"What i've learned from this page is that women are morally bereaved. This is the lesson of our time, not that women take over, but the true nature of women. I'm coming to understand the vacuous nature of the female psyche; something i didn't want to admit before."

Matriarchy is the 800lb gorilla in the room men that refuse to confront. They are too afraid of accusations of "misogyny", "generalisations about women" or even "talking about women as opposed to talking about feminists".

Matriarchy is here already and if you think it's going to be a benevolent force as it evolves, you are wrong.

I don't believe that either the Matriarchy - in present or future incarnations - is a matter we should ignore.

Please try to post your messages together instead of three separate ones. BTW that link in the first post drastically slows down your PC due to the high amount of spam so don't click on it.

On this thread topic: I'm still waiting for all those great inventions by females, and the day that they'll be a notable force as e.g. garbage collectors, build houses, sewage cleaners, plumbers, and sacrifice their lives in spades to protect their country in a comparable amount as men have done for eons....

They can say what they want, but that doesn't make it true. Fact is though that patriarchies have always outperformed and outdone matriarchies. Any country that lacks a male backbone will be easy prey for those that do possess it.

They can believe in fantasies and so forth, but history will simply repeat itself. Again something that feels right doesn't make it right which is their fatal flaw.

"The future belongs to women. Why not turn the tables completely, and deprive men of the vote and ownership of property?"

Today women have the right to rape men's property in Western Divorce Courts, so the latter is already kind of a moot point. Men already have substantially diminished property rights.

Quote from Male-Rights-Network

Today women have the right to rape men's property in Western Divorce Courts, so the latter is already kind of a moot point. Men already have substantially diminished property rights.

If you're going to rant in this thread instead of debate then this thread will be moved.

Update: Thread moved to the appropriate section.

BTW that link in the first post drastically slows down your PC due to the high amount of spam so don't click on it.

Yes I have added a note on that. It's worth reading the thread though, just hit the stop button after a certain point.

They can say what they want, but that doesn't make it true. Fact is though that patriarchies have always outperformed and outdone matriarchies. Any country that lacks a male backbone will be easy prey for those that do possess it.

But Matriarchies nowadays have nukes.

They're not some shit-for-brains Amazonian tribe. They have effectively inherited masculine engineering, intelligence, weaponry, academia, etc. This cannot be discounted.

They can believe in fantasies and so forth, but history will simply repeat itself.

But isn't that saying that you can tell the future? The 21st Century is a very tumultous time, quite apart from any other.

On this thread topic: I'm still waiting for all those great inventions by females, and the day that they'll be a notable force as e.g. garbage collectors, build houses, sewage cleaners, plumbers, and sacrifice their lives in spades to protect their country in a comparable amount as men have done for eons....

We are already highly advanced in terms of technology, etc. Mostly new inventions come as an extention to older fundamental breakthroughs (e.g. electricity, transistors).

I think many men are in denial about Matriarchy, and use these points about male inventiveness as excuses.

Yes, men are more inventive, but in this context that's neither here nor there.

The real issue is that all social/educational/economic trends are heading towards Matriarchy.

Whether females contribute more to inventions is neither here nor there: all social trends are pro-female.

You mentioned sewage and garbage management being headed by males, but what power is there in that? None. Sure there could be occupations for the male population in Matriarchy, I don't deny that. It doesn't change the Matriarchal character of the society though.

Here's a relevant response from the linked thread:

David mate the problem is that a bill gates is very rare,most guys who fail at higher education are gonna struggle in life,its a fact of life .Also girls are gonna be the better educated sex very soon,maybe even the next few decades,so they are gonna get the better jobs.Also what has inventing things got to do with anything? men may have made the vast mass of everyday items,but it looks like the female is gonna get the benifit of them,nd i doubt they will care who the hell made them.

Quote from Tyrael

If you're going to rant in this thread instead of debate then this thread will be moved.

Update: Thread moved to the appropriate section. [Rant Room]

(Excuse me if these individual replies bother you, Tyrael; I just happen to prefer that appearance of a new post for substantially separate points. I wasn't aware there was any rule against it.)

Another quote:

"Economically, women have the most buying power and are the greatest consumers. The marketplace therefore caters to the needs and desires of women as a priority. That is how it starts."

That's Whore Capitalism for you, which Ayn Rand idealises and RebelliousVanilla wants us to love.

Capitalism is a total fraud and undeniably grows the Matriarchy.

It's a bad deal for men.

"The male sex is in the process of being overtaken by Women. It's like any long distance race between the sexes. Women have the long range endurance and stamina, and eventually They will prevail. Society is reaching the turning point in the battle of the sexes."

Have you noticed how the rhetoric (facade) of "equality" has long gone while the focus has turned to "superiority" "taking over" and "ruling over men" (i.e. Matriarchy)?

Women/feminists will keep up the "equality" facade as it suits, in appropriate contexts. I expect that as a critical number speaks in favour of Matriarchy however, then a cascade of them will reveal their true opinions.

