"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)

1484: The Witches' Hammer

Here is a good preliminary idea for a historical fiction novel, short story, or movie perhaps, tentatively titled "1484: The Witches' Hammer", a title which is clearly laden with puns:

Inspired by Sylvia Federici's 2004 book Caliban and the Witch, and a few recent Substack articles from Katie Jgln as well as the author with the pen name "15th Century Feminist", I have been thinking of an idea lately.  As Federici notes, the Inquisition which devolved into the Burning Times / Women's Holocaust (aka witch trials of Europe) was in effect a counterrevolution against the slow-burn Women's revolution of the 14th and 15th centuries and a bit beyond as well.  That is, in addition to midwives, herbalists, healers, and of course Women who owned property (so it could be seized by men), the primarily-targeted Women as "witches" were in fact revolutionaries against feudalism, patriarchy, and what eventually came to be known as capitalism.  And combined with the enclosures of the commons, such a counterrevolution, lasting into the latter half of the 17th century, and even into the 18th, ultimately paved the way for patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, which was actually a regress from feudalism for the first few centuries.  The entire working class ultimately suffered as a result, and poverty worsened dramatically until the 19th century. 

(Men were victims of the Burning Times too, of course, but except in the very strange case of Iceland where it was mostly men killed, men were largely collateral damage, and persecuted primarily as "heretics" rather than "witches".  In fact, if you go back far enough, there was even a double standard where "sorcery" was still socially acceptable for men, but not for Women.  Read that again.  Natch.)

Anyway, while this bloody gynocidal counterrevolution had already begun before it, it did not really take off in earnest until after the Malleus Maleficarum ("The Witches' Hammer") by Heinrich Kramer, was published in 1486, following that fateful "load of papal bull" from Pope Innocent VIII (or as I like to call him, "Pope Guilty As Sin", given how much blood he had on his hands) in 1484 which inspired it.  It was the 15th century equivalent of clickbait, fake news, misinformation, and disinformation, and it was the gasoline dumped on the smoldering fires of what would soon become the Burning Times.  And as Katie Jgln notes, it was in fact enabled by the advent of the printing press, without which such disinformation could not have traveled nearly as fast.

So my idea for historical fiction would be for a group of people, mostly or entirely Women, from the present era to find a way to go back in time to 1484, and publish (using those same printing presses) a counter-manifesto rebutting and discrediting the execrable Pope Guilty's vile and slanderous words and the entire moral panic he inspired, and warning everyone about what the patriarchal establishment planned to do.  Then, after that but sometime before 1486, they would take an actual, literal hammer to as many printing presses as they could find, preventing or at least delaying the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum itself, long enough for it to be discredited before put into practice.  That would buy the Women revolutionaries some time to at least "tread water" (if not advance further) until around 1600 when they would finally get access to the "magic elixir of revolution" (as foretold in the counter-manifesto) when it arrives in Europe for the first time:  COFFEE.  And then from there, and also with tea from 1650 or so, the revolution would have accelerated, and Women would have eventually won the gender war and gradually taken over completely by now.  

First Europe, then the world.  In an organic, protopian, slow-burn revolution, i.e. the way Women prefer to do revolution. 

(In actual history, when it was first introduced to Europe from the Middle East, coffee literally came be associated with revolution for a while, and the first coffeehouses generally excluded Women, of course.  Gee, I wonder why that was?)

Indeed, as the old adage goes, if you change one thing, you end up changing everything.  By doing so, a time paradox occurs where many of the people who would have otherwise existed would end up not existing, or more likely having been reincarnated as other species.  That is because after Women took over, they refuse to be breeding slaves for men, so the world population ended up much smaller it currently is.  And since Women are much better stewards of the Earth than men, nonhuman species would have flourished more, and not been decimated nearly as much, as they have been under male rule.  And of course, capitalism would have been leapfrogged over completely (or at least largely) towards some flavor of post-capitalism and/or communalism.  

(And let's not forget all of the fuzzy kitties that would have been superstitiously targeted by the evil purveyors of the Burning Times as well, but were spared when such atrocities were largely prevented by smashing those printing presses!)

In other words, perhaps the key to having any future that is worth having, is to go back in time and correct such a truly terrible mistake.  Let the planetary healing begin!

P.S. To anyone reading this, especially Women, please feel free to steal this idea, as I hereby release this general idea of mine into the public domain, giving due credit of course to those who inspired me.  God knows that men have been stealing Women's ideas for thousands of years, so many things, from beer to baseball to the automobile to computers to the structure of DNA and so much more.  Even horticulture, most likely invented by Women thousands of years ago, has been rediscovered and rebranded as "permaculture" by men.

(To be continued....)

Guru Rasa's Latest Magnum Opus: The Man Whisperer

ICYMI, be sure to check out the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder's latest book now published and available on Lulu, The Man Whisperer:  How an Old Lady Snags Young Men for Sex.  With its self-explanatory title, she chronicles and discusses in depth her experiences as a Cougar in the college town of Binghamton, New York, and shares important wisdom and lessons she had learned along the way.

