6. PATRIARCHY VS
GYNOCENTRISM
--JESUS OF NAZARETH. THE WORLD'S FIRST AND GREATEST "FEMINIST."
No-one has done more for women on Earth than Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus has done more for women than any of the Kings or Queens, the Parliaments, the suffragettes, or the 20th Century feminists and "equal rights" campaigners. In one fell swoop he usurped an enormous amount of freedom (i.e control/power) from men and gave it to women (i.e privileged) them. It was a revolutionary increase in Gynocentric power. A fork in the road. And it was the 'price paid' for our relatively comfortable Western Civilization. This essay explains what happened. Patriarchy . a system of society or government in which men hold power and women are largely excluded from it. (Oxford) Gynocentric . centred on or concerned exclusively with women--taking a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view. (Oxford) PATRIARCHY, as an exclusive male 'privilege' benefiting males at the exclusion of females, has never existed. Sure there has been male symbolism at the gates of Power. But its as far as anyone has bothered to look. Its a facade. A False Front. Yet if ever there should have been a time when that was plainly obvious, it was following the 'edicts' of Jesus. The Heavenly "kingdom" of Christianity and the 'rule' of the Catholic Church should have finished off the "patriarchy" myth once and for all (more later). |
The logic of the Patriarchy model goes something like this: 1. The Leaders of a Culture make up the Rules and have Power and Privileges. 2. Most Leaders have been male. 3. Therefore most males have power and privileges (as opposed to the female). This of course is a false logical conclusion from the two premises. It also known by some Gender sociologists as the 'Apex fallacy'. This is where the traits of the most visible members of a group (i.e leaders, rich men, sportsmen etc) are attributed to the rest of the members of this "group" (the males). Yet although males are represented at the "top", they are highly represented at the "bottom". Most homeless individuals are male. And most of the people in prison are male. The truth is as I witness it is that MOST males have never had any REAL power or privileges, especially State or Sovereign power. The only "power" they ever had was 'lording' it over their young children. That of course was a power sharing arrangement with the children's Mother, the wife (I'll develop this shortly). Of course if there was a real patriarchy, as the feminists define it, then women STILL wouldn't be allowed to vote, or get divorced, or separate from their husbands, or claim single motherhood benefits, or have abortions, go to college, or inherit property, have habeas corpus, or keep a male out of a job, or drive a car etc, etc.. Basic observational logic indicates that women, correctly, have all of these rights just like men.
However for this essay I undertake a 'theopoetic' analysis.
I argue that for millenia--even before Jesus--Society was a GYNOCENTRIC and CONSCIENCE culture. I have gone into detail about the power of Conscience over a male in Chapter 2 (Conscience Control: Guilt). I mentioned in the Intro that I think females have always had the "true" power and that it has been hidden in the design (more later), rather than sinisterly concealed. It certainly hasn't been flouted under the males' noses. . This power has been a conscious or unconscious practice of placing the feminine at the centre of Society, which qualifies as a definition of gynocentricism. And it all emanates from the Mother "Supreme". The Mother of course being the most important person in the males' existence and at the centre of ALL Family Units, the heart of ALL cultures. In reality I think the general male (i.e the non-Alpha "drones") have been a form of 'work slave' for the Capitalist Owners, or large land owners and a form of 'sex slave' for the females (other chapters).
As I mentioned earlier in the Chapter on Guilt, logic dictates that the Will of the Mother "Supreme" has always determined the structure of Society. She is the "Moral Compass". The male offspring were obviously viewed as having great value to the Mother. They were obedient, strong, hard working and protective. Some were also exciting inventors and discoverers. As well they could be depended upon to be socialised into a community and family network but most importantly they could settle into commitment without wandering off. Now this all appears to make sense. But what if the males were not like this, as I mentioned in Chapter 2. What if they were all unco-operative sexual predator "beasts". Do you think the females would have kept their male offspring if they knew that they would grow to hurt them, or enslave them and their kind? That each male was a future 'Frankenstein'. A little monster? Okay. Some would have to be born, to be used as breeders. But you can bet, there'd only be a few. And they'd be kept in cages. My point therefore is that Society and its forms has always been at the Will of the Mother "Supreme".
