Another Route to Patriarchy
 I appreciate the favorable response I have received concerning my blogs on patriarchy but recognize that some readers look upon it as a theory to be believed or disbelieved, accepted or disputed, rather than as a natural condition of the universe. These feelings and viewpoints have motivated me to present the principle of gender and its resultant patriarchal structure without beginning with the words gender and patriarchy.
Â
In order for any activity to happen there must be an assertive influence acting upon a receptive entity. An example would be the movement of an object, say a cup sitting upon a table. The cup sits upon the table in a perfectly receptive state and has no will. Unless some assertive influence comes in contact with that cup it will sit upon the table forever. Adding another receptive entity such as a second cup will not produce any movement. Only the application of force by an assertive influence can move the cups. If there were two assertive influences and no cups, no movement would result because there would not be anything to move. In order for anything to happen in the universe an assertive influence must act upon a receptive entity.
Â
When we drive a car, turn on a fan, or slice a loaf of bread; the car, fan, and loaf must be in a receptive condition.
Â
Natural phenomena such as hot and cold, light and dark, and noise and quiet all require one assertive influence in each area of activity. There is no such entity as cold. Cold is the absence of heat. We either add heat to something or remove the heat but we can’t make cold. Refrigerators remove heat from the food stored in them and eject it into the kitchen. Air conditioners remove heat from the room and eject it to the outside. The absence of heat results in lower temperatures, which we refer to as colder. We cannot make dark, we can only add or remove light. We cannot make quiet, we can only add or remove sound. Solar energy is the assertive influence that makes heat, light, and sound. We have heating, lighting, and sound engineers; we do not have cold, quiet, and dark engineers.
Â
Two opposing entities cannot operate in one area of activity. If cold were an entity that opposed heat, how could we heat anything? If darkness opposed light, how could we light anything? There can only be one assertive influence in any field of activity.
Â
In a grouping of people in any area of activity there must always be an assertive influence acting on the receptive entity. In the case of an army the General is the assertive influence and he acts upon the Colonels who are receptive to him. The Colonels in turn act as the assertive entity in regards to the Majors. This practice, known as the chain of command, flows down to the lowest level of command in the group, and is strictly enforced, else chaos would ensue.
Â
There is only one Captain on a ship, one President of a company, one manager of a baseball team, one coach of a football team. Among equal partners one is usually the dominant one, if that does not happen the partnerships usually do not last long. There is only one head of a herd, flock, troop, and pride. Wherever action takes place there can only be one assertive influence causing it.
Â
The assertive influence creates pregnancies, whereas the receptive entity becomes pregnant. Since those who create pregnancies are men or males, we call them masculine. Those who become pregnant are females and we call them feminine. The act of creating pregnancies occurs throughout the universe and the influence creating them is called masculine. Among humans those who create pregnancies become fathers and father is the root word for patriarchy.
Â
Patriarchy has a polygamous nature, for one assertive influence can direct or impregnate many receptive entities. Nebulae can spin off many Suns, Suns can spin off many planets, and the lion can impregnate many lionesses. Patriarchy provides for the care of all, no one is left out.
Â
Up to this point I have not mentioned gender. This universal patriarchal activity was first enunciated thousands of years ago as a universal principle of gender by the Egyptian Hermes Trismigistus, along with other fundamental principles that govern universal activity.
Â
In light of all of the above, is it not contrary to all of nature to invest women with the same power of men and expect the home or society to survive? And indeed they were invested with it; they could never seize it, they are the receptive entity. It was the ignorance of Western man of the universal principle of gender that caused him to do it.
Â
The entire universe is patriarchal and all societies since the beginning of time that survive have been patriarchal. It cannot be any other way. The Europeans did not practice the patriarchal polygamous culture. To compensate they developed city-states and a host of different forms of government none of which endured. The Western culture is collapsing-it is not patriarchal.
Â
I hope this article has helped to illustrate the universality and naturalness of patriarchy.
Also, I hope it acts as a motivator for the assertive influences who read this to decide to take action to regain their natural position in society and fulfill their natural function to propagate and preserve the species.
Â
Possibly related posts...
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
To amfortas,
When what little hair I had left turned gray I decided to make myself an Elder to promote a respect for elders in our society. Young people think I’m about four years younger than God. I’m sure you’ll evetually figure it out to the year and month.