Enjoy! 😊

P.S.  Not to toot my own horn, but the book also features a little bit of William Bond and myself as well. 😊

The Four Words To Psychologically Disarm Practically Any Patriarchal Man

This is probably the shortest post yet.

The four words that best psychologically disarm practically any man, particularly patriarchal men, are as follows:

"I CALL YOUR BLUFF!"

Because at least 9 times out of 10, if not 99 times out of 100, they are BLUFFING.  Not always, of course, but usually.  In fact, the late Ashley Montagu noted that the notion of male superiority is itself the biggest bluff the world has ever seen.

The End

The Lazy Gender

Let's be brutally honest about something:  humanity is basically a "lion's pride writ large".  Men have always been the lazier gender (relative to Women at the same time and place), and barring a truly quantum leap in human evolution, most likely always will be.  This has consistently been true in all known human societies, whether patriarchal, Matriarchal, filiarchal, tri-une, or anything in between, so it is not entirely a social construct like some would prefer to believe. 

The difference is that in an actual lion's pride, which is actually Matriarchal, the hardworking females have practically all of the power, while the lazy males have little to no real power at all, just the illusion of power as "King Nothing", like the famous Metallica song.  Whereas in patriarchal human societies, men generally have power without responsibility (which is very dangerous), while Women generally have responsibility without power (which is very harmful to Women and children).  And even for the most rudimentary job of all for males, to "guard the perimeter" to protect the females and their young, male lions still do it better than most men, as evidenced in the fact that 55% of American men just voted for, and thus bowed to, a known misogynistic fascist dictator, and when you include those who voted third party or didn't bother to vote at all, now you are looking at well north of 60%, that is, a solid majority of men who utterly failed to protect Women and children.  

Honestly, if you can't be a provider, at the very least, be a protector, fellas!  (Facepalm)

And, of course, men have long had the absolute GALL to, um, lionize the so-called Protestant Work Ethic (TM) (that is, "work for the sake of work, to justify one's own existence"), all while simultaneously and hypocritically devaluing and exploiting Women's unpaid and underpaid labor.

In contrast, in Matriarchal human societies, both historical and contemporary, Women have more power and more responsibility, while the men have less power and less responsibility (albeit sometimes holding puppet figurehead "chief" roles for show).  That is, power (or lack thereof) and responsibility (or lack thereof) go fully hand in hand, and as a result, gender relations are as harmonious as it gets.

So here's a good visual aid, courtesy of Wikipedia:

The Laziest Kitty of All

The Real Natural-Born Leaders

And last but not least, a hat tip to the ever-insightful Liz Plank, whose Substack article from a few weeks ago at least partly inspired me to write this article.  Thank you 😊

International Men's Day: A Day Of Atonement

 

In case you didn't know, November 19 is International Men's Day (which also happens to be World Toilet Day, interestingly enough).  As if we really needed a day to celebrate ourselves, lol.  What International Men's Day should really be is a day of atonement, a sort of Yom Kippur for men.  And for those guys who arrogantly claim that they have literally nothing to atone for, prepare to eat some humble pie, and apologize to the Divine Feminine.  The following is food for thought:

So what has our gender collectively done for the past 7000 years or so?

We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it "peace".  We devoured and suffocated our own empire, the world is on fire, and now we are all paying a heavy price for it.  It's 14:59 of our proverbial 15 minutes of fame, and the clock is ticking.

All because we foolishly decided one day to depose Women from power because we thought we could somehow do better.  Well, we were wrong, dead wrong in fact.  We are sorry, but clearly we can stuff our "sorrys" in a sack at this point.  The agony of regret indeed.

Yes, I know, "not all men".  But the fact remains that the "good guys" among us have clearly and consistently failed to prevent the truly bad guys from subjugating, tyrannizing, raping, abusing, and degrading the better half of humanity (while also doing the very same thing to Mother Earth as well), and overall turning heaven on Earth into hell on Earth.

So how could heaven turn to hell?  You guessed it, it was us all along.  But one day the shadows will surround us, and the days will come to end.  And now we see clearly...

We both knew, it would always end this way...

(Bonus points for anyone who can find the hidden and not-so-hidden pop-culture references and lyrics to various songs contained throughout this apology to the Divine Feminine. Give up?  Scroll down to the bottom for the answer.)

And just like you should never wish someone a "Happy Yom Kippur", as there is really nothing happy about atonement, we should probably avoid doing the same with International Men's Day as well.

The new song "The Feminine Divine" by Dexys Midnight Runners also comes to mind.

But the cultural references above are really from various songs by Joni Mitchell, Shinedown, Sugar Ray, and Five Finger Death Punch, et al.  And also Seinfeld, and a paraphrase of the Ancient Roman historian Tacitus as well.

And now with the very latest example of Adam throwing Eve under the bus, AGAIN, that is, given how a majority of American men of all generations voted (or failed to vote) in the 2024 election, all of the above applies a fortiori now.

And to those men who voted (and gloated) for the Manchild Who Would Be King, well, all I can say is, enjoy your pride before the fall.  Karma is NOT on your side, bro.

