Wake Forest University Launches 'Leave Patriarchy Behind' Club

Article here. Excerpt:

'College administrators absolutely HATE men. We all know this. Almost every college has at least one initiative geared towards mocking men for their “fragile masculinity,” denigrating so-called “toxic masculinity,” or treating men as if they’re all potential rapists, in need of remedial feminist education on how to respect women.

Princeton University, for example, is hiring a “Men’s Engagement Manager” to fight against “toxic masculinity.” Ithaca College, meanwhile, has sponsored lectures on “masculinity and violence,” and Duke University has an ongoing “Men’s Project” designed to teach men how to “begin the work of unlearning violence.”

Those are just a few of the dozens of initiatives colleges host to fight masculinity, many of which are essentially "masculinity re-education camps,” recruiting men into secretive clubs to confess their sins, sacrifice their soul to the feminist gods, and vow never to be chivalrous or tough again.

While these groups are de rigueur on most college campuses, until this year, Wake Forest University didn’t have anything like it. But that changed this year. The school has launched a “Leave Patriarchy Behind” group (full title: Leaders who Educate, Advocate, and lift Voices for gender Equity), which is recruiting male students to create a more “gender equitable campus,” to “create events and programs” that promote feminism, and to facilitate a capstone workshop on “Getting to Know Feminism.”'

up
52 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leave civilization behind

All civilizations are patriarchies. No exception. One can count the number of matriarchies on one hand, most of which barely function, none of which are civilizations.

Patriarchies can stand on their own. Matriarchies cannot. The American matriarchy is being created by coercion: tax money and child support. Without those, it fails. What's being created in the US is new slave class consisting of fathers who must work and give their income to others under force of law.

Patriarchies work because they don't depend on government largess or coercion and they offer women and children a host of benefits. A matriarchy offers women next to nothing. And men even less.

So why not just say we're going to destroy civilization.

up
4 users have voted.
I like this

It's possible, but is it desirable?

Actually... I guess it depends on how you define it. Well these days, electricity = civilization. I also like to think toilet paper is a big part of it too and while we're at it, indoor plumbing.

Maybe the stuff in schools has been revised on this score but as I recall, a society was defined as a "civilization" when it had three things going for it: a surplus of food, a division of labor, and cities. I suppose though it depends on what books you happen to get assigned at the beginning of 6th grade, which is when I learned this particular definition. Probably the only thing I recall from my entire pre-high school teachings.

A lot of societies had the foregoing three things except for the city part... unless you want to play fast and loose with the definition of "city".

N. America had an estimated 100 million inhabitants in it when Columbus showed up. 100 years later, that number dropped significantly. Another 100 years later, even more. By the mid-19th century, the Indians were living on reservations, most of them, and what was left of them. They died largely due to diseases like small pox, measles, etc., diseases Europeans and their descendants had immunities to already. Unfathomable. Some number of Indians were of course killed in battle or just plain slaughtered by settlers, colonists, and later, Americans, not to mention fighting against the French and Spanish, among others. Others died during forced re-settlements and after being moved due to exposure, hunger, and disease. Long and short of it is that most died of illness and exposure. Today, there are fewer than 5.5 million Indians left, and many of those have such mixed ancestry that ethnically speaking, it's hard to say that though members of an Indian tribe, they are easy to spot as such when considering the ethnic association. Leads to the age-old question: what makes an X (fill in the blank here: Indian, Jew, Russian, Caucasian, etc.): the heart or the skin? Identity-obsessed/-concerned groups have been arguing that one for millennia and probably will continue to do so.

But did 100 million people live in N. America and despite long-established religious and social systems, were they NOT civilizations because they didn't build cities the way modern people think of them? And just how many people need to be in a place to call it a city? Ancient Rome maxed out at about 1 million inhabitants. In the US today, a city of 1 million is considered modest and in India, puhhh-leeeze... India has more than 1 BILLION inhabitants. One million people in one place is not much more than a larger town.

So as far as the whole cities bit, hmmm.... I can let that slide. So from 6th grade, I am left with a surplus of food and a division of labor. Can a society operated via matriarchy achieve these two things? Sure it can. And history has shown it has. But have those civilizations lasted too long, and if they failed, why? That is the important question to ask.

Overall I agree that unabashedly patriarchal societies have a way of not just surviving but thriving. They also have a way of spreading. Matriarchies, not so much. I think it has to do with rewards. Patriarchies reward typically masculine aspirations and ambitions. This leads to all manner of things happening: wealth accumulating, organization around a nuclear family, expansion of territory via colonization and warfare/occupation, high reproduction rates (when women have more non-domestic choices, they tend to have fewer children; witness the current US birthrate), greater inventiveness (as men are recognized and rewarded for their ingenuity), etc. Matriarchies in contrast tend to reward other things and disseminate greater power generally among women. Hence, reproduction rates are low, society is organized around extended family systems (thus diluting wealth, leading to fewer opportunities to use capital to create capital, which would lead to greater prosperity as a whole in a society), and innovation is the exception and not the rule. It may even be overtly discouraged.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why patriarchies out-compete matriarchies. But try telling this to a feminist.

At the moment, western society is in the process of becoming a hybrid kind of society, patriarchal economically but matriarchal socially. Ugh, not so sure how this is going to play out much less work out. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

up
4 users have voted.
I like this