Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Discuss Anti-Feminism, Men's Rights and Misandry.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Misko_Varesanovic
Freshman Poster
Posts: 142
Joined: March 13th, 2016, 7:24 pm

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by Misko_Varesanovic » November 29th, 2017, 1:06 am

Adama wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 12:02 am
The elitists want to make women the heads of the household instead of the father and instead of the husband. This is what I am talking about. Instead of rule by the father, there is rule by women, within the home. That is a disaster.

And for those who still think there is some other cause, just look at the statistics of fatherless children. Children whose fathers are not in the home are much worse off on average than those children whose fathers live with them, unless the woman is domineering and overpowering that man.
Okay, I see where you are coming from now. Thanks for the explanation.

There is only one problem with this analysis: strong women within the home is actually the global norm. If you spend time in most non-Western societies - Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, Levantine Arab - they are characterised by the presence of incredibly strong women who take no prisoners. If you have come across the 'Tiger Mother' concept as popularised by Amy Chua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hy ... ger_Mother), it rings true across much of the (non-Western) world.

However, there are key qualifications. The women in these societies - even if they are very powerful in their own right - generally do not look to replace men. Instead, they complement, respect and look up to men. For them, there is no contradiction between being strong and feminine: they can be extremely forthright and super-submissive, depending on the context. In fact, it is really amazing how they know when to switch gears instinctively - it is almost telepathic. But this is probably something that they were able to learn by observation because their family structures are still relatively strong.




Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!



User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 26273
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by Winston » November 29th, 2017, 1:50 am

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
Conclusion

Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15 but males have a higher mean IQ from age 15 on. The effect of sex differences in IQ is largest at the high extreme of intelligence. Since many of the more prestigious roles in society are associated with high IQ, the lack of female representation in these roles may be partially due to fewer females being competitive at the highest levels. This does not mean that females should not be given equal opportunity to demonstrate their abilities as this would create an worsened artificial 'glass ceiling'.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

MrMan
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2486
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by MrMan » November 29th, 2017, 4:26 am

I would say that Indonesia is less feminist than the US, but there are plenty of career women. They just seem to emphasize being wives and mothers more. I used to work in an office with lots of women, and they were always bringing food and cooking stuff and bringing food in the office. One of them had a husband moving overseas to work. They asked what she'd do. Someone else said, something in Indonesia which was long the lines of "she's going to follow her husband of course". That's just what women do. My wife said if a woman doesn't know how to cook, she's ashamed to admit it becuase she's a woman and she's supposed to know how to cook. That may have been more the case 10 or 15 years ago, but there are still those kind of values out there.

Indonesia did have a woman for president. Soekarno was the founding president at independence. He wanted to have a kind of big tent democracy, where the Communists also sat at the table with the other groups. He was also friendly with Russia, who donated a number of statues that still decorate the capital city. Marxists do not like to just sit at the table. They want to take over. They tried, taking over several city blocks. Soeharto was a general stationed in Jakarta. He led a fight to take back the parts of the city the Commies had taken. We aren't sure exactly what happened. He said he had a letter from Soekarno giving him power as president. It is believed that Soekarno was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life. The country still considered him a hero and still does. Maybe the military just considered him too weak and backed Soeharto.

Soeharto's regime developed close relationships with the US and imprisoned Communists. Chinese language books were even restricted or outlawed. Soeharto did a lot to get the food to the people in ways Soekarno had not done, apparently, but as the country developed, corruption became a big problem. His sons and some of the other family members took advantage of their position and made a huge fortune, probably billions. Individuals generally enjoyed a reasonable amount of freedom as long as they did not speak ill of Soeharto or his family. He also kept religious radicals from taking over and put some controls on that. He ruled for 32 years. He just kept getting elected.

Then Megawati Soekarnoputri-- Megawati Soekarno's daughter-- started to gain popularity as the head of her political party. But then, someone else was installed in that party, and she had to go start a new one. I heard the army raided the party headquarters and installed someone else. That's what I heard.

Asian currencies started to tank. It hit Indonesia really bad. The rupiah was about 2300 or 2400 to the dollar, I think, when I first landed in Indonesian in the Soeharto era. Right before he fell, it had gone up to about 15000 to the dollar and stayed somewhere around 10000 to the dollar with a bit of fluctuation. The economy tanked. Students started protesting. There were riots where Chinese women were raped, their shops looted, and their men killed. This might have been organized by a faction of the military. Students protested and took over the capital building.

Soeharto stepped down, installing his vice president Habibie as president.

Then there was an election. Megawati won the popular vote with the largest minority voting for her party, something in the 30 to 40% range, I think. But she was a woman, so the parliament made a deal and voted in a nearly blind man who won 8% of the vote. I hear he had to beg a sulking Megawati to be his VP, a step taken to keep the country together. Then they made a law that the president was determined by the popular vote, so Megawati won the next time.

She didn't win because she was a woman. She won because her father was the founding president and represented something other than the 'New Order' of Soeharto. It looked like a clear break with the past, that the new government was no longer under the thumb of the old regime.

And religious radicals and even religious civil war in some places got bad after Soeharto, killing lots of people. It was a difficult time for the country.

