Revolt against the modern world
"Ajax and Cassandra"; Solomon J. Solomon

In Defense of Male Dominance

When we position ourselves against feminism, we are often told that feminism is a matter of “human rights.” The everyday feminists — be they second-wave feminists or radical, gender-bending postmodernists — will inevitably agree on one principal matter, and that is that patriarchal socio-politics have time and time again, and beneath diverse religious and cultural garbs, explicitly abused and oppressed women. Indeed, in many regions today, they still do.  So, naturally, when it comes to the notion of “dominance” in the strictly socio-political sense (i.e. systematic power dynamics and even established laws), then it would be very questionable indeed to support either patriarchal or matriarchal dominance (or rather, “oppression”). As is the case with our assessment of all top-to-bottom political structures, we must strive, first and foremost, for balance, moderation, and justice.  But I believe that on a much grander and ideological scale in regards to feminism, the central point of contention is: how to fuel this “balance”? What is it that engenders balance between the sexes, and what is it that destabilizes it?

My own outlook lies somewhere in between traditionalism and biological predisposition — the latter being, incidentally, a crucial aspect of traditionalist sexual dualism. In this more “fundamental” or religiously inclined sense, the term “dominance” is both intrinsically masculine and neutral (i.e. it is not a bad thing). There is the potential for oppression, of course, but traditionally speaking, true male “dominance” can only be honorable, principled, and protective (“positive” violence). When male dominance becomes oppressive, unjust, and abusive (“negative” violence), then that is when the dominance is no longer genuinely masculine but rather another form of emasculation — that is, a betrayal of traditional, chivalric manhood, which is what religious patriarchy essentially means (never mind that religious systems have often exploited and betrayed it: the truth remains intact). Unfortunately, otherwise neutral and even positive terms like “dominance” have all but been demonized, and as a result, even those who are religiously inclined but nevertheless under the influence of modernism have begun to lose faith in their beliefs.  (For example, self-proclaimed “Muslim feminists” — a contradiction in terms — take great issue with the Quranic verse 4:34, which states that “Men are in charge of (i.e. dominate over) women,  because Allah hath made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women.”)

Feminist ideology, from its inception and as a whole, misses the mark. It seeks to equalize the essences (masculine and feminine) and proposes grotesque innovations that go against inherent attributes (the concept of “alpha woman,” for example — a notion that has been widely popularized by communists in particular and leftists in general). The result of this is a total dismissal and/or distortion of traditional gender roles, dynamics, and essences. The Ying/Yang is completely rejected and as a result, neither woman is entirely Woman, nor man entirely Man. If you want to know what that means, then look around you. The more modern and feminist a society, the more one notes a quasi-total absence of traditional male-female reference points. This lack of traditional (i.e. natural) reference points is at the root of postmodern sexual nihilism — something which we can see manifest itself in the ever-growing list of genders. And the result of this growing fragmentation (one that is seemingly ad infinitum) is, of course, choice paralysis. Our youth no longer know *what* to be, and so they succumb to what the overarching consumer-capitalist machine tells them to be. No wonder androgyny is promoted: the most neutral, functioning consumerist-worker can only be a rootless, value-less, unprincipled, submitted, and sexless android.

Feminist ideology fails not because it seeks to improve the lives of women in the material sense (i.e. institutionalized laws), but because it aims to inherently masculinize Femininity and belittle or neutralize natural, protective, and ultimately dominant Masculinity. This opens the door not only to hyper-relativism (i.e. nihilism), all kinds of debauchery, and a general malaise — but also, ironically, to even more oppression. When men are emasculated, paranoid, and weak-willed, they are more prone to develop narcissistic, abusive, and oppressive tendencies. And so the wheel turns …

 

1 Comment
  1. Ray says

    Sweden is run by females. Look what horrible shape they are in now.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.