legend viking helmet horns 538

The World’s Fastest Patriarchy Disproof

Feminists often chatter about ‘Patriarchy’ as if it is an indisputable fact of life. Rarely do they acknowledge anything to the contrary. It can be time-consuming and difficult to put together a factual, adequately sourced, eloquent argument, especially since it’s so blatantly obvious to anyone with common sense, and your arguments will likely be cherry picked, ignored, or blocked. So this article is essentially a handy guide to disproving patriarchy, very quickly.

Patriarchy is defined as a system in which all of the societal power is held by men as a class, and is used to oppress women as a class.

This is an interesting theory, but does not hold up to any real scrutiny or critical thinking.

For the purposes of quick dismantling, I will split societal power into four areas, or spheres.

The spheres are social, political, economic, and educational. The group which controls the majority of these spheres is the group with the power. Feminists claim that the group with control is men. Let’s see how that holds up to some critical thinking. Hint: Not well.

First, Educational. In the educational sphere it is clear that women have the power. They are more likely to be in education, less likely to drop out of education, more likely to get degrees and finish their education, more likely to teach, and more likely to be on decision-making boards concerning education.

Verdict: Females have the power.

Second, Political. In the political sphere, women still have more power. Women are the majority of the electorate in the majority of states. In a democratic system, the will of the majority is the will that is enforced as law. Therefore, women as a class have more political power than men as a class. Just because women don’t choose to use this power to elect other women does not mean they do not have the power. If every woman in America wanted a female president, there would be a female president. If every man in America wanted a male president, there would not be a male president. In the UK, where Parliamentary Sovereignty and a lack of a codified constitution allow any law to be made, even ones which contravene basic human rights, women could literally institute any law they wanted as long as they all agreed upon it.

Verdict: Females have the power.

Thirdly, moving onto the Economic sphere. Despite producing and being responsible for the existence of less than 50% of the US’ GDP (Gross Domestic Product), an estimated 63% of it is controlled by women. Yes, women control over half of the US’ GDP, despite not producing even half of it. That means that they control not only their own money but some of men’s money, too.

Verdict: Females have the power.

Finally the Social sphere. More difficult to quantify, but just as easy to understand. All throughout society there are obligations for men that place power in female hands. The obligation of chivalry, carrying with it protection, financial support, emotional support and submission to a female whim. The obligation of instigating a relationship, placing all risk of rejection on male shoulders. The obligation of trust, meaning that men feel forced to believe women in the face of all evidence. This, combined with the undeniable fact that issues affecting men are given less support than those affecting women, such as domestic abuse, rape, alimony or any number of other things, shows a lack of male power.

Verdict: Females have the power.

Now, the Social sphere is the only one which I can see being contested, as it cannot be factually quantified, but even if the social sphere were male controlled, that would still be 3 spheres under female control, a majority. Thus meaning: women would still have the majority of control in society.

So no, we don’t live in a patriarchy.

One final point would be that just because women have this power does not mean they all exercise it, as we can see clearly in the world. Just because women can vote women in, does not mean they do, for example. But power is not dependent on use, simply possibility of use. Even if women all sat in the home as housewives voting for men and never exercising any of these powers, they would still have the power.

SOURCES:
Women in Education: http://collegestats.org/articles/2012/08/9-signs-we-have-a-boy-crisis/
Women and GDP: http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2
Women and the Electorate: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

About Josh O'Brien

Josh O'Brien is a 17 year old Sociology student from the UK who loves to write and makes youtube videos from an MRA perspective. He has one novel currently released, Supercenaries, and is working on another.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Lee Church

    Thanks for the article, very straightforward

    • http://youtube.com/user/therealjoshobrien Josh O’Brien

      That was the aim, thanks :)

      • Politically Incorect

        Brilliant Josh !

      • Greg

        Yeah well done mate.

  • Daniel

    brilliant.

  • https://twitter.com/TicklishQuill Isaac T. Quill

    Now all that is needed is the easy read version for the real hard nuts.

    • Dagda Mór

      Pictorialise and meme it!

      • https://twitter.com/TicklishQuill Isaac T. Quill

        Will it be easy read enough for the averagely educated genders studies student? The Profs are irredeemable, but the students will need to be targeted by reading age and IQ: Which ever is lower.