Some "genius" chimes in with this "prediction":

"So when men consider women to be superior and want women to be dominant over them, it's called "masochism." But for all of the past history that women considered men to be superior, they were not considered "masochists," instead they were perfectly normal. Who do you think made those rules? I don't think it was women. Maybe as women ascend to power they will remake the rules so that men who think that women should dominate are considered normal, and women who want to be dominated by men are masochists."

Stop playing dumb, femishit.

From reading the Comments posted on the three recent articles about this site: Salon, Jezebel and Washington City Paper; I have to agree with you that movement towards a Matriarchy in The West is the 800lb. gorilla,
smack in the middle of the room. I sincerely suggest that you post comments on these websites, pointing out matriarchal aspirations, elements and tendencies ... share your insights and eloquence with the public at large. (Be prepared for some juvenile and irrational bashing in return.) Maybe we can create a forum for activists willing to post rebuttals on websites that are myopic and one-sided toward our cause.

That post is a goldmine of men and women (more significantly, women), admitting the Matriarchy:

"Actually many more than 3 thousand females have died in Iraq. They were civilian women killed by bombings by both sides. As for military women, as you know women are currently prohibited from serving in combat units so obviously there will fewer of them killed since they are in support positions only. The answer to the "gender problem" is already on it's way: Matriarchy. "women rulers, men slaves," yes that's it exactly." - Wonder No More

"Wonder no more Spoken like a true women patriot for women rule. Hail to wonder no more! Who neads men, lets castrate them and make them our slaves."

Now are you beginning to understand why we need to take it to the next level, Radical Anti-Feminism consisting of an active response to misandry and a full, confident defence of Patriarchy?

**

A naive man preaches moderation:

"The Idea behind these postings is plain dumb. What's the purpose? To create a wider gender gap, as if we need more of that. It's time men and women learned how to live with each other, maybe our divorce rate would drop. A wise person puts there effort in tasks that produce positive results. That formula works in all tasks including personal growth and a happy life."

Stop living in fantasy land. Everyone else has dropped the BS pretences of equality and everbody being nice and fair. It is time for you to do that too.

"This female supremacy stance is just as bad as racism."

It might be, but it is a very different thing to racism. If you equate female supremacy (aka Feminism/Matriarchy) with racism, persecution of Jews etc. then you do not understand the phenomenon at all.

In the longitundinal term, it's either Patriarchy or Matriarchy, take your pick. It's either one or the other and it can't be both.

It's the big choice any society has to make.

If you do not support one while the other is dominant, then you are automatically supporting the dominant one, by default.

That is the case for the many MRAs who refuse or are too afraid to advocate Patriarchy. They, like 99.9% of men in general, default to supporting Matriarchy.

"You women claimed you wanted equality all those years ago and most of us men gave you that but now you think you are entitled to the mental slavery of males just for your damn biddings and not have any say in matters and just be "good boys" for you?"

Haha. Some of these guys that HALF get the picture are so funny.

This is from an article by Philip Atkinson describing the the work of Gordon R. Taylor, in his book "Sex in History". Instead of Matriarchy and Patriarchy, he uses the terms 'Matrism' and 'Patrism'.

Two Kinds Of People: Rule Dutiful ( Patrist), Self-Indulgent (Matrist);

1)Attitude to sex Behaviour restricted by social taboos (Patrist), Behaviour restricted by convenience (Matrist);
2) Women's freedom The clear and different duties of the sexes defined by tradition (Patrist), No clear duties except those defined by instinct (Matrist);
3) Women's status Tradition dictates the status of the sexes (Patrist), Neither sex has any claim to obedience or respect (Matrist);
4) Chastity Duty more important than private welfare (Patrist), Private welfare more important than duty (Matrist);
5) Politics Authority strict and clear (Patrist), No clear or fixed authority (Matrist);
6) Innovation Innovation is perilous (Patrist), Innovation is fun (Matrist);
7) Enquiry Accept without question (Patrist), Question everything (Matrist);
8) Spontaneity Animal appetites must be controlled (Patrist), Animal appetites should be sated (Matrist);
9) Public Loathing Rational fear of failure—hatred of homosexuality (Patrist), Irrational (instinctive) fear —hatred of paedophilia (Matrist);
10) Sex differences Gender dictates behaviour and dress (Patrist), Convenience dictates behaviour and dress (Matrist);
11) Ascetism/Hedonism Pursue achievement (Patrist), Pursue pleasure (Matrist);
12) Religion Do as you are told (Patrist), Do as you feel (Matrist).

Taylor does not tabulate the next rule even though he accepts that the Matrist mode is invariably accompanied by random violence (the influence of Thanatos).
13)Attitude to Violence Rage repressed, violence channelled and controlled Rage expressed (Patrist), violence random and uncontrolled (Matrist).

A rule G.R. Taylor missed but which is also inevitable from the two attitudes.
14) Truth Truth is revered and cherished (Patrist), Truth is claimed to be revered but it is hated and suppressed (Matrist)

Taylor's rules are easily explained without resorting to sexual identity—they are an inevitable expression of the character of the community. Either most citizens pursue duty (patrism) or they pursue self-indulgence (matrism).

