Patriarchy: Restraining Males

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.


Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.


In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.


So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.


The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.


Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.


Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.


Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.


The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.


Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.


The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.

28 responses to “Patriarchy: Restraining Males

  • Chris

    Simply excellent sir. This is up there with your post of the gift of English Law.

  • Free Northerner

    Thanks. Glad you liked them.

  • Father Knows Best: Purely Blogroll Selection Edition « Patriactionary

    […] Free Northerner: Choose a Spouse Who Would Resemble the Children you Want; Patriarchy: Restraining Males […]

  • etype

    Obviously Patriarchy v.1.0 is a peasant’s wooden plow. I don’t want it, if you are intelligent, you don’t want it either. We need Patriarchy v.2.0 or better Patriarchy X.
    If bitches can’t be controlled, get rid of them and focus on cloning or other technique.
    Face it, in the modern world we don’t need bitches, they are worse than useless, they are a drain and a dangerous enemy.
    We don’t really need them, but if we find we do…we can breed some and raise them right.
    A man loses something when he gets with a woman, his balls…only Fatherhood allows him to keep a small portion of his testicles…other than that he is a eunuch by order of the state.
    Fatherhood and so on is great, we can still have that. But nature is telling us it’s time to get rid of women…we need to get rid of women before they grab our technique, turn us against ourselves and get rid of us.

  • Free Northerner

    That seems rather extreme and pessimistic.

  • etype

    Well it is extreme FN, in a science fiction sense. As for pessimism, the way things are going, as they say…’optimism is cowardice’.
    Thing are going to get worse, not better. In a decade or more, we are going to have sex robots, soon after they will be indistinguishable in terms of observed intelligence from human females. We will have out of womb gestation and cloning, whether one is optimistic or not. That’s when things are going to become interesting…there is really not going to be a role for women, and as far as women are concerned, for men either.
    Put yourself in their shoes, they believe society exists to serve women, not men…period. Modern woman instinctively feel Men exist to serve women, and in anything else they are wrong and need restraint. Do you think they would hesitate to bring out some sort of biological or psychological control into effect over all men? It is the realization of their dream, and the end goal of feminism.

    You need to see past the present, into the future. You may think MRA or common sense will prevail, and if it does, the better we all will be for it. But until then, things are getting worse, not better. And when more social debts start coming due, (the current crop of female headed family raised and institutionalized, maladept, poorly educated males and females who have no inclination for marriage, or a role in society, or anything of that sort, who breed another generation of the unsocialized, alienated… )

    The chance for Patriarch v1.0 is pretty much gone in the west, and it’s never coming back barring a miracle which entails a practical genocide. You need to see past this, into the future.
    I think women are great, it took some time but I have a rewarding and loving girlfriend and I know many women who are classic in terms of their virtues, certainly in terms of some of my relatives and women I have known. But this doesn’t change reality. Because the fact is that outside of a family life, pro-creation and sex, companionship, we don’t need them….they are a ball and chain. If we can satisfy all these needs outside of the male/female dyad, I think we would be better off. I truly think women are ultimately corrosive on society and culture, and hasten it’s destruction. Their inner drive is to take us back to the chimpanzee…. the bonobo culture is the future their inner being strives toward.
    Men outside of women are the ones who create great world civilizations, out of nothing. Our drive is to the stars, to limitless realization. We really are not oriented towards war, it is the female element which drives us towards killing other males on behalf of females. Our nature is to share and build and create.
    I really think it is our destiny to jettison the female. And I think looking past them would help us in our negotiation with this element today. And I think if we do not, we face a future of a spiralling descent into enslavement, and as a species will wake up on a barren plain hunting for termites for another 10 million years.

  • Free Northerner

    I’m not an optimist, I think of myself as a realist, and I agree things are going to get worse, but I think what you present is a worst case scenario.

    Patriarchy is probably not coming back anytime soon, but the collapse while bad, will not be the total collapse of civilization or mass enslavement as you describe. It will probably only be an extended period of economic depression, some political turmoil, and at the very worst a civil war.

    I may address this in a future post.

    In addition, most women like men, just as most men like women, there’s just been some indoctrination from feminism and the New Left that has created our problems between the sexes. Even with this I do not think that there would ever be enough support for total psychological or biological control over men.

    “Because the fact is that outside of a family life, pro-creation and sex, companionship, we don’t need them….they are a ball and chain.”

