Cute little baby crying

Infantriarchy

If our species were observed by an alien race for any length of time, two profound defects in the human condition would rapidly become apparent to them. One is a defect in the female character, and the other is a defect in the male character. Although they weren’t always defects, they have become such because they are fundamentally at odds with both legal equality and self-actualization.

The female defect is her desire to infantilize herself; to project a facade of weakness and victimhood. The female does this because part of her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf. This is a mechanism which allows the female to feel desirable, important, and powerful. The female often mistakes this behavior as personal empowerment, when in reality it is quite the opposite. Taking personal responsibility is something she will inherently resist, because as soon as she takes personal responsibility and stops infantilizing herself, her identity can no longer command others to act on her behalf. Thus, the female defect keeps her from assuming personal responsibility, which presents a barrier to her self-actualization.

This is why the self-actualized female finds playing the victim so repugnant; she is shunning part of her old identity.

The male defect is his desire to compensate for the infantilized female. He does this because part of his identity is contingent on earning female validation. He thus demonstrates his ability to protect, provision and inform. This is a mechanism for feeling useful, powerful, knowledgeable, and important. The male defect leads him to compete with other males to demonstrate his primacy to females, and it ultimately turns him into a guardian, which keeps him from relinquishing responsibility. This becomes his own barrier to self-actualization.

This is why the self-actualized male sees competing for female validation as idiotic; he is shunning part of his old identity.

These defects mean that the female path of self-actualization is one of taking responsibility, and the male path of self-actualization is one of relinquishing responsibility.

It is vitally important to recognize that the majority of males and females in our culture enjoy their dysfunction. The female has a puerile sexual identity validated by compelling a man to act on her behalf, and the male has a similarly puerile sexual identity validated by demonstrating his ability to act on her behalf. This is a drug that our species has been addicted to for millennia, and it is one we desperately need to cast aside. Moving past this behavior is the next step humanity must make to realize equality.

We already have a name for this drug. It’s the blue pill. Those in the blue pill paradigm aren’t conscious of this behavior, they’re merely stuck engaging in it. Consciously recognizing this defective behavior is, in my opinion, the source of red pill wisdom. Once this behavior is seen for what it is, the blue pill paradigm becomes observable, and the transition to the red pill paradigm is made.

An understanding of the male defect is vital for contextualizing feminist criticism of men. Our defect, for example, is why many feminists are partially correct when they point to demonstrating power as a male motivation. We display power to demonstrate our readiness to compensate for the infantilized female. Our defect is also the source of feminist complaints about “mansplaining.” Men engaging in “mansplaining” are largely attempting to demonstrate their knowledge and value in order to demonstrate their capability to compensate for the infantilized female. Additionally, the “fatherly” guardian status that results from our defect is why the feminists are superficially correct about patriarchy, but why they are also leaving out half the picture.

Where the feminist is completely wrong is where she believes that pre-feminist Western culture was in its totality a patriarchy. Since the traditional paradigm of pre-feminist Western culture was an expression of both the male and the female defects, patriarchy was only half the picture.

Let’s clarify what patriarchy means.

For the most part, patriarchy is simply a word to describe the male defect. On its own, however, patriarchy says exactly nothing about the female defect. If we’re to have a fair and balanced discussion on sex and gender, we need a word to address both defects. Let us therefore add the word infantriarchy to describe the female defect.

Patriarchy and infantriarchy are simple concepts that reflect a relationship of codependency between the male and female defects. If the male defect is over expressed in society, female infantilization is compelled, and patriarchy results. If the female defect is over expressed in society, male compensation is compelled, and infantriarchy results.

Thus, the traditional paradigm of pre-feminist Western culture wasn’t in its totality a patriarchy, because it was built around the expression of both the male and the female defects. The fact that there exist both males and females who wish to return to traditionalism proves this. The traditionalist female was thus perfectly happy to infantilize herself, and infantriarchy was a part of traditionalism that cannot be ignored.

The feminist response to this, of course, will be to claim that patriarchy infantilizes women and that the second concept is therefore unnecessary. To clarify this response, the feminist will essentially be claiming that the male defect is wholly to blame. This line of reasoning is problematic because it denies the existence of the female defect, and in doing so it assumes women are perfect and asserts that the defect necessarily exists solely within men.

This can only be described as hate.

Because feminism doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the female defect, it denies female complicity in traditionalism, and thus distorts the male defect of compensating into one of oppressing. Thus, feminists mistakenly believe that women were uniquely oppressed because they’re using half of a theoretical model to examine traditionalism.

The notion of female oppression becomes highly dubious when one considers the female defect. The female defect, for example, becomes apparent when a woman claims that women have always been the primary victims of war, despite the countless millions of men who have died. The female defect has led a woman to cry about being victimized over a t-shirt, and it has led a journalist to claim that MHRM efforts are based on “victim envy.” So it isn’t terribly surprising that the female defect might lead certain women to claim that human history was one long story of female oppression. It is simply an expression of the female defect. It is the female projecting her victimhood.

What then, is feminism?

To be fair, I have met a handful of feminists whose goals I thought were legitimate. To a significant extent, however, feminism is merely a sociopolitical platform for these defects, an arena for them to play in, and the cultural force which is expanding infantriarchy. Feminists claim their movement is about female equality, but I disagree. Being an expression of the female defect, feminism is merely a movement to express female victimhood; more specifically, it is an expression of female victimhood to compel sociopolitical male compensation with the humorous goal of preventing female victimhood.

