The Misogyny-Misandry Death Spiral

With all that has been going on in the world lately, one common thread seems to be noticeable these days.  Scratch the surface of so many problems, and you will often find some flavor of misogyny lurking under the surface.

First, some definitions:

Misogyny:  hatred and/or hostility towards Women and girls

Misandry:  hatred and/or hostility towards men and boys

Misanthropy:  hatred and/or hostility towards humanity in general, regardless of gender

After the 2024 election in the USA, the 4B Movement (of Women to essentially boycott men) began trending stateside online, though it was already several years old by then in the Republic of Korea (South Korea), its birthplace.  Dig a little deeper into exactly why it originated there, of all countries, and you will see that they actually have a pretty massive and systemic misogyny problem over there.  It's often very subtle of course, and the fellas there always seem so nice and friendly to outside observers from the rest of the world, but beware:  a "kinder, gentler patriarchy" is still a patriarchy.  They are basically a traditional society that has rapidly (and unevenly) modernized, and still has a LOT of old patriarchal baggage to unpack.  And just beneath the surface, it is apparently downright horrifying for so many of the Women of South Korea, so much that so many want nothing to do with men at all if they can help it.  And it really shows most starkly of all in their all-time record low birthrates (lowest in the world currently, with a TFR of as low as 0.80-0.90 children per Woman, less than half the replacement of 2.1) which no amount of pronatalism seems to be able to raise.  

Even their utterly dystopian and Stalinist totalitarian neighbor to the north (the DPRK, or North Korea) somehow manages significantly higher rates of procreation than South Korea these days, so that really says something indeed!

Now zoom out to the world as a whole, particularly on the internet and social media.  Misogyny seems to be reactionary, refractory, and recrudescent in recent years all over the world, with the USA being the most recent ground zero for this ugly trend.  And in very recent years, especially online, you will also notice at least in some circles an equal and opposite reaction (i.e. misandry) per Newton's laws of physics, even though it is not systemic like misogyny is.  But it does appear to unwittingly give ammunition to the latter all the same, unfortunately.  And social media only amplifies both hostilities further, and it ultimately spills over into the offline world as well.  Zoom out even further and look at it on a longer time scale as well, and you will clearly see a vicious cycle and downward spiral occur as follows:

Misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny, and so on.

It's enough to turn practically anyone into a full-blown, all-around misanthrope!  At least then, you don't actually have to decide which gender you dislike the most.

This phenomenon is what I call the "Misogyny-Misandry Death Spiral", or MMDS for short.  And the MMDS is a negative-sum (lose-lose) game for all. It leads to nothing but tribalism, polarization, balkanization, and toxicity all around. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, "Hate cannot drive out hate.  Only love can do that".

Divide et impera. Divide and rule. Rinse and repeat. While the oligarchs laugh at the "little people" all the way to the bank.

The results of the 2024 election in the USA are in fact both a cause and a consequence of this vicious death spiral, which threatens to destroy the country, and ultimately the world if left unchecked.

Of course, men could very easily end this spiral right now along with the broader gender war if they truly wanted to, by "accepting the unacceptable" and surrendering to Women.  But unfortunately, there is nowhere near a critical mass willing to do so at this time yet.

Mother Nature Knows Exactly What She Is Doing (Updated Re-Post)

In a previous article, I had noted that we have little if anything to fear from an aging and eventually shrinking population in the future, while the very real ecological problems of overpopulation and ecological overshoot greatly dwarf any social and economic problems of the former.  But I did not get fully into the mechanics of exactly WHY birth rates are falling and have been falling for quite a while now.

I would of course be remiss not to note that the plandemic and especially the jabs (I for one refuse to inaccurately call these novel and experimental gene therapy drugs by their preferred V-word) played a role, but the trend of falling birthrates began LONG before anyone ever even heard of the "novel coronavirus".  In fact, it goes back decades.

It's almost like Gaia is trying to tell us something.  So read on, and let's answer the "clue phone" ringing louder than ever....