  • Draigo Luther

    Great article: I have question though: GDP Gross Domestic product: Is that in any related to disposable income being spent? I thought I read somewhere that women in this country spend about 70% of the disposable income in the country. Additonal thought: I would walk around department stores (or really any big chain stores, that is not Lowes or Home Depot) and find that the majority of the products or sections of the store is marketed towards women and not men. Not complaining about it. Just an observation I have kind of noticed as of late.
    How much of the US GDP does women produce?

    • Angelic Armadillo

      Ah, well firstly, it /is/ related, but it’s not an exact trade, no. I couldn’t find an actual spent income statistic when I was writing this, but I would think it’s still a majority female number.
      As for how much women produce, studies vary but they usually place it around the high 30s/low to mid 40s.
      -Josh

      • Stu

        So tell us Josh, what are your observations about how blue pill the young men of today are? Are the majority of them pussy begging manginas willing to do and say and support anything for female approval, or are there growing numbers who are just giving the selfish entitled bitches the finger?

        How awake to how fucked up things are for men are the young men of today?

        I’ll brace myself for the bad news now

      • Draigo Luther

        Thanks for your response, Josh and welcome to a real human rights movement. A good counter point to the gender wage gap is the basic fact that women spend more disposable income on luxery goods and products then men do. How can this be true if women earn less…..It is because the spend a significant portion of the Men’s disposable income…Brilliant!!!!! (God, I feel like I’m in an old Guiness commerical)
        Anyways Great Article and all the best to you.

      • Murphy

        • Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the United States financial wealth. – MassMutual Financial Group–2007

        • Fifty-plus American women are the healthiest, wealthiest and most active generation of women in history. – Demographics by Mark Miller

        • Of the 743 women of wealth interviewed with at least $3 million in investable assets, 61.2% accumulated their fortunes through corporate employment, their own or a family business or a professional practice. 38.8% of the women had married into or inherited their money. – Women of Wealth, 2004, by Russ Alan Prince and Hannah Shaw Grove

        • High-net-worth women account for 39% of the country’s top wealth earners; 2.5 million of them have combined assets of $4.2 trillion. More than 1.3 million women professionals and executives earn in excess of $100,000 annually. 43% of Americans with more than $500,000 in assets are female – MassMutual Financial Group–2007

        • Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents and husband. The Boomer woman is a consumer that luxury brands want to resonate with. – Claire Behar, Senior Partner and Director, New Business Development, Fleishman-Hillard New York

    • RSDavies

      You might find this article interesting
      http://www.trendsight.com/content/view/40/204/
      You rightly identify that the highest value & greatest proportion of retail space is given over to women.
      If you look further you will notice that the layouts are different. Men go in knowing what they want, buy it & leave. Women progress like grazers moving from one succulent offering to the next, nibbling at this and that upon a whim. To many men’s minds female retail space is profoundly & disturbingly alien due to its apparent chaotic layout, it’s one of the reasons why some men dislike going shopping with their partners. Mens retail space is ordered by taxonomies; all shirts together, all screwdrivers, rules, chisels ordered by size. etc etc.
      It’s a really complex field reflecting men & womens differences, and fascinating.

  • Sulla

    “Second, Political. In the political sphere, women still have more power. Women are the majority of the electorate in the majority of states. In a democratic system, the will of the majority is the will that is enforced as law. Therefore, women as a class have more political power than men as a class. Just because women don’t choose to use this power to elect other women does not mean they do not have the power. If every woman in America wanted a female president, there would be a female president. If every man in America wanted a male president, there would not be a male president. In the UK, where Parliamentary Sovereignty and a lack of a codified constitution allow any law to be made, even ones which contravene basic human rights, women could literally institute any law they wanted as long as they all agreed upon it.

    Verdict: Females have the power.”

    Weakest part of the article. (Still very good.) The problem is you are assuming the democracy functions like the state claims it does. Please don’t really have a choice in the system. (I agree that would do dominate politics.)

    1:The UK/USA have broken first past the post systems.

    2: Politicians don’t always give the people what they want, or the people are not even aware of what politicians do. Party politics is just empty platitudes fed to the people, while the state does what it wants to do.

    I think female domination of politics is a lot deeper that the electoral system. I think it is innate to the mass psychology of the society. You could have a system where men are the only ones allowed to vote and the manginas elected would pander to women.

    Sorry if this comes across as pedantic.