This results in a merry-go-round to hell, wherein feminism actively entrenches the same value it seeks to fight.

Because feminism is essentially an expression of female victimhood working to end female victimhood, most feminists are stuck in the destructive convulsions of an individual fighting against a victim identity she has chosen for herself.

The nail in the coffin for our society is that the male defect supports and encourages this female behavior. The majority of feminists are fighting an identity they’ve chosen for themselves, one that makes them feel deeply unhappy and traumatized, and the majority of males, instead of criticizing them, are simply trying to compensate for them. The male’s drive to compensate for the infantilized female knows no bounds. If the female is expressing her oppression the male will seek to compensate. If the female is ruthlessly attacking the male’s identity and stripping him of his rights, the male will still seek to compensate.

It is important to understand that both defects must disappear, or neither one will. These two defects are codependent. Females must stop infantilizing themselves, and males must stop compensating for infantilized females. If the female defect isn’t addressed, then no matter how savagely the male defect is attacked, directly or indirectly, the problems with these defects will never be solved. One behavior compels the other, since men and women are and will always be two sides of the same coin. Men and women will evolve their consciousness together, or their consciousness will not evolve.

With this in mind, “patriarchal” expression of the male defect doesn’t disappear in an infantriarchy, it merely changes forms. Remember, in infantriarchy, male compensation is compelled. “White knights” and “manginas” are the expressions of patriarchy, because they are the expressions of the compelled male defect, and often this expression is so pathetic as to beggar belief.

This patriarchal behavior goes largely unnoticed by feminists because they don’t see the male defect directly for what it is. They arbitrarily define patriarchal behavior as authoritative, but they’re mistaken in this regard. Patriarchal behavior is any expression of the male defect. White knights and manginas are thus expressing patriarchal behavior because their behavior seeks to compensate for the female, and it thus encourages the female to continue expressing her victimhood and self-infantilization.

This is the reason some feminists are beginning to recognize and reject men like Hugo Schwyzer for what they are. Men like Schwyzer will never criticize women on any level, simply because men like Schwyzer aren’t remotely interested in equality. They are merely interested in validating their own puerile sexual identities by demonstrating their compensatory capacity. They are cowards, content to ignore real world suffering as they continue taking hits off the blue pill crack pipe. And they are ironically the very agents of patriarchy feminists denounce.

The profound irony of this is that feminism claims to oppose patriarchy while fiercely upholding it, and the MHRM hates the concept of patriarchy, but is currently the only cultural force actually fighting it.

Finally, an infantriarchy will be built around male blame. This is because the female defect leads her to project all authority on to the male, and this forms the basis for blaming him for all wrongdoing. In order to project victimhood, it is necessary for the female to cast the responsibility for her problems elsewhere. Thus, the more infantriarchal a society, the more male blame can be expected.

In our society, this blame is expressed in the feminist’s belief that equality can be achieved by examining “masculinities,” and by deconstructing “patriarchy.” It is also why the feminist believes men just need to shut up and listen to women in order for equality to happen; inequality, after all, was “men’s fault,” and men should shut up and let women fix it.

In late stage infantriarchy, men even become blamed for a woman’s feelings.

If a joke offends a woman, men are blamed. If a man says hello in an elevator in a way a woman dislikes, he is blamed for making her feel victimized. If a man approaches a woman in a bar and she doesn’t like it, he is blamed for making her feel bad, and society responds by prohibiting men from talking to women in this way. If a man looks at a woman who is half naked and it makes her feel bad, he is blamed for looking.

Since the purpose of feminism is largely to express victimhood, “victim blaming” becomes one of its tools. “Victim blaming” is simply another expression of male blame. It is a tool designed to protect female victimhood by savagely casting blame at any male who ever dares to question it.

Feminism does not seek to address either defect, it seeks to criticize male behavior while upholding the male defect and openly expressing the female one. Feminism thus upholds both patriarchy and infantriarchy. Since directly deconstructing and understanding both defects is a minimum prerequisite to promote equality between the sexes, feminism will never achieve equality on its own, however viciously it attacks men.

In my opinion, the MHRM sees these two defects for what they are, and criticizes both of them directly. The MHRM opposes feminism as an unrestrained expression of the female defect, and it opposes “white knights,” “manginas,” and the forces of chivalry as expressions of the male defect and enablers of the female defect. The MHRM opposes both patriarchy and infantriarchy.

For all its claims, feminism is not a progressive movement. Whatever its stated goals, feminism binds humanity to an archaic sexual identity. The MHRM is the socially progressive movement because it is spearheading a move toward greater self actualization for both men and women.

About Gordon Wadsworth

Gordon Wadsworth is a Canadian scientist who was also one of Western society's many butlers before swallowing the red pill. He has since traded in his service tray for a refusal to bow or comply, and now endeavors to FTSU.

View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • malcolm

    You nailed it.

    Feminist doctrine takes things to the level where organizations rush in to protect women who have committed the most horrible acts and attempt to paint them as a victim, yet seek to put struggling men in prison for being unable to keep up with child support payments.

    Infantriarchy is a great word.

  • oldfart

    Very nice,and illustrates why women speaking for men is just as offensive as a man reciting the vagina monologues.

    A big hairy beast of a man at the microphone,yodeling
    “My sacred womb,giver of all life.”

