I think everybody here agrees that we should reinstate patriarchy in some form. But there are different degrees. I’m going to outline two possible extremes here.
Extreme A: Women are basically chattel with the exception of higher vocabulary and men can breed them to create human babies. Women are not permitted education beyond the basics of learning to read and do basic arithmetic. Women are not permitted to testify in court. Marriages are simply an arrangement between father-in-laws and son-in-laws with no input from the woman. There is no significant courtship, romance, or love story involved. It is up to the father to select what man he wants as a son-in-law and father of his grandchildren. Once married, the woman is basically the slave of her husband, except that he cannot rent her out or sell her. A husband has full authority to use corporal punishment on his wife as needed and worthy men may have more than one wife while unworthy men may not get any.
Extreme B: This is where we are now. Women and shitlib men claim to want equality but in reality that means special privileges for women, ranging from affirmative action, lowering of military standards, scholarships for girls only, anti-patriarchy propaganda, propaganda to attract girls to math& science, promotion of barrenness, etc. I don’t think we are going to get to the left of Extreme B because civilization would collapse at that point. I think we’re basically cruising for collapse now, so anything further is basically stomping the gas.
Ok, the key point that I want to point out is that Extreme A is actually compatible with powerful and lasting civilization while extreme B is not. Say what you want about moslims, but they aren’t the ones with a fertility crisis and they don’t have a feminism epidemic.
It is unlikely that men of the West will want to do extreme A because we are so benevolent. We are benevolent to our animals, benevolent to our enemies, and of course benevolent to our women. Even though all of nature is screaming for Extreme A, it is unlikely that men weaned on (and genetically predisposed to) Western romance will go along with it. A civilization built around extreme A would be good for men, and better for many if not most women than extreme B, however there would be some exceptions because invariably, some women will end up with bad husbands.
I’m not saying we must go with Extreme A, but I am saying we should err on the side of caution. I am convinced that every year in America many women leave their husbands simply because they don’t beat them enough. Even in Europe, we see white women falling for moslim men, but we don’t see moslim women falling for white men. In America we see many women that just won’t leave the man that beats them, while men that do everything for their wives end up getting left, often called a wimp or told he needs to grow a pair.
I am convinced that the average young white girl would be better off being given away in an arrangement between father and husband-to-be than they are with full autonomy, courting and choosing for themselves. I can guarantee we wouldn’t see very much of this shit if marriages were arranged by fathers.
Allie’s own words: About a year ago, I told my parents that I’d started dating a boy named Michael, pictured with me above. Hoping to share him with my family, I showed my parents his picture, and the conversation was over before it even began. My dad did not give me an option: he told me that I was not allowed to see Michael ever again. Why? Strictly because of skin color. It wasn’t a quiet “no,” either. I’ll never forget the yelling my parents did, when they expressed how disappointed they were in me, that I could do so much better. I did not know what to do. I couldn’t comprehend how someone could be seen as less because of pigment. I still can’t comprehend it, and I never will be able to. [emphasis mine]
As we see now, even within the white race, the lower quality men have a much better shot at impregnating a girl than a high quality man. This would not be true if the young man had to negotiate with the father for the right to even talk to the girl in the first place. Turning your 18 year old daughter loose on a secular, co-ed college campus is little better than turning your 12 year old loose in a neighborhood full of known pedophiles. Actually, I’d say it’s worse, since at least the child molester isn’t likely to impregnate the child like can happen on a college campus.
Now we actually do have scientific evidence to suggest that women are more attracted to men that have MHC complexes most different to their own, this difference is detected subconsciously by the woman’s sense of smell. They also apparently have the ability to distinguish better genetic health of the male via smell. We have ample evidence now that women actually do instinctively and subconsciously sniff out men that will give them the healthiest babies. So there is evidence to suggest that a maiden should be allowed some say in whom she marries. But this does not for a minute negate women’s predilection for poor judgement in other areas. Also, beautiful women tend to instinctively marry up in terms of wealth and power while rich and powerful men obviously tend to choose beauty. So giving courtship and attraction a little rein could help to blend any social classes that emerge while letting families arrange marriages would probably tend to concentrate wealth and widen class differences.
Now, regarding the husband’s authority to beat his wife, let me say that a patriarchy in which the husband cannot enforce his rule is a patriarchy in name only. We might as well talk about Christians that don’t believe in God. If husbands do not have some means of enforcing their headship of the home, then it is nothing but drivel to claim men are the heads of homes. A wealthy man who gives his wife a monthly allowance might be able to enforce his headship by simply withholding funds, but this breaks down when the wife is in charge of financial matters like monthly bill payments, grocery shopping, etc. It is also a slow and delayed way to enforce authority, which isn’t even an option in most homes anyway. A far more expedient means is to allow men to use corporal punishment on their wives. What other alternative is there? Are they supposed to take their wives to small claims court every time they disobey?
Now there would have to be legal guidelines in place for what is and isn’t allowed, or perhaps there may be local jury trials for men accused of being abusive. I suspect that’s how the Amish do it. Obviously we are not going to permit men to beat their wives with baseball bats or throw acid in their faces, or burn them with hot irons and things like that. But if we are to have patriarchy in the home, then there must be permitted some means for men to enforce it. Some countersignallers will claim they don’t have to beat their wives to maintain order, but we all know there are plenty of women out there that could use a good slap or two, and if we don’t allow some means for the husbands of those women to keep them in check, then the cancer will just spread from there. It’s basically a one rotten apple phenomenon where it only takes a few to ruin the culture for everybody.
If you do not believe in corporal punishment for women, then what are men supposed to do to maintain order if there wives start acting like this?