    • Angelic Armadillo

      1. That doesn’t change simple numbers, in a Democracy, a majority is ALWAYS more powerful than a minority. Although I do hate FPTP.
      2. I assume when I discuss women wanting women in power, that running for government is implicit in that, but as you’re the second person to raise this, perhaps not. If every woman in the US decided there needed to be a female president /and one of them took it upon themselves to run/ then there would be a female president regardless of what men want.
      -Josh

      • Aimee McGee

        Liked your article Josh! Here is the other reason we won’t often have female leaders.
        Women use relationship skills to get power. One way to kill your power as a woman is to deliver bad news to women who put you into leadership. At that point your so-called loyal minions will do everything in their power to tear you down…up to and including making false allegations.
        It’s why Margaret Thatcher was well known for her close friendships with men and almost complete lack of relationship with women (BTW, it is well known she loathed the Queen, who by dint of being in a totally different sphere of influence was an untouchable rival in female power). She was smart enough to know women close to her would turn on her if they perceive her actions as having negative consequences for them

        • Politically Incorect

          Yes , Margaret Tacher said -” Feminists hate me and I don’t blame them ‘ !

  • tjmac7

    but patriarchy places obstacles in the path of women in the form of subconscious biases. The only solution is to kill all men (or at least remove all fathers)

  • donzaloog

    Excellent article.

  • Zx

    In Women’s Minds, Altering Reality is not a Lie

    “Women not only communicate differently from men, but they perceive what they see in a different way. Even how women deal with the truth is different from men, thanks to the extra white matter they have. In fact, according to Hollander’s research, women don’t even consider anything that’s said unintentionally that would hurt someone a lie. The extra white matter in women’s brains also means they’re better liars whether they like it or not. According to research by Yaling Yang and Adrian Raine, both of the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences (published in the October 2005 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry), more white matter – the wiring in the brain – helps in the formulation of deceptions. More white matter may provide liars with the tools necessary to master the complex art of deceit. Women are more comfortable altering reality and shifting mindsets through the PR process because in their minds it’s not a lie.

    strumpette.C0m/archives/173-TOP-10-LIST-Why-are-there-so-many-Women-in-PR. html

    • fathers4fairness

      Agreed – but I thought it was called “feng shui”.

    • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

      You know, for thousands of years men have known women as a group VERY well. Not until recently have they pretended that all that knowledge was sexist. (Wonder where they got THAT nudging?)

      It is not sexist or bigoted. It is the truth. They might not have been able to put a finger on it or describe it in detail like what science is proving true, but they were right about women. The few women whom the shoe does not fit are not sufficient enough to warrant mass-silencing of this truth. Something tells me both men and women, deep down know this to be true too.

      I have said in earlier threads as well as most of my life that women are more alike than different and that they must process ingoing and outgoing information via some kind of “feelings portal” in their brains—often skewing how they perceive and remedy. They can’t tell the difference between their feelings and reality. Evolution must have “wanted” it this way too.

      I truly believe they are not as rational, objective, non-impulsive as are most men and thus are not fit for public discourse, public policy-making, rules etc. They do not get it. Reality is not a feeling; it is defined by facts that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with how we may feel—or not.

      Are they capable of this measure of objectivity?

      Science is proving the old heresy/adage about women correct. Determinism is a gross understatement. The problem is that most people do not want such truth to be true so they are trying to rewrite the truth. This to me is what feminism is. This is the lie it is.

      Perhaps our movement should step up the process of making sure the world knows that science—the objective machine….if done correctly…rules out most sociology/psychology—is proving that women and men are not identical and equally capable of all things—thus we have no business trying to change everything about it with our opinions/emotions from women and egos and competitiveness from men.

      Our species is going to suffer. Not immediately…for we can pretend/obscure/ignore the changes to our species and its societies, but eventually all this institutional tinkering (selfishness becoming political) will manifest. Human’s long-term survival is at risk.

      Will men STILL be too cowardly to be honest with women? Not if we MHRA’a are successful. All we want is the truth no matter how hated it is. The truth is the truth and so many people hate it.

      But wishing it away will only work in our minds. There is an absolute order of things…in this context.

      Has any research been done to see if the brain scans of women are more like children’s? Not sexist or bigoted. But if it were, the truth does not care, nor should it.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ George

    Great article, the sad thing is that a good amount of feminists will still doubt the sources or think it’s a blatant lie.

    That’s the flaw with ideas – if someone wants to believe that the world is flat, and I show them more than enough proof that it’s oblate spheroid, they can still choose to believe that it’s flat.

    • Dagda Mór

      Which is among the many reaasons I call feminism a religion.