There also physical factors dampening fertility such as endocrine disruptors and other pollutants, which clearly play a role, along with widespread use of both licit and illicit drugs as well, but most of the drop in birthrates is due to more people of both genders choosing (consciously or unconsciously) to have either fewer kids or no kids at all.

The obvious reason?  Women are generally no longer forced and coerced as they once were to be serial breeding slaves, at least not in the rich-world countries.  So unsurprisingly, they are now having fewer kids, and starting later in life than before.  No wonder the reactionaries want so desperately to revoke Women's hard-won reproductive rights.  In fact, Women all over the world are increasingly FED UP with patriarchy, especially in traditional societies that have recently modernized.  To cite an extreme example, the country with the world's lowest total fertility rate (TFR), South Korea, there is currently even a Lysistrata-like movement called the "4B movement" (a combination of reproductive strike, dating strike, marriage strike, and sex strike against men by primarily the younger generation of Women) that is apparently rapidly catching on over there.  And it seems to be spreading to the USA as well, especially following the 2024 election.

And in parallel with that, a more subtle reason also emerges:  as men now have more "skin in the game" legally in regards to the children that they sire, compared with just a few generations ago, men also are finding that having too many kids and/or too soon is more burden than benefit for them as well.  Furthermore, at least in the rich-world countries, children are generally no longer a source of cheap labor anymore.  So it really doesn't make economic sense anymore for men to have lots of kids like in the past either.

Meanwhile, under late-stage capitalism and late-stage patriarchy, the cost of raising children continues to skyrocket along with the extreme inequality and (often planned and artificial) scarcity of resources (especially housing) thanks to the oligarchy and their sycophantic lackeys in government.  That impacts both genders, of course.  Increased life expectancy, urbanization, technology, and an accelerating pace of life also contribute to reduced birthrates well.

It is also an opportunity cost for Women as well, in that now that Women are now allowed to have (gasp!) education, careers, and stuff like that, and thus attempting the high birthrates of the past would clearly interfere with and put a damper on that.  Time and energy are finite resources, after all.  Reactionaries of course, at least when they aren't too craven to say the quiet part out loud, would cynically argue that Women thus have "too many choices" now, and that forcibly taking opportunities away from Women (!) would be the only way to restore the high birthrates of the past.  Technically, they are not entirely incorrect. That, and/or restoring the very high poverty and death rates (both infant/child and maternal) of the distant past, would indeed be the only way to restore such high birthrates.  But I don't think any sane person really wants to do either, nor would it be even remotely ethical.

Nor are the high birthrates of the past really a good idea in an overpopulated world in ecological overshoot, obviously.  "Replacement rate," which ultimately results in a long-term stable population number that is neither growing nor shrinking, is a total fertility rate (TFR) of roughly 2.1 children born per Woman.  For example, a TFR of, say, 1.5-1.8 or so (where most of the world currently seems to be converging towards, even in many non-rich countries) for a few generations would lead to a gentle and gradual population decline of roughly 10% to 25% per generation once positive momentum ends and then negative momentum sets in.  (A TFR of 1.0, around where most of East Asia seems to be converging, would result in an even sooner and faster population drop of about 50% per generation, and so on.)  Then, as the world becomes less crowded, and thus the cost of living drops, Women will likely decide to have somewhat more kids and the TFR will eventually settle around replacement rate once again.

Indeed, put too many rats in the same cage, and they simply stop breeding.  Same with humans, apparently.  And a gilded cage is still a cage.

All of this dovetails nicely with the Gaia hypothesis per James Lovelock.  That is, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing when a grossly overpopulated species wreaks havoc on the Earth as we continually transgress planetary boundaries like there is no tomorrow.  In the case of modern humans, we have artificially (and temporarily!) pushed back many of the natural limits that once held our population in check, so now we are, not coincidentally, losing at least some of the previous desire and/or ability to procreate until we ultimately get back into balance with Nature, God willing.  So it is unsurprising that all of the overt pronatalism in the world, even literally paying Women to have kids, is NOT really working to raise birthrates more than at the very margins.  Even the very generous and progressive Nordic countries are still significantly below replacement rate, albeit still higher than most of their neighbors to the south (except for France, who is also almost as generous as the Nordics).