  • Near Earth Object

    * * * * *

  • http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com girlwriteswhat

    That was… awesome.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    50 years of gender feminist theory debunked, correction destroyed, in a single article.

  • donzaloog

    Great article.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Well done…

  • CandidIgloo

    This was a really excellent piece. It is nice to see the entirety of the underlying core problem (and solution) laid out so clearly.

  • crydiego

    Oh my god, I think this is true.
    One part that really struck a cord with me was, “The male defect leads him to compete with other males to demonstrate his primacy to females, and it ultimately turns him into a guardian,”
    It is true in my life that I have become a guardian. The one responsible for any unhappiness, any failures and yet it was I who provided the protections and comforts we have now.
    It is so hard to accept the concept that I have spent my life in the service of someone who may only feel contempt for me now. Feminism is creating the super infant; the super privileged.
    It is going to take some time for me to get over the sickness I’m feeling now.

    • Gordon Wadsworth

      I don’t know too much about your situation obviously, but I hope you never allow anyone to make you feel contempt for yourself.

  • Bewildered

    These defects mean that the female path of self-actualization is one of taking responsibility, and the male path of self-actualization is one of relinquishing responsibility.

    It is vitally important to recognize that the majority of males and females in our culture enjoy their dysfunction. The female has a puerile sexual identity validated by compelling a man to act on her behalf, and the male has a similarly puerile sexual identity validated by demonstrating his ability to act on her behalf. This is a drug that our species has been addicted to for millennia, and it is one we desperately need to cast aside. Moving past this behavior is the next step humanity must make to realize equality.

    We already have a name for this drug. It’s the blue pill. Those in the blue pill paradigm aren’t conscious of this behavior, they’re merely stuck engaging in it. Consciously recognizing this defective behavior is, in my opinion, the source of red pill wisdom. Once this behavior is seen for what it is, the blue pill paradigm becomes observable, and the transition to the red pill paradigm is made.

    THE HEART OF THE MATTER

  • ErnestoGuevara

    I agree 100%. One of the features human beings can enjoy is being able to correct behaviors that might had some sense in the remote past, but that make no sense today. Women and men, we all have a pending task to change our culture.

    This reminds me a lot of Esther Vilar writings about female puerile sexual identity, but with a deeper articulation regarding feminism and MRM.

    One funny thing about the concept “patriarchy” is that anything can be attributed to it. Many feminists, especially men, when evidence about men oppression under “patriarchy” becomes too heavy in any debate, retreat to “…this is because patriarchy oppresses men too…”.

    So any fact, no matter if it punishes men and favors women, is charged in the account of “patriarchy”. This way the concept becomes invincible and the neurotic feminist tale starts again and again.

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

    Wow. I mean WOW. Gordon, this article is just about perfect; you’ve caught all the loose threads here and woven them into something comprehensible. Complex and simple at the same time, with the individual complexities all occurring within, and adhering to, two very simple imperatives – the Female Imperative and the Male Imperative, both of which have warped into “defects.”

    This should be required reading. Everywhere.

  • feeriker

    Spot on, Gordon!

  • Tamerlame

    This article would make a good introduction for blue pillers.

    • Fredrik

      I nominate it for inclusion in the Introductory Articles section.

  • http://gravatar.com/scatmaster scatmaster

    If a man looks at a woman who is half naked and it makes her feel bad, he is blamed for looking.

    Actually the idiots consider that rape.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      Scatters.

      You should be wary with that clam on a stick mate. Get you messed up real bad aye.

      • scatmaster

        It bites but so do I.

  • GQuan

    What’s the term for a person who believes the male human is inherently superior, powerful, competent, potent and responsible, and the female inherently inferior, incompetent, weak and ineffectual?

    A feminist.

    And if that doesn’t make sense to a reader, then they really need to step back and take a good look at the discussion taking place. As this article so effectively notes, the great benefit of places like this is that they give people ground on which to stand and look at the usual paradigms from without. Agreeing with what’s said here is not the point – simply by offering a place that allows for a clear view of the feminist/traditionalist norms, sites like this are doing good.

    Great article. Really outstanding.

  • Dr. F

    Good one Gordon.

    Feminism now looks all the more like the barren windswept cement garden it is.

    Thanks.

  • Xayadvara

    As Classic as Usual! I never expect anything less from Gordon.

  • TPH

    Great Observations and article Gordon. Bring a lot of ideas and concepts into a single article. Thanks for writing it, it was an enjoyable read.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    “The female path of self-actualization is one of taking responsibility, and the male path of self-actualization is one of relinquishing responsibility.”

    Succinct.

    The infantriarchy is a very real thing… it reminds of Esther Vilar’s 1970 book The Manipulated Man where she focuses on the same female defect:

    [Vilar] “Woman’s greatest ideal is a life without work or responsibility – yet who leads such a life but a child? A child with appealing eyes, a funny little body with dimples and sweet layers of baby fat and clear, taut skin – that darling minature of an adult. It is a child that woman imitates – its easy laugh, its helplessness, its need for protection. A child must be cared for; it cannot look after itself. And what species does not, by natural instinct, look after its offspring? It must – or the species will die out. With the aid of skillfully applied cosmetics, designed to preserve that precious baby look; with the aid of helpless exclamations such as ‘Ooh’ and ‘Ah’ to denote astonishment, surprise, and admiration; with inane little bursts of conversation, women have preserved this ‘baby look’ for as long as possible so as to make the world continue to believe in the darling, sweet little girl she once was, and she relies on the protective instinct in man to make him take care of her.”