I was going to sign off here because I felt the blog had run its course and collected too much redundant polemic: however, since Mike commented on your closing I will address it.
The reason women always encouraged men to be men is because they needed them. They now feel they do not need us, and that is due primarily to our ignorance not theirs. When our current society collpases and there is no more government and no more police, and no more “rights” then women will start looking to mate with the man who carries the biggest club. It’s too bad it will have to come to that but since Western man seems incapable of exerting his manliness a greater power will have to take care of things.
“It is women in the main who have always encouraged men to be men. We live in an upseting age where women decry maleness to the degree they do.”
You got that right.
Nice analysis.
Elder George, is that a title, ‘Elder’? Just how old are you? (I know that is a personal question so answer or not at your discretion).
You have an interesting proposition but the supporting arguements don’t support. They are tautologies in the main or irrelevant examples or irrelevant faux-comparisons. People are not cups and saucers, inventions of people. Even citing the lack of a working non-patriarchy in history is not relevant. You did not look deep enough and only one exception example can ruin a hypothosis of an ‘absolute’. You omitted the Spartan society, which was matriarchal and very successful. A very tough society too and on the surface, militaristic. But a matriarchal society nonetheless.
I would hazard, Sir, that a better set of arguements would be found in simple biology. The pregnancy vulnerability/protection pairing; the life generative/inventive-creative pairing; the child nurturing/providing pairing; the necessary in situ stability/outward search and find pairing; etc. Men by nature’s design are mobility oriented; the female, stability. The male is drive; the female is conserve. The resultant social systems are inevitably determined by the more active rather than the less active, but niether has a bearing on dominance and passivity, patriarchy and matriarchy.
Even in such arguement, there will be exceptions.
To root arguement in myths of Eden is a fallacy of ‘Appeal to Authority’. Adam, Eve, Eden isn’t even history. It is post hoc justification. A Tribal ‘glue’. It serves to bind. It certainly seems to have bound you.
It is also well to remember that all societal forms have a mother – or another woman if the mother died in childbirth (quite frequent) – raising the children and teaching the basics of societal form. The hand that rocks the cradle etc…
It is women in the main who have always encouraged men to be men. We live in an upseting age where women decry maleness to the degree they do.
To Joyanna Adams,
Now that you’ve calmed down I will give you a response. You are completely ruled by the masculine principle. In this country it has been transferred to the government. All of your “rights” come from the government. It provides aid to education, equal opportunity hiring, after school programs, medicare, medicade, and an infinite numbers of laws to control every aspect of your living.
The government cannot love you. It can only control you. By usurping the power of manhood it not only has become the masculine influence inyour life but the feminine influence as well. It owns your children, if you have any.
Men and women have become interchangeable parts on the production machine. It is a cold spiritually empty environment that we live in. That’s why 10 million of your sisters suffer from depression. There is very little depression or suicide in patriarchal societies.
Love you.
To wtexas,
Adam does not represent the masculine good over the feminine evil. They are both good. There is no evil only the lack of good, which we call evil. Don’t make something simple so complicated. Adam represents the assertive influence and Eve represents the receptive entity. Working together they produce harmony.
Essentially what I’m saying, I suppose, is there is GOOD and EVIL(anti-good).
This has applications in the real world because any effort that you, personally, try to make happen will be hampered by someone else’s effort contrary (or anti) to your attempts.
Going over your blog I want to illustrate another example of the counters in nature. A cup is in a receptive state and an assertive influence moves the cup.
You state: “Only the application of force by an assertive influence can move the cups. If there were two assertive influences and no cups, no movement would result because there would not be anything to move.”
This can also be viewed from the standpoint of having an assertive influence and an anti-receptive state (ie no cups) which is the counter to the receptive state.
Likewise , the counter to the assertive force would be anti-assertive (or a force pushing back against you).
DR. Elder: I just erased about four pages of “stuff”…
Then I realized you would not even have a CLUE to what I was saying.
But I will say this: Men made the world. Men rule the world. And I simply adore them.
But NO man rules me. And I thank God for that every single day of my life.