Is Ethical Heterosexual Sex Possible Under (Late) Patriarchy?

NOTE:  This article is written primarily for a male audience.

One of the common "straw feminist" arguments often weaponized by anti-feminist and "manosphere" types to try to discredit feminism in general is one that only the most truly extreme fringe ultra-radical feminists (a vanishingly tiny few, nearly all from the second wave in the 1970s and early 1980s) have ever actually put forth with a straight face:  some flavor of "under patriarchy, all (heterosexual) sex is rape".  That statement is, of course, quite easy to refute, as it completely denies Women any agency at all over their own bodies and minds, and is thus infantilizing and demeaning to Women.  And I don't go anywhere near arguments like that, so you will never hear anything like that from me.

Such patronizing and paternalistic nonsense really serves only to discredit feminism and Women in general, trivialize rape, throw out the baby with the bathwater, and put men in a reverse double bind (i.e. a duty to refuse sex, but no right to refuse)* as well, thus it has no place in the 21st century. 

But what if there were a kernel of truth to such an extreme and absolutist argument?  That is, not that it is necessarily rape, which a truly egregious violation of a Woman's bodily integrity and a desecration of the Sacred Feminine, but more like there is "no ethical heterosexual sex under patriarchy", much like the argument that there is "no ethical consumption under capitalism" (which is true, but obviously doesn't stop either gender from going shopping).  Could a more nuanced case be made in that regard?

Well, I hate to be a buzzkill, fellas, but just like consumption under capitalism, heterosexual sex can never be perfectly ethical as long as patriarchy still exists.  Sorry.  The problem is systemic, and goes very, very deep.  And unfortunately, just like we are living under "late capitalism", we are still living under some flavor of "late patriarchy", even in the most progressive, social democratic, and (relatively) gender-equal countries.  (And certainly still in the USA!)  But again, that doesn't stop either gender from going shopping, so is it possible for men to have sexual relations with Women while maintaining a (relatively) clear conscience?

The good news is it's a qualified yes, albeit imperfectly, provided that certain rules are followed.  ("Wait, what?  There's rules?  I thought we dispensed with such stuffiness like so much bric-a-brac decades ago!  Boooooo!")  Relax, fellas.  These rules are hardly oppressive, and actually tend to make sex better for both Women and men.  Such rules may reduce the quantity and frequency of sex, but will more than make up for that in terms of the quality of sex.  Plus, you actually get to LIVE with yourself, sleep well at night, and not have to constantly worry that you are literally playing Russian Roulette with your soul (!) in that regard.  Here they are:

1. First and foremost, be sure to obtain enthusiastic consent before proceeding, each and every time, and at each stage of escalation or changing to a different act.  When in doubt, check in and make sure.  In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!"  Period.
2. Always take NO for an answer.  Period.  Do NOT force, coerce, pressure, or manipulate anyone into sex.
3. Do NOT objectify or degrade Women (or men).  Always think in terms of "I and Thou", never "I and It".  Or as Immanuel Kant would say, "Always treat humanity as an end in itself, never solely as a means to an end".  (Contrary to the antisexual Kant, though, attraction per se does NOT automatically imply objectification.)
4. Avoid anything one-sided or "selfish in bed," as it should always be mutual.  After all, Women are human beings, NOT sex dolls or masturbation machines.
5. Whoever has the yoni makes the rules.  She is taking way more of a risk than you are, thus she is extending to you a much larger grace than you are to her.  Look up to her, not down on her.  Be sure to prioritize her pleasure!
6. No cruelty, violence, or abuse of any kind.  That should go without saying, before, during, and after.
7. Do not be a deceiver.  Honesty is always the best policy.
8. Practice radical empathy.  Try to actually see things from her perspective for a change. 
9. As Gabrielle Blair would say, "Ejaculate Responsibly".  If you feel you must have penetrative intercourse, USE A CONDOM as "standard operating procedure", with any exception requiring serious justification. 
10. And above all, DO NOT abuse, violate, or desecrate children in any way, shape, or form!  There is a special place in the Lake of Fire for those who do.  Same goes for those who abuse animals in any way as well.

Otherwise, have fun, fellas!  

(Mic drop)

(*Bonus points for anyone who recognized that statement with an asterisk as simply the mirror image of the double bind that Women have been forced into for millennia.)

P.S.  Contrary to what Maoists (and reactionaries, in an example of Horseshoe Theory) tend to claim, marriage is NOT necessarily "the least oppressive form of sexuality under [patriarchal] imperialism" for Women.  It is still, at base, a patriarchal institution, regardless of any attempts (with varying degrees of success) to re-purpose it for a post-patriarchal world to come, and is still all too often rigged in men's favor.  Thus, at a minimum, the same ethical sex rules listed above should still apply whether married or not.

And it should also go without saying, on the other side of the coin, that the same rules apply even if, or rather especially if, the sexual activity in question falls under the category of "casual".  Remember, "casual" in that regard simply means uncommitted or intended to be short-term.  It does NOT mean meaningless, disrespectful, or treat your partner like garbage.  The human dignity floor of mutual respect must still remain in place regardless of how the sex is labeled.