    I’m reminded also of an essay by James Hillman on what he calls the child archetype:

    [Hillman] “Exposure, vulnerability, abandonment are its very nature. Its defense is mainly that of innocence. Without structured walls, lost in the woods or afloat on the waters in a frail basket, its predilection is to remain protected by its own helplessness. Its style of defense, of paranoia, is innocence: “I don’t know”, “I didn’t realize”, “I didn’t mean anything”, “It just happened”. ['Abandoning the Child', chapter in Loose Ends, Spring Publications 1975]

  • Redfield

    Wow, crystal, pristiine … seminal …. its going into my “all time greats folder” …

  • Bombay

    My experience has been that I meet what seem to be responsible women, but as soon as a relationship ensues, they gradually become an infant and will fight to a assert their inner infant. When I do not go there, then the relationship ends.

  • Fredrik

    Great article! Not so sure about the neologism. (To me, “infantriachy” sounds like a family structure headed by infantry.) Perhaps infantilarchy or infantocracy.

    • August Løvenskiolds

      Victimiarchy? Infeminarchy?

      BTW, fantastic article, brilliantly done, Gordon. And the more feminists cry out against this article, the more they prove you correct. This is a meme we need to keep hammering home, because they’ll have no legitimate defense against it.

  • http://gravatar.com/externalangst externalangst

    Until society recognizes the Wadsworthian vision, it will continue to be ever more dumb, nasty and dangerous.

    The sexual imperatives as described in the Infanriarchy / Patriarchy (IP) are defects in the modern world.

    The IP has many supporters. The average male may seemingly have more reason to change the IP system. As we have seen through feminism, powerful men and many women have strengthened and extended the IP; as it has been to their advantage.

    The feminist project is retrograde, undemocratic and unjust, that is, dumb, nasty and dangerous. The consciousness of women and men needs to be raised with the help of female responsibility; and male rights and reproductive technologies.

  • Andy Bob

    Brilliantly crafted article, Mr Wadsworth. It is so true that most males and females enjoy their respective dysfunctions and the sense of power they derive from them. Yet, as you have explained so eloquently, these dysfunctions impede the self-actualization of those who buy into them.

    Your analysis explains why feminism seems to be engaging in a circular battle against itself. It is a battle which incurs so many acsualties, but can never be won. I suspect that those who profit from it already know this.

    Well done.

    • Kimski

      Can’t upvote due to the rebuild, but you know what I’m thinking anyway.

      Same goes to you, Mr. Wadsworth.
      Thumbs up.

    • brk2108

      I’m reminded of a Zen saying “Man stands in his own shadow and wonders why it’s dark.” Feminists may want to achieve a better society and cast off obsolete gender roles, but they are actually reinforcing them. They have the wrong perspective. Instead of looking towards a positive, bright future they focus on the darkness.

  • scatmaster

    Hey Kimski: Use the old login. You can then upvote. Worked for me.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-login.php

    It seems to be a little slow accepting the vote but as I said I logged in that way instead of through wordpress.

    • Turbo

      Yep, it sure will work and I just up voted you to prove it

      :-)

      • scatmaster

        Back at ya.
        Now I need to get back to my raping.
        The things I do for Elam.

        • Kimski

          Thanks, Scatters, you savior of Kimski’s.
          Everything is back to normal now.

          Back to the pillaging in the wake of your raping.
          The things we do for Elam.

          • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

            C’mon, guys, hurry up and finish your pillaging, the tide is cresting, the wind is veering, and the long-ships are shifting on the beach!

            (Plunder before you burn … When will they ever learn?)

  • Codebuster

    A most important article. The idea of a patriarchy emerging from a vacuum all by itself is the most pig-ignorant piece of nonsense ever foisted on humanity.

    One scary aspect of the Infantriarchy is that it carries with it the power and influence of The Matriarchy. It is the primary nurturer that first defines the things that matter during the first 4 years of a child’s life, when 90% of their brain develops through the experiences of that child. An infantriarchy raising children… now what can be scarier than that?

  • Gordon Wadsworth

    Thanks guys :D

  • onca747

    Excellent article. So what we have here is a dysfunctional co-dependence between the genders which has been going on since forever.. but only one party (men) get the blame. Sounds like every relationship I’ve ever heard of.

  • Shrek6

    Well said Gordon. Well said!

  • Seele

    Gordon, well done!

    It also goes on to show that feminism has no end-game at all, because its objectives are self-contradictory. Think about a machine which was designed and built to perform one purpose only: to pull itself apart. That’s getting quite close, I think.

  • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=723002896 napocapo69

    Brilliant

  • josephrobertson

    Gordon, thank you so much for this article. It really distills down the issues I’ve been wrestling with lately, and explains it all 1000x better than I ever could have.

    I’ve been reading all these feminist bloggers and getting overwhelmed by how much they contradict themselves, how much the whole movement is a paradox, and I couldn’t see a way to overcome that and break through to sanity. I believe you’ve lit the path very well here.

    Brilliant.

  • Never Blue Again

    Great . Simply Great.
    Gordon the Sniper.

    • August Løvenskiolds

      If one can snipe with nukes, then Gordon’s packing plutonium.

  • Jay

    Beautifully spoken Gordo, beautifully spoken. Manginas… they’re everywhere, everywhere imaginable.

  • tallwheel

    Wow. So simply put. Feminists should read this – really they should.

