Concerning “Hyperpatriarchy”

Adding the word “hyper” to any idea you oppose is always a great bit of propaganda. But I will refer to the movement as “Hyperpatriarchy” anyway, simply for the sake of clarity. When it comes to so-called Hyperpatriarchy, I believe there’s a severe ignoring of recent history in these debates.

First, you have government welfare programs which encourage irresponsibility. The consequence? Boys raised by mothers without fathers.

Then you have no fault divorce. The same consequence.

The Sexual Revolution kicks off in the sixties. The women who live promiscuously then go on to teach boys in public schools, carrying all their bitterness toward men with them. Feminism and the consequences for boys spreads like weeds.

TV goes from Father Knows Best, to single mothers on “Alice” and “Rhoda”, to idiot males like Al Bundy and Homer Simpson. Whereas once strong males like John Wayne were extolled, we eventually found ourselves in beta male millennial territory. Society and the Church praise women as princesses and queens (which they reiterate to each other in everyday life), but men get regularly castigated for failures real and imagined.

Women leave their roles as mothers to work full time jobs. They are easier for companies to manage than men, and they accept lower pay, so they begin to take the leadership positions in companies. As I said recently, society is run by female middle managers.

You have women running male sports leagues now. There are hardly any male-only spaces any more.

American women have been so masculinized by modern culture that they have lost traditional - and I would say natural - feminine characteristics. “Passport bros” exist for a real reason. It isn’t just their imagination. Are tattoos feminine?

Men have been beaten down in their homes, beaten down in their schools, beaten down in their churches, and beaten down in the media. Why is everybody acting so surprised at their response?