him throwing up his hands by blaming her for it. Whatever she does, he is fully, 100% responsible for dealing with as if he had committed the infraction himself.
The modern Manosphere is full of men who (1) shift the blame for the women under their domain away from themselves; and (2) complain about—and try to take responsibility for—women outside of their domain. This ceding of agency to underlings and women is a common symptom of weak patriarchy.
Second, the role of the patriarch transcends secular government law. Real patriarchs do what needs to be done regardless of any laws that might stand in their way. This is why you can’t pass laws to ban honor killings and expect the behavior to cease.
By contrast, while a very small fraction of men in the Manosphere will risk bring up corporal punishment of wives, the vast majority will never actually do it. A number of bloggers explicitly banned the discussion. So while the Manosphere will preach a good sermon on the subject of submission of wives to husbands, when it comes down to it, modern weak patriarchal men won’t risk facing the power of the State by enforcing it. Weak patriarchy means men submit.
For example, when a man is confronted with a Karen, the man must back down. If he strikes her, he’ll go to jail and his life will be ruined. So much for patriarchy!
Third, patriarchal men are identifiable. The whole point is that you know who they are and you know what their domain is. It’s flashy and reputation-based. In patriarchal systems, one’s name is one’s power.
YEP!
My so-called (extended) ”family” definitely knew my name & my flashy & reputation-based ”fux-u”-style of rolling=action just as the weak ”patriarchs” in the modern sphere do too by my similar patriarchy tactics against their emasculated,pussyfied churchian soccerdad SJW ”patriarchy” !
What song has described my patriarchal life & that i had NEVER heard until summer 2004?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btDjZMXDHPc
I gotta reputation
People know who I am
Rules are made to be broken
Can’t kill what you don’t understand
I see you runnin’ scared
I never knew you cared
Go and hide your head in the sand
Been to hell and back
I survived and that’s a fact
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna do
My New Year’s resolution
Is a always the same
Gonna do what I like
We’re gonna do what I want
‘Cause it’s just my way, yeah
I don’t live for tomorrow
‘Cause at the end of the day
Gonna shout it from the roof
Better face up to the truth
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna do, yeah
Don’t need a invitation
I don’t play hard-to-get, no
Well, I’m fame they claim
I can’t be tamed
You know it doesn’t matter
I swear if I like
I wear what I want
It’s my life
(Oh yeah)
And I’ll do what I wanna
(It’s my life)
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
(Oh yeah)
It’s my life
And I’ll do what I wanna
(Do what you like)
Do what I wanna
(Do it, do it, do it)
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
It’s my life
(It’s my life)
And I’ll do what I wanna
Do what I wanna
Do what I like
”I gotta reputation
People know who I am
Rules are made to be broken
Can’t kill what you don’t understand
I see you runnin’ scared
I never knew you cared
Go and hide your head in the sand
Been to hell and back
I survived and that’s a fact”
See how i live out those words while poseur ”RP” ”patriarchs” LARP, complain(like the women and incels they supposedly are NOT & supposedly ”better” than too?) and waste yet another day away?
That’s the bottom line.
Or is it this?
& what JESUS said in response to it?
13Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! As you have believed, so will it be done for you.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.-Matthew 8 -Berean Standard Bible
It kind of makes you wonder about what the muslim TFH/Anon(the main one saying it between 2017 & 2019 at ST.DAL’S) is right about the lack of faith in the Christian (or Dalrockian) Manosphere and the average churchian church(like their ”redpill”/”BOLD& BIBLICAL” counterpart in guys like St.DAL’, Mark Driscol & ”least heretical”-according to one fool that is ashamed of TRUE & STRONG patriarchy-which he personally wimped & simped out on during his ”in-tact”(before he got kicked to the curb by his natural defiler) 15-year marriage by NEVER imitating his ancestors, BUT Satanic feminists instead- Doug Wilson ) pastor, huh?
YEAH, the STRONG patriarchy i grew up in and deployed against my enemies was based on my ancestral land of 150+ years by the time i showed up. These modernist & unworthy of the name ”redpiller” patriarchists only know of patriarchy through feminist propaganda & NOT by living it out like me from birth!
I just want to comment on this again:
Once I demanded that some of these men submit to my leadership, to fall under my patriarchal domain, but they declined. They’ll decline every real opportunity to be part of a patriarchal system.
And of course I recently wrote this:
I expect this will be a misunderstood point of contention. The reason I “demanded” that they submit to my leadership was to point out that so many “patriarchal” men could not bear to submit to a man who is in higher authority to them. Whether it was me or someone else isn’t the point. Other men can tell them “do this” or “do that” and they won’t listen:
Wannabe alphas will never be patriarchs if they don’t know when to lead and when to follow. If submission is only for women and never for men, you’ll never have patriarchy. The Bible teaches mutual submission.
They’ll make mistake after mistake because they are running solo (as in “What The Bible Says About Donations” and the early morning tall tale). Men, like the ones who spit on a father’s rule over his daughter, are men who are in deep need of being placed under another man’s leadership.
The Dalrockian Manosphere’s view of patriarchy is a joke. If they can’t hear it from me, who will they hear it from?
Remember when someone said “He’s demanding that we convert to Islam?” Another example of missing the point. The Dalrockian Manosphere’s supposed elevation of patriarchy itself is what mandates that they join Islam. To be logically consistent in placing patriarchy at the pole position, it is what is required. But, they won’t do it. They’ll cling to a weak patriarchy because there is a limit and a line they won’t cross.
If you claim to love patriarchy but do as little as possible to implement it, what good is your claim?
They’ll make mistake after mistake because they are running solo (as in “What The Bible Says About Donations” and the early morning tall tale). Men, like the ones who spit on a father’s rule over his daughter, are men who are in deep need of being placed under another man’s leadership.
Teah two ”prodigal sons” who loved using other fathers’ daughters(because they had ”bodily needs” that had to be satisfied), got defensive about ”what would happen if everyone was ”redpilled”?” and insisted their daughters must be treated with the utmost respect cuz their father is a ”redpill” churchian and i thought what the churchian church lady says here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puwoUKhZQbg
SNL Church Lady Well Isn’t That Special
The Dalrockian Manosphere’s view of patriarchy is a joke. If they can’t hear it from me, who will they hear it from?
How about ”redpill” JP, maybe?Or more likely? NO ONE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqSyHt5la6o
Pull Back From People Who Won’t Listen To You | Jordan B Peterson
201,219 views Mar 21, 2018
What do you do when you’re speaking and your friends won’t listen to what you’re saying? There’s a line in the new testament that’s relevant to that. Do not cast pearls before swine and what that means is if people aren’t listening to you stop talking to them because if you stop talking to them and start watching them instead, they’ll tell you what they’re up to. Pull back from the people you’re listening to and find people that will listen to you.