That's not to say that a generous progressive and pro-humanity agenda (such as Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, generous paid family leave, flexible work-life balance, shorter workweek, free or subsidized childcare, improved education, better support for parents and children in general, and stuff like that) would be useless, far from it.  I believe that it is simply the right thing to do for it's own sake regardless.  It's called ethics, and respecting the inherent dignity of the human person.  Humanism, in other words.  But, short of literally paying Mothers a total of at least $360,000 per child* (the approximate average cost of raising ONE child from birth until age 18, excluding higher education) in 2025 dollars, if one is somehow counting on such things merely to stop the population from aging or shrinking, they are most likely barking up the wrong tree.  The most it could do in that regard is slow down the rate of population aging and decline, so as not to hit too large a "pothole" on the road to sustainability. 

(*NOTE:  If your jaw just dropped reading that figure, think of it like this:  Mothering is literally the most important job in the world, yet it is one that literally pays NEGATIVE "wages".  The updated 2025 sum of $360,000 is really just breaking even, basically.  Now you see why practically all pronatalist initiatives, monetary or otherwise, don't really move the needle.)

Regardless, we must leave room for Nature, lest Nature ultimately not leave room for us.  We ignore that basic maxim at our own peril, not to mention that of the entire planet.

And certainly, we must never, ever, force, coerce, or deceive anyone to have kids against their will, period.  That is a very backward, outmoded, illiberal, and all-around toxic thing to do to anyone, and does NOT respect the dignity of the human person.  Doing so treats humanity solely as a means to an end, not an end in itself.  That should go without saying, of course, but when carrots fail, there will be the temptation to use sticks, as some countries are already doing today.

In a nutshell, an aging and shrinking population is inevitable, baked into the cake for several generations now, and the only thing we can really do is adapt to it.  How we will "ride the slide" is ultimately the "make or break" point for our species during the current Anthropocene epoch.  And the Earth will ultimately thank us if we get it right (and we absolutely cannot afford to get it wrong, as that is not an option).

Let the planetary healing begin!

P.S.  I realized that I had glossed over and neglected to mention the factor of NARCISSISM.  Some would argue that a supposed increase in "cultural narcissism" is at least partially responsible for people choosing to have fewer kids or none at all.  If that is true, then that is actually a GOOD thing on balance.  Narcissists truly make some of the very worst parents as a rule (second only to psychopaths and sociopaths), and narcissists of course tend to beget more narcissists, via nature, nurture, or both.  And a culture causing fewer narcissists to procreate as much will cause them to ultimately go largely extinct within a few generations, which would be to everyone's ultimate benefit overall. Indeed any case, attempting economic degrowth without population degrowth is ultimately an exercise in futility.  Once again, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing. 

(Mic drop)

Women Are Indeed Higher Beings (Updated Re-Post)

NOTE:  This article was originally posted in 2017, and updated accordingly since then.

A 2017 scientific study on gender difference confirms what we in the Matriarchy movement have already known, and thinkers like Ashley Montagu have discussed over half a century ago:  Women are indeed the better half of humanity.  And Women's and men's brains really are apparently wired differently, to one degree or another.

This study, consisting of behavioral experiments conducted by neuroscientists (Alexander Soutschek, et al.) at the University of Zurich, find that not only are Women more likely to be generous and men more likely to be selfish, but that there is a neurological explanation for such differences.  To wit, Women's brains tend to reward prosocial (unselfish) behavior where as men's brains tend to reward selfish behavior.  The brain's reward center (the striatum, which releases a hit of dopamine as the reward) was found to differentially activated in that regard in these experiments.  And when dopamine was blocked, the opposite tendencies were increased by both genders.  Thus, at a neurological level, Women are essentially rewarded for kindness, while men are rewarded for being selfish.  