Significant Short Comings Of Taylor's Book
Taylor's book Sex In History with its successful prophecy is impressive, and his list of attributes contains a great deal of truth, however his theory does have some significant shortcomings. While it is true to claim some of the impact of matrism could be regarded as liberating females by releasing women from a subordinate role, it misses the point that such emancipation is implicit in the collapse of any system of order. Anyone who is sick of the discipline of working for a living can regain their freedom by resigning from their job, but this unfettered state invariably brings significant problems such as a lack of purpose, loss of identity and rapidly shrinking wealth.
True Nature Of The Two States Hidden

Whatever the strengths of Sex In History it dissembles the real nature of the two states by:
• Failing to emphasise the random violence associated with the female dominated type.
• Failing to mention that Patrism was the pursuit of achievement, choosing to describe it as the fear of pleasure—asceticism.
• Omitting the different attitudes of the two modes to truth
• Omitting the very different results of the two modes; that patrism leads to communal wealth and matrism to communal poverty (see "Two Modes Of Community.").

This is an exchange that closely mirrors the one I had with Tyrael:

"I think it's a stretch to say they're taking over society. They are far ahead scholastically because they are far more self-disciplined. The majority of women I know are very strong, they work damn hard and they set their priorities extremely well, better than the men I know. But in most cases their priorities don't include heading up fortune 500 companies or becoming heads of state. They prefer managing their little social spheres of family and friends but they don't live to work. They work to live. So no, I don't see women taking over society." - a guy.

"The post above sounds like a person who does not believe Chicken Little's forecast that the sky is falling. Perhaps, when the sky hits him on the head he will become a believer. If you believe women don't have more ambitious views than what you stated you are either a fool or not living in a real world. Already, they are taking many men jobs away from them and will continue to do so. Meanwhile, what are men doing? Oh, they are playing video games and worrying about how they are going to get their next lay. Unless, men wake-up and get their ass in gear and start learning in school, they will relegated to some mindless jobs that they deserve for their efforts." - realist.

Another insight from an Honest Female:

"The current trends in our society definitely point to a future where females will be the dominate sex. They are excelling in school and are they currently make up about 47 percent of the managers in business. This is up from about 15 percent 20 years ago. At the rate they are processing they will be 75 percent of the managers in 20 years. The future looks dim for males in management. The disturbing fact is that females generally hire females as their subordinates. This leaves males out in the cold as far as future employment is concerned."

Women sexist??? No!

Yes they are, and it's about time we as masculinists think about the consequences of that. Too long we have had a blind spot regarding women's sexist, very often anti-man nature. We blame only "feminism" rather than looking at the core Woman Question.

She continues:

"A male dominate society is on its way out and men are in trouble. When women take over men will be the minority in government hence women will pass laws that favor women. Laws will be passed that prevent men from voting and the ownership of property. Any violence against women will be punished by the most serve method including dismemberment of the sex organs, hands or feet. Men will be considered second class any will be considered of no great value to society."

Think she is joking? I don't. I'm pretty sure she means what she says, that most men think quite as she does, and the changes she envisions will be exactly what happen if the Matriarchal/Feminist Order continues to develop as it does today.

Now when are we going to get serious about deploying real strategies to take down the Matriarchy?

When are we going to get serious about defending the one system that best defends against the anti-male excesses of Matriarchy: Patriarchy?

When will we embrace the concept of Patriarchy as something which is righteous and fair?

In the longitundinal term, it's either Patriarchy or Matriarchy, take your pick. It's either one or the other and it can't be both.-MRN

I agree in a way with this. In any given situation you have 3 choices: you can lead, she can lead, or you can lead by a give and take compromise. When my wife knows a subject better than myself I step back for her leadership usually, unless I see something that is clearly wrong. When I know a given subject better than her I demand I lead, but hear her out (if time allows such a going over of the issue, which is almost always the case). When the subject issue is unclear as to who is more skilled we must talk about it.

Now it doesn't seem to be anyone leading right, or it seems a team system right? Wrong. I set this system up, as my wife would prefer to wing it, as women often do. They may want to talk, but in the end they will rule in an indirect way as the fear of confrontations of a direct nature trumps such things (the state is a bully women get to beat up their men, as they say their husband is a bully). This is very ironic. It is my demand that things be done this way, up front, and that indirectness will lead to holy war that assures that things don't become indirect and matriarchical by the backdoor. In the end someone must lead, and the average man is better than the average women.

How can this be? Well at present the state has women on average leading and we can see the present state of our society is a mess. While in the 50s we had the average man being head of the household, and can see the state of the culture then. Neither are perfect and not every man is better than every woman in bringing up the family, but in the vast majority of cases it is better when a men lead. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the better.

Feminism wants women to lead all the time because women believe the Hollywood illusion. Logic has no stake in this, as it is emotions masked as sensitivity tranining that makes women believe they know better. Fear cancels out a smarter mind if women were smarter, yet women on average are not smarter. When combined with cowardice, however rationalized, this shows clearly men should rule. The exception cannot be made the rule, so pointing out a minority of women who could do a better job than their husband doesn't changes things. It is simply deconstructionism.