He’s right, yes?
ALSO, does this sound like someone WE know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2be5raB1bMM
Stop Being Nice to a Narcissist—Do THIS Instead | Jordan Peterson Motivational Speech
Are you tired of constantly pleasing a narcissist, only to be met with manipulation and emotional exhaustion? In this powerful motivational speech, Dr. Jordan Peterson shares deep insights on why you should stop being overly nice to a narcissist and what to do instead. 💡
⏰ Timestamps:
00:00 – Introduction: Why You Must Stop Being Nice 🚨
02:15 – The Narcissist’s Manipulation Tactics 🎭
05:30 – Why Being “Nice” is Actually Harmful ❌
09:45 – The Psychological Power of Setting Boundaries ⚡
14:20 – How Narcissists React When You Stop Being Nice 😡
18:55 – Regaining Your Strength & Self-Respect 💪
23:30 – Final Words of Wisdom from Jordan Peterson 🏆
Makes one wonder how much of an AWALT natural defiler his ex-wife really was, huh?
Logically fallacious “whataboutism” won’t work with me: “But, Derek! You are a patriarchal hypocrite!” I’m not the one promoting patriarchy, so I’m not the one who is bound by its ridiculous precepts. The objections I raise are one way. They do not apply to me, because I don’t hold the presuppositions that the patriarchal Manosphere holds. I have my own standard of belief and behavior and I’m not bound to weak patriarchy.
Patriarchy is not a divine precept. There is no such thing as, what one former commenter used to call, “God’s Holy Patriarchy.” That’s a made up concept found nowhere in scripture:
Whoops!
Nope!
By contrast, I actually have a logically consistent basis for being a so-called Sigma male. I have a logically consistent view of authority, which is why I reject weak patriarchy.
I am the patriarch of my patriarchal domain, but I am no proponent of patriarchy. I’m not going to submit to anyone promoting weak patriarchy, because that would be stupid. But I do expect the weak patriarchal men to submit to better strong patriarchal men, ones who have established their right to rule. If they can’t do that, they should give up their belief in patriarchy.
That’s the point. Do it right or don’t try at all. Weak patriarchy is lukewarm and should be spit out for the absurd compromise that it is. Pick one or the other.
I encourage overconfident readers who are supporters of the patriarchy to quote the whole sentence on submission found in Ephesians 5. Then come preach to me about how I am a hypocrite.
I know this is a difficult concept, so let me say it again. The Dalrockian Manosphere promotes patriarchy. I do not. I reject patriarchy. Patriarchy is suboptimal. That’s why, for me, anyone I submit myself to is based on the value of what another man provides to me, not based on authoritarian hierarchies.
But, not so, the proponent of true patriarchy. His view of authority is based on hierarchy and submission, of which he allows neither except for him at the top. In the Manosphere, everyone is king, and so no one is.
I demand that the Manosphere practice what it preaches, not because I’m some great leader who wants to lead them (I don’t). No, I demand that they start practicing what they preach. They’ll never form a patriarchal community on their own. They need help just to keep from cucking to the mainstream, and they are failing pretty badly.
I’m still waiting for everyone, who cheered when Sigma Frame abandoned the patriarchy, to recognize exactly what nonsense they are teaching. I’ll probably wait the rest of my life.
“This ceding of agency to underlings and women is a common symptom of weak patriarchy.”
In the Manosphere, the weak men try to rule the strong, but comically fail.
I would say Patriarchy of the sort you describe requires an agrarian society. Or at least that the patriarch own a giant ranch. When your domain is just an appartment or even a house in the suburbs, you can’t be a patriarch of this sort. Especially this idea of ruling your domain and flouting the law, well you will need a large and profitable domain to pull that off. So like a cartel or mafia boss could do it. In fact your descriotion reminds me of the Yakuza bosses. The whole honor killing thing is like when the Yazuka bosses can force their underlings to submit to having a finger chopped off to save the honor of the organization. Some dude working a 9 to 6 at the office to barely pay his appartment rent ain’t gonna be this kind of patriarch.
You are both right and wrong. I agree with you that the size of the domain is very important. But I don’t agree that it requires a rural, agrarian setting.
In the various settings described in the Bible—Hebrew, Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman—patriarchy existed in urban, rural, nomadic, and “feudal” city-state environs. In rural areas, you might have multi-generational families living in close proximity and (mostly) under self-rule, while in cities or denser nations you might have a more legal-based patriarchy enforced by the “men at the gates.”
What you don’t find is a patriarchal system where each and every man is independent king of his own domain. Unless you are at at the very top or the very bottom, each patriarch has men above and below him. First born sons often ruled over the lesser sons, just as fathers ruled over first born sons.
It is very, very clear that legal-based patriarchy is (currently) impossible outside of Islam. That leaves community-based patriarchy. While this is easier to accomplish in a rural setting, it’s not impossible for a group of Christian men and women to band together in a city environment and use their social collective will to implement patriarchy.
But it is absolutely impossible to have real patriarchy without a community (e.g. some Anabaptist or Mormon communities). Did you know that most Amish are not farmers? They can have a patriarchal society because of their strong community.
This is why the patriarchal Manosphere is so mind-bogglingly stupid: it absolutely detests the idea of one man leading the rest in a community collective. How dare one man tell another what to do! Not a single Manosphere man has ever thrown it all away and joined an Amish community. You and I know why.
You can guess the very predictable response for what happened when I suggested that men should follow me (to build an actual hierarchical patriarchal community). Obviously, it wasn’t a serious demand because I knew exactly what the response would be (and I wouldn’t actually want to lead those kinds of men!). Manosphere man would never follow me and they would never follow anyone but themselves. The Manosphere is built upon the elevation of the alpha-like male, not patriarchy.
Thus, it is the fake conceit of modern proponents of patriarchy that each man would rule. The reality is that in every actual patriarchal system ever, the men exist in an authoritative hierarchy with most men being towards the bottom (or cannon fodder).
Presumably the Manosphere men know this, which is why they are almost entirely consumed by wives submitting to husbands, to the exclusion of almost everything else. In practice, they don’t care about any other aspect of patriarchy, including the patriarchal authority structure common to historical patriarchies. If a wife submits to her husband, that’s all that matters. So what if she didn’t submit to her father when she was dating him. He doesn’t care, so long as she obeys her him. In some cases, they don’t even care if she submits to him, so long as she satisfies him physically!