Gee, who woulda thunk it?  In other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and a bear does its business in the woods.

Of course, the perennial "nature versus nurture" question inevitably comes into play here, and the researchers predictably conclude that their findings are more likely due to nurture than nature.  But I believe that it is, at the very least, a bit of both, if not more nature than nurture, as any explanation for the findings that relies entirely on nurture seems to merely coast toward such a conclusion.  Women seem to be naturally more prosocial and community-minded on average than men, even if culture can magnify (or reduce) such differences as well.

Thus, this study should lend support to the idea that Women are likely much better leaders than men, and that their feminine paradigm of leadership would be superior as well.  And any economy run by Women is likely to eventually tend more or less toward a "gift economy" rather than an "exchange economy like we have now under patriarchy.  (Though I would argue now that a pure gift economy" would be very difficult if not impossible to do at scale, and thus I advocate a "hybrid economy" of both gifts and exchanges.)  Remember, the literal meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts" in the original Latin.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin!

And to all the men reading this:  DO NOT take this study as license to be selfish jerks!  Women's kindness and generosity is NOT a weakness, and it is NOT unlimited, so stop treating it like it is unless you really want to see their dark side (yes, it does exist, and I strongly advise against activating it, ever).  Remember, when Women are happy, the world is happy.  And when they are not, watch out, fellas!

Paid Family Leave Revisited

(This is an updated version of an article originally posted in 2018.)

In 2017, an op-ed at CNN by Vanessa Brown Calder of the pro-corporate glibertarian Cato Institute claimed that paid family leave policies actually backfire on Women by making companies less likely to hire them as well as entrenching traditional gender roles.  She seems to see it as a zero-sum game for some reason.  And even now, the article is still likely being linked to on other articles discussing this important topic.  Even if they don't always cite it directly, people on social media still repeat the ideas found within it, for example.

First of all, except for a very few states, the USA is the only modern or even semi-modern country that does not offer any paid leave for Mothers, let alone fathers or anyone else for that matter.  And even then, the few states that do are rather stingy compared to most other industrialized nations.  The USA makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus by comparison in that regard. (So much for "Mothers and apple pie".)

Secondly, is there really any truth to the op-ed author's specious claim?  According to the weight of research evidence over the past decade or two, not really.  Except perhaps for poorly-designed programs that 1) force employers to pay for it, rather than via taxes (or money creation), 2) are limited only to mothers or are otherwise not gender neutral, and/or 3) have an unusually long duration--though that last one remains debatable, given the stunning success in the Nordic countries (whose durations of paid leave often exceed a year).  In fact, the only conclusively proven and robust downside--if one can even call it that--to long leave durations (i.e. longer than a year) is that they tend to discourage Mothers from returning to paid work compared with durations between nine months and a year.  (A very subjective "downside" at that.). 

Otherwise, the well-documented benefits to Women, children, society, and even men as well outweigh any supposed costs.  Ultimately, everyone is better off as a result. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs, in other words.  Thus, a no-brainer.  See Taryn Morrissey's 2017 book Cradle to Kindergarten for a good review of the general topic of why the USA should join the rest of the developed world and invest much more in early childhood care and education, which will pay major dividends for society in the long run.

And in a country where Women have already reached a critical mass in the workforce, especially at mid- to high-level positions, have very generous paid family leave of a year or even longer could literally be done right now given enough political will.  Otherwise, starting fairly small and then gradually making it more generous and longer duration is a good foot-in-the-door strategy in the long run.

Of course, once Women finally reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, this will no longer even be a debate anymore.  In the future when all or nearly all high-level managers and executives are Women, and many if not most of whom are Mothers, things will be very different indeed, and likely fundamentally so.  