      • AceBean27

        You mean cult

        • Dagda Mór

          A cult is typically a small band of zealots and fanatics, bent on creating more zealots. A religion has all that but also a large groundswell of lip service and not really on board with everything believers who enable and empower the hardcore zealots by sheer numbers.

          All however will react adversely when facts challenge their beliefs (some astonishing number of Americans identified as creationists recently, and these are not cultists), mostly by flatly ignoring the evidence.

          It is for this reason that I characterise feminism as a religion rather than a cult, without intending any insult to the religious. I myself am a religious man, but I recognise and embrace the facts when I see them even if they go against what my religion tells me. It is possible to be a Christian without being a Biblical literalist.

          I think we need to convert away the enormous rump of lip service believers in feminism and hence remove the teeth from the zealots. Isolate and humiliate the hardcore manhaters.

          But make no mistake, what we’re up against here is an apocalyptic dualist religion.

    • http://youtube.com/user/therealjoshobrien Josh O’Brien

      Ah, but as Nick Naylor says, “I’m not here for you, I’m here for them.” I’m not trying to convince feminists, just those who may not be sure.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

        You’ve got the idea Nick. The primary goal of public discourse is to persuade the persuadable. Arguing with an ideologue who will not be persuaded is only valuable if there is an audience present to hear the argument and draw a conclusion. Also, realizing you have particular need to persuade the person you’re arguing with, but only the people potentially listening, makes it much easier to not get annoyed with whoever you’re having the discussion with when they’re obstinate or obnoxious. When they’re obstinate, obnoxious, derailing, changing the subject, etc. you’re winning.

        • MensRightsCanada

          That’s damn well poetic right there Dean :)

  • http://funkymunkyluvn.wordpress.com/ Jason Gregory

    Hahaha! “Burn the witches!”

    Facts don’t matter. The Patriarchy™ is a fetishistic religion for these nutters and they’ll cling to it like the bible-belt clings to their guns and Jesus.

  • impelluso

    When I get into a discussion on the patriarchy with a feminist, I pull a stunt like the following…

    “Hold on a second,” I say,as pick up my cell phone.

    Then I fake conversation for a few minutes as I grow very excited and happy. I keep muttering…
    “Yeah, yes, uh-huh, yes, that’s correct… that’s my address. Yes… Hey this is great news!!”

    Then I put the phone down and say the following…

    “You would not believe what just happened…. who that was… that was the CEO of the Patriarchs. They just reviewed the measurements of the length of my penis and now they are awarding me a Ph.D. It is so great. I mean, just last week, I got a call from the CFO. He told me that the size of testicles warranted a new house. And then I met with three patriarchs who signed over the deed. Damn, this patriarchy is wonderful. It has given me so much. I didn’t have to do any work, any studying. Nothing. I love the patriarchy,” I conclude.

    Then I rest a moment as I study the face of the feminist.

    Then I add…

    “Now where were we?”

  • Correctrix

    Nice, basic breakdown.

  • Forest Walz

    Women have power AND “gumption”, a scary combination.

  • Forest Walz

    Women have power AND “gumption”, a scary combination.

  • Bewildered

    It will only be a matter of time before they start to decide it is witches who were the problem all along.
    ROFLMAO! ROFLMAO!

  • RSDavies

    I would disagree with some of the responses here and highlight an aspect that Josh has overlooked.

    In the UK FPTP system gender inequality would only have a significant impact if men & women were distributed significantly unevenly geographically and politically. If there were significantly more men in marginal swing seats then you might see an effect. In terms of politics the effect would be only short term, because political parties would adjust their policies to garner male / female votes. Arguably the second has occurred. Since 1945 men have progressively disengaged as voters from the democratic system. In UK what we have witnessed has been a progressive shift to the right.

    The Liberal Party of the early 20thC which gave women the vote and started the process of creating a welfare system, of which women are the primary beneficiaries, hasn’t been in power since. It was the male National Service vote in 1945 that put Labour into power with its radical left wing agenda, and its strong links to the overwhelmingly male Trades Unions. The Conservative Party has consistently sought to appeal to female voters from 1970 onward. Look at the 1970 Heath government that promoted domestic consumption on credit at a time when the outgoing Labour govt was warning that the consequence would be inflation and an inability of industry to secure funding for investment.
    Further to compound the above there are far more men failing to register for the vote than women, possibly because non-registration has a greater potential impact on women. There was an estimate about 15 to 20 years ago of a million UK men not registered.