And the worst part? The authority is an illusion. He only has authority for as long as she deigns to give it to him. The second she changes her mind, his “authority” evaporates. Without a legal- or community-based framework, “patriarchy” is weak and powerless.
I’ve been criticized by some for “black-and-white” or “binary” thinking. My crime? Pointing out that a wife submitting to her husband—and only him—outside of a patriarchal community isn’t patriarchy. It’s a pale imitation that has done—and will do—nothing to implement an actual patriarchal community. Over the last two decades, how many patriarchal communities has the Manosphere built? The best the Manosphere is currently offering is Eastern Orthodoxy.
YEP!
But don’t worry, the modernists in the manosphere won’t listen(they like any mentally & spiritually disabled CHRIST-denyer & h8er think ANYTHING is possible with the ”redpill”=game), NOT even to this study will they listen to.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soru.12495
Mary Curtin PhD, Caroline Murphy PhD, Una Woods PhD, Christine Cross PhD
First published: 02 October 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12495Citations: 1
The University of Limerick, Ireland has an open-access/open-source agreement for your journal.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to examine female participation in farming and more specifically, the reasons for the low rate of female farm ownership in Ireland where only 13% of Irish farm owners are female. Females are excluded from the occupation of a farmer because land ownership is the key needed in most instances to being a farmer in one’s own right. Females are farming, but too often, they are not owners of the farms they work on. We investigate the structural and cultural factors that alleviate or contribute to the inequality in Irish farm ownership. To address the research question, a qualitative study involving 35 semi-structured interviews was carried out with both women and men in the Irish farming sector. This research recognises the positive role the state can play, as supported by cultural and institutional theory, by making legal and financial policy changes that can help effect change.
INTRODUCTION
Not all forms of property are considered equal. Land as an asset is durable and permanent and has traditionally been a source of political power and social status, providing a sense of identity and rootedness, features that make it more significant than other assets (Agarwal, 1994). However, ‘land—the most valuable asset—is owned almost exclusively by men’ (Deere & Doss, 2006, p. 5). The aim of this article is to examine female participation in farming and, more specifically, the reasons for the low rate of female farm ownership in Ireland, concentrating on qualitative data from 35 semi-structured interviews. Pomeroy (2023) asserts that family farming holds an atypical position within a capitalist society where both owner of the means of production and direct producer are one and the same. This article extends on that view by looking at the role played by females in farm families, where their capacity to become the owners of the means of productions is inhibited by structural and cultural barriers owing to a patriarchal society.
Ireland is an interesting context to study due to the contentious history of land ownership and because Ireland has quickly moved from being a predominantly agricultural rural-based economy to now being a largely service-driven economy. Coupled with that, Ireland is now considered to be one of the progressive countries on issues relating to equality following a raft of political changes introduced over the decade relating to family status and gender pay gap reporting. However, such measures only exacerbate the stark differences in gender norms within farming communities. Although extensive literature exists on the gender wage gap, there has been much less work done on the gender asset gap (Deere & Doss, 2006). There is a need for increased focus on female asset ownership given its importance for many reasons such as income, economic and social status, security and family wellbeing (Doss et al., 2020).
There are stark differences in the ratio of farms owned by men and women in Ireland today. Females represent only 13% of Irish farm holders (CSO, 2020). Women generally do not own the land they work on, instead they are farming land that is owned by their husband, brother or father. In 2016, of the 71,700 females working on Irish farms, less than one quarter were holders of the farms on which they worked (CSO, 2018). Thus, while many women ‘farm’ in Ireland, it is not reflected in the legal ownership of that land.
Farming is one of the oldest occupations in the world. However, the classification of farming as an occupation or a sector remains a topic of deliberation (Shortall & Marangudakis, 2022) and becomes particularly nuanced when examined from a gender perspective. It is important to note that farming and farm ownership are different. Farming as work and ownership of the land worked are not synonymous. In Ireland, it is predominantly the landowner that manages their own land in a family farm system, pursuant to a self-employed system, and therefore the ownership of land is key. Being a farmer does not mean you are a landowner, and being female makes it less likely that you are a landowner. This is due to the continued patriarchal practices that have persisted in Ireland and in the agricultural community. Addressing this research gap is important given land ownership is the ‘grass roots’ of the agricultural industry and is an area where gender still remains a significant factor.
Research related to land ownership in Ireland is relatively recent and began with Arensberg and Kimball (1968) and was further built on by Hannan and Katsiaouni (1977), and subsequently the gender dimension has been focused on by Shortall (1991, 1992, 2017) and O’Hara (1997, 1998). Agarwal (1994, p. 1455) described research on females and land ownership as a ‘critical gap’ and noted that the link between gender inequities and command over property was a ‘much-neglected issue’. Brandth (2006, p. 17) now notes that gender-focused agricultural literature has ‘flourished’. There is research on females and farming (cf. Annes et al., 2021; Cush et al., 2018; Haugen, 2008; Laoire, 2005; Price & Evans, 2006; Shortall, 2015; Shortall et al., 2020; Voyce, 1994), and this research contributes to the growing literature by examining the combined effect of structural, social and cultural barriers on the rate of female farm owners, specifically in the Irish context today by performing a qualitative study investigating attitudes in farming. Literature highlights the need for continued research on females and farming (Dunne et al., 2021).
This research also contributes to our understanding of the lived experience of being a female farmer/landowner in Ireland and the barriers they perceive to exist. Gender equality is a multidimensional concept; thus, this article draws on a range of disciplines that may elucidate the barriers to participation and identify pathways to gender-balanced participation.
In this article, we first begin by outlining the theoretical framework and methodical approach. The findings are based on an analysis of 35 interviews. Our findings centre on key themes, beginning with social/cultural barriers, before examining stereotypes and the media, followed by structural barriers and finally enablers and incentives for increased female participation in farming. We conclude with a discussion of the key findings.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Two key theories frame this research: institutional theory and cultural theory. Both theories have similarities given they focus on patterns of behaviour and practices that emerge through collective meanings. Institutional theory encompasses a large body of work focusing on cultural understanding and shared expectations as a collective foundation to social order (David et al., 2019; Janićijević, 2015). Institutional theory has been applied to agriculture, and, therefore, farming can be considered an institution (Dong et al., 2021; Glover et al., 2014; Janssen & Nonnenmann, 2017; Michelsen, 2001). According to institutional theory, an institution has long-held beliefs and practices, but it also incorporates change, it recognises ‘that over time new ideas, processes, and organisations are instituted’ (Janssen & Nonnenmann, 2017, p. 50). Therefore, both stability and change are present, and the aim is to encourage change while maintaining stability. A feminist angle on cultural theory specifically looks at how gender identities are formed through cultural practices. However, like institutional theory, cultural theory denotes that culture is not permanent, it is processual and dynamic as individuals and social systems change (Boholm, 1996). Therefore, it is the change that cultural and institutional theory refer to that is of importance in this context.