True, paid family leave is not an end goal, but merely a good starting point for a more equitable society overall.  That is the FLOOR, not the ceiling!  Other things need to happen as well, such as Universal Basic Income (UBI), single-payer Medicare For All, shorter and more flexible workweeks for all workers, more paid time off for all workers, equal pay, affordable high-quality childcare and early childhood education, as well as longer-term cultural changes as well.  And of course, the biggest elephant in the room--MEN--really need to start pulling their weight for once.  But in the meantime, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.  

So what are we waiting for?  MAMASTE!

Only Women Can Break The Cycle of History (Updated Re-Post)

  

History, or more accurately, HIStory, has always seemed to occur in cycles.  Ascendancy and decline.  Collapse and rebirth.  Spring and fall.  Over and over again.  And with smaller cycles occurring as part of larger ones as well.  The modern meme about it goes like this:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

And so on.  And if current events are any indication, in 2025 we seem to be in the "weak men create hard times" stage, alas.  But the authors of this meme did not pull this out of the ether, rather, this idea of the cyclical nature of history is thousands of years old.  The ancient Greeks called it "Anacyclosis".

Per Wikipedia:

Anacyclosis states that three basic forms of "benign" government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) are inherently weak and unstable, tending to degenerate rapidly into the three basic forms of "malignant" government (tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy). [Ochlocracy = mob rule]

Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order: 1. monarchy, 2. kingship, 3. tyranny, 4. aristocracy, 5. oligarchy, 6. democracy, and 7. ochlocracy.  [And finally chaos, and then the cycle repeats with a new king emerging from the chaos...]

And then there is the "Tytler Cycle" (or "Fatal Sequence") as well.  The following quote, actually of somewhat unknown authorship, has nonetheless been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler sometime in either the late 18th or early 19th century, though occasionally it has been attributed to Alexis de Toqueville as well:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

These two paragraphs actually did not occur together until the 1970s, but the latter one is the one that stuck the most.  It can thus be summarized graphically as follows:

The first paragraph of course can be debunked by the theories of Monetary Sovereignty and Modern Monetary Theory, in that a government that issues and controls it's own sovereign currency cannot really go bankrupt unless they deliberately choose to, and thus loose fiscal policy per se need not result in a dictatorship.  In Venezuela, for example, dictatorship (and corruption) actually came first, well before their extremely loose fiscal policy.  Furthermore, Switzerland is the very closest thing to a truly direct democracy in the modern world, and interestingly the voters in 2016 actually rejected a Universal Basic Income (UBI) referendum.  And even Canada, arguably somewhat more democratic in practice than the USA (prior to 2020), had actually shrank the size of its government dramatically from 1990 to 2019 via fiscal austerity (which came at a heavy price), and barely any stimulus even during the Great Recession.  But the second paragraph is the one that is the real essence of the quote, regardless of what sort of governing system is in place.  And it seems to be true throughout history time and again.

To be fair, many civilizations have lasted for much more than 200 years, and sometimes some of the stages listed here are truncated, inverted, and/or leapfrogged over entirely.  But as a general rule or heuristic, it largely holds true. 

And more recently, William Strauss and Neil Howe's generational theory also appears to dovetail with all of this.  And the ever-insightful Julius Ruechel observes how that cycle seems to occur every four generations, or roughly 80 years or so (making us due for a major crisis by 2020, being about 80 years since the Great Depression and its infamous segway into WWII).  This is, of course, a smaller cycle within larger ones like the ones mentioned above, but again it follows basically the same pattern.  A pattern that seems to be, for all intents and purposes, sooner or later, inevitable and written in stone.  So what is the underlying reason?

Thus once again, we return to the first meme, with the proper emphasis added this time:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

And so on.  Now do you see why?  Because MEN are in charge, that's why.  Strong men and weak men are ultimately two sides of the same coin.  And thus only Women can finally break the vicious cycle for good, by reclaiming their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, Goddess willing.  And as they say, the rest will be HERstory.

Let the planetary healing begin!

ICYMI, Be Sure To Check Out Guru Rasa's New 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. 😊

"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)