    I imagine the reaction most of them will have, though, will ironically prove one of your main points: the tendency to avoid assigning blame to females.

    Unlike feminism, the MRM is willing to acknowledge the flaws of both sexes.

  • Klar

    simple elegance, a masterpiece – raw and nuanced both at the same time

    this needs to be distributed from airplanes, painted on sidewalks

    wow, just wow – what an instant classic

    thank you Gordon Wadsworth!

  • StarsDie

    One of the best I’ve read on A Voice for Men. Good job.

  • Sanity123

    A great article! Personally, my former marriage was co-dependent. My self-actualization has led me to refuse to maintain any relationship with a woman who does not take self-responsbility. I have been fortunate to have met a woman 18 months ago who is also self-actualized and IS taking responsibility for her life, feelings, etc. She has this great line… Sometimes I need to “pull up my big girl panties…” It very nicely fits into the wider construct of infantriarchy!

  • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

    If there were a Nobel Prize for men’s-rights literature …

    The infantriarchy, or infantilarchy (or maybe puerarchy would fit better; ‘puer-‘ as a root means child) is the missing link, the hidden side, to this whole mess.

    You can’t ‘empower’ a child by picking her up and carrying her, by coddling and swaddling her, by spoiling her and giving in to her tantrums … and The Feminist Mistaque is made crystal clear when you bare this ‘Infantile Imperative.’

    A powerful argument, IMHO, for ‘going my own way.’

    Bravissimo, Gordon Wadsworth, Doctor of FTSU!

  • yinyangbalance

    Although on a fundamental level I agree with this article, good points aside, I urge the MRM and MHRM to distance itself from the temptations of using Feminist re-defined terms like “Patriarchy”.

    Everytime I read the word “Patriarchy” in this article acknowledging the Feminist redefinition, I cringed.

    Being that MRM and MHRM is a direct response to Feminist injustice, its is no wonder why MRM/MHRM sometimes works within the Feminist realms and definition.

    I challenge anyone that uses the term Patriarchy for what it means.

    I feel strongly compelled to inform all the readers of this article that Patriarchy does NOT equal ‘the oppression of everyone by males”. That is a Feminist redefinition which they didn’t have to work too hard to accomplish since most people heard the term for the first time from the lips of Feminists.

    Patriarchy specifically means, however, “The legal and moral authority of fathers”. Thats what it means. It is a system run by fathers, men that have children. There ARENT very many Patriarchal societies in existence today, just like there aren’t very many Matriarchal societies. Both are rarities. Christianity masquerades as Patriarchy by calling their priests “father” even though they have never fathered anyone its just a title, and they use that title to gain some sort of appeal to authority which Fathers should have. They teach their followers to follow the man of the house, but thats where it ends, because the man of the house is taking orders from the false Patriarchy which is the church. Not ever in the history of Christianity has a REAL father had much more say in society over the church or over other women at that, they are all sheep in the Churches eyes, and their appeals weigh in equally, which is not much at all!

    I’m not condoning or encouraging Patriarchy, although in my house it is an absolute Patriarchy by nature since I’m a single dad. If my children start to disrepect me, you bet I put my hands on my waist and say “YOU DO REALIZE YOU ARE TALKING TO YOUR FATHER DONT YOU?!” Patriarchy is a primitive fundamental system of government mostly seen in tribes where Fathers have the say over society, laws, morals, they usually will convene somewhere and discuss the issues and solutions as fathers. If they have no children and have no family, they have little say. This is NOT seen in developed societies. There are just as many primitive societies where its the mothers that have the say in a similar fashion, where the mother owns the land and the cattle, and the mothers convene and make decisions. Many more are run by elders of either sex, Elderarchy for lack of a better term.

    Patriarch DOES NOT mean ‘men ruling the world’, because not all men are fathers!

    Real Patriarchy looks nothing like the what Feminism demands and doesnt really exist here; just like Feminism has been desperately trying to redefine RAPE as normal heterosexual activity, Feminism has made Rape into a joke by doing so. And the same with Patriarchy, how many articles are on AVFM alone talking about the invisible omnipotent Patriarchy? Give me a break!

    Its time to eject the Feminist notions. Being the opposite of Feminism doesn’t mean we should be their counterpart. Like some Devil worshippers that say they aren’t christian because they worship Satan…well any worshipper of Satan is Christian since Satan is a Christian concept!

    I may get a million negative votes here, but I urge everyone to start thinking a bit about this!

    • Gordon Wadsworth

      Personally, I’m less interested in terminology and more interested in trying to figure out how men and women have found ourselves in the dysfunction we’re in. But, believe me, I definitely understand your objection to the word patriarchy, I also feel like it’s a word that has been wielded unfairly against men (and isn’t clearly defined). I suppose the word could be substituted with another, but I tend to hate excessive jargon. There’s also a certain power in shoving an opponent’s concept back in their face.

      • yinyangbalance

        Patriarchy to me is pretty clearly defined, it is in the word. Pater means Father in Latin and in many Hindu dialects. Archy is a reference to legal and moral authority. Literally it means Father’s-Rules. Feminism has a war on men and they started with fathers, their campaign has been very successful given the increasing rate of fatherless homes in USA alone. Anti-Patriarchy means against Fathers, which they are fundamentally.