Both institutional and cultural theory recognise that culture and social systems are processes. Scott (1995) put forward the idea of three pillars of institutionalisation: regulative, normative and cognitive. Regarding the regulative pillar, the state can enact laws and regulations (David et al., 2019). In terms of the normative pillar, the state can give socio-political legitimacy to certain norms, and as regards the cognitive pillar, the state has influence in terms of how we apprehend and organise the social world. Therefore, policy changes can help influence social and cultural change—to make the culture in farming more conducive to women’s participation.
The patriarchal family model is a fundamental concept for understanding the current culture in farming and women’s positions on Irish farms (Cassidy, 2014). Patriarchy can be considered a theory, a framework and a social system. Patriarchy refers to a male-dominated power structure where men are predominantly the leaders and control property and resources (Walby, 1989) or more broadly as a gendered power system ‘of social, political and economic relationships through which men dominate and control female labour, reproduction and sexuality as well as define women’s status, privileges and rights in a society’ (Kalabamu, 2006, p. 237).
Access to farming is primarily through inheritance, and therefore patriarchy is a primary contributor to the gender asset gap and the occupational sex segregation of farming (Shortall et al., 2020). Balaine (2019) notes one son is usually chosen as the farmer, and he is the one working on the farm, while the other children, mainly daughters, help on the farm but are directed towards education, perpetuating gender stereotyping in farming. Farming in Ireland privileges men as farmers (Byrne et al., 2013). Shortall (1997, p. 112) notes ‘as inheritance patterns stand, they deny women access to property and the ability to farm in their own right’; therefore, access to farmland is the single most important factor shaping the role of women in agriculture.
IOW?
American MEN bought into the American lesbian-headed feminism(euro-based feminism is less dominated by ”kind” rich ‘ole satanic dykes like skinny-@ss dyke Susan B. Anthony and fat-@ss dyke Elizabeth Cady Stanton, hence why feminism has mainly only managed to depopulate them faster than America ) in the 1800s, because of the feelz-feelz from dyked ginas made them feel warm, fuzzy and safe, in the name of safety is why and how my own ancestral land got sold off in the end by my more supposedly ”safe”( as told by my modernist male ”GREATEST” gen-zlolzlzlz i remember when mr.”honesty”(to neocons in the manosphere) Tom Brokaw made that BS term mainstream, male relatives) female relatives for the fiat dollars they craved.
It’s absurd to try to replicate biblical patriarchy without the same framework that it operated under. The Manosphere isn’t even attempting to “work towards” that. It has surrendered that part of the battle entirely in the hope that a compromise solution will help the political battle.
YEAH!
Why does a certain Simp Frame Goddess worshipper look back at this half-@ssed ”patriarchy” of the 1950s with praise & bi-winning -pride, when it died in the 1960s?
https://the-artifice.com/reinforcing-the-traditional-patriarchal-ideologies-through-situation-comedies/
The not so innocent statement depicts a deeply rooted gender division of labor in society that even a little Simp Frame goddess-worshipping boy is not unaware of. Children learn behaviour from their classmates, friends, older siblings, supposedly ”RPGenius” ”leaders” and parents and above all else the media. People’s lives are empowered and disempowered by cultural and societal norms. Since the 1950s, television has shaped human experiences through variety of shows and advertising. Television plays an important role in the sociocultural conditioning process. For example, by the age of twenty, an average American is exposed to more than seven hundred thousand hours of television commercials.
Dr. Stuart Ewan, a leading researcher in the field, argues that people develop, maintain and revise their self-concepts, perceptions of gender and role identifications through watching television (Collins, 6-7). Collins argues that television is a way to control the needs and wants of society, to create and train new consumers and at the same time support the economic status quo by making it seem natural, thus unquestionable (Collins, 40). I aim to analyze the portrayal of the stereotypical gender roles in situation comedies such as I Love Lucy and According to Jim, while also intending to explore the challenges to the patriarchal ideologies depicted in the Mary Tyler Moore Show and Roseanne.
The 1950s sitcoms reinforced and recreated the post WWII patriarchal gender roles, in which women were happy being married and subordinate to men. While the gender roles have been challenged and transformed since then, a number of contemporary sitcoms maintain the old patriarchal ideology by portrayal of foolish husbands exerting dominance over their educated wives through humorous sexist remarks and comedic plots.
Public and Private Spheres
images-1
Up until the First World War, society had well defined roles for women in the private sphere and men in the public sphere. These societal positions were hardly ever challenged and were considered part of the norm of society. During the War, women were compelled to take part in the work force and provide for their families. While WWI significantly affected women’s lives, WWII had a deeper impact in the sense that more men went overseas and the world was faced with the Great Depression. On the one hand, the Great Depression left many households in deep financial difficulties and losing the men to war made it harder for many to survive. On the other hand, WWII boosted the economy everywhere in North America and Europe through other industries.
The weapons’ industry created new markets for different raw materials and made jobs available for the majority of people. Women were the primary candidates for these jobs. However, after the end of WWII when men came back from the war and needed jobs, the majority of women were pushed out of the work force. Through television shows, women were shown their rightful places, which was at home. As television became a household item so did the idyllic myth of the housewife (Spangler, 26). Despite the growing number of women seeking jobs outside of the home, television shows showed that women were happier married and at home. In the 1950s, society considered the home the primary space for women. Television shows imitated the societal rules and showed that a woman’s world was either in the kitchen or the beauty parlour. She was never a socially or politically relevant being (Spangler, 4).
Challenging Gender Roles
317a95e79a36cbbde1c74c60176ffa03-d1cclsy.png
When the I Love Lucy sitcom aired in 1951, it became a popular household show. The show depicts the life of Lucy, who is a housewife and her husband Ricky, who works in show business. The couple lives in New York City and is close friends with Fred and Ethel. Lucy is naive and ambitious, but at the same time, she constantly defies her role as the woman of the house by trying to get into show business. However, she has a knack for getting herself and her husband into trouble. Lucy ‘s attempt at escaping domesticity and housewifery is covered up by the humour and the resolution of conflicts at the end of each episode with hugs and kisses. While Lucy fails narratively, she wins the audience by her brilliant performance in every episode (Mellencamp, 323). Although Lucy never gets what she wants, at the end of each episode for six years Lucy accepts her domestic situation. However she goes back to defying her husband every chance she gets (Mellencamp, 329). Furthermore, the show depicted the consumerism era and the upward mobility of the middle class households.