Let me now present the basic myth of Patriarchy. The basic myth is that Society has been basically organised and ruled by males. That the leadership roles in the Secular and religious systems (i.e Catholic Church) have been headed up by males. That women could not inherit property. That the lineage of inheritance was passed to a male's sons. That women could not vote and at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution were paid less than men for the same work, which continued well into the modern 20th Century.
Here is a typical post from a feminist on a YouTube video posting that I gleaned, which emboldens the myth:
"There has never been historically discriminations against men. Both
genders were cast in roles, but his assumed he had capabilities and
intelligence it did not attribute to women. A man had the freedom not
to marry, to change his occupation, handle his own finances, travel on
his own. None of these things were options for women. All positions of
authority involved a man from adjudicators to doctors, to politicians,
they were all positions women were excluded from.
Religious doctrine is also at the heart of gender roles and is responsible
in large for Society viewing women as less than men. Women cannot
be Priests, Cardinals and certainly not the Pope and are refused rights
to contraception."
For my very short and superficial discussion of Historical power I skim the Western European Judeo-Christian Culture from Classical Antiquity through to the Roman Empire, the Middle Ages and then up to the Industrial Revolution.
The 3 areas of power I see are:
1. Power "hidden in the design"
2. Power "behind the scenes/behind the Throne.
(not publicly known or 'officially' declared)
3. Power 'officially' declared and labelled publicly
i.e "King or Queen" etc.
"Hidden in the design" refers to Moral Control of a culture and its force mechanisms behind an individual's existence, social behavior and methods of pleasure and survivability. At the heart of it all is the basic Family Unit emanating originally from the Mother which consists of a male "bonded" to his wife through Marriage. The Institution of Marriage sets up a structure where the female has her children, and is supported by the male during this process. She is helped along (indirectly) for the rest of her life by those grown up children and (directly) by her husband, who was usually still working. The male is an "economic feeder" for the female while she goes about self-actualizing her greatest dreams/ambitions. And that is having and raising a Family. Having children. Okay, I realise that the male is either having the "time of his life" too because he's "in love" (I discuss this "love" in Chapter 2). Or he's inadvertently living well, even if he's not in love, because Family life is ultimately good for him. Even if he doesn't realise or experience that at the present time. Both scenarios ("love/non-love") are assumptions that can't be assigned valid conclusions. They're myths too. They're not necessarily wrong however I deal with them in more detail (Chapter 2).
In the Middle Ages there was generally 3 strata of Society. The Nobility, the Clergy, and the Peasants. Most of the population were Peasants of course working as 'serfs, freemen or slaves' on large agricultural properties owned by members of the nobility, probably the "Baron". The Peasants of course lived as little communites and families. AND NO-ONE HAD THE VOTE whether they were male or female. During this 2500 year time period everyone lived under some sort of dictatorial Monarchy. And another important fact NONE OF THE PEASANTS OWNED ANY PROPERTY. So most of the males certainly didn't have any property privileges. The freemen and serfs "rented" property off the Baron and were allowed to profit from a small amount left over after they had worked off their time for the Baron (i.e rent), paid their taxes and paid the Church. Slaves of course owned nothing, profited in nothing and were entirely dependent on the largesse of the landowner.
Within the "Landed Gentry" and other property owning Nobility, women may have been excluded in inheriting Property from their father, however they were able to INHERIT A THIRD FROM THEIR HUSBANDS upon his death. This was known as a Dower. For the Peasant women, whose husbands died, they would usually take over the tenancy of the land and the collected profits, after rent/taxes etc, from that land. Peasant women usually worked around the home, looking after the family's animals, and the nearby food growing garden. They were also involved in other family-specific functions such as spinning and weaving, making butter and cheese, helping with the harvest, brewing ale and looking after the children, the elderly. The sick.
Here's another interesting description of the times. Again from a feminist posting:
"Women didn't provide monetarily. They certainly worked and worked extremely
hard. Can you imagine spending half your adult life pregnant and at the same time
washing clothes by hand, making breads, cakes and meals all from scratch and with
none of the modern contraptions to make it easier. And all the while caring for the
children, quite usually up to a dozen of them. That was work even if it was unpaid
and she was given no credit for her 'difficult' life and no authority.
