"Smash The (Adulto-) Patriarchy", Or, "The Great Cosmic Custody Battle", Revisited

(Updated and expanded from its original 2017 version)

NOTE:  I generally don't put youth rights content on this blog, as I typically reserve it for my True Spirit of America Party and Twenty-One Debunked blogs.  But given how this article is about intersectionality, I believe it fits quite well here.  The opinions presented here are my own, and not necessarily those of anyone else in the Matriarchy movement.

One of the most vexing questions of all about the ultimate origin of patriarchy is, how did men take over in the first place, if Women are the superior gender and were already in power to begin with in the last Matriarchal age? And this question is NOT merely academic, as the answer will at least partially inform us on how to prevent men from taking over again in the future.  History may not always repeat itself exactly, of course, but it sure as hell does rhyme nonetheless.

Some theorists would say that was because Women were too lenient with men and allowed them too much freedom ("give them an inch, and they take a mile") while others say the opposite, that Women were too harsh and strict and did not allow men enough freedom, so they rebelled ("forbidden fruit" or "reactance theory").  (Note also the parallels with today's discourse about teenagers and young adults, as this foreshadows the rest of this article.)  Still others, such as Riane Eisler and many others in the Goddess Movement, inspired by Marija Gimbutas, put forth the "Kurgan theory", namely that a few patriarchal cultures formed in central Asia and the Arabian peninsula, and violently conquered their peaceful Matriarchal neighbors and eventually the world.  These cultures, called Kurgans, were semi-literate or illiterate nomadic sheepherders who really had no culture of their own to speak of, but they did have superior weapons technology, and aggression was indeed rewarded in their culture.  But that still does not fully explain how those cultures came to be patriarchal in the first place, except for the fact that aggression is wittingly or unwittingly rewarded in nomadic pastoral societies, and men are generally more aggressive and competitive than Women.

(Rasa Von Werder and William Bond each have their own theories as well.  Rasa believes that Women had sexually selected for more "macho" men by preferentially mating with them, which thus resulted in men becoming too "macho" in a toxic and dangerous way after many generations of such cumulative selection, while Women became less and less "macha" at the same time.  And William believes that Women had essentially allowed men to take over by trusting them too much with power.  I am summarizing and glossing over the details of both here, but that is basically the gist of it.  Both theories I think have at least some merit to them, and both can explain at least part of what happened, to one degree or another.)

I generally favor the Kurgan theory myself, but then when Googling the title of Robert Jensen's fairly recent book "The End of Patriarchy" back in 2017, I inadvertently discovered a similarly-titled book by Claudio Naranjo, titled, "The End of Patriarchy: And the Dawning of a Tri-une Society", which led me to a new theory on the matter.  And while I don't agree with everything that Naranjo says, he does make some good points nonetheless.  He posits that young people were the ones in charge in the Paleolithic age, then Women were in charge in the Neolithic age, and then men took over in the Bronze Age and remained in power since.  And as the title implies, he looks forward to the end of patriarchy and the beginning of a new, "tri-une" society that combines the best of all three past ages, with Women, men, and children all being equally valued members of human society.  While I agree with him for the most part, I do think that he sells the idea of Matriarchy way too short, and often mischaracterizes what it really is.  And I also still think that the best way that his "tri-une society" or something like it can be created is with Women in charge, that is, Matriarchy.  Only Women can be truly trusted to be the "Guardians of Liberty" IMHO.

In a nutshell, Naranjo (inspired by fellow Chilean, Totila Albert) delineates three main epochs of human history:  

1) Filiarchy:  This was during the Paleolithic Age more than 12,000 years ago, when people were largely nomadic, and foraging, gathering, and hunting were the norm.  In this early system, neither gender really dominated (though I think it was most likely gynocentric), but children and young people had essentially all of the power, and allegedly tyrannized their elders to one degree or another.  Obviously, this system had its downsides, to put it mildly, so it later evolved into...