        Its very similar to the Nazi redefinition of Jew to help them remove certain Jews from power. They called many people Jew when they weren’t even Jewish! Many acts of injustice were called “Jew”. They made sure to use the word Jew for every injustice in society. Its part of dumbing down their followers and increasing the support to attack Jews, and to spread the Hysteria. We should not take part in that. I’m sure if I had a Nazi speech in front of me that talked about Jews, I could just replace the word Jew with Patriarchy and get a Feminist speech as a result, and if read out loud to a Feminist audience I would get a standing ovation!

        • August Løvenskiolds

          No, It is like those of African ancestry reclaiming the “n-word” to rob it of its power to oppress.

          As a proud patriarch, I demand women stop playing the victim, take responsibility, and grow the fuck up.

          • yinyangbalance

            August, let me ask you, are you a father, do you have children?
            If so I will give you a +1 and support your comment.

            If not, you don’t deserve to call yourself a proud patriarch.

          • August Løvenskiolds

            @yinyang –

            The fact that I am a biological father (and I am) should have nothing to do with whether I can reclaim the slur as a point of pride in order to rob it of its power to harm men.

            Your literalism is touching but misplaced – words can and do grow beyond their literal root meanings.

            The tasty treat the “egg cream” contains neither egg nor cream.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cream

            One drives on the parkway, and parks in the driveway.

            Feminism, defined as “equality for women”, now means the destruction of civilization, because civilization was built by the evil men of patriarchy.

            Feminists abuse “patriarchy” and men alike. That abuse must end.

          • yinyangbalance

            Reading your reply below (and I can’t reply to it directly) I will reply here. I support your claim to patriarch.

            But indeed, The false Patriarchy is evil, men that masquerade as fathers when they are in fact no ones father, and in fact are pedofiles, all of which denounce homosexuality when in fact many of those speaking are homosexuals themselves, are in fact evil and are in fact WHAT THEY HATE. They have gone around enslaving people, murdering people, molesting our children, begging for money, robbing natives of gold, the list goes on!

            Your examples of names that have no literal meaning anymore means nothing here since there are plenty of examples of literals clearly being misused by certain groups. In some countries they call all Soda Pop “Coke” or “Cocacola”. In pretty much all of Latin America “vegetarian” simply means one who doesnt eat red meat! Those terms are misuse of literal meanings, and anyone in this country (usa) would be quick to correct them if we all spoke the same language.

            These are misuse of words to serve a ‘general’ idea, but so what? Its being used wrong. Not only that, Patriarchy is being maliciously misused so its an exception to the innocent deviation of literal definition. And English in itself is a hodgepodge language with a Germanic root, but pretends to be a descendent of Latin, and its filled with odd exceptions so I wont make any excuses for it anyhow.

            My point is that Patriarchy has been misused for evil purposes first by the church (to rule everyone, and to remove the power of true fathers) and by Feminism, to demonize fatherhood by using the word in place of injustices.

            Its time we start identifying Patriarchy for what it is, and it is non existent in this society, which puts all of the Feminist theories in the myth busted junk yard! There is NO Patriarchy in USA, not in Canada, Not in the UK or Australia which is the breeding grounds for Feminism. There has never been, and perhaps never will be! Feminism is chasing ghosts and conjured up false accusations! Thats a fact!

            I agree its time to take back the term Patriarchy, its definition belongs to us fathers not those heartless witches.

      • strix

        @Gordon, @yinyangbalance,

        You both have good points to make. Using a term defined by feminists to counter their own arguments has value, but being limited by those definitions (particularly when it defines something we don’t think is real) is counter-productive.

        I wouldn’t get too hung up on its precise definition, because like standards, the wonderful thing is that there are so many to choose between. Feminists routinely switch definitions mid-argument anyway, so holding them to their own (or the dictionary) definition isn’t likely to do much.

        If there’s a word I’d like to see less of, it’s ‘mangina’. It’s puerile, derogatory, and adds nothing constructive to an argument. In fact, it’s worse than useless, because it has the potential to destroy an otherwise sound argument by committing ad hominem.

        Attacking and insulting the arguer never achieved anything constructive.

  • http://gravatar.com/johntate1 MGTOW-man

    Said, in strictly literary terms, but G. Wadsworth, you are a man after my own heart!

    “This is why the self-actualized male sees competing for female validation as idiotic;…”.
    —I have experienced this over and over in my life.

    Thank you for your wit. Awesome!

    If not done already, but may I suggest this excellent piece be posted in the “must read” section. Knowing it is “full” already, but can it expand? Since this writing is very educational and revealing, it is paramount to getting outsiders and lurkers to really understand us and why we are doing what we are doing.

    “The female has a puerile sexual identity validated by compelling a man to act on her behalf, and the male has a similarly puerile sexual identity validated by demonstrating his ability to act on her behalf. This is a drug that our species has been addicted to for millennia, and it is one we desperately need to cast aside. Moving past this behavior is the next step humanity must make to realize equality.”
    —Indeed equality can not be achieved until this is realized, simply because the vote + dynamics between men and women = female superiority =commonsense. (Yes, women should retain the vote, but that means something ELSE must change in order for true equality to even be possible. With this in mind, in virtually everything I say on this site, is why I am not filled with hatred, but misunderstood…and probably by some of our own too).

    “This can only be described as hate.”
    —You got that right!!! This is why I so often say here that …”The truth is not hatred, but oooh, how the truth is hated.” You know, it seems like what I say here on AVfM is really the same thing that many others are too. Imagine that!