You can see in nature how these counters work. The cup example for instance. You touch the cup and it moves. You have to exert a certain amount of force to overcome the friction (anti-movement). Suppose the cup was on a slippery ice surface. The amount of force you would have to exert to overcome friction would be very little. Now imagine that same cup on a gravely surface, maybe sitting on a big piece of sandpaper. You would then have to exert more force to move the cup. There is sound and there is silence. Scientists in this field can produce a sort of anti-soundwave which cancels out the noise being produced. They set up interference of equal and opposite waves (I believe thats how it works) and this nullifies the sound. Cameres now adays have a device which stablizes the picture by countering the movements from shaky hands. Anyway, thought I would float this out there and see what you think.
To Elder George: I’be been to your website and seen what you’ve written there. I now understand why I find fault with your argument. You propose masculine Gender and feminine Gender to explain how the universe operates, and you cite the story of Adam and Eve to illustrate how the feminine Gender can be swayed. In nature, however, there exists counters. There is matter, then there is anti-matter. Once I applied this to your philosphy it actually made sense to me. For the masculine and feminine Genders there would have to also exist anti-masculine/anti-feminine aspects. Therefore if masculine Gender = (x,y,z) then anti-masculine = (-x,-y,-z). Likewise, feminine = (a,b,c), anti-feminine = (-a,-b,-c). Thus Adam was a force for good and his opposite was a force for evil. The problems we have in society could be explained by having a preponderance of anti-masculine Gender (a force leading toward bad) over masculine-Gender (a force leading toward good). This preponderance would only have to be 51 percent vs 49 percent or smaller, just enough to tip the scales in the wrong direction. This means society can incrementally return to a better state by making small adjustments here and there to tip it in the other direction.
MartianBachelor said:
“While men could use physical coercion to achieve what you propose as the goal, the other male method is to apply the force of intellect in an attempt to explain to and convince women that a benevolent patriarchy is actually in their best interest. This is basically a utilitarian argument, which I fully understand may not satisfy some.”
It is not only utilitarian but oxymoronic. A woman can only be submissive to that which is assertive. Most women deep down want an assertive man. Do not equate assertive with authortarian or brutal. If a man acts like a man a woman will act like a woman. The problem in our society and for the women, is that we expect them to behave in a certain manner without training them to behave in that manner or even drawing the guidelines for that behavior. Women are not going to do our jobs.
That is the big lesson for Western man to learn, he is going to the job, not the government, not God, not the woman, but himself.
How’s about this to resolve the previous discussion: “We think by feeling.” – Theodore Roethke
__________
> I hope this article has helped to illustrate the universality and
> naturalness of patriarchy. …Also, I hope it acts as a motivator for
> the assertive influences who read this to decide to take action to regain
> their natural position in society…
EG: I suppose you know where I stand with regard to these ideas. I don’t believe patriarchy is either natural or universal, though I do think it’s superior to alternatives. The evidence is all around.
While men could use physical coercion to achieve what you propose as the goal, the other male method is to apply the force of intellect in an attempt to explain to and convince women that a benevolent patriarchy is actually in their best interest. This is basically a utilitarian argument, which I fully understand may not satisfy some.
But I think it was why women, though not by any means all of them, first accepted the artificial constraints which are necessary in order for them to receive the better system’s benefits. It’s the latter which are the real carrots (carats?), and we’d do well to focus more on what those are because that’s more the level most women think at rather than the more abstract level (like “assertive influences” or even electromagnetic fields) that us men prefer to use.
Women don’t care much about, and they’re not impressed by, the whiz-bang hocus-pocus which goes into building the magic and incredible box, only the diamonds which one can pull out of the box and give to them.
I think arguments from ‘naturalness’ just give them permission to be themselves and do whatever the hell they feel like without much regard to consequences.
GosH! How do you know what you feel, and if you are really feeling what you are feeling as opposed to something that feels like something else, but really isnt and which decision do you make first and how to decide if the decision is the right one for the feeling or the feeling is the right one for the desision and whichw ay is up and what is the black perspective and how do I feel about what I’ve decided to not feel and what not to decide and( Insert head explosion scene from Scanners here)…
Smartass, you’ll always end up where you are: watching Sc-fi, arguing just to argue, knowing nothing of real value.
GROW UP ONE DAY.
I’m soooo through with this thread…