2) Matriarchy:  This was during the Neolithic Age (and perhaps even a bit before that too) from 10,000-12,000 years ago with the advent of horticulture and then agriculture, to about 5000-7000 or so years ago, and even into some of the Bronze Age.  Women were in charge then.  Here he makes it seem that individuals were completely subordinate to the collective, which is presented as one of its downsides, along with some possible human sacrifice too.  This part is where I think Naranjo kinda sells Matriarchy too short, and the accuracy of such claims is questionable at best.  But otherwise he describes it fairly well overall, and certainly far, far more peaceful, relatively equal, and eco-friendly than what came next, which was, you guessed it.....

3) Patriarchy:  During the Bronze Age and Iron Age, men had taken over and ruled ever since, spreading their cancerous system around the world.  It's origins began in a few areas during perhaps even the Neolithic, but didn't really take off until well into the Bronze Age.  Here we see lots of war, violence, genocide, ecocide, rape, torture, imperialism, racism, inequality, greed, and stuff like that.  And as they say, the rest is history.  And now in what I like to call the "Leaden Age", that system's days are increasingly numbered as we speak.  Slowly but surely, Women are rising and men are falling, and the proverbial Rubicon has already been crossed by now, Goddess willing.

But one thing is certain:  Adultism (i.e. the systemic oppression and subjugation of children and young people) can theoretically exist without patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist without adultism.  To wit, men would never have been able to disempower Women as much as they did if young people had not been thoroughly disempowered first by adults of both primary genders (even if done more so by men).  Kind of like how the rich would never have been able to torpedo the middle class as they did from President Reagan onward if the middle class hadn't first helped the rich by throwing the poor under the bus.  That was my latest insight after coming across the work of Naranjo.  After all, it took thousands of years to remove Women from power and subjugate them, and it looks like adultism was one of men's "secret weapons" to accomplish this nefarious and perfidious act.

And of course, adultism continues to perpetuate patriarchy and vice versa to this day.  Both are mutually reinforcing, hence the term "adulto-patriarchy" used by the youth rights movement to emphasize the essential intersection between the two systems of oppression.  Adultism is of course a form of ageism, with the other side of the very same coin being the prejudice and discrimination against senior citizens, often simultaneously by the very same forces.  And at base, adultism is likely rooted subconsciously in an overblown fear of a return to filiarchy, much like patriarchy and misogyny are ultimately rooted in an irrational fear of a return to Matriarchy.  The "cork theory" per William Bond comes to mind:  when you hold a cork underwater, it will stay there, but loosen one's grip enough, and it rises to the top.

As a lifelong (albeit moderate) youth-rights activist myself, I am NOT arguing that children and early adolescents should be blanketly treated as equals to adults in every way, as that would be quite a strawman argument indeed.  So don't go putting words in my mouth now!  But the idea that they should have no civil or human rights at all, and/or should be treated as slaves, serfs, pets, or vermin, is just as odious as if that logic was applied to any other demographic group.  The fact that it has become normalized for people below an arbitrary age limit of (pick your poison, as any age limit is arbitrary) to have fewer rights than prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, and more restrictions than convicted felons, could not have happened without consequences that backfired on adults as well!

With Women in charge, I personally believe that the best way for them to govern both men and children/youth overall is similar to the way that Dutch parents are towards their children.  They have a saying over there, "when you permit, you control."  And another good saying, though not specifically Dutch, is "be a mentor, not a tormentor".  This is largely in line with Riane Eisler's "partnership model" of social interaction.  Others in the Matriarchy movement may or may not agree with me, and that's fine, but that is what I believe nonetheless.

(For what it's worth, I recently discovered that Everything Voluntary Jack, a "voluntaryist" Substacker, had written a great article about what he calls "Parentarchy", which basically ends up being the same thing as what the youth-rights movement calls "adulto-patriarchy", that is, the intersection between adultism and patriarchy.)

Thus, patriarchy should really be called "adulto-patriarchy", and any self-proclaimed feminist or other civil or human rights movement that is not largely on board with at least the moderate wing of the youth-rights movement as well is indeed a major intersectionality fail.  Much like how "brocialists" and "manarchists" are towards Women, and how "White Feminists" (TM) are towards people of color.  Or how far too many "normies" in practically every movement are towards people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (ableism), and so on.  The entire evil edifice of kyriarchy must come down at once, as piecemeal approaches are ultimately doomed to fail.  Even if patriarchy is in fact the biggest crux of the entire pyramid scheme and protection racket.

