Flat White

Patriarchy is good. Patriarchy works

8 March 2019

8:00 AM

8 March 2019

8:00 AM

Above the self-congratulatory hum and clinking of champagne glasses, the celebrity elite delivered their latest proclamation: Every personal disappointment, societal ill and global injustice is rooted in patriarchy.

Fundamental to the charge that patriarchy is a conscious system of oppression, rather than an organic hierarchy of societal organisation, is the contention that meaningful differences between men and women originate exclusively from culturally constructed norms.

The reality? Men and women are innately and vividly distinct.

Extensive examination of neural circuitry has identified 100 significant differences, many reaffirming traditional stereotypes. Women really are better at multitasking, have superior memories and excel in emotionally intelligent, intuitive thinking.

Contrastingly, advantages in the male brain go some way towards explaining their historic dominance within many fields of human achievement. Driven by an inbuilt sexual competiveness and desire to ‘prove themselves’, men are motivated to take risks. Comparative variability in male intelligence also means men are more likely to be found both at the very top and very bottom of the intellectual scale. Whilst women may, on average, deliver better results academically or in the workplace, it is a small percentage of men who are genetically best equipped to reach the pinnacle of their field.

Feminists refuse even to acknowledge strikingly obvious physical differences. We hear regular insistences that female athletes must receive the same coverage and wages as their male counterparts. This despite indisputable athletic advantage and superior coordination resulting in objectively higher standards within male sporting competition. There’s no shame in the Australian professional women’s football team losing 7-0 to a group of 15 year old school boys, but there are biological facts.

Interestingly, in those nations with strong welfare support, women feel empowered to opt for careers and conditions in keeping with natural preference and biological priorities. That’s why there’s fewer STEM graduates in Norway and Sweden than in Albania and Algeria, whilst women in Denmark are four times less likely to choose managerial positions than those in the United States.

Of course, mental and physical differences are not unbending rules. I’m reminded as such every time I try to assemble a piece of flat pack furniture. Still, attempting to extinguish the unique characteristics of men and women is in the best interests of neither. Our lives and experiences – relationships with mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers – is all the evidence needed to dismiss the fallacy that to be equal is to be exactly alike.

Contrary to fashionable orthodoxy, it is women and children who benefit most from patriarchy. As women carry their unborn child for 9 months, they require far greater stability than men to pass on their genes. Biological reality may dictate that assigning a primary role to each family member delivers optimal results, but only through traditional notions of monogamous family life are men compelled to raise their offspring alongside a female partner. Considering the timeframe for female reproduction is limited, the false promise that women can ‘have it all’, by postponing pregnancy indefinitely, is perhaps the cruellest of feminist deceptions.

Indeed, the easier it becomes for men to obtain sexual gratification divorced from responsibility, the harder it will be for women to find stable relationships and loving male partners with whom they can build a family. It isn’t surprising that a higher percentage of Canadian men than women identify as feminists – sex without obligation appeals to many. But In truth, the family unit offers men invaluable purpose, structure, direction and belonging. Female modesty and male chivalry are as desirable as ever.

If patriarchy truly is a system of belligerent misery, why are such high levels of love, affection, understanding and mutual sexual satisfaction found within the marriages of conservative Christians? Surely such relationships, built on harmony between the sexes, would be a cause for celebration? Instead, they’re reserved the bitterest feminist scorn. It’s telling that the only man feminists hate more than Donald Trump is Mike Pence.

Determined to commodify and distort female desire for loving submission, feminists rejoice in the objectification of the female form in mainstream music videos and the exploitation of vulnerable women in bestselling books. The reason is simple. Feminism is a creed of individualism – the pursuit of wealth and status by a small minority of men and women committed to ‘liberation’ from family and community. It makes perfect sense for globalist corporations like Gillette to push feminist propaganda. The more families they break into individual consumers, the more their profits bulge.

Thankfully, realising that a radical ideological crusade is not necessary for men to nurture children or women to be treated with fairness and respect in fulfilling careers, most women reject divisive ‘gender wars’.

Feminists who wish to worship at the altar of corporate capitalism and career status are welcome to fight against any institutional discrimination they find on their road to the ‘top’. Most will discover only that their deepest longings can never be satisfied in an office, no matter how big.

The rest of us must redefine what it means to be successful. Is it really more impressive to raise a skyscraper of concrete and glass than a child of flesh, body, mind and soul? There is no greater achievement than maintaining a devoted marriage, raising a loving family or serving your local community.

Patriarchy, in true form, is not based on dictatorial instruction, but rather complementary mutuality – leadership by example in the best interests of women and children.

Most women still long for sacrificial male leadership. Masculine men long to provide it.

Patriarchy works. Let’s rebuild it together.

David Sergeant is a Conservative researcher in the House of Commons.

Illustration: Wikipedia.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Show comments