    “Because feminism doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the female defect, it denies female complicity in traditionalism, and thus distorts the male defect of compensating into one of oppressing. Thus, feminists mistakenly believe that women were uniquely oppressed because they’re using half of a theoretical model to examine traditionalism.”
    —Their feelings in action! What else could explain how obviously wrong they are, but they do it anyway…daring us to notice! Punishing us when we do…if we let them (wink, wink).

    “What then, is feminism?”
    —Feminism is feelings awry and controlling!

    —“Men like Schwyzer will never criticize women on any level, simply because men like Schwyzer aren’t remotely interested in equality. They are merely interested in validating their own puerile sexual identities by demonstrating their compensatory capacity. They are cowards, content to ignore real world suffering as they continue taking hits off the blue pill crack pipe. And they are ironically the very agents of patriarchy feminists denounce.”
    —worth repeating!
    —I know I am blunt and mean, but I call these men duped, had, customers, cowards, and “hard-wiring” excuse-makers. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO GET MEN TO SEE IT—WHICH IS BOTH OF OUR GOAL.

    “Since the purpose of feminism is largely to express victimhood, “victim blaming” becomes one of its tools. “Victim blaming” is simply another expression of male blame. It is a tool designed to protect female victimhood by savagely casting blame at any male who ever dares to question it.”
    —This is why they think—really believe— that men with wit like we have, “hate women”. I haven’t been able to see this as clearly as you are saying, but I did/do see it.

    AND SMART MEN OF YESTERYEAR DID NOT SEE THIS COMING? They might not have been able to put their fingers on it and express it like Mr. Wadsworth has so eloquently done, but echoing this article is what they were saying! Feminism wouldn’t let anyone listen—until now, thanks to men who tell the truth and find such behavior most noble of all!

    How can we get this educational article into the hands of every boy and girl? We must work from this angle! Feminists are, with their lies amidst their oblivion…but from the wrong perspective with the wrong messages.

    “50 years of gender feminist theory debunked, correction destroyed, in a single article.” Paul Elam
    —This article really should be on the BIG LIST

  • http://gravatar.com/imantiu iamantiu

    This may be the most important article written about gender relations…. ever.

  • Trebor

    This is a startlingly good analysis.

  • Dylan

    wow. There’s so much cultural bias in this that i couldn’t separate the good bits everyone above seems to be raving about from the blatant misrepresentations, ignorance, and incorrect binaration (made up word in honour of author) of gender. Maybe next time.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Wow, I hear you, Dylan! It seems that you could not ever separate them well enough to fucking name any of them.

      Pfft.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Oh do please elaborate! This sounds so very intriguing!

    • Near Earth Object

      The cultural bias argument is a double-edged sword, Dylan.

      Band-Aid?

      :)

    • ErnestoGuevara

      Wow, I am so ironic, I point out so many errors, wow, and mention so many issues, blatant ignorance, incorrect bias, cultural binaration, raving misrepresentations, wow. I’m so, so above you, wow, you’re so, so below me, wow.

      Bow, wow!

  • http://notsoequal.com Greg Canning

    Great article Gordon! Interesting article along similar lines in the Guardian

    “The masculinity debate: no wonder men stay out of it”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/21/masculinity-debate-men-fear-ridicule-matriarchy

  • Jim Tompson

    Gordon’s essay is an excellent portrayal of the underlying pathology which overwhelmingly characterises relations between the sexes. The awful truth in plain language. Wonderful!
    Peter Wright’s reference to Esther Vital’s 1969 book “The Manipulated Man” (which I just read since reading this), also has a similar, plain speak quality along with similar devastating clarity and honesty. Much of our society and culture is maintained by a thin tissue of lies and deceptions and it takes iconoclastic revelations like the themes expressed in Gordon’s essay and Esther’s book, to begin to dispel some of these effectively. Only then can healthier relationships be generally possible between the sexes.
    As others have noted above, this essay would make an powerful contribution to anyones education, young or old (like me).

  • http://gravatar.com/yourlesbianfriend yourlesbianfriend

    There are three problems with this theory that I can see. One is that these male and female “defects” are introduced as being equally bad. Except it becomes clear immediately that the female “defect” is the worser problem, and the instigator for the male “defect,” which means that both are not equally bad, since the male “defect” would not exist without the female “defect.” I get that this is the point, since blaming women for blaming men somehow evens the score. The problem is that it doesn’t line up factually and historically. It pre-supposes some chicken and the egg solution that we have no proof for: that women decided to be weak victims without provocation, just one day sat down and gave up all agency for the fun of it or out of laziness, and then the men were forced to step in and save the day. They felt compelled to be heroic. A debilitating defect for sure. *rolls eyes* And this guy claims that women are the ones who refuse to take responsibility! Ha. This presupposition by itself blows that idea out of the water.

    The second problem is the notion that infantriarchy is somehow the same as feminism, that they reinforce and support each other. If the pre-feminist world was so blissfully drugged on defect-utopia, with victims and patriarchs happy as clowns like everybody apparently chose to be, what would the motivation for the women’s movement have been? What would motivate a woman who seeks to be a victim to stand up and demand the right to have responsibility–to vote for instance, or own property, or keep her children. Without voting rights or any legal identity, women were perfect victims! Why tarnish such perfection with legal responsibility? Why march for the right to have their voices heard when they’re supposedly so happy in the dark?? I could ask these questions all day, moving throughout the movement all the way up until the present. Feminism does “blame” patriarchy for victimizing women, but by speaking up about it and bothering to even place blame in the first place, they are asserting that it is wrong and not their choice. If victimhood were the choice of women as this theory proposes, their would be no reason to fight against it. It makes no logical sense.