A man may work from sun up to sun down but a woman's work is never done."
Now here's an interesting reply to that same posting by an MRA (Mens RightsActivist).
You're at it again with your apple pie propaganda !
Well how about a reality check. First up Peasant Family networks were like small
little thriving communities. And each of the households were like Pinnochio's
toyshop. As soon as the menfolk left to go to work each morning, out comes the
toys (womenfolk). Yes out comes the tables, chairs, cakes, jams and endless yacking
and laughing that women have ALWAYS enjoyed throughout history. The older
children looked after the younger ones. And the GOLDEN GRANNY! Well she retired
at 38 to be weighted on by her daughters and grandaughters. A "Micro-Queen".
'Women have always lived a parallel reality to the males who were
usually at work, at war, or off to sea. But of course in that happy Peasant
household in that lovely organic setting on the Baron's protected land EVERYONE
would be busy at their chores, late afternoons, when the menfolk drudged home.
I will deal shortly with the power that Christianity had in keeping the males in check however I'll mention briefly here that the Church in the Middle Ages was a separate "autocracy" with virtual dictatorial powers over the community. Ecclesiastical Courts dispensed justice in spiritual and religious matters, doctrine, Canon law and of course the Bible's Commandments (i.e virtually everything). The power of the Church then was as high as today's Nation States. They received large incomes from the Peasants and used some of it to dispense alms to the very poor and desperate. Giving to the Catholic Church was as a formality as "official' as paying taxes where a family would give a "tithe" (one tenth) of its earnings. Adultery was a crime and so was Vagrancy. Of course during the times there was no communications or "public transport." A male just couldn't wander off and "get a job" or have an affair. Money wasn't necessary to buy sustenance because each of the hamlets and households grew their own, or had access to a larger communities and family network of supply. A wife wouldn't need a husband's money to buy food. Generally she organised, grew and stored the food herself. Domestic trouble could be handled by the family and network. One rogue middle aged male could easily be brought under control by his brothers, or his older sons, the churchmen, the neighbors--even the mans grown up (and probably stronger) daughters.
So our Peasant male had no Vote, no property, no real access to different employment, no real or practical "sexual freedom". Any absconding male would probably end up in gaol or flogged as a fornicator or vagrant, or die from exposure changed to the "stocks". And if he was an adulterer, he risked being killed by the State (before Christianity). And there was nowhere to run to unless you wanted to leg it on foot, probably in Winter when it was freezing in Europe. There was no television, of course, and the people were illiterate. Really the only source of "intellectual" stimulation was the weekly sermon at the Church, which of course put the Fear of God into everyone. From the cradle to the grave everyone was reminded to behave, not to sin and to share. And there were no sexual distractions or images tempting a weak lusting male's mind. No pictures of women in bikinis selling product. And if a young male had a head full of dreams, wanting to be a hero...well he didn't have to worry about making the grade for a Premier League soccer team. There was no Sport. But there was the King's military and they'd accept you with open arms, with a lovely colorful uniform and the sounds of the drummer boys!
So there were no "rights" to be gained in that non-technological era. Nothing really that the women didn't already have access too. I wonder whether the contemporary female is significantly better off than our classic medieval Peasant woman. Probably yes but I'd argue that it was not a dramatic Utility difference that the myths like to portray. The medieval Peasant woman was able to "work from home", and stay with her children in a healthy rural environment, chemical free. Yes I'm painting a very rosy picture. Today's contemporary women is usually forced to work away from home. And away from her children. Third parties, virtual "strangers" (ie child care) are left to bring up her children. And of course the female lives in a modern "rat race" full of potentially toxic chemicals. And yes I'm painting a particularly negative picture. However after reading this is one so confident about feminists claims that women throughout history have been denied "privileges" and were oppressed by a male-centric patriarchy?