The show was produced during post war era when women were not only encouraged to stay home; they were also being groomed to become consumers. Ethel and Lucy constantly attempt to buy new appliances and clothes. Ricky and Lucy buy an automobile and move to the suburbs at the end of the series (Mellencamp, 327). The sitcom was used as a tool to promote consumerism and maintain the societal status quo of gender roles through extreme humour and idiotic behaviour.
What did it mean to be a working woman?
pt1348
Contrary to I Love Lucy, the Mary Tyler Moore Show, which aired on CBS from 1970 to 1977, was about a single woman who was financially independent and was not tied down with marriage and children. The show reflected the politics of the 1970s that gave rise to a wide reaching grassroots politics. Unionized workers experimented with ideas like collective bargaining and employee ownership, which challenged the core foundation of American post war political economy (Zeitz, 676).
The second wave of feminism is probably the most important example of radical grassroots politics of the 1970s. While the first wave of feminism was about women’s suffrage, the second wave included topics such as the relationship between the nuclear family and the industrial economy, state socialism, work place equality, the politics of sexuality, marriage equality, sexual liberation and the meaning of gender (Zeitz 677).
Financial Dependency: a Consequence of Gendered Division of Labour
One of the major factors of female subordination has been the lack of economic independence. Many of the old and contemporary sitcoms depict married women as financially dependent on men, while men are depicted as the primary breadwinners of the family. In the I Love Lucy show, women’s financial dependence is a given. Lucy and Ethel are addicted to shopping and always fear overspending and getting in trouble with their husbands. In the popular episode ‘Job Switching’, Ricky scolds Lucy for spending too much money. The conversation starts as follows:
Ricky: Every month, every single month, your bank account is overdrawn. Now, what is the reason?!
Lucy: You don’t give me enough money?
Ricky: I don’t give you enough money?!
Lucy: Well, we both agree. That must be the reason!
Fred: Ethel spends money like I were printing it in the basement! Let’s face it, Rick. When it comes to money, there are two kinds of people, the earners and the spenders. Or, as they are more popularly known, “husbands” and “wives”!
One can safely assume that women not having financial independence is considered a normal part of life at this period of time. The underlying issue of lack of financial independence for goddesses who are above the becomes a source of laughter and plot of the show in many episodes (Mellencamp, 324). While Lucy continuously tries to enter the job market, her efforts become part of the comedic plot and she fails at earning money.
“My money is my money, our money is my money?”
In the same manner, in ‘the Money’ episode of According to Jim, Cheryl and Jim face a conflict because of Cheryl’s lack of income and Jim being the sole financial provider of the family. While Cheryl, a college graduate, stays at home to take care of the children, Jim, who is a college drop out, owns a construction company. When Cheryl’s brother, Andy, asks for a loan of one thousand dollars, despite Jim’s refusal, Cheryl decides to give Andy the money from a savings account. Upon trying to withdraw the funds, she finds out that Jim has taken all the money out without her knowledge. When she confronts Jim, the argument gets heated up and Jim says, “I make the money, I am the chief, the alpha; it is my money.”
Throughout the series Jim is allowed to make this type of remark, which asserts his domination as the patriarch of the household. In retaliation, Cheryl starts selling her own personal stuff that she had before their marriage. Jim panics when she sells his favourite chair to Andy and apologizes by saying that he did not mean to be disrespectful. Cheryl expresses her displeasure and says that by saying that he makes the money, he belittles her work at home. She puts emphasis on the importance of raising children, but the significance gets lost when Cheryl says, “I am raising children here Jim, and they poop, they poop a lot.” Cheryl’s cry for financial independence is covered up in humour and the audience laughs at the matter. However, despite the feelings of belittlement, Cheryl does not express any desire to work outside home and earn money of her own.
Who belongs where?
Unknown-1 UnknownMasculine and feminine stereotypes have been the basis for gendered division of labour in North American societies. The media and modernist/marxist ”redpillers” have helped in constructing and reinforcing these ideologies.
WHY?Is it cuz of his cognitive dissonance or just being a nonsensical, illlogical modernist ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshipper? Or his new Jewish goddess, Satanic & feminist TV by way of R-Trump, the Simp Frame Goddess worshipper of zionists?
More on how gina-centric ”redpillers” are about women & the ”gynopatriarchy” they fight, support & gina worship(but won’t die for as their ”patriotic” cowards like elrushbo & W.)!
Farm Boy says:
23 September, 2025 at 7:46 pm
I am ”redpill” traveling and I went to a redpilled gina-centric Walmart. There was a fella in front of it gathering signatures for a ballot initiative. It would ban men in women’s sports. As I was signing it,(while gina-worshipping) a woman came up and asked what it as about. The fella explained. She left in a huff bellowing “Why would I want that”? I commented to the fella, “I wonder what is wrong with her & why she has no love for two gina-worshippers like us?”
Why do ”R”-”BASED” ”redpillers” support gina-centrism & the gynopatriarchy is a better question, yes?
Is this the reason why?https://www.lyndhurstgyn.com/sports-can-support-womens-rights/
Women& gina-centric ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshippers have been fighting for their rights and equality(to be on the same level as MEN like DEREK, ROISSY,MOSES,JESUS & GBFM) for a long time. One of the many things that women’s rights advocates like gina-centric ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshippers have been promoting is equality in sports. Athletics is not just for men and boys anymore.
The National Youth Sports Strategy has compiled research that shows that sports can lead to many mental, emotional, social, and physical health benefits such as:
Lower rates of anxiety, depression, stress, substance abuse, risky behaviors, and suicide
Higher rates of self-esteem, confidence, cognitive performance, creativity, life satisfaction, and well-being
Reduced risk of cancer, diabetes, and obesity
Improvements in bone health, cardiovascular fitness, muscle, and overall quality of life
Teaching teamwork, social skills, responsibility, goal setting, time management, work ethic, empowerment, self-control, resilience, and leadership1
These benefits are not just for boys, girls benefit greatly from athletics also. The Women’s Sports Foundation advocates for girls and women and its ”MEN” aucillary gina-centric ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshippers want to be involved in sports. Their website states, “We’re building a future where every girl and woman can play, be active,be gina-worshipped and realize her full potential as she be simped framed goddess worshipped at her feet. We’re building a movement of movement. Through research. Advocacy. Community impact. And partnerships. It’s time to transform the game so that every girl and woman can realize her power.”2
Another step in the right direction for women’s equality has recently taken place in the form of a women’s sports network. According to CNBC, the new Women’s Sports Network will be available through Amazon Freevee, Tubi, FuboTV, and smart TVs. The network has partnered up with the Women’s National Basketball Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association, and the U.S. Ski and Snowboard. According to a study, viewership of women’s sports has risen among gina-centric ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshippers but women’s sports only get about 5% of sports media coverage but now, thanks to churchian gina-centric ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshippers, its 95% .3
Angela Ruggiero, an athlete and an advisor of the network told CNBC, “It’s a significant step towards narrowing the gap in media coverage for female athletes, for female sports…There’s a pent-up demand for women’s sports, but women’s sports typically go under-invested, under-supported, under-viewed, because the ecosystem underneath it hasn’t really been built.”3
This new network is just one small step in the right direction for women’s equality. Encourage girls and women to try a sport that interests them. Consider becoming involved in women’s sports by participating, supporting, or coaching a sport that interests you as a churchian gina-centric ”redpiller” Simp Frame Goddess worshipper.