    The third problem is the idea that this male “defect” of compensation is some heavy, loathsome burden. The very idea is absurd. It’s like a king complaining about having to sit on his throne every day and make decisions about his kingdom. Awww what a boring job! Awww everybody is putting pressure on him! Awww what a big responsibility! Awww how will he ever make it through the day without… falling asleep? Being glared at? Getting a lecture? What exactly are these stakes he has to worry about? As king, he could designate the paper signing to some clerk and go have a margarita… or he could read the papers himself as is his duty and, ohhhh I don’t know, decide the fate of an accused felon, decide the property rights of a Lord who requests more land, decide who gets the privilege of learning to read and who doesn’t, decide who to give food and money to and who to leave to their own devices. It’s really hard making all those decisions. There’s a lot of people counting on him. But he feels good about it at the end of the day. He feels proud, and that’s his flaw. That’s his defect. That he likes power and responsibility and feels compelled to have it. Hmmm. Is nobody else picking up on this rich irony?

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      “Feminism does “blame” patriarchy for victimizing women, but by speaking up about it and bothering to even place blame in the first place, they are asserting that it is wrong and not their choice.”

      Exactly. They are creating a new victimhood narrative.

      “If victimhood were the choice of women as this theory proposes, their would be no reason to fight against it. ”

      You just said yourself. Feminism creates a new form of victimhood by blaming patriarchy.

      “It’s like a king complaining about having to sit on his throne every day and make decisions”

      False analogy. Mostly because you’ve mischaracterized the life of kings and other male rulers.

      Do you know how often they died because someone didn’t like the way they ruled? The average length of time a Roman emperor sat on his throne(prior to christianity) before being killed was _FOUR YEARS_.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Oh so much! But I’m only going to address a little of it.

      No the female defect is not the worse (did you fail 5th grade English?) problem. The male defect does two horrible things. It rewards the female defect by accommodating and forgiving (protection.) And it damages men by pressuring them (internally and among peers) to sacrifice their health and their very lives *for luxuries instead of only for survival.* Neither tendency, providing resources and accepting resources, would likely have grown into “defects” had they not fed EACH OTHER.

      Count on a feminist to presume that it’s all about the women.

      Infantriarchy and feminism are almost exactly the same thing. Feminism has demanded “rights” with no correlating “responsibilities” – no responsibility to make sure they are not infringing on the rights of others (men.) That would make them privileges instead of rights. I don’t see women protesting for the right to be 50% of coal miners or truck drivers, do you? Yet feminists seem to think it’s perfectly appropriate that society make it easier for them to become 50% of CEOs. Feminism demands “rights” (privileges) for women by convincing society that women are being “held back,” that women are helpless victims with no agency. How is that not infantilization? “We need help to become CEOs because we can’t do it on our own! Boo hoo!” And no there is no “Patriarchy” holding women down, which leads to your last (and most ridiculous) point:

      Very few men are kings. Most men are servants and slaves to kings, and get to make decisions like, “Is having a SAHM for a wife worth dying of black lung at age 45?” WTF makes you think men have all this power? The only “power” most men have is to choose between accepting contempt and shaming from society for REFUSING to take on the obligations that women would put on them, or accepting those very obligations.

      You are utterly deluded.

      • Bewildered

        ” You are utterly deluded.”

        Unfortunately she’s not the only one, thanks to Women’s Studies garbage!

    • http://gravatar.com/jq747 onca747

      YLF I don’t have anything to add to the other replies, other than this: You started off with some almost cogent arguments, but then you devolved straight into the tired old victim narrative so favoured by feminists, by making the ludicrous claim that all men live like kings. You’re too self-absorbed to even open your eyes, and see how many more men are killed and maimed at their “kingly” work than women are, or how many more men are homeless, for starters. If you want an example of how feminism is infantile at its core, I suggest you re-read your own post.

    • http://gravatar.com/wadsworthemmons Gordon Wadsworth

      I agree with what typhonblue and Suzanne said, but I’d add one thing. Your accusation that I’m saying the female “defect” is the worse problem isn’t particularly accurate.

      “…relationship of codependency between the male and female defects. If the male defect is over expressed in society, female infantilization is compelled, and patriarchy results. If the female defect is over expressed in society, male compensation is compelled, and infantriarchy results.”

      The problematic male behavior isn’t dependent on the problematic female behavior. Not necessarily. In a fully “patriarchal” society where the problematic male behavior is hyper expressed, the female behavior becomes dependent on the male behavior. The male behavior leads and the female behavior becomes compelled.

      When I look at our society right now I see the problematic female behavior leading and the male behavior being compelled.

      The way I see it we have four choices. We can have traditionalism, where these two “defects” are in an equilibrium of sorts, we can have a society where the male defect leads, we can have a society where the female defect leads, or we can start thinking about critiquing the underlying problematic behavior itself.

      Personally, I think the way forward is choice #4.

      Thanks for your criticism.

      • Bewildered

        LOL! See what happens when you critique at the link below.

  • Bewildered

    http://alturl.com/49jgu

    Feelings matter more than the truth in an Infantriarchy. The Infant is never wrong,its hypoagency is socially approved !

    ETA: Please read the comments on the article. The same old emotional BS.