POWER
Power can be exercised directly and obviously. Or it can be exercised subtly. Let me mention a subtle power use. Lets take the old fashioned bar room pool hustler. He uses the "oppression disguise" to show to other players that he is quite an ordinary or weak player. It is a ruse. Publicly he appears to all as the weakest. But in reality he is the strongest. Females have had moral power in Society and a form of "property rights" for access to their bodies. For example a male just witnessing a female's body could involuntarily experience lust and want sexual access to that body. Yet he couldn't just take it, like fruit from a tree. The females controlled this sex power. They were the keepers of the "Holy Vagina", a power sanctioned by religion. The "Virgin" was deemed an important asset and necessary personal 'qualification'. Sex was a 'product' that could only be portioned out to the hungry males (i.e. lusting) under strict formal conditions. So this was in the design. Also in the design was the notion that women were the weaker and dependent sex. That they needed protecting by the males. I argue that women willingly went along with this. This is the "oppression disguise." They certainly didn't want any equal "rights" with the males. They didn't want a part of the men's world of long back breaking work, away from their homes, 'slave' serving the Baron. They didn't want a part of the persistent wars, duels or a hard risky life at sea. So in a sense females camouflaged themselves in the Family Unit. For the males there were "symbols" of authority that pleased their childish egos but it was a False Front of Patriarchy. It certainly didn't serve up any favorable benefits for them. In fact the tiny few "male leaders" of the Church suppressed and punished male lust ; the tiny few "male leaders" of the Monarchy 'enslaved" the other males and made them work; and tiny few "male leaders" of the Military rounded up the excess males, the 'deadwood', and killed them off in wars. All of this was in line with the tacit, and silent, will of ALL the Mother Supremes (see earlier). These are all of the things that "patriarchy" served up for most males. In a subtle application of REAL POWER the females managed to get the "patriarchy" to ORDER her to do exactly what she wanted. And while all this was happening the male was constantly reminded that it was HE that was the head of the household.
NOBILITY WOMEN
Up to this point I have limited myself to a superficial and male sympathetic view of conditions for the Peasant class, absent of any real power. I argue that the only real "privileges" on offer were for the Peasant female, via the Utility of Motherhood (Chapter 9).
I"d like to now skim over conditions for the ruling class at the time...i.e the Royals, the Nobility and in particular the women of the Nobility.
Feminist propaganda gives the mythical impression that women had no power, or property rights. Yet this is not true. In the Middle Ages although property was handed from father to son, women could INHERIT property from their dead husbands, as I mentioned earlier. These properties were sometimes worth tens of millions of dollars in todays terms resulting in thousands of European women throughout history as some of the richest people in the land. And if they didn't directly own those properties then many had control. This reinforces my second point about power, i.e power behind the scenes/behind the throne. On some of the largest properties the husbands were away for years as military commanders. It was the wives who then ran the estates, and delivered the orders. When the Kings were away at battle the Queens acted at regents and consorts, in control of the entire "Kingdom" (i.e Country). And of course nobility females were always from rich families, full of money and entitlements . And they ALWAYS married into money. Two wealthy families would protect their combined incomes by intermarrying. Old literature regularly shows this process as a formal and detailed process of matchmaking, usually organised between the matrons of the respective households. These young women of the nobility, literally millions over the millennia were certainly not deprived of any "rights" or privileges" because of a male-centric Patriarchy.
SUPREME FEMALE POWER
This is another myth buster about women being powerless in State and Sovereign affairs in historical times.
For a start all of the ruling Kings were married to Queens who obviously had considerable power. The Queens were the one individual who spent the longest times alone (i.e at night) with the King and would take over power when the Kings were away, as I mentioned earlier. She would also take control when the King was too sick, or too young (i.e her infant Son having inherited the Monarchy). And among the rich, divorce was just as lucrative for some of the females then as it is today. For example Anne of Cleves, the fourth wife of King Henry VIII received a Palace and a Castle as part of her divorce "settlement".