Here’s someone who gets the right (conservative) fight about women’s & girls) sports, AKA gina sports, unlike ”RPGenius” ”leaders” like Jack, VOX & {redacted}.
Mister Contrast says:
@FB, Surfdumb & CP re: women’s sports
Honestly, I agree with the lady. I think I’ve said before: I believe there should be one league, no sex restrictions. Any woman capable of going in there and competing against the boys has a special talent and can stay. The overwhelming majority who get their a$$es handed to them, however, can go tf home and stop wasting everyone’s time.
Sports are a male pursuit. “Women’s” sports was ALWAYS pure Feminism. Beck and Deace and all the rest of them advocating for removing the trannies are just Dalrock’s Gilligans all over again. Just like with abortion, just like with the military.
“Women are joining the military… OUR POOR GIRLS ARE BEING FORCED TO FIGHT BY LAZY MEN!!!!”
“Women are getting abortions… OUR POOR GIRLS ARE DECEIVED INTO GIVING UP THEIR PRECIOUS BABIES BY BAD OLD ABORTIONISTS AND THEIR LAZY BOYFRIENDS!!!!!”
“Women are playing sports… OUR POOR GIRLS ARE BEING PREVENTED FROM SHINING AS ATHLETES BY THOSE AWFUL MEN-WHO-FEEL PRETTY!!!!!!”
If you don’t care about women’s sports because you think that only men’s sports are of interest, then you don’t dislike transwomen in women’s sports. After all, it’s just men taking over more fully. I suppose that is what Mister Contrast is expressing here?
If you don’t care about women’s sports because you think that only men’s sports are of interest, then you don’t dislike transwomen in women’s sports. After all, it’s just men taking over more fully. I suppose that is what Mister Contrast is expressing here?
YEAH!Like in these three DAL’ posts(that even ”RPGenius” ”leaders” ignore while supposedly the ”holy” gina-centric(as dictated by their lusts as its NOT GOD-centric) ”RP” fighting the ”culture wars”) in 2011:
Submitting to the patriarchy in their heads
Posted on November 6, 2011 by Dalrock
Don’t miss Laura Grace Robins’ excellent post Christian Manning up. Just a teaser (emphasis mine):
You can’t insist on being an independent career woman and take on the values of the modern world yet also shiver into an 1800 timid, Christian girl when it comes to dating. He insists these women are not feminists, but as my readers know there are also sheep that insist they are not wolves. A career woman with a cross around her neck does not negate her feminist choices.
As I mentioned the discussion on my own post on the topic, it strikes me that these suddenly passive Christian husband searchers are being too clever by half. They loudly proclaim that they are dutifully awaiting the orders of their Father. In doing so they are creating a faux patriarchy, substituting God for their earthly father (and later their husband) because submitting to the authority of the latter would have the practical effect of constraining them. To borrow a phrase which has become popular around here, they are submitting to the patriarchy in their heads.
Of course, all God needs to do is serve them with a duly notarized and processed command telling them whom to marry and they will gladly follow. I presume they expect it to transpire something like this:
God’s Process Server: Are you Cindy Christlike?
Cindy Christlike: Why yes, I am. Why do you ask?
God’s Process Server: (puts papers in her hand) You are hereby commanded to stop pining away, quit your high status but surprisingly unfulfilling career, marry that man over there and start making babies.
Cindy Christlike: Well, um, what kind of car does he drive? Is he the secret mulitmillionaire hunky handyman I have prayed for?…
[God’s Process Server becomes impatient]
Um, sorry, old habit. I’ll get right on that. How long before I dust off the Fireproof script and threaten divorce so that multiple worthy men compete for my heart?
God’s Process Server: Wait at least 3 years. 4 or 5 is better. Ideally you should wait until your youngest child is out of diapers.
Absent that, many will no doubt follow their tingle only to blame God for steering them wrong with regard to excuse #6.
&
We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan
Posted on November 18, 2011 by Dalrock
I know for many of you this really isn’t a bad place. If you are a feminist or a player, this is pretty close to paradise. But if you are like me you very much want to leave. Everyone always asks, why don’t we just build a boat and sail away from here? We could make it to the land of sanity. But it isn’t that simple I’m afraid. Every time it looks like we are about to make it home, one of the Gilligans manages to screw it up.
Keep in mind that Gilligans aren’t malicious by nature. They also want to leave the island. But unfortunately they are rather simple and easily distracted. It wouldn’t be such a problem if there weren’t so many of them.
Take for example the issue of out of wedlock births. Gilligans are especially susceptible to what I call the it takes two fallacy. In the proper context it isn’t a fallacy at all. If an individual woman has a child out of wedlock, it is a fact that there is somewhere a man who is also responsible for the problem. So far, no problem. But the Gilligans want to use this to form social policy. They mistakenly apply at the macro level what is only true at the micro level. They assume this means if you have 100 baby mamas, that there must also be an equal number of baby daddies. They took this logical error and combined it with their natural sympathy for sluts, and decided to create a social order where only men are punished for out of wedlock births. What they didn’t understand is that it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want. No matter how draconian our child support laws become, there will always be a small number of irresponsible men who are willing to play their part.
We’ve tried the Gilligan way for over fifty years now, and even though it has brought us from single digit illegitimacy rates to 40% and climbing, no one can talk any sense into them (chart source).
You explain it to them slowly and carefully, and they nod at all the right moments indicating they understand. Then a feminist comes by and whispers “double standard” or “it takes two” in their ear, and the Gilligan instantly forgets everything you just explained to him.