In other words, the gender war will simply continue until men surrender to Women.  And the "Great Cosmic Custody Battle" between patriarchy and Matriarchy will simply continue in some form or another until children and young people are also liberated as well.

So let's smash the adulto-patriarchy, yesterday!  And the rest of the kyriarchy too.  And may we all one day enjoy liberty and justice for all.

(Mic drop)

Should Child Support Laws Be Eventually Phased Out?

First, I should note that I do NOT approve of actual deadbeat dads under the current system.  They are literally welchers of the worst kind, and I cannot stand welchers of any kind.  To any fellas reading this, I strongly advise you NOT to have any unprotected PIV intercourse at all unless you either 1) had a vasectomy, and/or 2) can afford to set aside the quarter-million dollars or so per child to raise such children with at least a halfway decent standard of living from birth to age 18 (or an even higher age in some states for child support obligations).  And that doesn't even include college or the possibility (nay, probability) of massive medical bills in the USA.  Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.  Under the current imperfect system, if you want to play, you may very well have to PAY.  And if you don't pay, well, then you get to face the modern-day version of debt peonage or debtor's prison.  You can thank the patriarchy for backfiring on you per the law of karma.  Also don't forget to thank neoliberalism (including the hypocritical President Slick Willie in the 1990s, one of the biggest rakes and cads in modern history) as well for essentially gutting what passed for a social safety net, and thus for "hunting you down and making you pay" in return.

In other words, fellas, discipline yourself to say, "no glove, no love" as a matter of course, lest you play a risky game of Russian Roulette both physically and financially. 

That said, as we make the rocky and often nonlinear transition towards a Matriarchal society, a very vexing question will inevitably come up.  What to do about child support laws?  Should the very concept be phased out?  Many men will reflexively say, "Hell Yeah!", while many Women would say, "Hell NO!", or at the very least, have an abundance of caution about the overall idea.  On social media, for example, I have even encountered some Women here and there who say they want to create a world where no one knows or cares who the father is, yet somehow still want to force men to pay for it all.  I guess they want a rule of "joint and several liability" or "deep pocket rule", of all of the potential fathers for all children, not unlike what Lenin briefly had in the USSR during their ill-fated first attempt at a "sexual revolution" in the late 1910s and early 1920s, that is, before Stalin did an about-face and abruptly reversed it after the orphanages became (paradoxically) packed to the brim with unwanted children.  Yes, that was before modern birth control and paternity testing, of course, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that sort of policy probably would NOT end very well at all under late-stage capitalism today either.  That circle simply does NOT square at all.

Meanwhile, many right-wing reactionaries (including so-called "reactionary feminists"), believe that the more obligations people have in general, the better, because reasons.  Even if some tacitly believe that Women should have all the rights but men should have all of the obligations, or vice-versa.  That circle doesn't really square either.

Yet in actual Matriarchal societies, past and present, such as the Mosuo, we know that men generally have no real liability for their own (putative) children at all.  Why?  Not only due to the traditional lack of paternity certainty (at least before the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing), but also because the Women do NOT want themselves or their children be tethered to or dependent on the men, for obvious reasons, as that is a major conflict of interest.  Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and with men's shekels come the shackles.  And men, as a rule, in every society patriarchal or Matriarchal or anything in between, have always been the lazier gender overall, and often seem to be congenitally allergic to responsibility.  Sure there are exceptions, but those exceptions really only prove the rule.  If Women are going to inevitably carry the bulk of the "mental load" regardless, to say nothing of the physical load too, they might as well be fully in charge as well. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and heavy is the head that wears the crown.

In other words, it is understood that with power comes responsibility, and thus men would have both less power and less responsibility relative to Women under Matriarchy, particularly in regards to children.  That makes sense, as it's a trade-off.  Women would also be the richer gender as well, and children would ultimately be raised (more or less) collectively by the "village".  And to paraphrase the philosopher Iris Murdoch (in a different context), one cannot simply go on indefinitely living off of the interest of a capital that one has long since rejected, at least not for very long.