    Joss like many others looks at the number of male politicians and draws his conclusions. He overlooks that while politicians may set strategic direction, policies are developed and drawn up by public servants. Women compose 60% of public employees, and are particularly dominant in social policy development and implementation.
    If we were to look at public policy and pose the question whether each individual policy creates an environment for a sustainable society, I believe that we would find that they don’t and that they have been created with a weighting towards female emotive interests. i.e. In UK priority is awarded in the NHS to females, under 16 yrs olds and over 65′s. This excludes the primary wealth creators, men of working age, and by failing to address male health issues results in absenteeism and premature death both of which reduce the tax base. The net result is there is less money for the NHS year on year.
    The 1999/2000 UK govt public service adverts that sought to persuade men to change their life styles was explicitly related to the consequences of loss of income for women & children – men’s well-being was wholly irrelevant. Behind this was the implicit policy stance for the Min Health & Treasury that men are understood as wealth creators & contributors to the public purse rather than consumers of it. Ultimately the policy is inimical to the interests of society in terms of sustainability. The claims that women live longer and therefore make greater claims upon NHS is in part true, but this claim only exists in the context of men dying prematurely for the want of healthcare.

    The above reinforces Joss’ refutation of the existence of the Patriarchy and the alleged powerlessness of women. No power entity ever creates policy that results in its own self-destruction. If men dominated the political sphere we would see policies that prioritise men’s interests at the expense of women’s. In reality we see the reverse, women throughout their lives have priority across social policy.

    The only way to obtain some balance is if ordinary men become much more politically aware & active.

  • Zx

    Very interesting info. A link would be much appreciated.

  • iliketurtlez

    For the education one, I’d add a sentence emphasizing that having huge influence on the next generation is where the real power is. It’s why most people still identify as feminist, even if they’re genuinely egalitarian.

  • iliketurtlez

    They literally need the patriarchy to exist, otherwise they would have to be responsible for their actions. It’s a perpetual victim complex. To them, men are actors, and women are acted upon. Their usage of patriarchy allows them (in their minds) to get away with double standards, like “men can’t be victims of sexism” and “women can’t rape men”.

    • Dagda Mór

      Exactly. In order for feminism to really deal with mens issues it would have to cease to exist. It literally can’t help men, it requires an enemy, like all dualistic religions.

  • http://youtube.com/user/therealjoshobrien Josh O’Brien

    I find that it’s best to simply spout facts. Fact after fact after fact. Statistics are the feminist’s worst enemy when they don’t gather them, because if they don’t gather them, they can’t skew them. It’s hard to refute a factual statement, except by doubting the source, which is why I always keep a list of sources handy.

  • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

    “This is an interesting theory, but does not hold up to any real scrutiny or critical thinking.”
    —NOTHING whatsoever that they say holds up under scrutiny. Virtually EVERYTHING they claim has been routinely and repeatedly debunked beyond all shadows of doubt.
    Feminism isn’t winning because it is correct. It is winning because women have vaginas and wombs that foolish men over-compete for to the point of the chaos that which we now are immersed. Swollen egos mean everything to these type of men-losers. Nothing wrong with liking women but going to this extreme just to maintain women’s good graces and approval is, well, stupid.
    No wonder our species isn’t functoning at its optimum any longer. The natural (sexually-reproducing species) dynamics between men and women have been hijacked and mass-exploited by women making their emotions, feelings, and other selfishness political.
    If I had to adequately define feminism in as few words as possible, I would say: feminsim is the process by which misguided and oblivious women make their selfishness political.

  • Daniel Qian

    If this were a patriarchy, then paternity testing would be mandatory at birth — no exceptions allowed — and no man would ever have to pay child support for kids that aren’t his. Also, men and boys who were raped would get custody of the baby, instead of having to pay child support to the rapist.

    If a system only works to the benefit of wealthy, high-status men, then it’s something, but not a patriarchy. (Classic apex fallacy.) It never ceases to amaze me how socialists allowed their movement to be completely co-opted and neutered, like how “International Working Women’s Day” dropped the “Working” once feminists got hold of it. The elites couldn’t have done better if they tried.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

    Good post, all but for that last remark. Take care to avoid ethno-religious stereotyping.

  • Jonathon Howton

    This is very well written. Thank you for addressing this issue in such a concise and rational manner. It will undoubtedly be contested, and perhaps vehemently denied. Regardless, it remains an excellent starting point of consideration for those who are uncertain about the feminist movement and its effect upon modern social norms.