Not only did the women of nobility enjoy these financial and "heavenly" (i.e sex power) privileges they were indulged further by the males in the phenomena of "courtly love" and "chivalry." Noble women could receive the non-sexual attention (and gift giving) of other males. Heroic deeds of valour would "win" the "Lady's heart". A great incentive for our horny young males on the battlefields, daydreaming of being a "hero" and winning the attentions of the beautiful Princess sitting alone in the Kings Castle, high up getting her hair attended to by the maidens. What a hard life! The Chivalric code specified a "respect for women" and for the Knights to protect "widows and children and the old." The Knights code was 1. Duty to Country and fellow Christians. 2. Duty to God. 3. Duty to women. These women were hardly marginalised and excluded from power and privileges that the feminists would have you believe. However for our "ordinary young Johnnie" I suspect life in medieval times was very oppressive indeed.
I'd like now to mention a few women in History who had dictatorial powers over their Countries. Women who had the Power to change the rules, if they so wished:
ELEANOR, inherited the largest land area in France in the
12 Century, becoming Queen consort to Louis VII.
MARIA THERESA of Austria, who inherited lands and
repelled invading armies to preserve the Hapsburg
empire in 1748.
ISABELLA of Castile--the Spanish Queen who sponsored
Christopher Colombus. She co-ruled with her husband
Ferdinand of Aragon from 1474 to 1504.
ELIZABETH 1, the "Virgin Queen" of England (1533-1603)
She ruled in her own right and ushered in the Renaissance
to England. She defeated the Spanish Armada and
established Protestantism in England, replacing Roman
Catholicism.
CATHERINE II, of Russia, otherwise known as Catherine-
the Great. She ruled Russia between 1762 and 1796. She
married into power and overthrew her husband in a Palace
coup and was declared Empress of Imperial Russia.
VICTORIA, Queen of the United Kingdom and Ireland (1819-1901).
She shared power with the British Parliament and headed the vast
worldwide Colonial empire that ruled over 400 million people.
My bet is that if you'd talked about the "patriarchy" with these women in a private off-the -record conversation they would have laughed at you.
So returning to my point about power being gynocentric and generally "hidden in the design" I state this:
Yes power and privileges were in the hands of male leaders. But they were a tiny subset of the population (i.e Royals or other Nobility). And they served the interests of themselves, other tiny subsets (i.e Royals) and women. NOT OTHER MALES. They served the power and privilege interests of women by enforcing a Moral Code anointed by the Mother "Supreme" ( see earlier) and then later by Jesus. The Moral Code created and enforced the family unit with the male as a "provider"(i.e economic feeder) for himself AND the Family, which of course included the female and "her" special Utility privileges (i.e. children).
The Industrial Revolution started to free up humanity from what I term the "shackles of nature". Food production became more efficient. Technologies allowed humanity to create and enjoy new material "toys", better ways at communication (i.e wireless, motorcars). Disease control gave people greater "freedoms" because they lived longer. Other options were thought up to fill in that time. During the entire historical panorama of civilisation there was probably only a 50 year period when "general population" males had the right to vote and "general population" females didn't. And there was probably a period of 160 years when women were either paid less or excluded from "industrialised" employment in favor of the males. But this wasn't caused by deliberately sexist discrimination. It was simply a financial one of the times. The 19th and early 20th Century State systems didn't have the welfare mechanisms in place for families or the poor. Social welfare was the domain of the family. Therefore it was deemed that a male needed a job in preference to a single female because he had others in the Society to pay for. The feminists should be blaming the State welfare systems and primitive technology for this. Not the "Patriarchy". Contemporary feminist theory about intersectionalities, i.e an accumulation of smaller "oppressions", actually worked against the males. Not the females. These oppresions were sex control, marriage servitude, income servitudes (i.e rent/taxes), strength handicaps for the weaker males, no property or voting rights, female perception disability FPD and Lost Male Syndrome LMS, (see Chapters 3 and 4) Life has never been a party of power and privilege for the ordinary male.
FORNICATION AND ADULTERY
Time now to try and justify the provocative sub-title of this chapter: Jesus of Nazareth. The world's first and greatest "feminist."
Before Jesus came along Society was already in place according to the will of the Mother "Supreme".
