Saturday, January 14, 2017

Why Some Women Make Patriarchal Choices

One of the most disturbing things for many of us during a time like this - a time when a misogynistic biggot is about to take the highest American political office - is not that the majority of his support comes from Ku Klux Klan members, or that his election indicates that approximately 50% of Americans have no problem with his blatant white male- supremacist worldview. No, it's that among the 50% of Americans that voted for him, there are a surprising number of women.

This can come as a huge and disheartening surprise to men who have chosen to kick their male privilege to the curb in order to make room for the rise of a Matriarchal new world order. However, it's not so much of a surprise to us women who have been on the front lines of expressing our Feminist, Matriarchal mindset. We get flack from men and women alike.

Many a man will ask me why (some) women are so especially cruel and evil towards their fellow women. The Boys' Club really has nothing like it; nothing has prepared them for witnessing what life is like on the "outside" of that club, which can quickly degenerate to Lord of the Flies like politics. Well, lucky for you, I spent most of my 20's and 30's digging through an abundance of literature to get to the bottom of one question: Why do some women make very bad, patriarchy-supporting, decisions? -or- Why do a large portion of American women support male dominance at what is quite obviously their own expense?

Quite simply, I believe they are suffering from an epidemic form of Stockholm Syndrome. It's one of the consequences our society suffers from for conforming to patriarchal double standards of punishments and rewards that change depending on a person's gender.

Patriarchy is a system that convinces both men and the women financially dependent on them that women's welfare does not matter. Women in America are in all different phases of waking up from this brainwashing, as are American men. Some of them see through it, and some of them do not.

Women can only help society as effective social leaders once they are liberated from self-effacing behaviors, which patriarchal double standards ingrain in them during their youth, when they are most vulnerable. A woman who is self-effacing is repressing her Feminine instincts, intuition, perception, and any other strengths she has to offer.

However, if you want people to come out of this brainwashing, the way that you do it is to focus on what you can do, rather than on what certain women are not doing for you.

Matriarchy is not a random group of women agreeing to financially, socially, and sexually dominate men for their own benefit. Matriarchy is a mindset - one that is not necessarily shared by people on the basis of their gender. Patriarchy destroys, and one thing it destroys is women being in touch with themselves.

So, men, if you want Matriarchy, you have to foster that mindset by taking a public stand to this effect. Enlightened women will appreciate you for it. Women who still live in patriarchal denial will not.


Anonymous said...

Thank you Ms. Chrstina for returning to this blog. I appreciate your insightful thoughts.

I think male supremacy was a subtext throughout the campaign as in the desire of white males to threw off the shackles of political correctness--a code for respecting women's new prominence in the workplace and in public. We also saw it in the worship (by women and men) of a would-be strong man who would trample pieties of public debate to stand up to the enemies of the right wing. Trump appeals to man as the traditional top dog, king of the primal horde.

I agree with you that matriarchy is a mindset, shared by people regardless of gender--its content is it wants women to win. Over the last decade something akin to a war has occurred in the public sphere between women and men undertaken not so much between real living breathing human beings, but in discourse. The right wing has stoked and legitimized this war even more than feminists. The side that wants women to win, even if not stated openly, is the matriarchal side. There is a widespread non-rational desire out there, even among men that wants women to win over men. And the right is reacting to their fear of that as much as anything. But two can play at that game, and a pro-female backlash that will feed matriarchalism is brewing. We may have to pass through a masculinist authoritarian interlude for it to come to fruition.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.



Blanche Black said...

Well said, Richard. Yes, as is often the case throughout history, backlash against a cause often winds up further justifying and highlighting the need for the cause in the eyes of the public. In fact, it's been that very misogynistic swaggering among politicians over the last decade that motivated large numbers of American women (many celebrities among them) to form new Feminist political movements over the last few years in an effort to protect our legal rights from these political figures. And of course, the public backlash Hillary received over her gender further solidified their determination to make Feminism a political priority. This has all been very cathartic and necessary for large numbers of relatively sheltered women to come out of their moderate position of denial and face the depth and depravity of this social problem.

I am looking forwards to being part of the worldwide Women's March on Washington and watching the developments (

Anonymous said...

I am grateful for your reply Ms. Christina. Your way of saying things always seems to me more felicitous and inspiring than my own.

Let me offer to you for your evaluation an analysis of what is happening inside the psyches of women and men based on the postmodern-inspired work of J. C. Smith. It is an alternative approach to the Stockholm Syndrome analysis. Here is my summary of Smith, which I published as a comment on another website about six months ago.