The same thing applies to slut shaming. Gilligans love their rule of it takes two, and they apply it there as well. Again at the micro level if we are considering the issue of individual sin this would make sense. But Gilligans live in fear of the dreaded double standard. It keeps them awake at night with visions of unhappy sluts crying out to them. Why do we have to shame sluts? they plead, Lets shame the players instead. They are the really bad ones anyway. We know from the history of civilization that slut shaming is what works. But the Gilligans are haunted by the faces of the unhappy sluts which fill their dreams. They are desperate for another solution, any solution, so long as it doesn’t mean unhappy sluts.
The tried and true approach: Slut shaming.
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
The Gilligan approach: Shame players.
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem! says the Gilligan, at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
But it gets worse yet. Now that the ratio of sluts to players is even less in the sluts favor, the sluts actually get sluttier! They now have to compete even harder for each player’s attention. Now we have 100 even sluttier sluts!
But what if we could shame all of the players? the Gilligan asks. That way we could still achieve our objective and I wouldn’t have to be haunted by unhappy sluts! In theory of course the Gilligan is right. If you could shame all of the players into hanging up their smirk, you would then be able to stamp out sluthood forever. However, the Gilligan is once again barking up the wrong tree. Shame only works on those who are susceptible to it. Unfortunately players tend to possess the dark triad personality traits. It is actually a large part of what makes them attractive to the sluts in the first place. Our little buddy won’t hear of it though, and presses on with his plan to shame a group of narcissistic psychopaths to forgo their own pleasure for the good of society.
The hybrid Gilligan approach: Shame them both equally!
While the Gilligan would prefer not to have to shame sluts at all, his mortal terror of the double standard compels him to hold out for player shaming, even when agreeing to shame sluts (at least in theory). The problem is shaming players has the side effect of reducing the impact of slut shaming. This is rationalization hamster steroids. The moment concern for the double standard is introduced into the mix, even a little bit, sluts, their moms, and white knights will all rationalize that it wasn’t really the sluts’ fault. We’ve seen this with Jennifer Moses, the mother who wrote the Wall Street Journal article on the damage promiscuity is doing to young girls. Even after acknowledging the great harm this is causing young women she wrote:
I wouldn’t want us to return to the age of the corset or even of the double standard, because a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive. If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.
Better your daughter need therapy than commit the dreaded sin of the double standard! Anything but that! We see the same rationalization in pop music as well. I could go on, but you see it simply doesn’t matter. I could show charts and stats and tell them about the millions of innocent children and even the sluts themselves who are harmed by not shaming sluts. I could have every Gilligan on the island fully convinced. But after all of that it would only take one slut or feminist to walk by and whisper “double standard” and it all would wash away.
Welcome to my hell.
&
Traditional Conservative or Feminist?
Posted on November 19, 2011 by Dalrock
Blogger Dennis Mangan kindly linked to my post 40 years of ultimatums in his post The Backlash Against Feminism:
Most conservatives just haven’t understood this, mostly in my opinion out of willful ignorance, and we’re regularly treated to columns by the likes of Kay Hymowitz and William Bennett telling young men that they need to “man up”, do “the right thing”, and marry. Conservatives through the years have generally offered only the most token opposition to feminism, said opposition appearing to be nil these days. (This is one factor in the emergence of an alternative right.)
This is of course just a teaser. Check out his full post. I’ll still be here when you get back.
As has happened here, the topic spurred on a vigorous discussion in the comments section. One thing which struck me reading the discussion however is how difficult it can be to distinguish Feminists from Traditional Conservatives. Things have been fairly heated here in the last few weeks, so I thought I would lighten things up just a bit with a blogging version of a TV quiz show. Help me out here; which commenters are Traditional Conservatives, and which ones are Feminists.
I’ll start with commenter Severn, who responded to a quote of me stating that Feminists and Traditional Conservatives had formed a tacit agreement:
I don’t buy it. The people I see on the right making the “why do men suck so much?” argument are always neocons, people like Kay Hymowitz and Bill Bennett. Neocons usually seem to borrow their views – apart from those on foreign policy – from the left.
Sorry, blogger’s prerogative. I’m going to go ahead and call this one. He has to be a Trad Con since he is defending them. I’ll let the rest of you have a shot at the next one, I promise. Next up is Dan:
There is a solution, and it is as radical as feminism. That solution is hard religious orthodoxy to the point of fundamentalism.
I am in a religious marriage and I would have to call myself thoroughly happy. I went to an Ivy League University and graduated with honors. I am a fairly successful federal employee. We will soon have four kids so far and she is just thirty. There are no plans yet to stop having kids. My tribe is increasing. My parents delightedly help with every bone in their body. They love the grandkids.
I know I promised, but at first I didn’t think it would be this easy. Dan is clearly a Trad Con. We could quit now but I’ll go through a few more quotes just for entertainment’s sake. Here is another excerpt from the same comment by Dan:
Men can take control of this. Just don’t be afraid to be single for a while. Work your butt off to get degrees and a good job and otherwise become desirable and then make traditional-mindedness a core criterion. Don’t dabble with dating anybody who is not a good candidate your traditional wife. And tell her your plans for her to be your stay-at-home-while-the-kids-are-small motherly wife clear early. If it scares her away or freaks her out, good. She won’t waste your time or your money…
P.S.
This business about men being taken to the cleaners in marriage is BS. If she is willing to have your kids, and you can continue your lineage through her, that is massive! I’d much rather get married and have kids and get divorced than never have kids at all. Although I also hope not to see divorce. Still, people who shy away from the whole thing are weenies.
Yup. I called it! Make sure she knows upfront she will be staying at home. Also Suck it up men, even if your wife does the worst to you, you should call yourself lucky. That has Trad Con all over it.
Here’s the next one, and it’s Dan again!:
I am the earlier poster, happily married, growing tribe etc. Those who think in terms of male superiority, and misogyny will get you nowhere.
Think of orthodox Jews. Women have equal importance and value, just different goals.
The stiff cultures of Italy, Japan and Korea, where you often just try to shove male superiority down women’s throats rather than have equal but different roles are dying out. Heck, even in Iran the women have clamped their uteri somewhat shut.
Ya gotta have a shared religious vision and its gotta be sincere or you are out of the game. Faking it for misogyny’s sake just puts you in league with *those* people.
Is it too late to change my vote? That sounded almost Feminist. Well, even if this Dan guy goes Fem, at least I can count on Severn. He is up next, and shares his impression of me:
Yeah. Sounds to me like the usual game boy hostility towards Christians. I clicked through the links of his argument with the Christian women, and I don’t think he got the better of it.