(Perhaps that is one somewhat esoteric reason why, contrary to popular opinion, even Feminists have long been divided on the issue of child support laws and reform.  Any Feminist Women who do support reform (despite it being a very hot-button, "third rail" issue), however, generally use equality-based arguments to openly make their case, though.)

And yet, abruptly ending all child support obligations right now (especially in the USA) would be nothing short of catastrophic, leaving millions of Women and children high and dry, while rakish men get to laugh all the way to the bank.  So that is clearly a no-go, hands down.  Especially in a world where Women's hard-won reproductive rights are currently on the chopping block as we speak.  

The fellas can't have it both ways, of course. If Women are to be treated as brood mares, then it logically follows that men would be....WORK HORSES.  And we must all say "NEIGH" to both of those "traditional" and dehumanizing gender roles.

Long story short, in the long run, I do support gradually phasing out the child support laws, for children born at some point in the future, but we must be very careful NOT put the cart before the horse.  Before we even begin to do so, we must do ALL of the following first, at a minimum:

• Fully codify and guarantee Women's reproductive rights in federal law.
• Birth control and abortion access must be readily available to all on demand.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all, aka Social Security For All, with NO strings attached.  Goodbye poverty!
• At the very least, we must have some flavor of UBI for children, similar to what we very briefly had in the USA with the expanded child tax credit.  We could even call it "collective child support".
• Universal, single-payer Medicare For All.  Goodbye massive medical bills!
• Generous paid family leave for both genders.
• Free or subsidized high-quality childcare for all who want it.
• "Baby bonds" to make every baby a trust-fund baby and build generational wealth.
• Free college and/or trade school for all who want it.
• As long as other social welfare and safety net programs like TANF still exist, remove the perverse requirement for single Mothers to name the father in order to receive benefits (you can thank Slick Willie for that one). 
• And so on.  In other words, the genuine progressive wish list, funded collectively via progressive taxation, Georgist-style taxation, financial transaction taxes, Pigouvian taxes, vice taxes, and/or money creation.

After that, the first phase of the phaseout would be to allow men to get a so-called "paper abortion" early on before birth of the child, wherein they irrevocably sign away all parental rights and responsibilities.  Even before that, one can nibble around the edges a bit and start with ending all existing child support requirements at age 18 (albeit with a grandfather clause, of course) and not a day later, and also categorically exempt all vasectomized men from child support going forward as well.  Then, gradually phase it all out organically from there.  Eventually, it will simply become the norm to put "father unknown" on birth certificates by default.

(And repeal the Bradley Amendment too.)

"But men will behave even more like cads then!", some Women may object.  Well, I've got news for you:  men have been doing that since before Jehovah had Witnesses, lol.  That is, they have their own personal Jehovah between their legs, and their balls are the Witnesses, lol.  And it is only a fairly recently innovation that men ever had any real "skin in the game", legally speaking. One can, in fact, draw a straight line between men's newfound "skin in the game" on the one hand, and their more recent aversion to procreation, commitment-phobia, work-shyness, and overall penchant for Peter Pan-style perpetual adolescence on the other.  Men have always been stuck in perpetual adolescence, of course, and it simply went from subtle to overt, in other words.

Thus, the answer to the question is ultimately yes, but a VERY, VERY qualified yes.  In the long run, phasing out these rigid and increasingly outmoded 20th century policies is a truly necessary step (though by no means sufficient by itself!) on the way to finally extricating Women and children from the age-old quagmire of patriarchy for good, God willing. 

P.S.  Men are NOT the only ones who are forced to pay child support, by the way.  Women often have those very same laws weaponized against them as well, particularly when crooked Family Court judges perversely grant abusive men full custody of their kids.  And the forced payments directly from the alienated Mother to the abuser (!) thus add further insult to injury as it gives the abuser even more power over her and the kids.  Yes, that really still happens frequently even to this day, though the mainstream is deafeningly silent about it:  just Google "Motherless America" to learn more.

UPDATE:  The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder later remined me that there is also yet another thing that can backfire just as hard on Women if not harder, and that is called PALIMONY.  It's basically like alimony but for those who had lived together without being officially married, typically if lived together for eight of more years per common law (but that varies by jurisdiction).  It is nuanced, to be sure, but that needs to phased out even sooner IMHO, with the aforementioned safeguards in place, of course.