By Stephen L. Hall
In the first part the focus was upon the matriarchy that our nation, and western societies in general have become. Confronting them is not merely a difference in religious beliefs, and not merely a clash of cultures, but a different structure of society altogether. Where the elites have driven us towards a matriarchy in feminism, they have simultaneously invited in a horde of invaders from a longstanding patriarchal society.
Many people, even academics and intellectuals, often mistake the definition of matriarchy or patriarchy with the question of who is in charge of the country or how is allowed to rule. This is clearly absurd in light of something as simple as a monarchy. One would not presume that a king dying to be replaced with a queen would magically transform a culture to a matriarchy. Just as the article referenced in part 1 showed that even in a matriarchal society the mayor was a man.
It is not who makes the rules which characterizes a matriarchy or a patriarchy, rather for whom the laws are made. More particularly, it is a question of who is the beneficiary of those laws and which gender is given the more favorable treatment under those laws. Who does the law serve?
Compare America where women nearly always get custody of children in a divorce decree to a nation like Saudi Arabia where children are by Islamic law the father’s in any custody dispute. There have been many stories of American women who wake up to this reality having married a Saudi man, been awarded custody by the American courts only to have the father abduct the children during his visitation and take them to Saudi Arabia. The ex-wife then discovers that she has no standing in Saudi courts and her American court custody has no effect.
Along those domestic lines Mr. Coler pointed out that marriage was undesirable and actively avoided in the matriarchal society, but in the patriarchal society multiple marriages are common. In Islam a man may have up to four wives; actually there is often no restriction on the number of wives other than the example set by Mohammad.
The laws in patriarchies favor men in other ways too. For example, in terms of inheritance, under Sharia Law, a woman only inherits a half-share of what her brothers inherit. There are other examples but this is the one which comes to mind clearest without getting into ancient rules of concubines and slave girls; though in Syria and Iraq in the last three years that is not as ancient and outdated a question as one might have hoped.
A woman may not go about in public unaccompanied, may not dress immodestly, can not drive a car, in many countries may not receive an education, and is expected to remain silent in public. Under Sharia Law, if a woman is raped, and four Muslim men do not testify to the rape, then she can be found guilty of adultery.
The purpose of this comparison is not merely to look at the differences, but to examine the causes and nature of those differences and see the economic incentives that these differences create within a culture. The domestic structure in a matriarchy showed by its absence why men in other societies engage actively in society; by looking at the patriarchy we may be able to show the contrast of why women engage actively in other societies.
Feminists, in order to push matriarchy on our society, pretend that men want to treat women as chattel, i.e. property, and pretend that western society has historically treated them that way. It’s a great selling point for their cause only to the extent that it is false; if men in mass really sought to treat women as chattel then their claiming so would not have the desired effect.
Where men have no power, they withhold their industry. Where women really have no power, they withhold their support, their nurturing. Men learn their respect for women from the discipline in the household provided by their mothers. Where a woman has no authority in the home and the sons are privileged, she does not discipline the sons, but defers to them.
A woman in a patriarchal household will still do the cooking, cleaning, and all the household chores. What she will not provide is the example of persuasion and guidance, counsel and lessons in social interactions, more importantly the lessons of restraint and consequences. The husband’s or the son’s problems are their own to deal with, as it is not her place to speak her mind or state her opinion.
Some people question Mr. Coler’s observations that violence is nearly non-existent in a matriarchal society where women prefer to exert social pressure to affect behavior. Patriarchal societies tend to be not only violent but hyper-violent. The violence in Islamic states is not an accident, it is a feature of the patriarchal culture.
However, in America there are closer examples in more patriarchal subcultures, the image of the gangster (c)rap culture comes to mind as an image of such a subculture. The nearly constant gang shootings in cities like Detroit and Chicago are as much a result of these counter-cultures trying to assert a patriarchy in a female dominated society as it is anything else.
I would call the reader’s attention to several incidents occurring in Europe as the invasion of a violent patriarchal culture comes in contact with what has become a European matriarchal culture. Recent video shows a young “refugee” running up behind a woman on a stair case and kicking her in the back down the stairs, but it is not alone. Stories of women being sexually attacked on the streets in German cities recently made headlines. In an English town over 1400 young underage girls were molested by a group of Pakistani immigrants.
While a goodly portion of the animosity just cited is religious and ethnic in origin, there is a cultural element which permits the expression of such open and notorious displays of violence against women and children. Lest you think that it is all a hatred against western culture, that same Islamic culture also promotes such concepts as honor killings against their own women who have shamed the men in their family.
The real question is not what may change or not change within such a true patriarchal culture, but how such a patriarchal culture interacts with other culture when circumstances force them together. With millions of immigrants from the patriarchal middle eastern regions flowing into Europe, how will western societies cope with a true patriarchy with power structures built around preferring women’s interests to men’s interests?
Will European women suddenly accept that they do not get custody of the children with the accompanying child support? How will Middle Eastern men respond when they lose their children in the divorce? There is a biblical phrase that a man cannot serve two masters. Patriarchy and matriarchy cannot coexist.
It may be an irrelevant question given that the patriarchy in question holds as a central religious tenet that people should hold themselves apart from the society they invade and follow their own rules. Do such society merge and meet in the middle? Unlikely. They are inevitably going to clash, the only question is how violently such cultures will clash.
That is the reason for the title of this post, that it is an invasion, a brewing conflict, not merely a stand alone observation of a patriarchy as it exists which confronts us at this time. It is not an academic exercise, but a real word understanding which is immediately needed.