    Those are a pretty big parts of life. I don’t think we could just remove women from them or simply replace them.

    Women are necessary, men create culture, but women pass it on to the next generation and preserve it by restraining men from destroying it.

  • etype

    I do not agree whatsoever that women pass along culture. They may claim to, as they claim to ‘create’ life, but on a moments notice the claim is completely false and founded on self interest.
    Women destroy culture, by limiting it to consumerism and self gratification. Women may enjoy civilization as something men provide and toy with it, but women and civilization both disolve each others base form.
    I completely disagee that women restrain men. They restrain men to a degree by harnessing them, but ultimately it is their hypergamy that lead men to destroy each other.
    Patriarchy v1.0 was meant to order this.
    All great cultures started as ideas from the masculine mind based on Patriarchy vs. Matriarchial cultures, who fell easily and gave up their resources.
    Patriarchy v1.0 is over and is never coming back. If you think it through you will see your image is nostalgia based…a dead culture is dead and will not rise again in it’s old form.
    Matriarchy intends to destroy Patriarchy to assume it’s rich resources….so the cycle must start again if there is time, this is obvious.
    Choose which you prefer…to pretend the old order will cheerfully return if you complain and wish for it enough….and be pulled into the cthonic vortex which is the feminine principle back into primitivism.
    Or choose the limitless possibility of male self actualization – out into the stars not as colonizers but explorers and discoverers.
    To this we must break the chain that nature has put on us….woman.

    These are unusual thoughts, you do not need to agree or disagree, just think them through – it’s amazing because it’s completely do-able. Re-ordering the union between the sexes in a climate of global mono-culturism ensure it will happen anyway, but in the woman’s favour.
    It takes courage, but it must be done.


    An excellent and logical essay.

    Alas it will go totally over the head of the feminists who inspired you to write it.

  • Free Northerner

    Thanks. It might, but at least it’s out there.

  • White Male Privilege and Identity « Free Northerner

    […] I’ve already written of how the human male is the apex predator. […]

  • Columnist

    The same arguments are made in The Manipulated Male, by Esther Villar.

  • Free Northerner

    Really? I’ll have to look into that book.

  • Hanna Rosin: Feminists and the Hook-up Culture « Free Northerner

    […] patriarchal” family system, declines, men, no longer constrained by patriarchy, revert to their more primitive instincts. One of the of these instincts is consequence-free sex, the hook-up […]

  • Demanding More « Free Northerner

    […] get a home, but not without the job. That, and the young man doesn’t want a home for himself; he wants it so he can raise a family. This incentive is more an ancillary option to the other […]

  • It’s all Related « Free Northerner

    […] the single most dangerous organism the world has produced is the single young adult male. The best way to control society is to control and destroy the male. If not restrained, males could […]

  • The Price of Freedom « Free Northerner

    […] blame the sidelining of males, while others blame the loss of male privilege. I’ve warned about this trend in the past, but it only shows a trend; most males do not engage in such nihilistic […]

  • Obliviousness, Incivility, and the Destruction of the Old Order « Free Northerner

    […] 1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them. […]

  • Lissa

    Thank you for this. I am a woman who was once under the thrall of feminism and the ever elusive “empowerment” offered by shunning one’s natural inclination to seek an exclusive, committed relationship and the security offered therein. Long story short, I am now happily married and we base our marriage on Ephesians 5. Now I can’t even imagine what that feminist perspective ever had to offer to any decent woman.

  • The White Conservative Male | Free Northerner

    […] written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men […]

  • sports

    As the admin of this web site is working, no
    doubt very shortly it will be renowned, due to its feature contents.

  • oogenhand

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Surprisingly honest, but that the recent trend, moar honesty.

  • dkidjdie

    So your argument is “women must submit or we’ll kill them and/or each other?” I can’t get on board with that.

  • Free Northerner

    My argument is ‘if we don’t have patriarchy, civilization will crumble into savagery and violence will result.’

    It doesn’t matter in the least in you get on board with it or not. Reality doesn’t care.

  • Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander | Free Northerner

    […] Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here. […]

  • infowarrior1

    What’s your opinion on the Musuo. They appear to be only matriarchal society in existence but they seem peaceful.

  • Free Northerner

    They may be matriarchal, they may not be, but it doesn’t matter to my argument if they are a particular outlier as they aren’t civilized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: