#neopatriarchy

[qwqxjz]

[adult-human-gc-female]

[adult-human-gc-female]

Seeing Matt Walsh fighting gender ideology by puking words at Helen Joyce's side is the same as watching an old and a young lions fighting on Discovery Channel. Patriarchy vs. Neopatriarchy, both are utterly misogynistic shit.

[lamajaoscura]

The right’s plan to fix America: Patriarchy 2.0

JD Vance and likeminded Republicans are theorizing a kind of “neopatriarchy.”

[drag-tween]

ZACH BEAUCHAMP:  The right’s plan to fix America:  Patriarchy 2.0

JD Vance and likeminded Republicans are theorizing a kind of “neopatriarchy.”

[webntrmpt2x]

The right’s plan to fix America: Patriarchy 2.0

JD Vance and likeminded Republicans are theorizing a kind of “neopatriarchy.”

[ezrasf]

The right’s plan to fix America: Patriarchy 2.0

JD Vance and likeminded Republicans are theorizing a kind of “neopatriarchy.”

'Men need to rediscover the old John Wayne vision of masculinity, making traditional male gender markers (including acting as fatherly provider) into defining aspects of their identity. The state should play a role in encouraging this reversion, primarily by changing policy to cultivate “masculine” virtues'

[theremayyetbehope]

On the topic of “labels”

On the topic of labels. I am sure a number of fascinating sociological + psychological studies have attempted to answer the question of why we are so drawn toward labelling ourselves, or at times (in the case of Millennials) repulsed by the very idea. Here are my half-baked thoughts on it... God created each of us with particular natural characteristics which have very particular natural ends. He created me as a woman, and my husband, Daniel, as a man. Far left feminists would tell us that "woman" and "man" are mere social constructs, convenient labels that were invented to facilitate a power differential in which one group (men) could be given priority in the bestowal of power. Now, I reject that. I say that there is something definite, some universal concept, that correlates to "maleness" and "femaleness." Certainly, society may add a bunch of unnecessary qualities to the mix, warping our understanding of true masculinity and femininity, but beneath the blanket of society's additions, there remains a true, God-created, immutable essence of what is "man" and what is "woman." They are labels, yes, but they refer to an essential reality. Labels then are useful insofar as they point to essential realities that make us who we are, because we need to know what we are in order to know what is our "good." If I know the essential qualities which make me a woman, I know what it is that is good for me (i.e. I know a woman is meant to lie with a man; It is thus good for me to lie with a man if I so choose; it is not good for me to lie with a woman). We can discern a number of our essential qualities just by using reason. We know we are human and not ape; we know we are sentient, not insentient. I would argue that from mere reasoning we can conclude that God exists, and thus that we are creatures, not Creators. By the time we discover the truth of Christianity, we'll already have adopted a number of labels that pertain to our essential, created qualities, and serve to help us pursue our greatest good. By ascribing names, we are differentiating ourselves from other things, and clarifying what we ought to do and ought not do. So let me bring this discussion 'round to the labels of feminist v neo-patriarch. We can adopt the label "Christian" and say this label is of eternal importance, far more important even than "male" or "female," "human" or "ape." Yet, the label Christian in turn points to a number of other essential qualities. Our Christianity sheds further light on what we really are, and what we really are not; and thus what we should and should not do. As a Christian, then, I can draw on Scripture, experience, tradition, and reason, to determine what are the essential qualities of a woman, and what I ought to do according to my nature. If we arrive at the conclusions that I was created to lie with a man and not a woman, to lie with one man and not multiple men, to bear children and not to refuse to bear children, to submit to the leadership of my husband and not to take the role of leader over my husband, to serve my husband as the Church serves Christ and not the other way around, etc., then I find that Christianity itself has many essential qualities which translate into many specific labels which set it apart from many opposing ideas and labels in the world. Christianity is dualism, not materialism; it is Pro-life, not Pro-choice; it affirms flesh and spirit, not flesh alone; it is supernaturalist, not naturalist; etc. The point is, labels are useful in expressing what we essentially are and essentially are not. If we don't make these things clear, we run the risk of becoming unintelligible. We run the risk of fragmenting into 30k+ denominations which often have incompatible ideas about what Christianity is. Sure, there are plenty of areas where we just don't know for certain what is definitively best or true, and so we should not claim any position is essentially the "Christian" position; perhaps Evolutionist v Creationist would be a good example of this. But I believe that saying "we just don't know for sure" in relation to male and female roles is both very dangerous, and manifestly untrue. We do know, and the combination of sources which Christians rely upon (reason + experience + Scripture + tradition) all point clearly away from the mandates of feminism, and toward the tenets of neo-patriarchy. Perhaps another name besides "neo-patriarchy" could be invented, one perhaps less threatening, but the content would have to be the same, as it would have to relate directly to the essential, created qualities of what Man is and what Woman is.