Women who divorce and remarry are “whores”? Really? I think it’s more than possible to argue that no-fault divorce has been a bad thing for men, women, children, and society in general without claiming that women (but not men) who divorce and remarry are whores. There’s way too much emotional hyperbole surrounding these topics.
And it’s not just a one off instance of rhetorical excess. Words like “whores” and “whorish” come up again and again in his and his commenters remarks. Along with the “cock carousel” which all those dirty dirty whores are supposedly riding.
I had such high hopes for Severn, but then he broke out the Womens Studies phraseology and even endorsed serial polyandry. He followed up in a later comment:
Less measured that “whorish whores riding the cock carousel”? What exactly would this less measured response look like – killing prostitutes and dumping their bodies in the forest?
I used to wonder about the mentality of guys who did that. It’s all become a lot clearer since I started reading game blogs. There are some very warped men out there whose image of women is based entirely on porn, girls-gone-wild videos, and Sex In The City. They’re dirty, dirty, dirty sluts and they deserve to be punished!
No worries though, because Orthodox Dan will redeem himself. I just know it:
I don’t know this Ferdinand Bardamu guy but he seems like a whining loser.
If you are a winner, you can make a marriage work and have a large clan of your descendants to love you in your old age. I have to say, good girls are not impossible to spot and if you’ve got it, you marry such a girl and Ferdinand Bardamu emphatically does not have it. Sucks to be Ferdinand Bardamu…
(1) Not all churches are the same. If a church has a weak marriage culture, change churches. There are tons to choose from. Most people know 10x more about car models than they do about church models, which is lame.
(2) A 62% chance of success is tolerable. (Remember that these Christians are marrying much younger; account for that and the D-rate would actually be much lower.) If you get divorced, you won’t die. You’ll just get back in the saddle like a real man. Besides, if misfortune has you back on the market in your forties, you will find the numbers are strongly in your favor as a man and love will be yours for the taking.
Finally! I never thought I would be so glad to read man up and marry those future divorcées you loser! Dan is clearly a Trad Con who was suffering from a temporary moment of Feminist weakness. More likely someone else was just posting under his name to confuse us. Either way, Dan assumes the problem is people just aren’t finding the good churches. I’m not convinced, because I have a standing offer on this blog to give free publicity to any church which is serious about marriage and none have yet come forward. I’m so pleased with Dan I’ll let it slide though and even put him up next (emphasis mine):
In Japan the religion is work and then the men drink with their coworkers until 1 am every night of the week. Japanese men help with nothing at home — they are one more kid to take care of, while American husbands help a lot. Doing housework is a good way for a guy to have lots of kids in 2011. Let her pop out babies while you do a lot of chores.
It is not womanly for a woman to be barren. Likewise, it is not manly for a man to be childless.
Ouch. Is it just me, or did Dan just mix Feminist slogans with his man up shaming language? And didn’t he say his wife is a traditional stay at home housewife? Why is he taking on the role of traditional provider and doing the housework? I mentioned this to Mrs. Dalrock, and she replied:
It’s nice when you help out a bit like when you clean a difficult pot, but if a husband does much more it just says kitchen bitch.
Next up is Severn, riding to the rescue of sluts everywhere with some expertly crafted shaming language:
It’s not the language which I find excessive, it’s the shrieking emotionalism. That’s expressed via language of course, but the language is not the problem.
Guy’s who go on (and on, and on, and on, and on, and on) about “dirty whorish sluts who ride the lotsa cockas carousel while also being fat and ugly unlike those cute Asians, and by the way, why don’t they sleep with ME?” not only come across as losers. They come across as irrational and unstable. I certainly do not expect people to only say things which I agree with. I do expect people to have at least a tenuous grasp on reality and to say things which can be objectively analyzed and intelligently discussed. “Cock carousel”? It’s like referring to Jews as “blood-sucking parasites”. The idea is not to stimulate thought but to shut it down.
And it succeeds, just look at the comments on this thread. A lot of heat and not much light.
I have to confess I’m stumped on this. I don’t remember if this is Feminist or Trad Con. I’m thinking both. At any rate, Severn weighs in again with a helpful clarification on which camp he is in:
Since I’m one of those social conservatives, perhaps you can tell me which wrong tree you think I’m barking up.
(The phrase “social conservative” is redundant, btw)
That would seem to settle the matter. Except then Dennis Mangan called him out on comparing the psychological mindset of gamesters to serial killers. This brought the following doubling down:
No, this comes from the commenter who noticed the distinct psychological similarity between men who see all women as “dirty whorish sluts and sluttish whores who love lotsa COCKAS!” and the actual men who are serial killers of prostitutes.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Gilligan more upset at slut shaming.
(dalrockian?)Conclusion?
”right”wing ”I want to be seen as ”good”,”genius” & ”leader-like”- ”conservatives” are their own worst enemy.
BUT!They want to ”win” the ”culture wars” too and as you have said about patriarchy, you have to 100% uncompromising and socons/neocons are NOT, as they gina-worship their daughters (and women in general)i saw my own grandfather do that to his ”safe” daughter who needed his money & other MENS to back up her expensive life of travel & buying thongs like prinncess Di’s(mine and hers very distant relative) dresses,yet he thought she wouldn’t sell the ancestral land for money?
Cognitive dissonance on steroids was my grandfather’s life, just like it is for puny and pathetic ”rpgenius” ”leaders” who watch strodle(NEVER gina) sports on TV(at least my ex-OOGBB(he thought ALL religions were fairy tales like the ”RP” churchian”CHRISTIAN” one that is ”practised” in the manosphere) grandfather NEVER had a Churchian- TV and only watched it over other churchian people’s churchian homes.
Nothing, as they say, is new under the sun. Both faux and weak patriarchy are “head patriarchy.”
It is extremely rare for a strong independent man to be subject to one or more patriarch or elder. Why submit to another man when they submit directly to God? They loudly proclaim that they are dutifully awaiting the orders of their Father in heaven. It’s what they teach:
But, these men are too clever by half.
Ephesians 5 teaches mutual submission, but you cannot have a real patriarchy and hierarchical authority without a preponderance of male-to-male submission. But, doing this would constrain them.
I don’t promote patriarchy because to do so would make me a hypocrite.
Speaking of ”RPGenius” ”leaders” gina-worshippers ”patriarchists” who are anti-patriots like elrushboGOPLGBTQ+ & W.GOPLGBTQ+ will have to bow down at MRS. Charlie Kirk -who holds a doctrate in ”CHRISTian leadership” feet from now on .
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dajvxb1Md3Y
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1G0Ee96EVQk
Shes fearless like joke (AKA the original manosphere discreditors, invaders and murderers) Simp Frame Gina-worshippering ”patriarchists” too!