MrMan
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2486
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by MrMan » November 29th, 2017, 4:53 am

Misko_Varesanovic wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 1:06 am
However, there are key qualifications. The women in these societies - even if they are very powerful in their own right - generally do not look to replace men. Instead, they complement, respect and look up to men. For them, there is no contradiction between being strong and feminine: they can be extremely forthright and super-submissive, depending on the context. In fact, it is really amazing how they know when to switch gears instinctively - it is almost telepathic. But this is probably something that they were able to learn by observation because their family structures are still relatively strong.
Submitting to men and embracing their femininity may actually make the women stronger than rebelling against men and seeing themselves as perpetual victims of men.

MrMan
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2486
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by MrMan » November 29th, 2017, 5:43 am

In response to the second video, is IQ a fair measure of 'intelligence.' Intelligence is hard to specifically define and measure. One theory is that there are 'multiple intelligences.' Intelligence can be divided into different categories. On the spatial dimension of intelligence, horses may be more 'intelligent' than humans. Put a horse on top of a mountain and let him look down to your house, and he may just know how to get there without getting lost, something humans may have difficulty doing. At the end of the video, the commentator was arguing that math and science intelligence was more important than reading and writing. That's kind of silly. Why does it have to be an issue of boys versus girls. Men may have higher IQ scores. That's good. I believe men generally have the qualities that make them better at leading society, which is why most societies have historically been led by men. But you can argue how to define intelligence until the cows come home.

I found what he said about women having better connections 'laterally' in the brain, including better memories to be interesting. I have read in some academic research in the past that women tend to remember details. For example, if you come back from a social event, a woman will remember what the people were wearing. I was going over this paper in a graduate seminar once, and I remembered that with my own wife. We'd come back from church, and she mentioned someone, and I asked who that was. She said it was the woman in the purple (or whatever color) blouse. She's said that a few times. I told her I couldn't remember what color people wore at church. But there it was in the research paper. Women remember those details. Men don't unless the clothing as unusual and caught their attention. Men remember big-picture, though they do remember specifics of direction and may remember specific details if prompted.

This is a good thing to know about women. Plenty of comedians have made jokes about wives or girlfriends never forgetting.

I also heard a radio show talking about some research that showed that women had stronger connections between the pleasure centers of their brains and the verbal centers. This was supposed to explain why women talk about their problems. If you have a wife or girlfriend, and she goes through some stressful situation, she wants to talk about it to you. If you were in a stressful situation like that, you might deal with it by working out, playing a video game or doing something distracting or fun, or something like that. Women want to talk about it. Maybe psychologists and counselors are 'feminized' in their theories thinking the way to deal with stress is to talk about it. That probably works better for women than for men. There are times it is good to talk about things and get advice. And that is what we men do when we talk about issues. She talks about her problem, we give solutions. What is the point of talking about it if you don't want to talk about solutions? But sometimes women don't like that. They just want you to listen and not give any advice. It feels like a pointless activity. She's probably getting some comfort from the pleasure centers of her brain by talking to you about her problems, while you are sitting there listening, or pretending to listen while doing something productive with your mind, trying to figure out what you are going to do about something else and saying, "I'm sorry you feel that way." :)

Remembering specific details can be useful, too. And that is something that has to do with intelligence. So there may be some ways women are more intelligent.

As far as equality goes in the first video, are apples and oranges equal? Men and women are different. They compliment each other-- in the best case scenario. Women should stop trying to be men and embrace their femininity. Femininity can get lost in trying to be 'equal'.

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6204
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by Adama » November 29th, 2017, 2:49 pm

Misko_Varesanovic wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 1:06 am
Adama wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 12:02 am
The elitists want to make women the heads of the household instead of the father and instead of the husband. This is what I am talking about. Instead of rule by the father, there is rule by women, within the home. That is a disaster.

And for those who still think there is some other cause, just look at the statistics of fatherless children. Children whose fathers are not in the home are much worse off on average than those children whose fathers live with them, unless the woman is domineering and overpowering that man.
Okay, I see where you are coming from now. Thanks for the explanation.

There is only one problem with this analysis: strong women within the home is actually the global norm. If you spend time in most non-Western societies - Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, Levantine Arab - they are characterised by the presence of incredibly strong women who take no prisoners. If you have come across the 'Tiger Mother' concept as popularised by Amy Chua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hy ... ger_Mother), it rings true across much of the (non-Western) world.

However, there are key qualifications. The women in these societies - even if they are very powerful in their own right - generally do not look to replace men. Instead, they complement, respect and look up to men. For them, there is no contradiction between being strong and feminine: they can be extremely forthright and super-submissive, depending on the context. In fact, it is really amazing how they know when to switch gears instinctively - it is almost telepathic. But this is probably something that they were able to learn by observation because their family structures are still relatively strong.
These are not the women I am talking about. What you are describing is basically what women are supposed to be doing in their families. The woman is supposed to help build her family, to strengthen them in every way she can. These are essentially good women. And these are not the ones I am talking about.

I am talking about the women who would destroy their families because of their arrogance. Good women build. Wicked women destroy. It is really simple. Basically these women want to take power and control from the man. These women have risen up out of their natural place, and once a person does that, their arrogance by nature destroys those around them.

Somehow though, people don't seem to grasp that I am not talking about GOOD WOMEN who help their families. I am talking about women who would destroy her husband and her children for her personal glory without giving it a thought. These women would destroy men just so they can be in charge of them. And the government is on their side.


I'll give you an example of the destructive power that women abuse in relationships. There was a woman who was interested in me and I was very attracted to her. Unfortunately what I didn't know is that she is a whore (major with probably scores and hundreds of random partners every year, just from the few I knew about that we knew in common, though I didn't figure this out until way after things had transpired).

She had a boyfriend. So I left her alone. Besides that, I found her to be way too disrespectful and inconsiderate for my liking. After she told me she had a boyfriend and because of the disrespect, I simply crossed her off my list and moved on. I just forgot about her, and I was flirting with this other girl in front of her. I wasn't trying to provoke her. I had just moved on. It had been over a month since we had talked. We never had intimate contact, we never spoke on the phone, and we never got deep into conversation even.

Then one day I hear through the grapevine that I am going to be accused of sexual harassment. And many of female coworkers were turning their noses up at me, because they believed this whore.

Why did she accuse me of sexual harassment? After she recanted her accusation, it was discovered from one of her whore friends that I was the only man who didn't stick around to wait for her. She expected me to wait until she dumped her boyfriend.

This is the type I refer to. Women who literally think they are some kind of angelic beings and that whatever they do is just, and if you don't obey their unwritten commandments to obey them completely and endure their infinite disrespect, then they will use the power the government has given them to try to destroy you.

This is overwhelming pride, arrogance and insolence. But this is what many evil American women are. And everyone supports women in their cause.

Only God is allowed to destroy someone for their crimes. It is not for a woman to accuse a man and destroy his life because he doesn't want to be with her or kiss her backside. Any person who is trying to destroy another person for their personal glory has risen out of their place, against God. These really are the enemies of Christ, and this is why God loves humble, meek, peaceful people. Because they are not trying to destroy others for their personal glory.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

Misko_Varesanovic
Freshman Poster
Posts: 142
Joined: March 13th, 2016, 7:24 pm

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by Misko_Varesanovic » December 1st, 2017, 3:44 pm

Adama wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 2:49 pm
These are not the women I am talking about. What you are describing is basically what women are supposed to be doing in their families. The woman is supposed to help build her family, to strengthen them in every way she can. These are essentially good women. And these are not the ones I am talking about.

I am talking about the women who would destroy their families because of their arrogance. Good women build. Wicked women destroy. It is really simple. Basically these women want to take power and control from the man. These women have risen up out of their natural place, and once a person does that, their arrogance by nature destroys those around them.

Somehow though, people don't seem to grasp that I am not talking about GOOD WOMEN who help their families. I am talking about women who would destroy her husband and her children for her personal glory without giving it a thought. These women would destroy men just so they can be in charge of them. And the government is on their side.
Re: highly destructive women, it's essential to avoid them for the sake of one's health, wealth and, ultimately, soul. No doubt about it!

Misko_Varesanovic
Freshman Poster
Posts: 142
Joined: March 13th, 2016, 7:24 pm

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by Misko_Varesanovic » December 1st, 2017, 3:59 pm

MrMan wrote:
November 29th, 2017, 4:26 am
I would say that Indonesia is less feminist than the US, but there are plenty of career women. They just seem to emphasize being wives and mothers more. I used to work in an office with lots of women, and they were always bringing food and cooking stuff and bringing food in the office. One of them had a husband moving overseas to work. They asked what she'd do. Someone else said, something in Indonesia which was long the lines of "she's going to follow her husband of course". That's just what women do. My wife said if a woman doesn't know how to cook, she's ashamed to admit it becuase she's a woman and she's supposed to know how to cook. That may have been more the case 10 or 15 years ago, but there are still those kind of values out there.
This is a great summary of the Indonesian situation - many thanks for posting!

I guess my essential point was that there are profound cultural issues behind why many women in the US or similar countries are the way they are. Reinstating the 'patriarchy' (however one defines this) may or may not help, but I sincerely doubt it is a panacea.

Messed-up situations don't usually come out of nowhere: they take years if not decades or even longer to come about, and there are often lots of causes that are not necessarily easy to remedy or even identify. Repairing broken families, increasing the level of respect that women have for men (and vice-versa), decreasing pornography usage, restoring the sanctity of marriage - these are awesome challenges which will take far more time, energy and effort than a simple legal shift.

If you have married an Indonesian lady, then ceteris paribus that is an excellent solution on a personal level.

User avatar
ssjparris
Junior Poster
Posts: 824
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 3:47 am

Re: In Defense of Patriarchy: Why men have EARNED the RIGHT to rule/lead/govern

Post by ssjparris » December 4th, 2017, 4:32 am

i wonder where all the angry men are that get offended by posts like these on social media sites like facebook and youtube. i guess happier abroad is surrounded by like minded people. pffttt..

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Anti-Feminism, Men's Rights and Misandry”