"From my understanding, in sexuality and gender there is no such thing as the kind of equality that there is when they think of political rights. There is only difference, and such difference if we consult psychoanalysis is asymmetrical. One sex must be privileged, which is to say that it controls the phallus and has the power to construct the reality in which it and the other sex reside. It has the voice and the gaze, it is the subject and action taker, and it takes and accumulates the sacrifices of the other, including sacrificing for one’s pleasure. The other gender is the passive object of reality created by the sex with the voice and gaze; it sacrifices for the gender that is the subject. Because it lack the phallus, it is defined by its lack.

There can be no equality between women and males, and deep down neither gender wants it. Equality is not sexy; it can’t generate desire. The reason men don’t want to give up male supremacy or patriarchal ego is that they see no way other way to retain their power and sexual desire. Equality is instinctively feels like loss, a descent into nothingness or pure lack. For women of previous generations who are moving out of lack, equality was an aspiration, but as long as their psychological structure remained, their desire remains that of their men.

In short, the only way to rid the world of patriarchy is to pass through the looking glass into matriarchy. That is what castration means. It doesn’t mean the physical severing of one’s testicles. It means that males are no longer men (independent). They are the dependent consorts of women, available for sexual service and to make women’s lives easier. Their own pleasure doesn’t enter into the equation, except insofar as it derives from the woman’s. So the choice for men is between the old patriarchal ego and the new castrated ego in which males are defined by their lack; and for women it is between woman as man’s helpmate and woman as man’s authority figure—from Eve to Lilith, with her own robust sexuality as the new standard for human sexuality.

There is always fear when one goes into the unknown. But, as those males who have made the journey can attest, being castrated in this sense is an experience of immense pleasure and satisfaction. Of course, there is another reason to pass through the looking glass. As our planet’s ecological crisis and the candidacy of Donald Trump makes obvious, patriarchy is no longer viable; nor is it an attractive construct for most younger males. It is a caricature of its once grand self. Giving up male power and voice to a woman who is willing to take that power and voice is the only alternative as I see it. There is no equality, only difference. In the future, the castrating woman will be the most desirable one.”

Please forgive the length of this message. But, I value your thoughts so much, I am interested in what you have to say.


Frank said...

This makes sense to me. Male insecurity and fear causes most of the bad treatment of women. Men who are confident in their abilities are willing to acknowledge women's superior intelligence and leadership skills.

Blanche Black said...


I enjoy your way of expressing this concept, which I cover in "Men Serve Women who Lead, and Benefit from it".
Men cannot continue to define and express a "masculinity" that is so narrow it cannot learn from the majority of our world population because of a gender difference. To continue in that direction is to head towards total self destruction and destructiveness, which is what we see men like Trump doing.

So, when you say:

"In short, the only way to rid the world of patriarchy is to pass through the looking glass into matriarchy. That is what castration means. It doesn’t mean the physical severing of one’s testicles. It means that males are no longer men (independent). They are the dependent consorts of women, available for sexual service and to make women’s lives easier. Their own pleasure doesn’t enter into the equation, except insofar as it derives from the woman’s. So the choice for men is between the old patriarchal ego and the new castrated ego in which males are defined by their lack; "

what you are really describing is a Men's Liberation Movement that is being experienced worldwide, on par with the Women's Liberation Movement of 45 years ago. See, Women's Liberation was never meant to rival men's masculinity - it was meant to lead the way for men to follow them in redefining their own gender identity. Men are seeking liberation from the narrow confines of traditional American notions of the male gender identity. Keep in mind, the roots of that traditional gender identity were created in the context of global imperialism and colonialism, a relatively short-lived tradition because of its insatiable greed and short-term thinking.

The process of liberation does not happen all at once. It's a lengthy process of reevaluating every aspect of one's gender identity to decide what to keep and what to discard for the purpose of preserving one's relevance to oneself and the other gender. It also requires a process of becoming a "whole" person, ceasing to depend on the other gender in ways that cripple one's own capabilities. Women had to learn how to drive, work, manage money, run a business, in order to achieve the identity-liberation necessary to express themselves towards men freely. If men are to be fully themselves rather than empty caricatures, men need to learn how to nurture, how to be altruistic, how to enjoy power vicariously through others' enjoyment of them - all the things they used to depend on women for.

Men get to choose to what degree they benefit from overlapping gender traits with women, and to what degree it is beneficial (for everyone) to limit that overlapping in relationship behavior. Social roles are, in many ways, determined by how one can simultaneously connect with oneself as well as with the other gender they are trying to construct community with. But this choice can only be reached by them through facing the unknown about themselves, or as you describe it - death of the ego. It is really just immersing oneself in a journey one has no ultimate control over and experiencing vulnerability to a Power or force, greater than themselves, who is doing the directing.