In Judea (now Israel) there were the Jews, the Gentiles and Slaves. However even then sex was a "product", a form of property that had a "value" as high as life itself. All unmarried sexual activity was forbidden by ancient Mosaic Law and Jewish custom. Fornication (i.e sex) was also referred to as "idolatry" and "spiritual whoredom." In Chronicles (2 21:10-14) God struck Jehoram with plagues and diseases because he led the people into idolatry. He "caused the people of Jerusalem to commit fornications of the house of Ahab." Under Mosaic Law a man committing fornication with an unengaged girl was required to marry her and pay her father the "purchase price" of 50 silver shekels. However if the girl was already engaged to somebody else, the man was to be stoned to death. The sanctity of marriage was also emphasised by a law demanding that a girl be killed if she married under the false pretences of being a virgin when she wasn't.
Adultery (sex by married people with other partners) was a violation of the 7th Commandment of the Old Testament and meant being stoned to death.
So under these conditions I argue that the will of the Mother "Supreme" was in place. If males wanted sex then they were virtually forced to get married. And once they were married there were powerful incentives to remain "true" with the wife. To stray could get you killed by the religious State. Yet despite these conditions for sex and its female supply, the women were still exposed to two considerable risks. The first one being that they could easily be killed for adultery themselves. The second great risk was that they could easily be dumped by their husbands. Rather than risk adultery the husband could simply divorce his wife with a "get" (a short document) and he was then free to re-marry (i.e get a "fresh" sex partner). The "get" was a Hebrew divorce document which would be presented formally to the wife and which would read:"You are hereby permitted to all men". The wife was no longer married and the Jewish Laws of Adultery to either party did not apply.
Jesus eliminated both of these risks for women converting to Christianity and accepting the New Testament. Thanks to Jesus women could risk adultery and would no longer be killed. As well a husband could no longer dump his wife at his will (i.e with the "get"). If the wife so pleased she could force him to remain with her forever. Under no circumstances if she was "true" to him could he force a divorce on his wife and be legally and spiritually free to serve his lusts elsewhere with another female (i,e 2nd, 3rd wife etc.)
IN regards to women being "free" to commit adultery and not be killed the new edict of Jesus was this:
JOHN
8:4...."Master this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be
stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:7... "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went
one by one.
8:10 "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned
thee?
8:11 She said No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her. "Neither do I
condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
In regards to divorce, the new edict of Jesus was this:
MATTHEW
19:6 "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
19:9 "And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery."
These new edicts of Jesus, part of the New Testament, changed everything.
Sure women were still punished for being "adulteresses". They were often expelled from their homes, had their dowries confiscated by their husbands and had their heads shaved and were marched down the street. Terrible things. But its still a lot better than being stoned to death.
Just as dramatic and powerful as Jesus' adultery edict, was the one regarding divorce. It ended any "sexual freedom" a male (i.e a Christian male) could have as a lifestyle option. Note that these conditions didn't apply for the female. While the Christian male couldn't "force" a divorce onto his wife, the wife could "force" a divorce onto her husband (via fornication) for which she wouldn't be "condemned." This was a new power given to ALL women over males thanks to Jesus. So not only was a male being kept in control by the will of the Mother "Supreme" and his Conscience. Now he had the "WRATH OF GOD" to contend with. Following this edict, an 'academic' case could be put that Jesus actually disenfranchised males.
Do the atheistic feminists truly realise the privileges and power that Christianity gave women? Instead of thanking Jesus and the Catholic Church they criticise it for its "patriarchial" structure. Do the atheistic academic feminists realise just how many MILLIONS of womens lives were saved because of Jesus and the Catholic Church? How many millions were spared, and not stoned or otherwise killed because of Jesus? For those women who were spared, Jesus surely must have been a "Messiah" to them. Do the atheistic feminists also realise how many MILLIONS of families remained together because of Jesus' new divorce edict? How many children ended up being born with BOTH parents available. How many millions of women were properly supported by their husbands, who didn't wander off, thanks to Jesus and the power of the Catholic Church controlling young reckless lust and exploiting Conscience?
On this basis I think Jesus did more for women than any of the feminist "heroes" that the schools and universities indoctrinate the students minds with. The two edicts of Jesus did more for women for Centuries than the "right to vote" or "equal pay".
So that's my final point. No-one has done more for women on Earth than Jesus Christ. Among many things He was also the world's first and greatest "feminist."